[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3077-3083]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the Speaker for according me the 
time. I am claiming it on behalf of my colleagues who will be here 
shortly with me, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan, the cofounders of the 30-
Something Working Group. We will be exploring an array of issues this 
evening dealing with many of the subjects that my colleague and the 
gentleman from the other side of the aisle discussed this evening.
  Much of what the gentleman said or some of what he said I would agree 
with. It certainly would be a contribution to the public discourse if 
there were an open and transparent debate and discussion on the issues 
that are confronting the American people.
  I only wish that were the truth, not just the official truth but the 
real truth because what is lacking within this institution, this body, 
is an open and transparent and real discussion, genuine debate and 
respectful discourse.
  I find it interesting that the gentleman talks about cutting spending 
and indicates that this side of the aisle supports raising taxes. Well, 
that is just simply inaccurate.
  I think the only tax that we can agree on that ought to be cut is the 
tax that is in the form of waste and fraud and abuse. Tragically, what 
we have observed over the course of the past 6 years is an abundance of 
fraud and waste, a corruption tax, if you will, Madam Speaker. But what 
we have not seen is an open and transparent and respectful process to 
discuss these particular issues.
  If the Chair would bear with me for a moment, I am going to read 
excerpts into the Record of a deal that was struck between conferees on 
the Senate side and on the House side that did not include the Members 
of the minority party. How can you have a discourse or a conversation 
when Members of the minority party are excluded?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You cannot.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You cannot, that is right, and I welcome Mr. Ryan to 
the floor.
  Mr. Ryan, let me pause for a moment and find that particular report 
so we

[[Page 3078]]

can discuss transparent and open and respectful discourse and 
inclusion. The previous speaker was correct; there ought to be 
inclusion. But there is none and that is a sad comment on democracy 
within this institution. I would only hope that the rhetoric that I 
heard earlier would be matched by action and deeds on the part of the 
Republican leadership in this House.
  Madam Speaker, let me read into the Record an article from The 
Washington Post. It is dated January 24, 2006.

                              {time}  2200

  We talk about saving money, Madam Speaker. We all want to save money. 
We had an opportunity to do that, Madam Speaker, but we failed because 
of a closed-door deal that reduced a savings that was possible by $22 
billion.
  Again, I am quoting from the Washington Post: ``House and Senate GOP 
negotiators, Republican negotiators, meeting behind closed doors last 
month to complete a major budget-cutting bill, agreed on a change to 
Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance 
industry $22 billion over the next year, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office.''
  Now, let me repeat that, Madam Speaker, and may all those that are 
observing our conversation tonight, our colleagues and all those in 
attendance here, listen carefully. It would save the health insurance 
industry $22 billion. Not the American taxpayer, but the health 
insurance industry it would save $22 billion.
  ``The Senate version would have targeted private HMOs participating 
in Medicare by changing the formula that governs their reimbursement, 
lowering payments $26 billion over the next decade. But after lobbying 
by the health insurance industry, the final version made a critical 
change that had the effect of eliminating all but $4 billion of the 
projected savings,'' for the taxpayer, Madam Speaker, not for the HMOs. 
But who loses in that closed-door deal? And yet we hear, the taxpayer. 
You cut spending.
  I can't wait until this budget is finally produced here on the floor, 
because we have not had a budget in years, until President Clinton was 
the President, that has been balanced.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Balanced by not one Republican vote in the House or 
the Senate.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I understand that. But, do you know what? Let us 
remember then we had dialogue and a working relationship between the 
President and the Congress. Let's give credit. What I am looking for, 
when I hear talk about let's sit down and talk, of course, we welcome 
that, and let's have this understanding. Let's work together.
  How can you work together when you have closed-door deals going on 
that eliminate a savings to the taxpayers of America for $22 billion? 
Is this about saving the HMOs and the health care industry money, or is 
it about taking care of the American taxpayer?
  So, please, please, let's match the rhetoric that we hear here with 
action, not with closed-door deals that benefit the health care 
industry, the $22 billion, and think nothing of helping the American 
taxpayer.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, the point is that it 
is not that we have the money to give the health care industry. It is 
not like we have it. It is not like you look at the table behind me in 
the House of Representatives and it is stacked with money and who wants 
it. No, the health care industry is over here, Mr. Meek. We will give 
them some. We don't have the money to give.
  This is the point I think we need to focus on: We don't have the 
money in the United States of America today to subsidize the energy 
companies, to subsidize the health care industry. So what is the 
Republican Congress doing? They are borrowing the money, Mr. Meek. They 
are borrowing the money from the Chinese, they are borrowing the money 
from the Japanese.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, they are borrowing that money, but 
they are not giving it to the American taxpayer. They are giving $22 
billion of it to HMOs in this country. They are not giving it to the 
beneficiaries, they are not giving it to the American taxpayer. They 
are giving it to the health care industry.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right. If you break it down, Mr. Meek, basically 
what is happening is we are here in the United States Congress. Article 
I, Section 1 of the Constitution creates this House of Representatives. 
Levy taxes. The Republican majority levies taxes on the American 
people. The money comes down here.
  What do we do with it? What the Republican majority is doing with it 
is they are spending it on corporate welfare, and we don't even have it 
to give to them. So the Republican majority wants to give them so much 
that they have to go and borrow the money.
  I am not making this up. So the Republican majority goes out and 
borrows the money. They have borrowed so much money in the past 4 or 5 
years that they have to go out and borrow it from the Chinese 
government, from the Japanese government and from----
  Mr. DELAHUNT. OPEC.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. OPEC countries in order to fund the corporate 
welfare.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time for a moment, it is like we have 
developed a new class in the United States, and I am trying to think of 
an appropriate term. The one that just came to mind while you were 
speaking was we have a class now of welfare kings.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Bingo.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Welfare kings. What about, Madam Speaker, this $22 
billion? Who is it going to? It is going to the welfare kings in this 
country. That is who is receiving it. It is a tax on Americans. We had 
a savings of $22 billion, but somebody, behind closed doors, by the 
way, without the presence of the minority party, decided to give it to 
some welfare kings.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, let me just 
basically say, Mr. Delahunt, the bottom line is backroom deals are 
nothing new to the Republican majority. They do it every day, every 
hour.
  That is the reason why we are in the situation we are in now as it 
relates to our fiscal situation. They are meeting with these special 
interests in the back halls of Congress, not here on the floor of the 
House, but in the back halls of Congress, and we wonder why things are 
the way they are.
  Do you want to talk about irresponsibility? The bottom line is we 
can't even print them fast enough. Secretary Snow writes a letter 
saying we have to raise the debt limit or they will not be able to 
continue to finance government operations. That is on December 29.
  There are so many letters, I just don't have time. The bottom line is 
here, February 16, just last month, again, the Secretary writes and 
says that we have to raise the debt limit, and if we don't do it, as a 
matter of fact, no, today, on February 16, he is going to have to go 
into the G fund, the retirement fund for Federal employees.
  One more letter, Mr. Ryan, if you would bear with me. Here again, 
March 6, 2006, he is saying, hey, I am going to have to exercise some 
of the power that has been given to me by Congress. We no longer can 
operate unless you raise the debt limit.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Delahunt, that you cannot believe what the 
Republican majority tells you as it relates to, oh, we want to cut the 
budget in half. Oh, trust us. We will make sure that we are fiscally 
responsible.
  The bottom line is these letters by the Republican Secretary of 
Treasury, as a matter of fact, Mr. Snow, I think he is a nice guy. He 
is the accountant for the United States of America.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He is a CPA.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. He is a CPA, and he lets us know when we are 
running out of money. The bottom line is that he is saying he has to 
take drastic steps. Never before, this last letter just written days 
ago, it says for the first time in the history of the United States of 
America, we may not be able to reach our obligations to foreign 
nations.
  Madam Speaker, I think this is something we need to be very alarmed 
about, and we need to do something about versus being alarmed about, 
but we need to do something about it immediately.

[[Page 3079]]


  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for a question, I 
am sort of the least senior of the four of us here this evening. I am a 
freshman. I have just gotten here a year ago. I am wondering, you are 
talking about the four letters that you have shown that Secretary Snow 
has sent to the Congress asking us, begging us, to increase the debt 
limit. Would this be the first time under this administration, Mr. 
Ryan, that that was necessary?

                              {time}  2210

  Is it unprecedented? If we raise the debt limit this year, is it 
something that was an anomaly, was it something that had not occurred 
before?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, it is an excellent question. I think what Mr. 
Meek was saying was that we are going into the government retirement 
program in order to not have to increase the debt limit.
  What we have here is that the Republican Congress has raised the debt 
limit numerous times since President Bush has been in. June of 2002, 
$450 billion, which means Congress raises the debt limit so we can go 
out and borrow more money. May of 2003, $984 billion, Mr. Delahunt. 
That means almost $1 trillion.
  Again, November of 2004, this administration, this Republican 
Congress, went out and borrowed another $800 billion. And now the new 
increase that the Secretary of the Treasury is asking for is another 
$781 billion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, the Republican Congress, 
the Republican President, has borrowed $3 trillion, new money, from the 
Japanese, the Chinese and OPEC countries.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to share with you, because that is 
billion with a B.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And trillion with a T.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And trillion with a T.
  When I am home and you all are home, we talk to our constituents, and 
they ask me, sometimes they ask me questions that makes it clear that 
it is hard for anyone to get their mind around what a billion is. So we 
spent some time, we did some research to try to help put what a billion 
is in terms that people can understand better.
  So let us just translate it into some things that maybe people can 
think about, you know, more in the way they deal with things on a day-
to-day basis. A billion. How much is a billion dollars? Well, a billion 
hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the stone age. That 
was if we were talking about what happened a billion hours ago.
  If you are going on to a billion seconds ago, let us start with 
seconds, a billion seconds ago, it was 1975, and we had just pulled the 
last troops from America out of Vietnam. That was a billion seconds 
ago.
  Let us try to break it down a little bit more. A billion minutes ago, 
it was A.D. 104, and the Chinese first invented paper.
  Well, so now let us talk about what a billion dollars ago was. Under 
this administration, a billion dollars ago was only 3 hours and 32 
minutes at the rate that our government spends money.
  A.D. 104, 1975, the stone age, and 3 hours and 32 minutes ago.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am glad that you are breaking this down so 
that Members understand exactly what we are talking about. I just want 
to say that all of these letters that we have received from Secretary 
Snow raising the debt limit, Madam Speaker, Republicans have given the 
administration and themselves these increases in the debt limit.
  Mr. Ryan, can I just walk down there and just rubber-stamp that chart 
there? This rubber stamp says ``Official rubber stamp. I approve 
everything that George W. Bush does, Member of Congress.''
  You can talk, sir, but I just want to have permission to come down 
there and rubber-stamp that, because all of these letters that have 
been written by Secretary Snow, I guarantee you that the Republican 
majority will grant him the raising of the debt ceiling so we can owe 
foreign countries more money.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Why would they not? They rubber-stamped it in June 
of 2002. They rubber-stamped it in May of 2003. They rubber-stamped it 
in November of 2004. Go ahead. Put it on there.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the American 
people understand who is running the show here in Washington. In 2002, 
the House of Representatives, the majority were Republicans. In 2003, 
in 2004, in 2005, and 2006, they were Republicans; in 2001, in 2000, in 
1999. And since 2001, January, we had a Republican President. And the 
same is true on the other side of this building in the United States 
Senate.
  So when I hear the head, I presume our colleague is the Chair of the 
Official Truth Squad, say, you know, we have got to curtail spending, 
and the Democrats want to take money out of your pockets, I am really 
befuddled, Madam Speaker. I am really confused, because you are in 
charge. You are running the operations of Government. Where have you 
been? Why did you not cut before? Why did you not manage this in a away 
that was competent? Why did you go and borrow money from the Chinese? 
Why did you borrow money from the Koreans?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Why did you borrow money from OPEC?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. And what is the story? When you come to the 
floor, the rhetoric is, we want to work with you. And yet when 
Democrats say we are willing to sit down and have a respectful and 
substantive discussion about the issues that are confronting America, 
what do you do? You close the doors on us. You do not tell us where you 
are meeting. You do not tell us what time.
  And you gave a break to the HMOs of $22 billion, which is like asking 
the taxpayers, you are increasing the tax to the American taxpayers by 
$22 billion at the same time. It does not compute.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can you imagine, Mr. Delahunt, if you are asking 
the American taxpayer who is already paying an increase of 15 to 20 
percent a year in their health care, and now you are telling them, this 
is what you are telling them, this is the God's honest truth, this is 
third-party validators, we are not making it up. You are also saying 
that the money that is taken out of your taxes that you send to the 
Republicans down here in Washington, that money is also going to the 
HMOs. So not only what you pay out of your paycheck every single month, 
but also the taxes that you see come out, that you send down here to 
the Republican majority, they are sending that to the HMOs, too.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because the third-party validators that we use 
on this floor is for the purpose of showing that others who have fact-
checked, experts who have fact-checked what is going on internally in 
this institution report on what they see.
  And so if we are going to talk about accuracy and clarity, it is the 
third-party validators who the American people are going to listen to. 
You know, quite honestly, although I really feel privileged to be able 
to come and join you on this floor every night, a lot of people would 
just chalk up what they say and what we say on the floor as noise, you 
know, as partisan noise.
  And so third-party validators are important. And so let us talk about 
what USA Today said about who is in charge and what they are 
responsible for and what they could have done about it. This is just 
last week, February 21, about 10 days ago.
  USA Today editorial. The title of the editorial was Who is Spending 
Big Now: The Party of Small Government. Tax cuts, they say, force hard 
decisions and restrain reckless spending.
  The last time we looked, according to USA Today, 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\1/2\ percent, 
7\1/2\ percent a year, more than double the rate in the last 5 years of 
Clinton-era budgets.
  I mean, the truth hurts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You cannot make it up.

[[Page 3080]]


  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is factually accurate information by an 
outside source.

                              {time}  2220

  This is not by people who have D and R's next to their name in this 
Chamber. There is a better way.
  Mr. Ryan, we had a better way that Democrats were responsible for 
with their votes, some who lost their offices in casting their votes 
for the PAYGO rules that we used to have here. You have another third-
party validator chart up there right now that talks about the education 
investments that we make here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. When you look at what you are just saying, what Mr. 
Delahunt was just saying, that the money is now, all these tax cuts, 
but yet they are still borrowing money to spend so they can give it to 
the health care industry or everything else, where is the money not 
going?
  I had a friend of mine who is from Russia, his name is Vladimir, and 
Vladimir was just a third-party observer to all of this as he was 
watching. And he couldn't believe honestly the rhetoric that he would 
hear as a new citizen of the country versus what was actually happening 
because he was into politics and he was paying a little bit of 
attention.
  So all of it, this money that is going to the HMOs and going to all 
these different places, where is it not going?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It is going to the welfare kings.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The welfare kings and the health care industry. If 
you look at where it is not going, this is the Federal Government's 
commitment to education. Again, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, this is 
a third-party validator. This is called the Committee for Education 
Funding in February 2006. In 2002 there was an 18.2 percent increase. 
And as you can see, it dramatically is reduced to where in the 2007 
budget President Bush's proposed budget, Mr. Delahunt, there is going 
to be a negative 3.8 percent decrease in education funding. So as we 
are competing in a global economy with 1.3 billion Chinese workers, 
with 1 billion workers in India, with the country of Ireland that is 
called now the Celtic Tiger because of its increase; and part of what 
the Celtic Tiger has done is make education free for everybody, college 
education. We are decreasing education. And so my friend Vladimir is 
right.
  Look at what is happening in this country, Madam Speaker. We are 
giving money to the welfare kings and decreasing funding for our 
students. Now, that is appalling to me.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I tell you where else the money is going? The money 
is being wasted. And the money is being wasted because of sheer 
incompetence and mismanagement. And no big contracts, no big contracts. 
I will tell you where the money is going. Let me give you one example.
  Can you all see this right here to my left, this chart? Row after row 
after row after row of trailers. And they are all sinking into the mud. 
These were the trailers that FEMA, the Federal agency that responds to 
natural disasters, purchased I am sure for hundreds of millions of 
dollars. I do not have the exact amount.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Three hundred million dollars.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Three hundred million dollars. So there is $300 million 
sitting out there, sinking into the mud, that will not ever be used. 
Meanwhile, we have thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of people in 
Alabama, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, the Gulf States, that were 
devastated by Hurricane Katrina and they do not have any homes. They 
are homeless. They are living in their cars.
  It is a natural disgrace. Six months after the disaster. But because 
this administration has made incompetence a virtue, we are wasting $300 
million of the taxpayers' money, Madam Speaker. I mean, think of that. 
If you want to talk about fraud and abuse and mismanagement, that 
picture, let me suggest, epitomizes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have picture after picture and week after 
week of new revelations about the shocking aftermath of the response of 
this administration to Katrina.
  Last week it was the videotape evidence that when Max Mayfield, who 
is based in Miami at the National Hurricane Center, clearly warned the 
President and the Secretary and those assembled from the 
administration's team, that it was quite possible that the levees in 
New Orleans would breach, and then on Tuesday, 2 days later, you have 
the President declaring that there was no way that anyone could have 
anticipated a breach of the levees.
  I mean, how do they look at themselves in the mirror? How does he 
look at himself in the mirror and go on each day?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. How do you say, if I can interrupt, how can you say we 
were fully prepared? We were fully prepared? The President said that to 
the American people in the aftermath of the hurricanes and in the 
disasters that befell the Gulf States.
  This is just a closeup of the picture of the chart that I showed 
earlier of those trailers that are crumbling someplace, somewhere, at 
the tune of $300 million. Well, if we were fully prepared, God save 
this Republic in the event of another natural disaster or a terrorist 
attack. I would suggest to the American people and to you, my friends, 
that we are ill-prepared. We are not fully prepared. We are unprepared. 
We are fully unprepared because of the incompetence and mismanagement 
that we witness on a daily basis near Washington.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know the gentleman from Florida wants to go 
back to PAYGO, but what I heard today in a meeting earlier in the 
afternoon, I heard the feeling and the sentiment that you described 
this way: Whether you are talking about the aftermath of Katrina, and 
quite honestly in my community the aftermath of Wilma, or you are 
talking about this port deal, the bottom line is that the homeland is 
not secure. The homeland is not secure.
  We have port security that has been essentially undermined by the 
Republican leadership here, and I know we will talk about that in a 
little bit, but the American people's confidence in their government 
has been shaken. We continually have to increase the debt limit and we 
have a solution, Mr. Meek, that we have been pushing over and over and 
over again repeatedly. Yet, it falls on deaf ears.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Dela-
hunt, you are 110 percent right. The bottom line is who is going to 
level with the American people, tell them the truth about what is going 
on? If you are not prepared, say you are not prepared and then take the 
steps to get us prepared.
  The American people, we are an understanding people. We know we run 
into real issues every day in our own homes, but for the President to 
say, A, he did not know anything about possible levee breaks or 
individuals being in a detrimental situation and loss of life, the 
video proves that that is not the case. Time after time, again, this 
administration has been caught on camera, okay, saying one thing to the 
American people and something else is going on in the background.

                              {time}  2230

  As you know, we have asked for a Hurricane Katrina Commission, just 
like the 9/11 Commission, so we can get down to the bottom of this. It 
is not to say, hey, Mr. President, you were wrong; Louisiana, you were 
wrong; New Orleans, you were wrong; other gulf coast cities, you were 
wrong; and Mississippi, you were wrong. It is not finger pointing. It 
is making sure that we correct it. If we find ourselves in a bad 
situation, we have got to make sure we correct it.
  Speaking of correction, I think it is important that we share, Madam 
Speaker, the fact that we are going down almost a path of no return. 
This Republican majority, Madam Speaker, is out of control, out of 
control in a way that they are borrowing as much money as they can 
possibly borrow from who? Foreign nations, foreign nations that we have 
questions about.
  There was just some press accounts today talking about Iran. Iran's 
President is shooting verbally back at the

[[Page 3081]]

United States of America, saying, bring it on. The bottom line is that 
this administration has put us in a posture, Madam Speaker, to where 
that if we say something about Iran, that we want to get serious with, 
and they should not chuckle when we say it, and that is what is 
happening right now.
  As it relates to fiscal responsibility, I just want to speak for a 
moment very boldly on the fact that we have tried to do everything we 
can as a minority, and as you know, as the minority party, we do not 
have the votes to be able to push the policy in the direction we need 
to push it, pay-as-you-go. When you are in a situation, when you are 
borrowing more from countries, record-breaking borrowing from countries 
that at $1.05 trillion, let me just add the Republican Congress to that 
because the President cannot do it by himself, $1.05 trillion from 
foreign Nations, more than any other time in the history of the 
Republic in 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, versus 42 Presidents before 
this President and this Congress were only able to borrow $1.01 
trillion from foreign nations in 224 years, it is alarming. I want to 
say that we have tried to stop that from happening.
  On March 30, 2004, Republicans voted by a 209-209 to reject the 
motion by Representative Mike Thompson of California, who is a 
Democrat, to instruct conferees to use pay-as-you-go policies. Also, 
again in 2004, vote number 97, we believe in third-party validators, 
they voted down. Similar vote on May 5, 2004, Republicans voted 208-
215, Republicans on the 215 part, to reject a motion by Representative 
Dennis Moore, once again Democrat. In 2004, vote number 145, similar 
vote on November 18, 2004, Republicans voted to block an amendment by 
Representative Stenholm, who is no longer in Congress, to not raise the 
debt limit and to be able to use pay-as-you-go.
  Mr. Ryan has two other examples there that are recent that Mr. Spratt 
has put forth, pay-as-you-go amendments. Again, Republicans voted 
against it. Again, Mr. Spratt did it, and H. Res. 393 in 2005, budget 
resolution, failed. No Republicans voted for it, bottom line. I am 
trying to read the chart from here.
  Let me just say this, Madam Speaker. I think it is important that we 
document this and we share this with the majority and with all of the 
Members that we have done everything in our power to stop this 
Republican Congress from putting this country in further debt to 
foreign nations. That is incompetence. That is jeopardizing America's 
security. That is jeopardizing America's financial security.
  If anyone knows what it means when a creditor calls your house 
talking about you need to pay me, you know exactly what I am talking 
about. The creditor calls your house, they call you by your first name. 
They disrespect you from the beginning, and no other time in the 
history of the country, this is not Democratic stuff, this is U.S. 
Department of Treasury information that we have here, they are 
disrespecting the United States of America. Democrats have nothing to 
do with that. We have tried to turn the tide on the dependency that 
this Republican Congress has in raising the debt limit.
  Now, the Secretary of Treasury has asked us to raise the debt limit 
again by $821 billion. That is going again to allow Iran, Japan, Red 
China and other countries, OPEC countries, Iran, Iraq, Madam Speaker, 
Korea, that should mean something to some of our veterans that allowed 
us to salute one flag. This is a problem. This is a major problem. That 
is a problem that not only Democrats, Republicans and Independents 
should be concerned about, but the Americans that are not voting now 
need to rise up and say enough is enough.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What we advocate is going back to the PAYGO 
rule, and again, to translate that into terms that most people 
understand and deal with every day, you do not spend more than you 
have. You make sure you have the revenue coming in for the money that 
you are going to put out.
  Listen, there are people in everyday life in America that struggle 
with that every single day, but most people think it is totally 
irresponsible. Even if they are engaging in it in their own house, they 
think it is the wrong thing to do, to spend what they do not have. I do 
not know in America that anyone has the ability on their own to raise 
their debt limit in their household. Can you imagine, you reach a point 
in your day-to-day life and you are going along and you have a certain 
amount of money that you earn. You have a certain amount of credit. Let 
us say you have a couple of credit cards. When you reach the debt limit 
on your credit card, the maximum that the credit card company will 
allow you to put on that card, unless you ask permission from the 
credit card company, you cannot do that usually, depending on your 
track record.
  If you compare the track record of the United States of America 
recently, you know, we are not doing so good because we are not getting 
a handle on this. Most credit card companies would say, no, we are 
going to stop you at a certain point and not let you raise your debt 
limit.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if I can, that is the problem that the 
Secretary of Treasury has. He is representing an administration and a 
rubber-stamp Congress that can only be described as irresponsible when 
it comes to fiscal policy. I mean, maybe we ought to write back, now, 
this is a letter dated March 6, 2006, and say, you know, we are sorry, 
but we are not going to raise the debt limit anymore; we are done, we 
are finished, we are closing you down.
  Why should we be voting to raise the debt limit? With all of the 
fraud and the mismanagement and the abuse of the taxpayers, why do we 
not say go back to that conference committee and tell them to 
reconsider their closed deal that cost the American taxpayers $22 
billion? Why do we not do that instead? Or why do we not recommend that 
the Bush administration stop spending $1.6 billion on advertising and 
public relations contracts; why do we not do that? Why do we not tell 
them to stop the no-bid contracts that are leaving resources sinking in 
mud somewhere in Arkansas to the tune of $300 billion? Why do we not 
tell them that they ought to go find the $9 billion that they cannot 
find that is somewhere in Iraq that is unaccounted for?
  You know what? I am not going to vote simply because the Secretary of 
the Treasury of the United States is representing an administration 
that is in accord, if you will, with a Congress that cannot handle the 
budget in an appropriate way.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
think it is important for us to realize the history of this in the 
wrong way, in the wrong way. This is not something that we have dreamed 
up. This is not something that just happened yesterday.

                              {time}  2240

  I am just going to read what Secretary Snow said, Secretary of the 
Treasury, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Republican 
Senate. I think you have to pay attention to what he said. This is not 
what we are saying but what the Secretary said.
  In a letter to Congress he urged lawmakers to pass a new debt limit 
ceiling immediately to avoid the first default on its obligations in 
U.S. history. For the first time in U.S. history. This is a Republican 
Congress saying trust me, a Republican White House saying trust me, a 
Republican Senate saying trust me, we know what we are doing. The first 
time in U.S. history. That is a fact. That is from the lips of the U.S. 
Secretary of the Treasury.
  He goes on to say that the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
Government, he is saying to the leaders of the House and Senate, that 
the full faith and credit commitment, referring to the fourth amendment 
of the U.S. Constitution, that we will pay our bills. What he is saying 
now is that for the first time in U.S. history we will not be able to 
pay our bills. This is not a situation created by us. We tried to stop 
it with PAYGO and went through the whole process with that. This is the 
Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the same party that in 1994 said that they 
were

[[Page 3082]]

going to pass a balanced budget amendment to make sure that they 
balanced the budget every year. It would be a constitutional amendment. 
And here we are, 12 years later, and they are borrowing money like 
drunken sailors from the Japanese, the Chinese, and from all kinds of 
foreign countries.
  Look, of all the money that we have borrowed, almost all of it is 
from foreign countries. That is the money we have borrowed. That is the 
money we have borrowed from foreign countries. And I am sure the 
Members, Madam Speaker, cannot even see this. This is the money we have 
borrowed from domestic interests. Look, it is a joke.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, Mr. Ryan, if you would yield, this is 
also the party that tries to represent themselves as the party of less 
government and more personal freedom. And in my time here, just in the 
year that I have been here, we don't even talk about the Terry Schiavo 
case last year anymore because so much else has happened that is 
disturbing in terms of their leadership that that seems like a distant 
memory, but that was not even a year ago. We are coming up on the year 
anniversary of that.
  The beginning of my first year in Congress you have the bookends of 
Terry Schiavo's tragic case, where this Congress, this Republican 
leadership inserted itself into one family's private angst-ridden 
tragedy. Then you have Katrina, you have the debt limit increase, you 
have the largest deficit in history, you have the refusal to go back to 
the PAYGO rules, and you have the port deal. This is the party of less 
government and more personal freedom? No, it is not. The evidence does 
not lie.
  The funny thing, and I have heard Mr. Meek say this at home in 
Florida a lot. Just because you say it over and over again does not 
make it so. Things do not come true just because you say them a lot. 
The facts do not lie.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, the three of us were watching you, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, lead the first hour, and it was very informative and 
we want to congratulate you on a great presentation.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Many of our female colleagues on the Democratic side 
participated, and you talked about the role of government, particularly 
as it impacts women. You know, the truth is, and we have seen it just 
recently in South Dakota, that if the Republican majority has their 
way, they will see to it that the woman's right to choose will be ended 
in this country. They will do everything that they can to effectively 
repeal Roe v. Wade.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not only the woman's right to choose. We have 
a variety of things. It is about throwing people in prison. Throwing 
people in prison, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If you are familiar with that South Dakota law.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Even in the case of rape or incest.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. In case of rape or incest. This is a dramatic 
change in terms of the role of government as reflected in the Supreme 
Court decision of Roe v. Wade and all of the advances that have been 
made in terms of civil rights and other issues.
  But I know we all want to get back to discuss the issues that impact 
every American.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But your point is, and the point we have to 
make here is, there is a radicalism in this Republican leadership; that 
they have reached new heights. Schiavo, South Dakota, the Alito 
confirmation. There is just a growing list.
  And now this port deal, where the President literally saw nothing 
wrong with allowing a foreign government-owned corporation to take over 
the port terminal operations at six major ports. No alarm bells were 
set off to trigger a national security review, a 45-day national 
security review that can be triggered under the law. It defies logic.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He didn't even know about it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. Not the least of it was that he did not 
even know about it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am sorry, Mr. Ryan, you are going to have to 
yield to me.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He said he didn't know about it, and I believe him.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you have to yield to me. The President 
has said that he has not known about a lot of things and then we found 
out later.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No, if he said it, it is true.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. He thinks someone might have said something to 
him about it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Six White House offices were part of the 
committee that reviewed this port deal. I asked in Financial Services. 
I am on the committee. I am on the subcommittee where we had a hearing 
last week, and the President still didn't know.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just say this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 
Democrats on this side of the aisle have great credibility when it 
comes to homeland security. Great credibility. I am on the Homeland 
Security Committee. We asked the Department of Homeland Security.
  Madam Speaker, we brought the President and the Republican majority 
along, kicking and fighting, not to do it. Now, we did it, but they do 
not want to provide the oversight, when I am saying the Republican 
majority.
  I just want to mention a few things now that we are getting into this 
subject, because I want to put what we are doing first versus what they 
are not doing.
  September 29, during a meeting of House and Senate conferees, 
Democratic Congressmen Obey and Sabo and Senator Byrd offered an 
amendment to increase funding for port container security by $300 
million. House conferees defeated the amendment on party-line votes.
  October 7, 2004. During also a House and Senate conference committee, 
the same Democratic Members offered an amendment to increase and 
enhance funding by $150 million. Republicans defeated it on a party-
line vote.
  On June 18, 2004, Democrats supported the same amendment to increase 
port and container security by $400 million, because this is what the 
Coast Guard is calling for, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is what they want.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is not where we are just picking a number 
out of the sky. And this is not all they need. We are trying to give 
them a little bit more, and I will yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz in a 
minute and she will talk about what is being checked and what is not 
being checked.
  We are trying to do something about it. We are trying to protect 
America. So it goes on, Mr. Delahunt, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and it 
goes on and on. If we had enough time, I could read all this off.
  So when folks start talking about where are the Democrats on this 
issue, just because the Republicans say it, it does not necessarily 
mean it is true. We have facts, Madam Speaker, and the Congressional 
Record on our side and commitment to the American people and the safety 
of our country on our side.
  The bottom line is that the Republican majority talks about things, 
and we do things. When we are in the majority, we will do it. We will 
not talk about it. We will talk about what we have done and how we are 
doing it.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, can you share with the Members this chart?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, most definitely, just to take off from 
where you have launched. Really, the facts are laid bare.
  It is evident who is for security and who is just kidding. And if you 
look at this chart here, this pie chart, the source is Fox News, that 
is our third-party validator, so we are not talking about a liberal 
bastion, who is for security and who is just kidding? Less than 6 
percent of our U.S. cargo at our Nation's ports is physically 
inspected. That is 95 percent not inspected. We will say 94 percent not 
inspected and 6 percent inspected, but I think actually the number is 
just a little lower than that.
  The difference between the increase in security at airports and the 
increase

[[Page 3083]]

in security at ports since the 2001 9/11 attack is $18 billion, Mr. 
Ryan, increased airport security, compared to a $700 million increase 
in port security.

                              {time}  2250

  Now, I heard one of our colleagues bragging about the $700 million 
increase and trying to detail how much of an increase the six ports 
received that the port deal, the DPW port deal, was involved in, as if 
that was some fantastic accomplishment.
  There is a $6 billion difference between what the Coast Guard has 
said they need, a $6 billion difference. The Republican Congress has 
shortchanged port security by $6 billion, according to the Coast Guard. 
They have requested $7.2 billion.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Third-party validator, the U.S. Coast Guard.
  Mr. MEEK. The U.S. Coast Guard.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So if someone would say we are not telling the 
truth, they are saying the Coast Guard is not telling the truth.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not Mr. Meek, not Mr. Ryan, but the Coast 
Guard has requested $7.2 billion and gotten $910 million in 
congressional appropriations. That is a commitment right there to 
national security.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we ought to inform our colleagues here and 
those that are observing our conversation what the Democratic policy is 
in terms of inspection of goods coming into this country is not 5 
percent, but 100 percent. We have what I would call a zero tolerance 
policy, and it can be done, and it can be done in a very cost-efficient 
way, in a way that not only will prevent a terrorist attack coming in 
via our maritime shipping, but will be efficient in terms of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Do you know in Hong Kong every single container ship that comes in, 
every piece of cargo, goes through a high-technology review? Every 
single piece is inspected. I guess what my point would be is that if 
they can do it in Hong Kong, we can do it in the United States of 
America. We can do it. We should have a zero tolerance policy, period.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, the point is the issue is so 
much bigger than this one port deal. This is emblematic of the 
tremendously significant problem. You cannot say even if this problem 
gets addressed, this port deal gets addressed, which it should, you 
cannot say, okay, we are done. It is so much deeper than that. 
Democrats have been constantly fighting for increased port security, 
and Republicans have not, plain and simple.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Time and time again.
  Madam Speaker, if Members would like to get ahold of any of the 
information, all of the charts we had here tonight are available on our 
Website, www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30something
  Also, Madam Speaker, my old high school, the John F. Kennedy Eagles, 
bowed out of the high school tournament tonight. They lost to Campbell 
Memorial High School, and I just want to say what a great year they 
had. My brother happens to be the assistant coach. I wanted to give a 
shout-out to the John F. Kennedy basketball team.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by saying we should 
not ever mislead the American people. We know and they know who is in 
charge here in Washington. When I hear comments that would suggest that 
Democrats are in any way impeding or obstructing this Congress, my 
response is that is absurd. The Republican Party is in control.

                          ____________________