[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5030-5036]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 5031]]

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 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

[[Page 5032]]

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 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

[[Page 5033]]

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.
  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?

[[Page 5034]]


  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 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 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 you 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

[[Page 5035]]

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 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

[[Page 5036]]

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 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.

                          ____________________