[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1549-H1555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House
once again. As you know, those of us that are in the 30-something
Working Group come to the floor if not nightly, every other day to
share not only with the Members but the American people about what is
happening here, what is really happening here under the Capitol dome.
Unfortunately, many times we have to share bad news, but at other
times we share very good news, the good news of saying there could
possibly be a brighter future. Either one of two ways, Mr. Speaker,
either the Republican majority says, hey, we want to work with the
Democrats in a bipartisan way on issues such as national security,
education, tax reform, issues that we can all rally around, health care
for American workers, making sure that American companies wouldn't have
to do what they did in Congressman Tim Ryan's district when the third
shift showed up for work and they said there will no longer be a third
shift. That is a problem, and that is something that we have to work on
in a bipartisan way.
Or, Mr. Speaker, the American people can make the decision that they
are willing to go with a Democratic House of Representatives and a
Democratic Senate to move us in the direction of working together on
behalf of all Americans.
First, we have to deal with the issue of incompetence, we have to
deal with the issue of corruption, we have to deal with the issue of
cronyism in many areas, and we have to deal with the issue of
governance. And I think it is very, very important as we outline a
number of these issues here tonight and also pepper it with Democratic
proposals that we will hopefully be able to turn the tide in many of
these areas.
Mr. Delahunt, my good friend from Massachusetts, and my good friend
from New Jersey, and we are going to have another good friend from
Ohio, and a gentlelady from Florida, and we may have some folks from
Texas come in tonight, because we said last night, Mr. Speaker, that
this is almost not fair. Some would believe that we just make up this
information, that happens to be fact. And it is sad that it is fact.
If I was looking at this as some sort of political reason why we come
to the floor to share what we believe the situation may be, it would be
one thing, but we come to the floor and pull the Congressional Record.
We come to the floor to talk about a vote that just took place
yesterday. We come to the floor with fresh statements from Members of
the Republican, former members of the Republican Caucus, and also a
past Speaker that gave birth to the Republican majority, making
statements to the press of saying, listen, as an American, I have to
say something. Not as a Republican. I have to say something. When you
are the Speaker, you are the leader.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, if the gentleman would yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would certainly yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think you are talking about Newt Gingrich, who was
the father, if you will, of the Gingrich
[[Page H1550]]
revolution back in 1994. And, in fact, my friend and classmate, because
we came in together into the House of Representatives back in January
of 1997, Steve Rothman, we were here when Newt Gingrich presided over
this House.
Both Steve and I can attest that this was a man who was partisan,
very conservative, and when you hear him saying, and this is as recent
as this past Friday, ``they,'' and by ``they,'' he is referring to the
Republican majority in this House, ``they are seen by the country as
being in charge of a government that can't function.''
Mr. ROTHMAN. Can I first say a couple of things? I want to first
thank Congressman Meek and yourself, my dear friend Congressman
Delahunt. We started out in Congress 9\1/2\ years ago. We are delighted
to welcome this very bright young man who is now a veteran Congressman.
I represent, I suppose, the 50-somethings. I know, Bill, you are
probably still 30-something. But I have been watching you young people,
and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and others, and I have always been jumping up
at my television saying, gee, I wish I had the time to add my voice.
Well, something happened yesterday, gentlemen, and Mr. Speaker, that so
outraged me that I had to come to the floor to speak about it.
Actually, it was this past week. We had the commissioner of the IRS,
Mr. Everson, before us. He announced that he was going to, according to
the President's policy, in order to collect some taxes that were
acknowledged to be due by the taxpayers, the IRS is now going to hire
private collection firms to collect the taxes of United States
citizens.
It gets worse. Private tax collecting firms collecting taxes due by
United States citizens to the IRS are going to charge up to 25 percent
commission. A 25 percent commission. So for every dollar they collect
from the taxpayer, they are going to keep 25 cents.
Now, what is interesting is, I asked certain questions and I
discovered that a Federal employee in the Internal Revenue Service who
collects taxes, their overhead is about 5 cents on the dollar. Five
cents on the dollar. The private collection agencies are going to get
25 cents on the dollar.
So I asked the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, I said,
Mr. Commissioner, why are you giving away taxpayer money? Federal
employees to collect taxes costs 5 cents on the dollar, you are giving
25 cents on the dollar to a private firm to collect these taxes. Why
are you giving away 20 cents of our money?
{time} 2115
He said, Well, you know, the President doesn't like big government
and so we are going to privatize it, in essence he was saying. We are
going to give it to the private sector so we do not have it on our
books that we are paying people to collect taxes.
I said, Wait a minute, the bottom line is you are wasting money, am I
correct, sir?
And he said, Yes, we are.
I said, Wouldn't it make sense, Mr. Commissioner of the IRS, and by
the way, we have been carrying hundreds of billions of dollars of
receivables from taxpayers who didn't pay their taxes on our books for
decades. So if we hired some Federal employees to add to the IRS to
collect taxes, they would have plenty of work for their whole career.
Isn't this a waste of money, Mr. Commissioner?
And he said, Yes.
I said, Isn't there one other element that you find frightening, to
have a private company handling the private details of a taxpayers'
basic and most important financial documents? Doesn't that concern you,
sir?
He said, Yes, actually it does, and he pointed to some effort in New
Jersey where they tried to do it and it was rife with some corruption
and he was concerned about it and they were going to take steps.
I said you are worried about corruption and you are worried about the
violation of the citizens' privacy by hiring these private tax
collection firms, and you are going to lose 20 cents on the dollar
because it costs 25 cents for these firms versus 5 cents for the IRS
employee and you are wasting tens of millions of taxpayer money, and he
had no answer.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me thank you for asking those questions. And as you
explained it, I was thinking that you found something rare, and that is
somebody in this administration who gave you a straight answer.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I got another one today.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And an honest answer, by the way.
Mr. ROTHMAN. It was an honest answer, and I thanked him for that. He
said that it was wasteful, and he said that is the budget that the
President gave me.
My subcommittee had a hearing today and we had the Secretary of the
Treasury in front of us, Mr. Snow. I said Mr. Secretary, a lot of
people say that tax cuts that go to the richest people in the country,
people making over a million dollars a year, but if you added up all of
the tax cuts, people say that we get money back from the tax cuts and
it fills up the government coffers far beyond what we cut in terms of
taxes to the rich.
Another honest answer, he said, Congressman Rothman, for every dollar
we cut in taxes, we only get back to the Federal treasury about 30 or
40 cents. For every dollar we cut in taxes, we only get back 30 or 40
cents.
I said, Wait a minute, what about the supply side notion and all this
talk about the economic growth generating revenues?
He said, Well, that is the consensus of opinion, that for every
dollar of taxes cut, we only get back 30 or 40 cents.
I said, Wait a minute, we are losing money every time we do a tax cut
and then you tell veterans in this budget, the Bush budget, veterans
have to pay more for their health care and poor people have to pay more
for their prescription drugs. A family who wants to send their child to
college has to pay another $2,000 or $3,000 a year. There is money for
nothing but tax cuts.
He said, Oh, by the way, that deficit that we have, the largest
deficit in the history of the United States, the one we have today
under this Republican majority and this President, one-third of the
deficit said Treasury Secretary Snow today, one-third of the deficit is
directly related to the tax cuts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Another honest, straight answer.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have to talk to this guy. I just want to make a
point because I am for tax cuts if they go to the right people, if they
go to the middle class.
I couldn't believe we had other people citing this, but today in the
New York Times an analysis finally came out that talked about the 2003
tax cut. What this says is that among taxpayers with incomes greater
than $10 million annually, their investment tax bill, just for the
investments that they made, was reduced by $500,000 so they got
$500,000 back, less in taxes, and total savings for someone who made
$10 million a year was $1 million from the Bush tax cuts and the
Republican bobble-head Congress who said yes, Mr. President, deficits
do not matter. We can borrow from foreign countries to foot the bill
for this.
We don't have money to give a guy or woman who makes $10 million a
year, we do not have the money to give them a million dollars back. We
had to go out and borrow that million dollars.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Here is another interesting statistic. By the way,
working people need tax cuts. They need incentives to save and
incentives to work even harder than they already do, if that is
possible.
But people who make over $400,000 a year, people who make over
$400,000 a year, God bless them, this is a fact that we in America have
to deal with in order to decide is the Republican majority and is the
President or are each of them making the right policy judgments. People
make tax cuts for people making over $400,000 a year.
This year if you add up just those tax cuts, it will be a greater sum
than all that we spend on homeland security. And yet the majority and
this administration says we can only afford to inspect 5 percent of the
containers coming into America, even though in Hong Kong they inspect
100 percent of the containers. This is the priority of this
administration.
By the way, I asked Secretary Snow, I said, because he was very proud
that perhaps tax cuts helped get us out of the recession that was very
shallow. I said, Mr. Secretary, the recession is long over. It has been
over for 3 years
[[Page H1551]]
or more. So why do we continue to give tax cuts to the wealthiest
people in the country, accounting for a third of our deficit and when
we tell working people and veterans and school kids we do not have
money for you, in fact we are going to cut your budgets and keep those
tax cuts.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to point this out. This is publicly
held debt. Tax cuts are given to a fellow, a woman who makes $10
million a year giving a million dollars back in taxes. We do not have
it so what do we do, we go out and borrow it. This is the publicly held
debt by China. It had quadrupled under President Bush. In 2000 it was
$62 billion. In 2005 it was $257 billion. We are borrowing money from
the Chinese to give a person in America who makes $10 million a year $1
million in a tax cut.
Now somebody come down here and explain how that is a good thing for
our country because the money that they get, that $1 million, they are
not investing it in Delphi stock. They are not investing it in General
Motors stock, they are not investing it into the United States of
America. They are investing it in China.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have Mr. Ryan
please tell us the phone call that you got, what happened in your
district today to the workers?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. About 6:30, 7:00 this morning my e-mail goes off. I
pick it up. The third shift at a General Motors plant that I have in
Lordstown, Ohio, the third shift is being eliminated, and 1,200 United
Auto workers, nothing is official, but the third shift is being
eliminated and 1,200 people will be out of work. Those are average
people in the United States of America that are making $60,000 or
$70,000 a year, paying taxes and trying to send their kids to school
and we are giving a person who makes $10 million a year a $1 million
tax cut. That makes no sense to anybody except the Republican majority.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan.
This is something to be very concerned about. We started at the top
of the hour, and I am glad the Ms. Wasserman Schultz has also joined
us.
The bottom line is that Mr. Rothman is 110 percent right. What they
say on the Republican side, especially here in this Chamber and in this
city and what the White House says, I am going to tell you, I am not
talking about anybody, but I am just talking about what I am talking
about. You hear one thing and there is another.
You got an answer out of the IRS official that came before your
committee. You got an answer out of Secretary Snow, and you got to nail
them to the wall to get the answer because the administration said this
is the direction we are going to go, we are going to write it in the
budget; and Mr. Secretary, you will do as you are told.
Secretary Snow, the Secretary of the United States Treasury
Department, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, he
is a great American and I appreciate his service. But he has to do his
job. He did not only send one letter that said we had to raise the debt
ceiling or we are going to run out of money on the eve of Near Year's
eve, December 29th, 2005, he came back into the office while the rest
of us were baking cookies and celebrating religious holidays back home
with the family, to say we are going to run out of money because the
Republican Congress has passed policies, Mr. Speaker, that cannot hold
water and it is going to run us into a fiscal nightmare.
Not only did he write that letter, he turned around again when the
Congress did not act, February 16, same letter. Hey, things are really
getting bad, you all, we have to do something. Please help us. We have
to do something about this debt ceiling.
March 6, and these are the Republican rubber stamps here, but on
March 6 he writes again in almost desperation. Please, raise the debt
ceiling. He begged the Congress to do it. Here is the gentleman who is
in charge of what we do.
Now what Mr. Ryan was sharing with us a little earlier was the fact
that when you have Members come to the floor and say Mr. Speaker, or
what have you, or Members, we are fiscally responsible, our tax cuts
are working for the American people. What Mr. Ryan was saying, and I am
going to take it home a little further, tax cuts for whom? What, we are
going to borrow money from another country, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Mr. Speaker, we are going to borrow money from another country
to give millionaires a tax break here in this country? I am sorry, and
it has been done by this Republican majority. Guess what, it is history
in all the wrong way. In 4 years, and here is the President, here is
the Republican Congress.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, not only is
the gentleman absolutely correct that this is what this President and
the Republican majority have done for 5\1/2\ years, they want to make
this policy permanent. They want to make it permanent. Permanent tax
cuts for individuals making over a million dollars a year. Permanent
tax cuts for people making over $400,000 a year, the sum of which is
greater than all we spend on homeland security, and they want to make
it permanent. If we vote against it, you know what they say, there they
go again, the Democrats want to raise taxes. We do not want to raise
taxes, we want sensible fiscal policy that does not give us the biggest
deficit in the history of the United States and does not give the
people making millions of dollars a year a million dollar tax cut.
{time} 2130
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes, of course.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know what else we want as Democrats? We
just want the Congress to do what American families all across this
country do. They only pay for what they have money to pay for. They pay
as they go. Now, there are a lot of families, unfortunately in this
country that get themselves into trouble. They run up debt on their
credit cards. They end up spending a lifetime hand wringing over how
much debt they have because they have paid for luxuries on credit that
they didn't have revenue in their household coming in to cover. That is
what we are doing here. And there is no end in sight.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentlewoman yield for a second?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, be happy to yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am just going to close out on this and then I
am going to back up, because I know that Congressman Delahunt, sir, you
were very reserved last night. We were limited to 50 minutes. I just
want you to be able to share, because I know you are ready to come out
of the locker room on some of this stuff, and I think it is important
that we hear from you this evening.
But I want to make sure, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we break this
down, because we don't want any Members to go back home and say, you
know, I didn't quite understand that at the time I voted for it. I want
to make sure that their constituents know exactly what is going on.
And the bottom line is that we are borrowing from foreign nations
more than we have ever borrowed in the history of the republic, Mr.
Speaker, in the history of the United States Congress.
You heard it. They want to make it permanent. It is not what we are
saying. That is what the majority is saying. 1.05 trillion in 4 years.
That is what the Republican Congress and the President has done, more
than 42 presidents, and was only able to borrow 1.01 trillion over 224
years. 224 years. And I don't even need to get into what happened in
the 224 years.
Who are we borrowing from? Well, let's just look at it. I am not
going to pull this off because it came apart last night. It is just so
much here.
Look at Japan, Mr. Speaker. Japan. We owe Japan. While folks are
running around here defending people that are making $10 million a
year, that they may very well have to pay their fair share for homeland
security and all of that as it relates to the tax cut that this
majority wants to make permanent. Japan, $882.8 billion of American
apple pie. It pains me to stand here and hold this poster like this. I
am glad it's not my creation. I am glad I voted against all of this
debt that we have given foreign nations.
[[Page H1552]]
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would just yield for a minute.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would just yield for a minute, but please
allow me to get through this.
Mr. DELAHUNT. 30 seconds. I will let you get back to it. But you know
what? I am just looking at that, Japan at $680 billion. Japan is
actually subsidizing partially that tax cut, or that tax refund for the
extremely wealthy in this country. I mean, that is where that money is
going. I wonder if that extremely wealthy taxpayer might consider
taking that tax refund in yen?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just save the transactional cost.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Because the way we are going, we are going to bankrupt
this United States of America.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield? I have a statistic you won't
believe. I happen to serve on the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROTHMAN. And we were only inspecting 5 percent of the containers.
That was the Republican majority's policy. They were in charge. They
made the rule. The majority rules, and they won.
We said in the House Appropriations Committee, we said to our
colleagues, our Republican friends, if we cut $5,000 from the 80 or
$100,000 tax cut, 80 or $100,000 tax cut, depending how much money
these folks make, if we just take 5,000 from the 80,000 we are sending
them, we could triple the number of containers we inspect from 5
percent to 15 percent.
And do you know what every single one of my Republican colleague on
the House Appropriations Committee did? They voted against it.
And I went to them and I said hey, man, what are you doing? I have
nothing against people who are worth a fortune. This isn't class
warfare. Do you want to give it to them, or do you want to spend it on
inspecting our containers coming into the port? And they said, we are
story, Steve. This was the President's directive.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because I want to illuminate what you just
said because actually, we put our action where our words are, because
it is not just that we said that we should drop those tax cuts by just
a little bit and make sure we could fund port security. Here is the
third party validation that we always talk about.
On June 18, 2004, there was an amendment by Representative Dave Obey,
who is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee that Mr.
Rothman sits on. He offered an amendment to increase port and container
security by $400 million. Republicans refused to allow consideration of
that amendment.
October 7, 2004 an amendment offered by Representatives Obey and Sabo
and Senator Byrd that would have increased funding to enhance port
security by $150 million. Republicans defeated this amendment along
party lines.
September 29, 2005, just last fall, there was an amendment which
Representatives Obey, Sabo and Senator Byrd, again, to increase funding
for port and container security by $300 million; all of these proposing
to drop the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans by just a small amount
of money. The House Conferees, led by the Republicans, defeated this
amendment along party lines.
And March 2, 2006, Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats to
bring the King-Thompson Dubai port deal bill to the floor, which would
have expedited procedures to ensure a congressional vote on the Dubai
port deal bill sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. And
Republicans voted against that 197-216. So who is for port security?
Mr. ROTHMAN. By the way, the incomes of the people who were going to
have their tax cut reduced by 5,000 were only individuals whose annual
income was $1 million or more. And we said, can we take 5,000 from the
80 or 100 or 150,000 they are going to get in tax cuts, take 5,000 to
increase our port inspection of our containers. And every Republican
said no. Mr. Speaker, that is the priority of this Republican majority
and this President.
Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, if I can interject for a moment, your point
is well made. And I think the American people have to realize that
these statistics that they are hearing tonight are accurate. That New
York Times piece that we were referring to earlier, it goes on to say
that because of these recent tax cuts, even the merely rich, even those
that are very rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and
I am reading from that piece, are falling behind the very, very
wealthiest. In other words, what we are doing, we are creating a super
rich elite in this country.
There was another New York Times story that came across my desk. And
for those that are listening to our conversation this evening, I would
refer them to an article that appeared in the New York Times on January
29 of this year. Corporate wealth share rises for top income Americans.
In 2003, and this is the most recent data, the top 1 percent of
households owned 57\1/2\ percent of corporate wealth in this country.
That was up from 53.4 percent the year before. This top group, this 1
percent, in 1991 had 38.7 percent. In other words, this 1 percent is
doing so well that they are leaving everybody behind. The top 1 percent
is gaining so much money and corporate wealth in this Nation that the
other 99 percent have experienced a decline in their share of the
wealth of America.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure.
Mr. ROTHMAN. You know, some people will say, oh, there the Democrats
go again, class warfare. There they go again, class warfare. Nonsense.
We love rich people. We love poor people. We love middle class people.
We love Americans. This is about the choices that America is going to
make with their tax dollars.
What should we do with the tax dollars that people send to
Washington? Should we give them, by the way, the recession is over. We
are in the start of the fourth year of the war in Iraq. We are still
paying for Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
With all of these problems and the recession over 3 years ago, is
this the time not only to continue these tax cuts that benefit the
wealthiest people making over $400,000 a year, millions of dollars a
year? Or should we, in fact, pay off some of the debt, spend down the
deficit, pay for college for kids.
Mr. DELAHUNT. How about restraining spending?
Mr. ROTHMAN. And remember this, not only has this been the policy
that has put us in the largest deficit in the history of the country,
the Republican majority and the President want to make this policy
permanent. They want to make their tax cuts for the rich permanent.
They will claim we are against wealthy people. Class warfare.
Nonsense. We want the money that we send to Washington spent wisely and
not given away.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is important to note that this is a matter
of priorities. What is sad, and I am the least senior among the five of
us, and what I have found the most sad since joining the Congress and
joining you all last year, is how far astray we have come from when
President Clinton was in office.
When President Clinton was in office and I was in my state
legislature in Florida, what I watched Congress debate was what we were
going to spend the surplus on. Were we going to use the surplus that we
had at that time to shore up Social Security? Were we going to shore up
Medicare? We didn't have a deficit. We had a surplus.
And Mr. Meek, I think it would be a good idea for you to get back to
really describing the scope of the foreign debt that we have here,
because we got you mid map. But we really need to make sure that people
understand the stark contrast between what we were able to debate
during the Clinton administration and what we are forced to debate now.
So I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. And if we could, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am
going to go through this, because it was really to drive home a point
that Mr. Ryan was making. And then Mr. Ryan was going to share that
chart there, because I think these visual aids are needed at this
particular time, because we have some Members that don't necessarily, I
mean, I just don't want the American people to be hoodwinked. Some may
say bamboozled. We say here in Washington, D.C., you
[[Page H1553]]
know, to get the Potomac 2-step on folks saying they didn't quite
understanding what they were doing while they were making history here
in the United States of America of allowing these countries to own, Mr.
Speaker, own a part of the American apple pie.
I am just, once again, going to mention Japan. We stopped there. But
I think we could move across the country, okay? I think we can. $692.8
billion. Japan has bought our debt.
Again, this Republican Congress is saying we want to make tax cuts
permanent to billionaires and we want to give subsidies to companies
that come in number one in profits this year, and that is one industry,
which is the oil industry.
China, $249.8 billion. They bought up our debt. That means that they
have given us money to spend in a way as though we are spending our own
money. We owe them this money.
America will be forever changed. But if you want to do away with
allowing these countries to cover our States because of the debt that
we owe them, then you can elect a Democratic Congress. I am going to
slide this over a little bit.
The U.K, United Kingdom, $223.2 billion that they own of our debt.
Now, you have got to remember. This is a 4-year deal. This is the
Bush policies and the Congress, the Republican majority that have voted
time after time to back the President up on this. They have even lost
the former speaker, Mr. Speaker, of the House, Newt Gingrich. And we
need to read his quote to the Knight Ridder newspapers that cover this
Nation.
Caribbean nations. Many of you will be spending time there, vacation
time there. It is important. It is important that people understand
that they own $115.3 billion of our debt.
Taiwan. You go in your room, unfortunately many of the toys there
that your kids and grandkids may have may have Taiwan on it. We owe
them $71.33 billion that they have bought of our debt.
Canada, just north of us. We owe them $53.8 billion of our debt.
{time} 2145
We will take them off there. Korea, $66.5 billion we owe Korea
because this Congress has said that we have to give subsidies to
industry because they wanted it and that is something that we need to
get back to. I do not blame industry. I blame the Republican Congress.
Germany, $65.7 billion we owe Germany. OPEC nations, Saudi Arabia,
Iraq, Iran, Iran, we owe them $67.8 billion of the American apple pie.
Now, before I yield to you, Mr. Ryan, I just want to say it is almost
like I bust through the door at home and say, Hey, let us go on a
European vacation. We are living to from paycheck to paycheck, but let
us go because I am going to put it all on the credit card. As a matter
of fact, in this case our credit cards are maxed out, but I am going to
sign one of those little letters that come into the house that say just
sign here, automatic country. That is what we are going to use to
vacation on. Everyone is happy, jumping up and down, but guess what.
The bill is coming in in 30 days.
And soon folks, Mr. Speaker, are going to start calling the House,
and they are not going to call and say, ``May I speak to Mr. Meek.''
They are going to say, ``I want to speak to Kendrick,'' because they
disrespect you when owe them. Too many men and women laid down their
lives and that are bleeding now, getting sand in their teeth for us to
have the right to salute one flag, and I will be doggone if we stand
here like it is just regular business here in Congress and allow this
Republican majority to go without anyone checking them on this. But it
is not just us. We have even got Republicans coming out, folks over
there are talking about spending, that we are responsible, that we are
good spenders. Yes, you are great spenders and borrowers at the same
time. And so when you come to the floor, majority, and start talking
about fiscal responsibility, just because you say it does not
necessarily mean it is happening. I want you to come to this floor,
grab these charts here that are sitting right over here in the corner,
and explain what is good about them because these are your policies.
So, Mr. Ryan, what you were mentioning earlier, I just want to drive
this point home because when folks start talking about ``we want to
make sure the American people keep their money,'' well, we want to make
sure the American people keep their money. But who are the people? Is
it the $10 million annual salary individual? Is it the individual
sitting over there at some company that is getting a bonus at the same
time they are telling their third shift that there will no longer be a
third shift?
So the real issue here is whose side are we on? Whose side is the
Republican majority on? And from what I am seeing of the polls, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, when I am hearing prominent Republicans saying
``because we are Americans first,'' put that party stuff aside just for
a moment and look at Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Green Party,
nonvoters, they are all concerned about what is happening in this
country. And I am going to tell you right now the Republican majority,
and it is not what I am saying but what they are saying, cannot govern.
We are ready to govern.
Mr. Ryan, I yield to you, sir.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that, and I wish the Republican
majority would start putting the country before their own political
interests. It seems that time and time again they have chosen the
loyalty to their own party.
We have got a nice third party validator here. The former Republican
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, who was talking about the
borrow and spend Republican Congress, he said, Budgeting is about
making choices, and this period the Bush presidency and Republican
Congress is one that shows a complete absence of that.
They do not have to make any choices. Why? You get the credit card
out. But let us take your analogy one step further. You have got the
credit card. You are going to Europe, but you are living paycheck to
paycheck. Who ultimately suffers in that little family scenario there?
The kids. Because there will not be money for education. There will not
be money for the health care bill, and they will become a burden on the
rest of society. All the way down the line the ripple effect goes.
And as Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman Schultz were saying earlier, this
is what they are doing. They have increased the debt limit in the
United States by $3 trillion, trillion with a big fat ``t.'' In June of
2002, May of 2003, November of 2004, March of 2006, total over $3
trillion, this Congress raised the debt ceiling that would allow the
Secretary of Treasury to go out and borrow money from all the countries
that Mr. Meek showed. Time and time and time again.
I just want to reiterate the point that Ms. Wasserman Schultz made,
and that point is this: The Democrats, whether it is port security or
pay-as-you-go, time and time again we tried to restrain, pull in this
Republican Congress, get yourselves under control.
And I know, Mr. Rothman, you were probably in the committee when
these amendments were being offered time and time again by Mr. Obey,
not once but twice, by Mr. Spratt and the Budget Committee, by Charlie
Stenholm when he was here. The Democratic Party was trying to say if
you are going to raise the debt limit, you had better put some
restraints on the runaway spending that these Republicans have gotten
into a very bad habit of doing over the past 4 or 5 years. This is
ridiculous. We are sacrificing the future of the United States of
America, selling it off piece by piece, diminishing opportunity for our
kids and our grandkids, and at the same time just spending money like
it does not matter. Let us be responsible in the United States
Congress, Mr. Meek. Mr. Speaker, let us be responsible here. We have a
solemn oath that we swear to when we come into this Congress. One of
the great honors is to be in this Chamber. Only 10,000 people have
actually served in this body. Let us take the responsibility seriously.
And one final point, like Mr. Meek said, we have a responsibility.
And people may grumble when we walk by them in the hall, and they may
look at us a little cross eyed because we come down here every night,
but we have an obligation to the American people. And if we have got to
crack a few eggs to make an omelet, then so be it. And I have a lot of
respect for the people on the other side of the aisle, and many of
[[Page H1554]]
them are our friends, but we have legitimate differences here.
And I would say this to my friends, Mr. Speaker: You have borrowed $3
trillion from foreign interests, raised the debt ceiling, cut funding
for education, and you gave tax cuts to people who make $10 million a
year. You have given them $1 million back. Do you expect us to sit up
in our office and go to the little refrigerator and get out a Diet Dr.
Pepper and a bag of Cheetos and just sit there and watch VH-1 in our
office? No, we are not going to do it. We are going to keep coming down
here until the American people get the message.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that is because we did not come here to
just sit idly by and not express the outrage that our constituents
communicate to us when we go home.
The chart that you had up there a minute ago, Mr. Ryan, the one with
the blue background that says ``Borrow and spend Republican Congress,''
that really says it all because what Mr. Rothman said earlier is that
our critics, Democratic critics, like to throw around that Democrats
are supportive of class warfare, and I am not going to repeat their
message. I am going to make sure that we get across like we do every
single night here in the 30-Something Working Group that what is going
on here in Washington is a borrow and spend Republican Congress. And it
is not true just because we are here on the floor of the United States
House of Representatives saying it is true. We have third-party
validators that say it is true.
USA Today on Monday, April 3, 2006, headline: ``Growth in Federal
Spending Unchecked.'' The borrow and spend Republican Congress. A USA
Today editorial on February 21 of this year, the title of it was
``Who's Spending Big Now? The party of `small government.' ''
``Tax cuts, they say, force hard decisions and restrain reckless
spending. The last time we looked, though, Republicans controlled both
Congress and the White House. They are the spenders. In fact, since
they took control in 2001, they have increased spending by an average
of nearly 7.5 percent a year, more than double the rate in the last 5
years of Clinton-era budgets.''
Now, what we talk about on this floor every night is the difference
between words and actions. They can say that they are the party of
small government and more personal responsibility and the claptrap that
they like to throw around that are just words.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ROTHMAN. It is important for people to understand that this
majority came in saying that we needed to balance the budget and that
is why the American people should elect a Republican majority. When I
was the mayor of my hometown 25 years ago, a little city in New Jersey,
we had to balance the budget every year. And we did. We left them with
a surplus, but at least balance the budget. And they said, well, let us
make a constitutional amendment. And we said, Why are you amending the
Constitution? You are in the majority. Balance the budget. You have the
majority. Balance the budget.
So in terms of third-party validation, Mr. Speaker, the American
people know that the Republican Party has been in power, in the
majority, in the House and the Senate for about 5\1/2\ years, with
President Bush as our President for 5\1/2\ years. And we have the
greatest deficits in history. We are projected to have deficits for the
next 15, 20 years with no end in sight, with budget cuts to education,
health care, veterans, college loans, the environment, clean air, clean
water. Cut, cut, cut, cut everything, except tax cuts for the
wealthiest. And, again, I do not want to harp on that because tax cuts
for the working people are important. But is this the time to continue
that policy ad infinitum and make them permanent? I do not think so.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What you are pointing out is there are
consequences to the fiscal recklessness. That is what I have observed
for the last 15 months. It is just fiscal recklessness.
The most glaring consequence is right here in front of us with what
Mr. Ryan talked about that happened in a town in his district. Twelve
hundred jobs gone. Seven point two million Americans today remain
unemployed with an additional 4.2 million who want a job but who are
not counted among the unemployed. Since this President took office, the
economy has posted only 15 months of job gains that have 150,000 or
more. That is just the number of jobs that we need to keep up with
population growth.
But the most telling, which is the one that is evidenced by what
happened in the town in your district, Mr. Ryan, is that there are now
1.3 million more unemployed private sector workers than in January,
2001. The long-term unemployment rate, people who are unemployed for
more than 26 weeks, has nearly doubled since that time. And the
manufacturing jobs that we have lost literally have reached 2.9 million
since 2001.
There are day-to-day policy implications that affect people's lives
that result from the fiscal recklessness. There are consequences. The
Republican economic disaster is hurting real people.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can I intervene here for one second because I am
thrilled with everything that is happening here. But I came down here
to listen to Mr. Delahunt a little bit.
Mr. ROTHMAN. That is a good idea.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to congratulate you all for a very
thoughtful conversation. You have hammered home the truth.
And I think what we are saying to the American people is that if you
govern, you have to govern responsibly and that your rhetoric has to
match your deeds. Otherwise, you fail the American people. And the
truth is that today in America, this administration, this Bush White
House, and this Bush Congress are failing the American people.
Debbie was making a point about the job growth. I think what is more
telling is that the jobs that are being produced today and the jobs
that currently exist are paying less. A family of four in America today
is making less than that same family income 10 years ago. This is not
about criticism. This is about telling the truth and being responsible.
{time} 2200
We use terms like PAYGO. Well, I think we owe the American people an
explanation of what PAYGO means. It means what they do most every day
of their lives. They make decisions and choices based upon what they
have in their pocket, and if they don't have the money in their pocket,
they don't buy it. It is really that simple.
That is what we are talking about this evening and on other
occasions. Let's go back to those real conservative values, those
genuine American, conservative values. I can't believe I am saying
this. But the longer I serve in this body and listen to the
neoconservatives, I find myself describing my own philosophy as
fiscally conservative.
Ironically, it is the Democratic Party today that stands for sanity
and stands for responsibility and doing it the old-fashioned way. That
is what we are. Maybe we are an old, traditional party. But, do you
know what? We made America great. When America was in trouble because
of the Depression, it was those great Democrats Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Harry Truman that brought the country back, because we
know there is a social compact out there that doesn't say only the
very, very wealthy get most of everything. In a society which is really
a community, where there are mutual rights and responsibilities,
everybody has a shot.
Today what we are seeing is America becoming much like a banana
republic, where it is the haves, the elites, and then there are the
rest of us, and that is sad.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a great
point. America is not the only country with really, really rich people.
There are wealthy people in every country. The difference in America is
that we had a strong, vibrant, energetic middle-class of people who
worked as of last night on the third shift at the GM plant in
Lordstown, Ohio. That is what makes America America, and that resolve
to go back and say we want everybody on board here, at least to have
the opportunity; not to give the top 10 million people who make $10
million a year a tax cut, $1 million back, but to
[[Page H1555]]
create that middle-class again and the economic environment that would
do it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to give one quick statistic. Here
is another third-party validator, the Tax Policy Center. And here is
the startling contrast between the tax cuts that Mr. Rothman was
talking about that go to the wealthiest few and what the tax cuts have
provided for the average working family in middle income America. In
2006, according to the Tax Policy Center, millionaires received an
average tax cut of $111,550, while the middle-class American received a
tax cut of $750.
When I asked in my town hall meetings, and I represent a pretty
middle-income, even middle to upper-middle income district, I have a
lot of wealthy communities and a lot of upper-middle class communities
and some middle to lower-middle income communities, no matter what kind
of room, other than the wealthiest few, that I ask people to raise
their hands to tell me whether they got money in their pocket from the
Bush tax cuts, maybe in rooms full of several hundred people I will get
two or three people that raise their hand.
If this tax relief was benefiting a wide swath of Americans, the
broad spectrum of Americans of varied income, in a district like mine
you would get more than three hands.
Mr. ROTHMAN. May I just remind the Speaker that today Secretary of
the Treasury John Snow said in his testimony before our subcommittee of
the House Appropriations Committee that the tax cuts of this majority
and President Bush account for one-third of the deficit, and that every
dollar that is cut for the wealthiest folks in tax cuts, we don't get
back more than a dollar in revenue. We lose. For every tax dollar we
cut, we only get back 30 to 40 cents. We lose 60 to 70 cents for every
tax dollar we cut.
Whether that is a good thing or bad thing, the American people can
decide. But in a time of war, the biggest deficits in our history, is
that what we want to be doing with our money, and should we be making
those tax cuts permanent?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman would yield, as I was in
my office and I saw this very focused message, let me just briefly say
that today we added insult to injury by the debate on the floor
regarding the 527s.
I know we are talking about the massive tax cuts, but I think the
American people should know, rather than focusing on the seriousness of
addressing these monumental tax cuts, frankly, as was distributed on
the floor today, we are just passing legislation that allows random
excessive spending as relates to campaigns.
So what I say to my friends on this side, the other side of the
aisle, is why waste time with, as they say, this massive spending of
dollars in campaigning, and not really providing transparency for the
American people to note, making a mirage on the Floor of the House that
we are trying to do something good about scandal and corruption, and,
at the same time, not spending our time focusing on correcting this
deficit, correcting this increasing debt limit and spending the
people's money by enormous tax cuts.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. If I can, as it relates to time, Mr. Ryan, if
you could give our website. We have to close out.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to do one-third party final validator. The
former speaker the House, Mr. Gingrich, the leader of the Republican
Revolution in '94. He said the Republicans, they are seen by the
country as being in charge of a government that can't function.
As my friend from Florida so eloquently put it earlier today on the
House floor, it is scary when the head of the Republican Revolution is
referring to his friends on the other side of the aisle as ``they.'' I
think that is a tremendous point.
Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something, Madam Speaker.
Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something for e-mails that folks may want to
send to us. All these charts that were available here tonight, Madam
Speaker, are available on this website. I thank everyone for the
vigorous discussion.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, we would like to thank the
leadership for the opportunity to speak tonight.
____________________