Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again, the 30-something Working Group. I would like to thank the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and also Mr. Steny Hoyer, who is our whip; Mr. James Clyburn, our chairman; and also Mr. Larson, who is our vice chairman. And I think that it is very appropriate at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the great comeback by the Miami Heat in the series of the NBA finals. And I can say on behalf of Ms. Wasserman Schultz and those of us from the south Florida delegation and from the Florida delegation that we are very, very pleased of the outstanding play by the Heat. We want to continue to support them in every way possible. We know that they will be victorious. We have been wrestling with our friends in the back in the Speaker's lobby from Dallas and the surrounding area, letting them know that the final outcome will be a great parade in downtown Miami with the new NBA champions. As you know, as we look at it from a religious standpoint, you have to claim it. And we are excited. There are some extraordinary things that are happening now. Dwyane Wade. If Shaquille O'Neal falls on a Chevy truck, he would hurt it. But Dwyane Wade has been able to overcome the injury, and also several of the Heat players and the Heat fans have persevered. So we look forward to Father's Day. I know that Shaquille O'Neal and Alonzo Mourning and Dwyane Wade are all fathers, and we know on Father's Day they will deliver a gift to themselves and to me and to other folks. So I just want to say since we have the hour, Mr. Speaker, there are Members, I am pretty sure, from Texas, from Dallas who would love to come to the floor, whom we will not yield to at this time, to give their side of the story. We are happy we have this hour. We honor the Heat and we are glad that there is a great series going on. And while we are at it, before I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz to make comments on this, I want to thank the NBA for all the work that they have done not only in Dallas but in Miami, in their charities, and giving to the Heat center. At Little River Middle School, they have actually put some computers in, and they have been there over the years, but they have made a new commitment to that center and they have named it after the late wife of the Heat trainer. So we want to encourage the NBA to keep doing what they are doing. I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just as a point of information, as we start working in a bipartisan way towards the spirit of the Miami Heat, and it is bipartisan, we have Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, also Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also Jeff Miller from the Panhandle of Florida that have joined in in this Heat spirit. On our side we have Ms. Wasserman Schultz, myself, Congressman Alcee Hastings, and also Mr. Robert Wexler. So I mean it is kind of balanced off as it relates to who has the beads in support of the Miami Heat. We rallied them when they were down by 0-2, and we will continue to rally around them now that it is even. With that, Mr. Speaker, we would like to go into what we usually do when we come to the floor as it relates to the 30-something Working Group, talking about the issues that we have been meeting on, wanting to bring to the floor and share with the American people and also share with the Members of the House. We talk about the agenda that was released, ``A New Direction for America'' by the Democratic Caucus, and not talk about what we may do when we take the majority if the American people find it fit for us to take the majority, but what we will do, and I think it is important to say ``will.'' And I always say we have the will and desire to lead. We have the will and desire to pass legislation. We also have the will and desire, Mr. Speaker, to take the rubber stamp out of the Republican majority's hands and put it in the garbage because that is not what this Congress should be all about. It should be oversight. It should be evaluation of policies that we would like to pass, need it be health care, need it be Iraq policy, need it be economic development. And in our plan, it is important to understand that we want to make health care more affordable for Americans, make sure that we have a fair share as it relates to prescription drugs on behalf of the American people, making sure that we can move into the area of investing in stem cell research for medical research for some of the cure that we can do now. Also work toward alternative fuels, making this country independent of the Middle East and invest in the Midwest as it relates to E-85, alternative fuels, making sure that we pass legislation to bring about flex vehicles. Also helping working families. It is not a question of if we will. It is we will raise the minimum wage. And that is what we are saying on this side of the aisle. There is no question about it. The minimum wage will be raised, and that is a promise. Cutting also and reversing many of the Republican majority increases on student tuition. This is a very important point and we are going to talk a little further about it because we have legislation that is filed now to reverse that, make sure that families have tax credits and make sure students don't have to pay through the nose and come out of college in debt more than they are today. Also ensuring that seniors and individuals receive Social Security benefits, need it be survivor benefits or need it be the disabled or just simple retirement, not privatizing Social Security. The ``security'' part is to make sure that when all else fails that there is some level of income for those individuals who have worked their entire lives. And requiring fiscal responsibility. This is the most important, if not the point, of the Democratic agenda of making sure if we say we are going to spend it, we had better show how we are going to pay for it. Not like we are doing now, spending and borrowing from foreign nations, making this country more indebted to foreign countries than at any other time in the history of the republic. So we will talk a little further about that and define this a little bit more as we go along. I would like to yield to my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and we will focus more on these issues as we go through the points again.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am glad that you brought a visual aid down because I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we break this down for the Members because we want to make sure that Members don't go back home in November and giving political speeches saying that, oh, well, I didn't know we were doing that. Or I didn't know that we were breaking a record in borrowing from foreign nations. We want to make sure that the Congressional Record reflects that those of us on this side of the aisle actually brought it to the floor in a form that a middle school or a fifth grader can understand. And it is important that we break it down to this point so that no one can say that they misunderstood, they didn't quite know what they were voting for, I made a mistake or whatever the case may be because now, in this day, in this Congress, we are making history in all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways. I think it is important that we point this out. I want to make sure that I get that Washington Post article that talked about a special meeting at the White House. The innovation agenda, I want to make sure that the Members go on housedemocrats.gov and get a copy of the innovation agenda so that hopefully folks can be enlightened on what we have been talking about and promoting, not just yesterday, not just last month, this has been around, and the only reason why it is not implemented now is that the Republican majority will not allow legislation to come to the floor outside of the original thoughts of President Bush or the Republican leaders. I think it is important that we understand an innovation agenda. We talk about education and creating the workforce for the future, making sure that there is math and science education, that we work on that and we provide the necessary dollars for it. Invest in research and also development that promotes public-private partnerships, where many CEOs you will see on housedemocrats.gov have already become a part of what we are talking about and encouraging that to happen. Affordable, guaranteed broadband access throughout the country. Need it be if you are in the heartland of America, you are on the east coast, you are on the west coast, you are down south, you are up north, you should be able to have an opportunity at this broadband initiative that we have for all Americans. Achieving energy independence. We talked about that, within 10 years. Not maybe one day, not counting on the oil companies to do it but the Congress setting the stage, this House setting the stage for that to happen. Providing small businesses with the tools that they need to be able to create jobs. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take about 10 minutes here breaking this thing down, if not shorter, of talking about how we are making history in all the wrong ways. The Republican majority, I must say, has done an outstanding job on behalf of President Bush. You have got to hand it to them. If there was an Oscar, an Emmy or a Grammy to give out, the Republican majority would get it as it relates to rubber- stamping everything the administration hands down. I hold here, Mr. Speaker, and this is no secret to many of the Members and it should not be a secret to the staff that works here in the House of Representatives, this chart, this chart of the fact that in just 4 years, President Bush and the Republican majority has borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign nations. We have the Republican Congress right under the President's picture because he couldn't do it by himself. Forty-two United States Presidents, 224 years, were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion from foreign nations. How could that be? One may say, how can you do this in 4 years? $1.05 trillion from foreign nations. In 224 years, 200 years shy of what the President has been able to do, $1.01 trillion. Let me tell you, that is staggering. That is not something that it happened in the forties or it happened in the thirties once upon a time. Calculate it. Forty-two Presidents, 224 years. Mr. Speaker, we are not just here as the 30 Something Working Group and dreaming up something. Those numbers are from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Who do we owe? Who has their hands in the pockets of the American taxpayer? I don't care if you are a Republican, independent, you don't vote yet, or whatever the case may be, a Democrat, you have to have a problem with these nations owning a piece of the American apple pie. Japan. Like it or not, I know it is painful for some of the Members to hear this, but this is the reality under a Republican majority. Japan, $682.8 billion that they own of the American apple pie thanks to the Republican majority rubber-stamping the Bush policies. China, $249.8 billion of the American apple pie that they own right now, not because of the American people lack of making the right fiscal decisions but it is because the Republican majority has allowed it to happen with the American taxpayer dollar. The U.K., $223.2 billion Caribbean nations, $115.3 billion. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. OPEC nations. Oh, my goodness, OPEC nations. We can't do enough for them, but they are buying our debt, $67.8 billion. Germany, $65.7 billion. Korea, $66.5 billion. And Canada, $53.8 billion. The reason why, Mr. Speaker, you see the American flag in silhouette as it relates to the United States of America, excluding Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, but just to show this silhouette of the mainland of the United States of America, the reason why we have that, if you want to do away with the debt, elect a Democratic majority because we have done it. The Republican majority, they are saying, well, we're going to cut it in half. It is almost like if there is a cliff, Mr. Speaker, and you are in a vehicle and you have to stop the vehicle before it goes over the cliff. We are saying stop. You are saying go at half speed. You go at half speed, you are going over the cliff regardless. We have stopped the deficit from continuing to continue on when we balanced it, without one Republican vote. And so it is important if the American people, if they are looking at the resume, they will elect Democrats to be able to lead. What are we doing right now, Mr. Speaker? I think it is important for us to outline this. We are saying pay-as-you-go. If you are going to spend a hundred dollars, you better talk about how you are going to pay for it. What the Republican majority is doing now, they are spending a hundred dollars and they are saying put it on a foreign credit card so we would owe foreign countries money and leave it for future generations and this generation, which is unfair to our young people. Before they even get a chance at life, they are already going to owe folks that they don't even know because of the wrong decisions that have been made here in the Republican majority and that they have been rubber-stamping. Substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 95 in the 2006 budget resolution. Mr. Spratt, who is our ranking member on the Budget Committee, put forth an amendment for pay-as-you-go like I just outlined. Not one Republican voted for it. To say that we are going to have fiscal discipline, not one Republican voted for it. 228 Republicans voted against it. Again in 2005, a substitute amendment to the budget, saying pay-as- you-go. Not one Republican voted for it, Mr. Speaker. 224 Republicans voted against it. I am coming in for a close. I just want to share this with you. I mentioned the issue about energy. Oh, well, the Republican answer, the Republican majority here in this House because I do know some Republicans who do feel that the Congress should not be rubber-stamping everything that the administration puts forth, and let me just read my article real quick to bring this into focus. I thank my colleague for bearing with me. November 16, 2005 front page of the Washington Post: White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recently as November 2005, last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document obtained this week by the Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil, also Shell Oil Company, BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts of which are still being debated. I wanted to just read that to show you that when we talk about alternative fuel and we talk about flex vehicles, I don't think the oil companies are with us on this. This is actually a picture of an ExxonMobil pump where it shows regular, special, super. That is keeping us, like the President says, addicted to oil. And that is an interesting statement, too, by him. E85 is an alternative fuel. ExxonMobil has said you cannot use your Mobil credit card to purchase this product. I can take a Mobil credit card when I go there to put gas in the tank, I can go in there and buy a bag of chips. I am not a cigarette smoker, but somebody can go in and buy a carton of cigarettes with their Mobil card. Someone can go in there, probably end up in some States, buy a Lotto ticket with their Mobil card. But they can't buy an alternative fuel that is made here in America by American farmers and should be supported by the American people. They are trying to make it even harder. They are putting the block in front of them, because they want to keep this thing going. Now I am not a Member of the House with a conspiracy theory; but, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about record profits. Here are the facts. This is not fiction; this is fact. In 2001, a meeting took place in the White House. Then all of a sudden we started being handed down legislation, Republican majority by the Bush administration. Oil profits went up $34 billion in 2001. I think that was a meeting worth scheduling. In 2003, oil profits went up $59 million, billion, goodness gracious. I am getting confused by saying a million, a billion dollars. In 2004, $84 billion in profits; and 2005, $113 billion. What I can't help, Mr. Speaker, is to say that it will be over $113 billion in oil profits in 2006 even before the year has ended, because when you have the Republican majority passing subsidies, and you don't have to spend your own money for quote, unquote, innovation, you can have those kinds of profits and have the American people paying through the nose. Last point on the relationship, just one more chart here. I could care less about the former CEO of ExxonMobil as a person. You know, I am not going after him as a person. I am just saying that the Republican majority has allowed this to happen. He has $398 million of a retirement package, and on top of the Republican majority's tax policy, he gets a $2 million tax break. You want to talk about the winners and losers in America, this is a perfect example; and this is allowed to happen here in this House and here in this democracy because the special interest has a special relationship. Here is the King and the President, talk about relationships. We are on the side of the American people; it is just that simple. ``Energizing America,'' HouseDemocrats.gov, you get a copy of it, and you will see whose side we are on. If you are a Republican, you got to have a problem with the way this House has rubber-stamped what the President has handed down. If you are an Independent, you have to have a problem with the K Street Project that was alive and well to allow the special interests to do a pay and you play as it relates to getting policy passed on to the House. If you are Independent and if you are a Democratic, you have to have a problem that there is no input as it relates to bipartisan approach to policymaking. Because if there were, and we did have a bipartisan approach, I wouldn't be able to stand here with a straight face, Mr. Speaker, and share with the Members and American people what has happened here in this House with the facts backed by third-party validators by the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Congressional Record. I just want to make sure that we break out many visual aids because some Members of the House seem to be a little confused about what is happening and what is not happening.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am glad you pointed out the fact that a lot of rubber-stamping is going on. The reason I voted against the Iraq resolution today, Mr. Speaker, is I will not dishonor the memory of those individuals that have died and those individuals who have been forever maimed or lost a leg or limb or that mother or that father that will never see their son or daughter, or that child that will never see their father, aunt, uncle or niece again. The reason why I did that is that many men and women in uniform are fighting on behalf of, what, a democracy or something like it. You have a resolution that says, Democrats, we are not even going to allow you to put anything on the floor, we are not going to allow you to amend the resolution. The rules are set on the third floor up here, Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee that says we won't even allow an alternative resolution. They say we won't even allow. Yes, welcome to the floor, and you will talk. But you know something? Talk is cheap. Action means everything. So as a member of the Armed Services Committee along with my ranking member and along with a lot of other members of the Armed Services Committee, we voted against the resolution today, not because we believe in something else; we do believe this democracy. But we do believe in a fair debate in oversight and policy. That is why it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we move in a way that will have our Constitution honored at the same time, and we move in a way as it relates to fairness for every Member of this House. One thing that Leader Pelosi, if the Democrats take control will be the Speaker, had said we will work in a bipartisan way. Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the whole rubber-stamping issue. This rubber stamp has been used far too many times for the Republican majority. How did we get in the deficits, the deficits as far as the eye can see? Because of the rubber stamp? Defense contractors and contractors in Hurricane Katrina were able to steal money from the American taxpayer through a lack of oversight because of the rubber stamp. States are suing the Federal Government under Leave No Child Behind because we are only funding it to the low 30 percent and allowing States and local governments to be able to have what they need to have to carry out the mission of educating our children. The trouble is because the Republican majority has rubber stamped everything that the Bush White House has handed down, and when we look at tax policies, how does a billionaire here, Mr. Speaker, have a $398 million retirement package with a cherry on top, $2 million tax break, of the policies of the Republican majority? Still we have individuals going to work for $5 and some change on minimum wage. So I think it is important that we look at this whole issue rubber stamping, and we look at this issue of following Article 1, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and making sure that we do what we are supposed to do here at the House. I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz for coming down to the floor today, as you always do, and we continue to work on these issues that are facing Americans. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that since we are all kind of draped up in the flag this week and talking about who is a patriot and who is not, and I will not stand judgment even on my Republican colleagues, many of whom that have cast dye on some of the Members of the Democratic aisle of saying who is with the troops or who is not with the troops. I just want to say that fact, not fiction, always prevails in history and also in the future. We want to make sure, in the Republican budget, that we point out the fact that there will be a copayment for veterans. There will be a copayment of some $250 for veterans because that is what is in the Republican budget package. That is a fact. Their prescription drug costs will go up. That is a fact. So, if we want to get all draped up and teary-eyed and saying I have a tattoo, saying I support the troops more than you do. My car that I got is painted that I support the troops. It is not what you say or hear on this floor. It is about how you vote and where your dollars are as it relates to respecting the men and women that laid down their life, many of whom and those individuals that have that will never walk again to allow us to salute one flag here today. I think it is important, and I take issue with the fact because I will not let their memory be dishonored. I take issue with the fact that individuals are coming to the floor saying one thing and doing another with their vote as it relates to those individuals. When our men and women come home, they are going to have issues. They are going to have issues because they are not going to be able to deal with the effects of the IEDs that are going off, their friends being maimed, and still there is no policy as it relates to how we are going to deal with the issue of Iraq, how we are going to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. The only resolutions that have been put forward to deal with those issues are on the Democratic side of the aisle, and because the President does not want to talk about it, the Republican majority does not want to talk about it. What is so frustrating is the fact that we have plans on this side to have discourse and dialogue in a bipartisan way so that those individuals that are there now in some areas in the Western parts of Iraq, eating meals Ready to Eat, okay, MREs, for those individuals and those individuals that are talking to their children by long distance, saying I am coming home soon and they really cannot answer the question because I have a 9-year-old son and I have an 11-year-old daughter. I have been to Iraq twice, but you know something, when a Member of Congress goes to Iraq we are coming back in two or three days on a Federal plane, being served food and drink. We are coming home. We are going to land at Andrews Air Force Base, and the air force people, God bless them and I love them, they are going to give us a ride back here to the Capitol. We are going to get out and we are going to go home, not like those individuals who volunteered, not drafted, volunteered to serve this country. If they agree or not, they deserve a policy on Iraq, not just a cheerleading resolution saying, well, we are going to do a lot of wordy stuff; then we are going to mail this over to the troops and say we are with you. They know that they are with us. There is not a Member of this House, there is not a person I have received a phone call from, that says I do not support the troops and I do not think you should support the troops. That is not what this debate is about. The debate should be about how we are going to deal with the Iraqi government, how we are going to continue to pull coalition forces in. Guess what, you would assume under the resolution that passed today and with the speeches that the President is giving, that we have coalition partners that are running in saying how can we help. There is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, when the coalition is getting smaller of nations that are involved in this effort with the United States of America. I think if I start giving a speech, and I am home giving a political speech, a campaign speech and folks started leaving the room, that means I am saying something that they disagree with, that they do not believe in. So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we pay very close attention and tell my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that we pay very close attention. This is not a Republican executive committee. This is not a Democratic executive committee. This is not the Reform Party. This is not the Green Party. This is the U.S. House of Representatives, and I want the record to reflect in this time that we are making history in all the wrong places. We are allowing foreign countries to own a piece of the American apple pie who have never owned, at these numbers in the last 4 years, a piece of the American apple pie. The Republican majority is allowing it to happen, and it is unpatriotic for us to even think about being unpatriotic at a time such as this. We should be coming together as Republicans and the one Independent in this House and Democrats, and figuring out how do we work our way out of this. It will take a generation fiscally for us to work ourselves out of the deficit that has been put forth here today and has been led on by the Republican majority because it has been handed down by the Bush White House. Now, the President can invite as many Members of the House and the Senate to the White House for tea and coffee and cookies, but guess what, that is not going to cut it. That is not going to cut it. What is going to cut it is a Republican majority saying, you know something, enough is enough, let us put politics aside; let us make sure that Democrats are a part of a conference committee in a real discussion on a strategy of dealing with Iraq, dealing with education, dealing with how we are going to treat our veterans when they come home. They are going to be at the dining room table with their families, and we cannot be stuttering when they get back as it relates to our commitment to those individuals that has sand in their teeth and are away from their families 12 months, in some cases being extended beyond that another 6 months, to say that, oh, well, we had to up on your copayment because we promised that we will provide health care to you because we want to make sure we guarantee these tax cuts for these billionaires. Now, I think it is important and I think that we should get passionate and we should get emotional about what we should be doing versus talking back and forth at one another. We have to see it in black and white in the Congressional Record and legislation and resolutions that are passed here on this floor that are going to benefit those individuals in harm's way. If that is going to be the topic of the day, then let it be the topic of the day. Let us see resolutions that come to the floor from the Democratic side of the aisle about how do we deal with Iraq, with Republican input. Let us see if there is some sort of resolution outside of a bunch of words saying, well, you know, we feel that the war on terror, and you know, the President and people are doing good work, and you know, the indicators show what the indicators show. That is not policy. That is a speech for someone to go home and say you see, I voted for this because it said a lot of good things, but it did nothing. To say that we are passing this to send a message, well, guess what, that message is not penetrating the reality of this war, and it is important that we deal with it in a way that the American people and the troops know that we have their back 110 percent or reassure Americans that we have their back 110 percent by not shunting our policy responsibility. Right now we are punting. The Republican majority is punting because the White House does not want to do anything. Yet the White House, the White House says we listen to our military commanders. Can we bring our military commanders out. We have eight generals that are retired that have said that they do not agree with how the way things are going now, eight of them, eight generals, eight generals that are saying they do not know what is happening. They have questions on what is happening, eight generals. So many generals are saying I was there, these policies are not right, but no one wants to listen. I guess they are not patriots now. I guess these generals, they have a cowardly way about them because they disagree with the President and they disagree with the Republican majority. The thing about it is, in America someone should be able to say what they want to say, and there should not be any repercussions. I think, too, it is fighting in Iraq to try to bring some sort of democracy to Iraq. We are so much in the front seat, the Iraqi government cannot even get in the front seat because we have a policy that no one can figure out on the Republican side. So I guess we are not going to figure it out. Forget about what those Democrats are saying in the House and Senate, about how can we do it in a comprehensive way and pull it together. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, other coalition forces and other countries may come in and say now how are you going to deal with Iraq and have the Iraqi government take over security operations in Iraq, maybe we want to be part of it because we do not want to continue to go on with the plan of just saying let us just go on. I will use this analogy by saying this as I close, Mr. Speaker. To pass a resolution without true instruction on how we are going to deal with the issue in Iraq is almost like taking a carton of milk out of the refrigerator and opening it, saying, oh, it is sour, let me put it back in, it will be fresh tomorrow. It may be okay when the issue is a carton of milk, but it is not okay when we are dealing with the lives of the American troops that are in Iraq and in harm's way at this time. It is not the right policy, and it is not the right thing to do when we have got kids coming home from school saying is Daddy or Mama home yet. It is not the right policy as it relates to those individuals that are our generals and our commanders in Iraq that are looking for some policy direction from the Congress on what we feel because we are the representatives of the American people. It is not the right way to do things. So I am here to say, Mr. Speaker, we want to talk about what we are going to do. We know we have a new direction for America. We know we have a security policy on this side of the aisle. We know that we have a policy as it relates to innovation. We know that we have a policy as it relates to the fact that the minimum wage will be raised. It is not a question of we are not. It is going to be raised if we are in the majority. We have a promise to the American people of sending in a new direction on this side of the aisle, that if we get the control of this House of Representatives, that we will institute pay-as-we-go policies to make sure that we work towards balancing the budget, and you have a commitment on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, from the Democratic side of the aisle that if we become the majority, that this country will be working towards energy independence within 10 years, using alternative fuels and passing policy that will have motor companies building flex vehicles so that we no longer have to be dependent on the Middle East and that we can fund and support the Midwest as it relates to corn, as it relates to sugar cane, as it relates to other energy-related issues to make E-85 here in the United States of America. Maybe, just maybe, we will not be having the debate up here and resolutions of the House, spending a day and a half with speeches on a resolution that was written, handwritten by the Republican majority without not one word, not even an ``and,'' ``not,'' a ``but,'' not a comma, not a dot, by the Democratic side of the aisle and expect for us to come to the floor in a democracy and just say, okay, I will vote for it? You wrote it, so I will vote for it, even though there was no input. My only input is to come in here and press the red or green button. Because the way you wrote it is the way you want it. And I think the American people are going to stand up against that kind of policy. With that, I say for the Members to go on, if they want to get a copy of anything we talked about here today, to housedemocrats.gov/ 30something, that is housedemocrats.gov/30something. You can get everything, every chart that I showed here, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have this hour, and I want to thank my colleagues in the 30-something Working Group for all of their assistance and time that they have spent, and I would like to thank the staff. It was an honor addressing the House.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 861. Republicans aren't interested in debating or discussing the merits or conduct of the War in Iraq; they only want to play politics with it. Republicans wrote this resolution. Democrats were not consulted or allowed any input. Republicans then rigged the process and outlawed any amendments, so that the only real choice in voting was not yea or nay, but take it or leave it. There are serious issues we have to discuss that are being ignored. The war in Iraq has cost our country $320 billion so far--money we have had to borrow--and it will no doubt cost hundreds of billions more. It has cost the lives of 2,500 American service men and women and more than 18,300 have been wounded. The needs of our veterans are being shortchanged. Some of our troops are on their fourth deployment since 2001. Our military readiness is affected because we are wearing out both our equipment and our troops. And House Republicans are still pretending that the war against terror somehow has to be fought in the same basic way we fought in Korea and Vietnam. The American people deserve better than a sham resolution and a staged debate.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the more than three million Filipino-Americans and Filipino immigrants across the United States on the occasion of the 100th Anniversary of Filipino Migration to the United States. This is a significant milestone in the storied tradition of Filipinos in our Nation ever since the first fifteen farm workers, called sakadas, were recruited by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, arriving in Hawaii on December 20, 1906. They were to become the precursors to millions of other contract workers, who soon came to build America in the succeeding years. It was in 1919 that Filipino leader Pablo Manlapit organized the first labor union to demand higher wages and better working conditions for the farm workers of Hawaii. He was to be joined by other Asian farm workers, especially those coming from Japan. Though in 1920, some 12,000 farm workers from the sugar plantations were cruelly evicted and thrown out of work; their rugged determination and gritty character typified their conviction that America must live by its creed of equal opportunity and simple justice for all. The downtrodden and the disenfranchised--these defined the miserable conditions to which those first immigrants were mercilessly subjected. What better way to memorialize those hardy spirits than to invoke their courage under fire during this Centennial of their epic journey to self-hood and recognition. They came to forge a better life and contribute to the building of America in Hawaii's sugar cane and pineapple fields, in the canneries of Alaska, and throughout the verdant farm lands of California and other west coast States. In his stirring novel, America is in the Heart, Carlos Bulosan, the Filipino writer par excellence, described the first Filipino immigrants' abject exclusion from American society when he wrote: ``I know deep in my heart that I am an exile in America . . . I feel like a criminal running away from a crime I did not commit. And this crime is that I am a Filipino in America.'' Despite this inglorious past, their pioneering efforts and resilient spirit were drawn by their genuine belief in America's spirit of idealism as the land of opportunity and promise. I am confident that under the aegis of this Centennial, America will join Filipino-Americans in recognizing the untold sacrifices of the early Filipino migrants whose faith in God and whose work ethic sustained them in their ordeal. In converging this celebration with the indomitable spirit of those pioneers, we hope to be enlightened and enriched by the messages they wrote through their silent struggles to be recognized and appreciated. It is on this historic occasion that I congratulate the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), the Philippine-American Federation of South Florida (PhilAmFed) and other bona-fide groups for their steadfast efforts in sensitizing us to the contributions that Filipino immigrants gave and continue to give to buttressing America's stature as the envy of world today. Filipino-Americans in my District, and millions of others across this great Nation, may take heart in Mr. Bulosan's prophetic words: ``America is not a land of one race or one class of men. We are all Americans that have toiled and suffered and known oppression and defeat . . . America is not merely a land or an institution. America is in the hearts of men that died for freedom; it is also in the eyes of men that are building a new world. America is a warning to those who would try to falsify the ideals of free men. All of us, from the first Adams to the last Filipino, native born or alien, educated or illiterate--We are America!'' Indeed, this Centennial is a proud reminder of the nobility and quiet dignity of Filipino Americans whose predecessors migrated to America 100 years ago, paving the way for countless others.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform my colleagues about the passing of a great lady of Miami and an anchor of one of Miami's great families: the late Beatrice ``Bee'' Reeves. Her sudden passing last Saturday, June 10, 2006 has truly left a deep void in our midst. Mrs. Reeves represented the best and the noblest of our community. In her quiet but dignified way, she dedicated a major portion of her life to service in groups like the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, the Links, and the MRS Club, where she served as a past president. Her mission in life girded her belief that understanding of and compassion for the less fortunate defined her life-vocation as a gifted Christian and as a community leader who never sought the limelight. She also loved to play bridge, and she was a member of the Tuesday and Saturday bridge clubs. From the stories I have heard about her enthusiasm and skill, you definitely wanted to have Mrs. Reeves playing on your side. She was a multi-talented servant of the people, a civic activist, and an indefatigable community-builder, always thinking of others in her endeavors. The genuineness of her stewardship on behalf of our community was buttressed by her utmost consecration to her vocation as God's faithful servant, bringing hope and optimism to countless ordinary folks whose lives she touched so deeply, never holding anyone at arm's length. This remarkable lady was our community's friend and confidante. I am deeply saddened by her passing. She will indeed be an indelible reminder of the noble commitment and quiet power of friendship she extended to anyone who came to her for help and advice. Her faith was deep and genuine, and her love for our community evoked her dynamic friendship and thorough understanding of the struggles and travails we have had to endure throughout all the years. No one who knew her--and was struck by her sunny disposition and optimism--went away not acknowledging the presence of a caring and compassionate community leader. This Friday, June 16, 2006 a funeral mass will be celebrated at Miami's Episcopal Church of the Incarnation officiated by the Rev. Kenneth Major, her pastor and spiritual adviser. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to her husband, Mr. Garth Reeves, the publisher emeritus of The Miami Times; her sister Dorothy Burrows Baker; and her stepdaughters Rachel Reeves and Lynnette Richardson. I join the Miami-Dade community in celebrating her life and her friendship. She will carry on through the example she set and the wonderful thoughts and memories we all have of her. This is the wonderful legacy the late Beatrice ``Bee'' Reeves left behind.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a dear friend, Detective Theodore Floyd of the Indian River Sheriff's Department. As a former Florida Highway Patrolman myself, I have proudly worn the titles ``law enforcement officer'' and ``first responder.'' But Theodore Floyd is more than that, because he is truly a peace officer who takes a broader view of his responsibilities. On Saturday, June 17, 2006, at St. Peter's Missionary Baptist Church in Vero Beach, Florida, a service of appreciation will be held for Mr. Floyd, who has had a distinguished 15-year career in law enforcement with the Indian River Sheriff's Department. Detective Floyd recently implemented crime prevention strategies in communities throughout Indian River County. He has built strong relationships with community leaders and elected officials that have increased the security and safety of Indian River County residents. He has aided in rallying county government to improve living conditions for the County's less fortunate. Detective Floyd has previously been honored by many organizations over his long career. He has been recognized by the Daytona Beach and Volusia police departments, and has been named Pastoral Law Enforcement Man of the Year. Mr. Floyd is an active member of many community-based organizations, including the Progressive Civic League, the local NAACP, Habitat for Humanity, the Treasure Coast Business League, and the Gifford Activity Center, among many others. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Pastor's Association, Indian River County Sheriff Roy Raymond, Indian River County Commissioner Gary Wheeler and Vero Beach City Commissioner Bob Solari in honoring Detective Floyd for his incredible dedication and service, both on-duty and off. As a dear friend of Teddy's, I take pride in his distinguished career. As a public servant myself, I admire what he has been able to achieve.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Go ahead. Mr. Ryan is doing such an outstanding job.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will you yield, Mr. Delahunt?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, sir. The bottom line is that we have a Republican majority that rubber stamps everything that the administration hands to them. They can't even put the paper on the desk fast enough before they rubber stamp it. When you start talking about the fact that by the Constitution we are supposed to carry out oversight, that is not a value of the Republican majority. Oversight of what? No, see, they are too busy taking care of the special interests. You would think that some Members were more concerned with trying to make sure that special interests got what they needed because we do not want to forget the K Street Project where you pay to play and you get access into this Republican majority House. So, when you look at the rubber-stamping of what has happened here, I cannot help but have this stamp here because that is how we got here, but what is very, very unfortunate is the fact that we have ourselves in a situation, in a fiscal situation that is going to take a generation almost to recover from. We have ourselves in a situation in Iraq we do not know how many years it may take for us to recover from that, and I am using the President's words now. We have ourselves in a situation where the White House now, Mr. Speaker, wants to invite Members over to have tea and cookies right now and trying to be nicey-nice, to say we want to hear from you now; but we have men and women caught in the crossfire and we have millions and billions of dollars that have been wasted and stolen in Iraq. I am going to say stolen because of the rubber-stamp Republican majority. Anything that the administration sends down, how can we rubber-stamp it? Matter of fact, I think the Republican majority walks around with a little mini rubber stamp in their pocket, saying oversight: this is the way you want it and how you want it. The American people HAVE to send a very strong message to this Republican majority here in the Congress that we have three branches of government for a reason, not two branches of government that deals with legislation and policy, but three branches. We have the judicial branch that is separate and aside, but when you look at the legislative branch we are supposed to carry out oversight. Only a couple of Members of the Republican majority actually gets that and tries to practice it, but they are in a superminority. And so the reason why we come to the floor is to shed light on the lack of oversight. When it was a Democratic House and a Democratic White House, there was oversight. Call Bill Clinton up and ask him. I think we know that. Republican majority, the reason why you are going to see people around here scratching and fighting and begging and trying to do anything and throwing out the sods and trying to get press releases out, because the White House is very, very concerned that they will no longer be able to send legislation to the U.S. House of Representatives and that it passes through committees that may have a half a meeting on it and come to the floor, not allowing Democrats to do anything to improve the legislation because they are too busy rubber-stamping the process, and it will disrupt that. It is all about power and influence, and I can tell you right now, the Republican majority has gone too far with this because that is the reason why we are in the situation we are in now, and they are known. They have to shake it and they know it and they deserve the rubber stamp because that is what they have been doing since the President has been in the White House. I am coming to Ms. Jackson-Lee. I just want to give you a perfect example of what happens in a rubber-stamp Congress. Exhibit A, how can you borrow, Mr. Speaker, $1.05 trillion in 4 years? I do not even know how that can be achieved in 4 years. The Republican majority has handed President Bush, he cannot do it on his own, we have the Republican Congress right under him from 2001 to 2005, $1.05 trillion, now here is the other kicker, that comes in, and with interest. Forty-two Presidents, 224 years, 224 years, 42 Presidents, were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case on that. I rest my case on the fact that the Republican majority has given the Bush White House everything they wanted on the backs of the American people. The special interests got what they wanted. The billionaires got what they wanted.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is just the foreign debt. This is countries that we have borrowed money from and now we owe them. Now, I am going to be quiet for a minute, but I just want to make this one last point and it is going to be 30 seconds. Ms. Jackson-Lee, if I borrowed $100 from you, and let us say I still have not paid you back, our relationship will change. Matter of fact, your respect for me as an individual to be able to handle my own finances will be altered. Even though we are considered friends, our relationship is forever changed. Now, for the first time in the history of the Republic, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republican majority has countries like China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Korea, the Caribbean nations, Taiwan, Canada, Germany and the OPEC nations looking at us in a different way, in an unprecedented way. The fact that, man, how can y'all tell me what to do on foreign policy and how can y'all point your finger to me as it relates to war on terror when you cannot even handle your own finances? That is not the American people. That is the Republican rubber-stamp majority. They have allowed this President to run this country into a fiscal nightmare. So I close with that by saying, Mr. Delahunt, for you to say the generals are coming out, they are coming out because the American spirit is coming out of the chest of Americans that have put themselves in harm's way, because this administration and this Congress asked them to put themselves in harm's way.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I would like the Members, Mr. Speaker, to go to housedemocrats.gov, housedemocrats.gov, which has a new direction for America that the Democratic Caucus unveiled this week to let people know exactly what we are going to do. Real security. We are going to implement all of the 9/11 recommendations to secure this country, our ports and our airports, and make sure that we have hometown and front-line security, so local law enforcement officers and law enforcement agencies don't have to rub two pennies together to make sure they can secure their communities, which are our front line here in America. Also, we plan to bring about affordable health care along the lines of not only prescription drugs but also making sure that there is a health care system that can work for the private sector, the public sector, GM, and all of those companies that are having issues, including the Federal Government. Good paying jobs. We will raise the minimum wage. That is not a question, that is a fact. That will happen, and it will pass this House of Representatives here when Democrats get in control of this House. Affordable college education. We will reverse what the Republican Congress has done as relates to increasing student tuitions by $2,000, which has gone up 57 percent at public universities and in private universities about 32 percent; and also making sure that they have tax deductions for college opportunities. We will energize America by having flex vehicles and energy independence within 10 years. That is not something, oh, well, maybe; we are thinking about it. No, we are doing that. That is under the new direction that Mr. Ryan was talking about. And also making sure that people can retire in a dignified way and not privatize Social Security. And that is what that is about, and it goes on and on and on. So I encourage the Members to go on housedemocrats.gov. And if individuals want to talk about a plan, you can see a plan right there. And we have Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Delahunt, and the rest of the Members of the 30-something Working Group, the will and the desire to carry out the plan, not just talking about it. We said we had the will and the desire to balance the budget, and we balanced the budget. Period, dot. And the other thing I just wanted to add real quick, Ms. Jackson-Lee, it is almost like you see a cliff, okay? You see a cliff. Now, the goal is to stop before you go over the cliff, not to go half speed. Republicans are talking about cutting it in half. Cutting the deficit in half is not going to get us to where we want to be. You want to stop before you go over the cliff and they are going half speed. So eventually they are going over the cliff. I feel in a fiscal way we have gone over the cliff, and we are saying we want to take America in a new direction. We have the resume for action and for fiscal discipline in this country and passing policies that will help the rich, those that are middle class, the poor, and making sure that businesses can prosper in this society. We have shown it during the Clinton years. Everyone was making money, everyone had hope, and everyone knew that the Congress and the White House had the will and the desire to put forth policies that would help the American people. I yield to Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman will yield for just 30 seconds, I have to tell you about the committee I was in today, Mr. Speaker. I leaned over to one of my Republican colleagues, who I respect and who will go unnamed. And I said, you can do something good. Because it was one of those votes that you know Democrats vote one way and Republicans vote the other way and what have you. And I said, you can do something good by voting ``yes'' for this amendment. And she said, well, a million here and a million there, that adds up eventually, Kendrick. I said, you are telling me? I said, believe me, your caucus and your leadership have found a way to borrow as much as you can borrow, and then when you ran out of borrowing where you could domestically, you went over and borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign nations that some of us have questions about. So you are telling me we know how to spend? You all have broken a record. You have made history in 4 years. So when you look at it, it is sad, Mr. Speaker, that we can come to the floor with fact and not fiction. Some folks come to the floor with rhetoric and you can see right through it: Like, what is this guy talking about here on the floor? How could he possibly say that? That is not true. But, guess what, what we are talking about is true, unfortunately, because of the bad policies. And that is the reason why we are saying, Ms. Jackson-Lee, that we want to head in a new direction and we want the American people, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, to know that, A, we have got the will and we have the desire to lead in that direction. And it will happen. It is not like, well, we may get around to it. We are going to do it, whether the White House wants to do it or not. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. With that, Mr. Speaker, we would like to not only thank the Democratic Caucus but also thank Members of the House for allowing us to come to the floor to address the House one more time.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again it is an honor to address the House. The 30-Something Working Group is back again to share with the Members what we have been working on the last week and not only coming up with new ideas for America but making sure that we package the ideas that are clogged up in this process here from moving onto the statute books of the United States laws to allow Americans to live a better life and to also put forth policy that will benefit those that are overseas fighting on behalf of this country and what we have asked them to do. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about fiscal responsibility. We have talked a lot about the lack of health care in the United States of America. We feel we have proposals that are on the table, ready to be considered if the Republican majority would allow it to be considered. Unfortunately, that has not happened. There has been a lot of discussion on the floor about Iraq, but there has also been a plan that was unveiled in the last few days to share not only with the American people but with the full House that if we can't work together in passing legislation in a bipartisan way that is going to help all Americans, not just Republicans, not just Democrats, not just independents, not just individuals that are wealthy, not just individuals that are poor, not just individuals that are making a way out of no way, to help all Americans so that we can move forth and we can find ourselves in a better situation than what we are in now, then we are willing to take the mantle and to have an opportunity to be the majority in this House. We have the will and the desire to lead in the areas that we need to lead in. And we have this plan on housedemocrats.gov on the Internet for individuals to go on and take a look at what we are talking about as House Democrats. When we have the opportunity to put forth this plan, if the American people see fit that that should happen, which I believe they will, hopefully they will, because the situation that we are in right now is dismal and presents a very, very challenging future for our children and for our grandchildren, because so many issues are facing this country in unprecedented ways. I think it is important that you take a good look at that. That's housedemocrats.gov. In that plan which was unveiled by Leader Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the Democratic Caucus this week, we talked about making health care more affordable for Americans. This is a major issue, Mr. Speaker, not only for individuals that work on jobs, work for individuals but individuals that are providing jobs. They cannot continue to take on this health care burden without a true plan, a true leadership from the Federal Government. States can't do it alone. Local communities can't do it alone. We are going to have to do it in a way that is going to benefit the people and not the special interests. I think where we are right now, Mr. Speaker, is that the majority here in this House has benefited the special interests as it relates to health care. I think the American people and small business men and women are yearning for some leadership right now. Also, when we look at lower gas prices to achieve energy independence, this is something that is very, very important. We have pieces of legislation out there that promotes alternative fuels, to see more of E85 so that we can have flex vehicles that are out there, and it is a part of our innovation plan. Again, going on housedemocrats.gov, you can download this information, share it with your friends, with your family, and other Members can take it to their staffs and say, we want to implement this. But, of course, that is not going to happen under the Republican-controlled House of Representatives because I don't think the will and the desire is there to really have true innovation in alternative fuels. The other thing I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important, a part of our innovation plan that is also endorsed in comments by CEOs in this country, not just Democratic CEOs, independents, individuals who just lost faith in voting that are a part of major companies that are saying that the House Democratic plan, which will hopefully be a bipartisan plan once we are able to take control of this House with the help of the American people because of what is not happening here on behalf of the American people in innovation, they want us to be first in mathematics and science; they want us to be first as it relates to broadband access throughout this country; and they want us to be first in taking the lead and making sure that we push for energy independence in 10 years and develop that and make sure that we promote that through our legislation and through our appropriation. Not just giving dollars to the oil companies and saying, go ahead, we trust you, you do what you wish to do with the taxpayers' money while you continue to make record profits on the backs of the American people and we pay higher gas prices, and we are stuck in neutral with the engine running as it relates to true innovation. I am not finished with our rollout, but I just want to point this out since I am mentioning profits. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have read an article time after time again about the secret meeting at the White House in 2001 of the energy task force, that we know now that that task force meeting has worked in the best way for the oil companies and in the worst way for the American people. Again, I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but I just want to say that we have third-party validators that are here. My staff just handed me this and I think it is important that I read this off: White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document obtained this week, November of 2005, the Washington Post, shows that officials from ExxonMobil, Phillips, Shell Oil Company and BP met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. I am saying that, and I just want to point this out, Mr. Delahunt, and I am going to flip it over to you, sir. 2002, it is not a coincidence that profits were up. Profits is not a dirty word but when you have profits and, quote-unquote, price gouging and the American people putting $10 in their tank at a time.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. And corporate welfare, you can't help but put this together. $34 billion in profits for Big Oil, 2002. 2003, $59 billion in profits. Looks pretty good. I think that meeting was worth going to. 2004, $84 billion. This meeting is now something that will be placed in the annals of oil industry that this should happen prior to major profits coming on. Then, on 2005, $113 billion. This will continue to climb because the Republican majority doesn't have the will nor the desire to fight on behalf of the American people as it relates to energy, and the White House has shown that it has the will and the desire to allow special interests to come into the White House, write policy, and then come to the Hill and fight for that policy so that the oil companies can see this. Meanwhile, the American people are paying more for oil and for energy. Then the individuals from the oil company have the audacity, and I am not going to blame them, because I think it is important that we put the blame where it should be. They don't have a Congressional voting card to vote for a policy to allow these prices to go up like this or profits to go up like this. It takes Members of Congress to do that, and I must say that I am proud to announce that a number, a supermajority of Democrats voted against this philosophy of oil companies having the opportunity on the backs of the American taxpayers, having their hand in the taxpayers' pocket and then, grabbing their wallet out of the other hand, they spend their money for necessities. We are giving the taxpayers' money out in subsidies, but at the same time the oil companies are winning both ways, at the pump and with the tax dollars that the American Congress has appropriated. That is a fact, that is not fiction, and it is sad that it is a fact. Mr. Delahunt, I am sorry, sir, for having you standing by so long.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor being before the House once again. As you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor as often as possible to not only share with the Members what is going on as it relates to legislation here in Washington, D.C., but also what is not going on on behalf of the American people. And hopefully we can put forth ideas and extending the arm to work in a bipartisan way on behalf of the American people. So we are glad to come to the floor week after week. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Democratic Leader for allowing us to have this hour, and also our Democratic Whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, and Mr. James Clyburn, who is our chairman of our Democratic Caucus, and Mr. Larson, who is our vice- chair. I think it is important that we come to the floor to share a unified message from this side, that we are willing and able. We have the will and the desire to work on behalf of the American people in general. Not just Democrats, not just Republicans or independents, but the American people in general, to make sure the people of good will prevail in their everyday lives. If they are a veteran, if they are an individual that has fallen on hard times, if they run a small business in this country, if they have a mid-sized business that they want to turn into a big business, we want to be able to be of some assistance as it relates to legislating here on behalf of the American people. Also, I think it is important that we do not leave our children behind. Even though they cannot vote, many of them are under the age of 18 years old, not eligible to vote, I think it is important that we stand for them. There are a number of things that I am going to try to touch on today, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we can cover all of, just about all of what is happening and what is not happening here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I took the time when we were on break last week to really look closely at some of the comparisons, because when you are trying to figure out what is happening to the issues that we all came to Washington to work so hard on, you have to compare, it is almost like you have to have, Mr. Speaker, a side-by-side what we call it here in Washington, D.C. to compare. It is almost like for someone who goes to the grocery store to buy an orange, I am from Florida, nine times out of ten, you are going to pick up those two oranges if they are from two different orange groves and kind of compare, to see if it is an orange. You are not going to grab an apple and grab an orange and start saying, well, which one looks like an orange. But I must say here in Washington, D.C., it is almost like an orange and an apple experience, because we are so far apart as it relates to working together on many of these issues that are facing our constituents back home, and the American men and women that are overseas fighting on our behalf. Mr. Speaker, I looked at the issue of fiscal responsibility, and I could not help but notice, within the House GOP budget, that the budget calls for deficits as far as the eye can see, never achieving a balance. And adding another $2.3 trillion to the national debt over 5 years, compared to the Democratic alternative and the Democratic philosophy, if we can work in a bipartisan way to be able to balance this budget, balance the budget over the next 5 years, making sure that we can balance it over the next 6 years on a pay-as-you-go philosophy. Mr. Speaker, I will talk a little bit about that as I continue to go down this chart. We believe that we can balance this budget because we have done it before, unlike the Republican conference or the Republican side of the House which has not. There was a surplus when the Republicans took control of this House or when the President went into office and President Bush went into office. Now we are into record deficits, and I think it is important that we point this out. And I have charts to be able to break that down for the Members. I think it is also important to think about making America safer here at home. I looked at the Republican budget, and I could not help but notice that it made homeland security cuts by $488 million this year, and it is up to $6.1 billion over the next 5 years of cuts to homeland security. And it is not much better than the President's budget that came out of this House. It estimated that port security grants and rail transit security grants will all be rolled into a smaller program. And I think that that is something that is going to hurt a lot of local communities. On the Democratic side in our budget and our motion to recommit of our philosophy as it relates to what we should be doing by the homeland is to provide $6.5 billion more over the next 5 years for homeland security here by guaranteeing funding for border security, port security, and first responders which are so important to so many counties and local governments that are out there on the frontline that have to respond to the American people in their time of need. Adequate funding for veterans. This is another point, Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate a little bit more during this hour of the facts. Like we always say during the 30-something Working Group, this is not what we came up with. These are the facts and they are backed up by the Congressional Record or either a very credible third-party validator. We start looking at that and we look at the Republican budget that passed off this floor. It cuts funding to veterans health care by $6 billion over the next 5 years. The Democratic alternative budget provides $8.6 billion more over the next 5 years for veterans health care. Then there is the GOP budget. It also rejects an increase in TRICARE, which is a health care program for veterans for more than 3 million military retirees and their families. These are increased costs that the Republican budget has put on them, and I am going to talk about that a little further. It targets, as it relates to tax cuts for the middle class, the Republican budget follows the President's budget. That goes back to the rubber-stamp Congress, the rubber-stamp Republican Congress that I talked so much about, Mr. Speaker, and it also happens to be a reality. When you look at this issue, you have to look at it from the standpoint of the President's budget which provides $2.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years targeted for the very wealthiest Americans, the wealthiest taxpayers versus the Democratic alternative that provides $105 billion for the middle class tax relief such as child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and the 10 percent individual bracket. I think it is also important for me to point out here as it relates to the issue of college, making college more affordable, and I had to look at this part of the budget and this is another area, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to talk a little bit more about because we have so many people and some middle-aged people. In America, we do know that we have some Americans that do not go from high school straight into college because they have to, nine times out of ten, get a job to be able to build up the money to go to college, to be able to maybe take care of a family member that is up in age and they need that kind of assistance. Or they cannot go off to college or they have to go to a community college before they can go to a 4-year institution. Everyone does not have a turn-key life. So we have to look at policy that is going to be able to help all Americans, not just some. When we look at the Republican majority budget, what it had in it, this is straight from the budget, this is not anything that I have put together to have some sort of lean towards making our proposals look better than the Republican majority. These are just the facts here in the House. When you look at it, it is identical. Once again, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important, the reason why I have this rubber stamp back here, that I will proudly bring out in just a few moments, is the fact that the President hands down what he would like to, the policies that he would like to have here in this Congress, he would like for us to rubber-stamp. And the Republican majority honors him in rubber-stamping exactly the way it was written. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, in America, in the people's House, the only House that you have to be elected to, that you cannot be appointed to, over in the Senate you can be appointed by a Governor, that the people should have an opportunity to be heard. Once again, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just Independents, not just folks who vote, but the American people should be represented. And for them to be represented appropriately, I think it is important that we have the kind of conversation and dialogue here that is going to benefit all Americans. And in this case it is identical to the President's budget. It freezes Pell Grants for colleges and denies more than 460,000 students low-cost loans. This also is on the top of $12 billion cuts in the student loan funding that Republicans just enacted. It is already there. So what we are trying to do is, I believe, to turn that around. And I am going to talk about legislation that we have to turn that around. But as it relates to our alternative budget, it rejects the GOP cuts and higher education programs. It also lowers the costs of student loans by cutting the interest rate per student loan in the fall of 2007. I think that is important. There are a lot of folks that are sending their kids off to college right now. There are a lot of folks that are writing letters for just $1,000 scholarships for local organizations because the costs of college have gone up. When we make these cuts here in Washington, DC, the State government has to make their cuts to the students and to the families that live down in those States, and I think it is important that we look at this. And I will talk about that a little further, explaining educational opportunities. I think it is important when you look at this part of the budget, identical to the Bush budget, well, that seems to be a common theme here, which underfunds No Child Left Behind by 39 percent, denies extra math and reading help to 3.7 million children and shutting 2 million children out of after-school programs. On the Democratic side, our alternative provides 4.6 billion more dollars in 2007 and $35.3 billion over the next 5 years for education and training programs, more than the GOP budget. I think this is important for families and parents like myself who know what it means that when your kids go to school you have to pay for aftercare. And nine times out of ten that aftercare is like $150 to sometimes $200 a week. Some of you parents know what I am talking about. Unfortunately, Members of the Republican side of this House do not understand what you are talking about and opt to invest $87,000 in tax cuts to millionaires. So I think it is important that we look at this as it relates to a comparison. One other thing that I think is important and justified here in this case, Mr. Speaker, that we roll right into what this means as it relates to the dollars and cents before we get into some of the policy issues that are called out here. We can get right down to the nitty-gritty by saying over the last 5 years President Bush and also the Republican majority here came in and had a projected surplus in the next 10 years when the President took office of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion; and that has now turned into a $3.3 trillion deficit. Now, it would be kind of hard to say, well, the Democrats took us down that line and they made us do this and they made us do that. I can tell you that is not true. That is not true. We have tried to substitute a number of policies that would save this country in the future and would save our future for our children so they are not paying exorbitant tax and fees that this Republican Congress has put on them and have put on the American people. It affects everything. It affects Social Security. It affects education. It affects our way of being able to come up with alternative fuels. It affects the way our troops are treated when they come back. It affects our veterans. It affects everyday families. The decisions that are made here on this floor as it relates to the budget and as it relates to the spending affects everyone, all Americans. It affects everyone that depends on this government to govern, not to follow, not to rubber-stamp but to govern. And, Mr. Speaker, I think that is very, very important. When you look at the tax bill that, obviously, the President wanted and the Republican majority rubber-stamped, I think it is important that you look at the fact that we have now mortgaged our children's future. The Republicans have passed this tax cut which has sunken us deeper, $80 billion deeper into debt over the next 10 years and will benefit the few, the wealthy. I think it is also important for us to understand that we have to have fiscal discipline. Let's just talk a little bit about that because I want to make sure that everyone understands what we are talking about here. Well, here is a chart again, Mr. Speaker. It is so self-explanatory. We just continue to use it and use it and use it. The unfortunate part, Mr. Speaker, is that the numbers will change soon. It will not change in the way of saying we are doing better. No, it will change in that we are doing worse. When I say ``we,'' I am saying led by the Republican majority here in the House. Two hundred twenty-four years, $1.01 trillion borrowed from foreign nations since the President has been President, President Bush and the Republican majority has been in control. Over the last 4 years, 2001 to 2005, President Bush and the Republican Congress, that is under his picture, have borrowed $1.05 trillion. I do not care, there is no way you can explain how this is good. No Member, need it be Republican, the one Independent or Democrat on this floor, can explain how this can be good for the American people. Now, time after time I have asked for an explanation from Republicans during their time when they are on the floor to explain this. All I hear is cricket sounds. I look down the hall, no one is there. I am wondering where the fiscal conservatives in this House are as it relates to the Republican majority. I wonder where the leadership is as it relates to being able to turn this around. There has been, Mr. Speaker, no attempt and I mean no documented attempt to be able to turn this around. This is unprecedented, the first time in the history of the country. Now, this is not the first time in this century or the first time in the last 20 years or the first time in the last 200 years. This is the first time in the history of the Republic that any Congress and any President has borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign nations. The first time. The first time. I mean, it is not like, well, this happened a couple years ago. No. The first time in the history of this country. Should you be alarmed? You doggone right you should be alarmed. Forty-two Presidents could not do it; 224 years of a country with all of its challenges could not do it. But when you get President Bush in the White House and you get a rubber-stamp Republican majority here in the House of Representatives, they can do it. Unfortunately, if we continue with the same team that we have leading in this House and in the White House, this is going to continue to grow. And it is going to be very, very unfortunate because countries are going to start to disrespect this country because we do not have, not ``we,'' the Republican majority here in this House does not have the ability to govern and to govern in a way that it should following the President, unfortunately, on this issue where we could show clearly that this is not a winner. Did this chart come from the Democratic Caucus? I think not. These numbers came from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. So you can get on whatever Web site you want to get on and you can find this. You can definitely find it on www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. All of these charts will be there. I suggest you download the chart and print it and show it to your friends because they need to know. What does it mean when I say folks start to disrespect this country? We get Members coming in this chamber and people giving speeches throughout the country, burning all kinds of Federal jet fuel, talking about terror, talking about what you should be scared of. I can tell you right now, we need to be dealing with terror and we need to be dealing with it in a smart way and protect the homeland, and that is not happening right now. Take it from me, I am the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, and I can tell you, it is not happening right now. We have not issued one subpoena to be able to rein in individuals that are stealing from this government, contractors and individuals within the department, that is allowing it to happen. That is another Special Order that I will not get into right now. But if you want to talk about disrespecting the United States of America, this is not something that is foreign born or someone that released an audiotape or a videotape here. This is what happened right here on the floor. The borrowing that I talked about over the last 4 years, how did it happen? Japan, $882.8 billion, bought our debt. Japan did not say, hey, we want y'all to overspend; we want you to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires; we want you to do things that you cannot afford to do just because you can. Japan did not say, well, just because the President said we should do it that you should rubber stamp it. No, that is what the Republican Congress did, and we do need a change and we need alternatives. We have talked about those alternatives. China, $249.8 billion, they bought our debt, China, red China, Communist China. The U.K., want to talk about our ally and friend, yeah, they are our friends all right. They bought $223.2 billion of our debt. We did have the prime minister here. He addressed a joint session. I did not hear him, and I was reading his speech as he was up here, Mr. Speaker, giving his speech. He did not say, hey, keep spending in an irresponsible way so we can buy your debt and own a piece of the American apple pie. He did not say that, but the Republican Congress continues to rubber stamp President's Bush's policies to say that we are being fiscally responsible, meanwhile there is $1.05 trillion that we borrowed from foreign nations. Caribbean countries, $115.3 billion, bought our debt. Taiwan, $71.3 billion, little Taiwan. They are even in the game of getting part of this American apple pie. With the Republican Congress giving it away, they are willing to buy it up. Guess who we owe? We owe every last one of these countries that I have ripped off this chart so far. Canada, just north of us, $53.8 billion; Korea, $66.5 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion. OPEC Nations, well, you know, Mr. Speaker, OPEC Nations, who are they? Oil producing countries whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, you name it, these countries are in this OPEC Nation, and they are even in the game of buying a piece of the American apple pie at $67.8 billion. Well, I have this kind of flag here that is kind of draped over the United States of America, and I said we want to get back there, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the Members to do one of two things. One, work in a bipartisan way and pick up pay-as-you-go policies, as we have talked about and have put on this floor here in this House time after time again and saying that if you are going to give $1 billion to a contractor to do whatever he wants to do with it, without any little oversight, then doggone it, you better figure out how you are going to pay for it. If you are going to give tax cuts to folks who are not asking for them, you better show how you are going to pay for it, not just saying we will borrow from these foreign nations. We continue to borrow because we can borrow and make history in 4 years that was not accomplished in over 224 years. No, we are going to make history. The Republican majority is going to make history in 4 years at $1.05 trillion. That is a lot of money with a big T. 224 years, $1.01 trillion. Forty-two Presidents could not even muster up that. If you want to get back to a balanced budget that I talked about earlier, that I am going to continue to pound on, then have a Democratic majority or work in a bipartisan way, one of the two. I have more faith in the fact of the Democratic majority getting the job done than the Republicans allowing us to work in a bipartisan way towards having a balanced budget. You want to talk about partisanship, partisanship over the budget is at the highest level that it could be, because you have one side with the will and the desire to balance the budget, and you have the other side, Republican majority, that says they want to balance the budget but do not have the will and the desire to do it. That is the side-by- side on that. You have to have the will and the desire to do it. I cannot go to my daughter and say, Lauren, I want you to go out and play softball. Well, she may not have the will and the desire to play softball, but just because I have the will and desire does not necessarily mean that she has to have it. Well, guess what, on this side of the ball, we have the will and the desire to balance the budget. Not only do we have the will and the desire, history is on our side. History is on our side because we balanced the budget. We actually did it. The Democratic House did it without one Republican vote, not one. Maybe I could say maybe two, three, four--not one Republican vote. We balanced the budget and put this country in surplus. We could have dealt with Social Security, could have took it beyond the time it is supposed to have issues, could have made sure that veterans did not have to pay copayments, could have made sure that we could have been ahead as it relates, not to below the 39 percent in funding Leave No Child Behind, could have provided more tax cuts for the middle class. It is what it is. And I would tell you, if folks want to get back to a balanced budget and not have these countries, in all due respect, in our pocket--these countries have their hand in our pocket, not because of the folks that are running around here trying to make a living every day. It is because of the Republican majority, what they have done. OPEC Nations got their hands straight in our pocket. Germany has their hand in our pocket at $6.7 billion, the U.S. taxpayers pocket. Korea $66.5 billion, they have their hands in our pocket. Taiwan, $71.3 billion, have their hands in our pocket. Canada, $53.8 billion, have their hands in the American taxpayers' pocket. Caribbean countries, $115.3 billion, have their hands in the American taxpayers' pocket. The U.K., $223.2 billion, have their hands in the American taxpayers' pocket. And China have a hand-and-a-half in the American taxpayers' pocket and reaching for their credit card while they are at it at $249.8 billion. Japan has just outright snatched the wallet out of the back of the taxpayers pocket and grabbed someone's pocketbook and have their hand in the pocket of the U.S. taxpayers at $682.8 billion. Not because the American people went out there and said let us make sure that we spend money that we do not have and let us make records in 4 years in borrowing money from foreign nations. The Republican majority, they have rubber stamped the Bush administration policy and here we are. So what do we do? What we do is we make changes, and what we have tried to do on this side is do exactly that. It would be hard for me, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Republican Conference to come to this floor and speak with a straight face about the issue on the budget. I do not know. I would have to go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and practice because it would be hard for me to keep a straight face when I come to the floor to talk about the fact that I am a fiscal conservative and I care about the budget and responsible spending and making sure that we do not overspend and we are not like the others, we do not spend. Well, let me tell you something. The congressional record says that you spend. The American people are noticing that you spend and borrow, and spend and borrow, and spend, and when you cannot borrow anymore, you go to foreign Nations and you borrow. Well, this is what we have tried to do. Mr. Spratt's substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 95, 2006 budget resolution, failed, 228 Republican votes against it. Not one voted for it. This is pay-as-you-go. Once again, if you are going to spend $1 million, where are you going to get the $1 million from? That is all we ask. It was identified, and this opportunity for the Republican majority to vote for fiscal opportunity, no. They said no. Mr. Spratt again, amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393, 2005 budget resolution, failed. Republicans, 224 voted no. Zero voted for it. Reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of when we balanced the budget, zero. It is almost like the old saying, put your money where your mouth is. Well, put your vote where your mouth is. That is what I am saying and that is what the American people are going to say hopefully in November. Bottom line is folks can come to the floor, we can have these big floor debates and come close to making each other mad, but in the final analysis, when the budget is printed and the deficit continues to go up, the fact is is that the Democrats are for fiscal responsibility and the Republican majority, rubber stamping President Bush's policy, is for continuing to borrow from foreign Nations and putting them in the pockets of the American people. Now, I think it is important that we continue to talk about this issue as it relates to veterans. Veterans of all people, despite the serious problem in military recruiting, the President's budget will increase health care costs and deny health care for millions of veterans and military retirees. I think it is important that we look at these increases that have happened for a million veterans for the fourth year in a row, the budget rises, health care costs for 1 million veterans, by imposing new fees. For most of them, veterans' cost will rise some $2.6 billion over the next 5 years and also drive at least 200,000 veterans out of assistance. It will double the copayments for prescription drugs from $8 to $15 and impose an enrollment fee of $250 a year for a Category 7 or 8 veteran, who makes very little, makes $26,000 a year. I think it is also important for us to look at the increases in health care costs for military retirees. The budget increased TRICARE health care premiums, which is the health care provided to the military for $3.1 million, for the Nation's military retirees under 65. I think it is important that we look at these premiums and look at what they are costing the folks that signed up to defend this country and allow us to salute one flag. I think it is also important for us to look at what we are talking about on this side of the aisle Mr. Speaker. The GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that has been offered here on the Democratic side will just do the reverse as it relates to what I just mentioned. It makes health care accessible and affordable for our veterans and improves veterans' health care. It improves mental health for returning soldiers. A number of the IEDs, improvised explosive devices, I think is going to affect a number of our troops, those that have fallen victim to it and survived, injured, those that have witnessed IEDs going off, those that have to worry every day when they drive down one of the streets in Iraq, will they be hit by an IED. Some of that stuff is going to come back home, and it is home, and we need to be able to deal with it on a psychological standpoint because it affects many of our families. These are individuals that have signed up and said they wanted to serve our country, and they are serving. It also blocks the increase in prescription drug copayments and the enrollment fee for veterans. I think it is important that we do that. And on this side of the aisle, we have that legislation that has been put forth through our frustration of the fact that we can't work in a bipartisan way. The only way we can work in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, is if the Republican leadership allows bipartisanship to work in the House. Now, how does that happen? Well, when you have a conference committee, how about inviting the Democratic members to that conference committee, or at least letting us know where the meeting is? We have day after day, especially this time of year, when we have a number of pieces of legislation stacked up on top of one another. And I just want to make sure that I break this down so everyone understands. When we pass a bill here in the House, and the Senate passes a similar bill, they have what they call a conference committee, and that conference committee sits down and works out the differences between those bills. Well, that is not a common thing here in the House. Yes, it would be a majority of Republicans that will be on that conference committee, but there are some Democrats on that conference committee. And we have a number of Democrats, when the meeting is set and the decision is made, that are not even told about it. That is not working in a bipartisan way, and that is why our Democratic leader has said that when Democrats take control of this House, we will work in a bipartisan way and we will make sure that the American people are represented. If they have a Republican representing them here, then they will be represented. Because, guess what? It will not be a stonewall. It will be a democracy in the way that we are supposed to carry out business here in this House, of making sure that everyone benefits. That is true bipartisanship. It also provides benefits to veterans who have earned and deserve respect. It ends the disability veterans tax. It reduces waiting time on disability claimants and also expands outreach to veterans. Now, this is very, very important. We are talking about individuals coming back and moving back into their community, going to church or synagogue, or what have you, to mosque, what have you, and when they come back home to their families, we are saying that we want a government, and the Department of Veterans Affairs that will work with that veteran, will work with that family in making sure that because they signed up, he or she signed up to go out on behalf of this country and fight on behalf of this country, that we have their back. That is the least that we can do. That is what this GI Bill of Rights of the 21st Century will do, and I would urge the Members to go on Housedemocrats.gov and get a copy of that piece of legislation so that you can take a look at it and hopefully endorse it and hopefully help us pass it. We will need that very much. I said I would talk about the student loans, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important. We have a piece of legislation, and when I say ``we,'' the Democratic side, we have a piece of legislation that reverses what the Republican majority has done with the endorsement of the Bush administration. Of course, whatever the President wants, the Republican majority in this House will give it to him. Earlier this year, the Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student loan program in order to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. I think it is also important that most of the savings generated from the cuts to student loans continues the practice of forcing students and parents to borrow, in many cases to pay for the expensive increase in the rates as relates to student loans. By increasing college loans, parents have to go out and borrow. Well, now, the Republican majority is pushing their philosophy on the American people. Because the Republican majority has decided to take away from the student aid and student loan program to give special interest tax breaks to wealthy individuals here in the United States of America, the American people are now forced to go to the credit union. They are forced to put their house up even a little bit more to pay for college because this majority, coupled with the President's policies, has done this. We are going to reverse that. We are going to reduce and replenish the dollars that were taken out of the budget and were placed in special interest projects that the Republican majority did, and it is called Reversing the Raid on Student Aid Act. It is H.R. 5150. It would help make college more affordable. It would cut interest rates in half as relates to the borrowers, those that are borrowing money; and also it would subsidize student loans from a fixed rate of 6.8 to a fixed rate of 3.4. It also cuts the rates on parent loans for undergraduate students from a fixed rate of 8.5 to a fixed rate of 4.25. I think it is important for us to look at those numbers, because that is a drastic cut, taking us back to families being able to afford to send their kids to college. Under the bill, a typical undergraduate student has something like $17,500 in debt and would save $5,600 over the life of his or her loan. I think it is important for us to look at that, Mr. Speaker. And that is the complete opposite of what has been put forth thus far. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to look at the issue on energy, but I wanted to make sure I went through my list here that I said I would go through. We talked about fiscal responsibility, we have talked about veterans, we have also talked about making college more affordable; and, yes, Mr. Speaker, we are on the issue of energy. I think when you start looking at energy, you can't look at investing in the Middle East. We want to invest in the Midwest. When we invest in the Midwest, it is investing in America and not just investing in special interests. The Republican majority way of doing things, and also the Bush White House way of doing things is to sit down with oil companies and cut secret deals, to have them write the energy policy in this country, to trust oil companies to make the decisions and run the energy policy here in the United States of America. Well, the folks didn't sign up for oil companies to have a vote here on this floor. The American people didn't go vote one early Tuesday morning to allow someone from ExxonMobil to come in here and vote on the floor. Case in point: again, Washington Post, third-party validator, November 16, 2005, front page: ``White House documents showed executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as November of 2005 last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document obtained this week by The Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil Corp., and Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and B.P. of America met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, part of which became law, part of which is still being debated here in Congress.'' I think it is important that we look at it from that standpoint. And while I am on the individuals who are saying that they want to help so much in alternative fuels, take a look at this. Nothing like third- party validators. I love them. I really do, Mr. Speaker. I love third- party validators because the reason you have to have them is that some of this stuff is just hard to believe. Someone may be in their office saying, I do not know what that Member from Florida is talking about right now. Well, I want to show them as many third-party validators as possible, because it is truly unbelievable. When I was elected to Congress some 4 years ago, I didn't think we would even be in the posture we are in now because I thought maybe bipartisanship would prevail, or common sense on behalf of the country would prevail. But what has happened is that because special interests, through the K Street Project, where special interests had an opportunity to have access into this process that was so-called no longer going on, we are where we are now. That article I just read. And here is a picture of a gas pump. We talk about alternative fuels, and we have CEOs going on the ``Today Show'' and all these other little shows and all talking about, oh, we believe in alternative fuels. Well, as you can see, you have your Regular, Special, and then you have your Super Plus, then you have this thing called E-85, which is ethanol, which is an alternative fuel. Right here in the United States of America. Well, I want you to pay very close attention to what these two stickers are saying here. Basically, it is saying that you cannot use your ExxonMobil card to buy E-85. That is interesting. You can walk in that ExxonMobil place and buy, what, a bag of chips with your card? You can go in there and buy a case of soda, if you want to. Some individuals even go in and buy a pack of cigarettes with their ExxonMobil card. But you can't buy E-85, which is an alternative fuel. Now, I mean, yes, they are a company and all, and they can do what they want to do. But you know what is different about ExxonMobil and everyone else, not just that company, but oil companies in general? Man, they are backed and certified by this Republican majority here. They are getting record-breaking tax breaks and gifts from this House. Man, they can't give the oil companies enough. I mean, goodness gracious, access in the White House, they get to sit down with the administration and talk about how it should be written: on this line, this is what we want. No, we shouldn't do that because, you know, I don't know. Now, I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but record-breaking profits, record-breaking subsidies and gifts given to the oil industry? Some may say on behalf of innovation. I say it has a lot to do with the record-breaking profits, especially when they do not have to spend their money, spend the taxpayers' money, and the shareholders run away and laugh, going to the bank, but they are not willing to allow people who come to their station to use their ExxonMobil card to buy E-85, which is an alternative fuel. These are the individuals who have access into this Republican majority and into the White House. Let's talk about the profits. Wow, let's look at this. We said that meeting happened in 2001 in the White House complex. In 2002, these are the oil companies' record profits: $34 billion in profits. I think their policy is working, for them. $59 billion in profits. I think it is getting better. I think that was a good meeting. $84 billion in 2004. $84 billion in profits. Man, I am glad I went to that meeting, that task force in the Republican Congress with the rubber-stamp that made that happen. $113 billion. Wow, I can't wait until the 2006 numbers when they come in. I think we can go out and get about eight more Lear jets and I will take that home that I've been dreaming about. You know what it means? It is on the backs of the taxpayers. And I want to make sure everyone sees this chart and understands what is going on, because I am also hopping mad, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that for those of us who serve in public service, we wish we would have a retirement like this after going to all those town hall meetings, going out talking to all those American people and coming here early in the morning, leaving late at night, working every day, and then here we are. Now, I am not going to identify him as an individual, I am just saying it is what it is, and this is what is happening: $398 million in a retirement package and $2 million in tax breaks. A $2 million tax break. That is how you get rewarded. Now, it goes against logic, Mr. Speaker, for someone to say, you know, we are for finding alternative fuels and we are for saving the taxpayers money, but meanwhile they are making record-breaking profits. I wonder what the speech that they give not on the ``Today Show'' or not on one of the news shows, I wonder what the speech is that they give before their shareholders. The speech that they are giving is saying thanks to the Republican majority in the House, thanks to the President of the United States, the future looks good. We are going to have a great year. I think it is important for us to look at investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East, and E-85 is a big part of the plan. I want to bring Members' attention to this document that they can find on HouseDemocrats.gov and how we can start making ourselves energy independent in a matter of years. It's not just a philosophy and not just a speech. It is not someone just saying maybe one day we could, but saying we can. In this document it says we are looking to increase production of American-made biofuels, using things like corn and sugarcane, sugar beets, things that we have right here, coal. Alternative fuels that we have here in the United States. We do not need to go to foreign countries and hear from people from South America and the Middle East, and having the President say it's not us, it is the fact that the American people are addicted to oil. I mean, that is a statement that I think you need to let sink in. It also will make sure that the biodiesel, that we have a way to be able to increase that, expand tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel through 2015, and increase tax benefits to small biofuel producers. It expands also the market for distribution of biofuels. That is going to be important, Mr. Speaker. Oil companies are just not going to do it because it is the right thing to do. We are going to have to make them do it so we can wean ourselves off of this addiction to oil. We want to give them an alternative. We do not just want to talk about it, we want to give the American people an alternative so they can move in that direction. We talk about increasing the number of gas stations offering E-85 through new initiatives and requirements to make sure that we get the oil companies to do so. In 7 years, 75 percent of all cars made in America would be flex fuel cars. Those are cars that can take the E-85 and can take regular gas. I think it is important for us to head in that direction. I think it is important for the future of our country, and I think it is important to have a true debate and a true philosophy towards alternative fuels and saving money. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to be able to do the things that we talk about and we preach about. The Republican majority is going to have to drop this stamp. It is going to have to give it up. You are going to have to go to group and say ``We can no longer rubber stamp whatever the President of the United States sends to the Congress.'' The President wants tax cuts for wealthy Americans, they have to say Mr. President, we cannot do it. Now for the Republican majority to have group, it is going to have to make a change in philosophy. They may have to work in a bipartisan way. They may even have to take a Democratic proposal, the pay-as-you-go philosophy, and make a change. I personally feel the Republican majority is not capable of doing that. I have been on this floor going on 3 years. If I thought it made a difference in the Republican majority and encouraging them to work in a bipartisan way, then I would feel a little more encouraged, but I do not. I think the Republican majority knows exactly what the 30- something Working Group talks about when we come to the floor. We talk about fiscal responsibility and respecting hardworking Americans. We talk about making sure that we do right by our children and that we educate our children at all levels, whether it be K-12 experience, higher education, postgraduate, making sure that we have the workforce to compete with other countries that are competing against us. I am not talking about competing against the school down the street or the school in the other county. We are competing against other countries as it relates to math and the sciences. That is talk for the Republican majority. We have a true mission. We have the will and desire on this side, through our innovation agenda which is on HouseDemocrats.gov, the Republican majority has to stop rubber stamping. And I can tell you right now, they can't help it. They just continue to hit the rubber stamp. Let's not even have a committee hearing, let us just get this bill to the floor and get it out because that is what the President wants. We have a number of issues that the Republican Congress has rubber stamped. One was $1.05 trillion in record-breaking borrowing from foreign nations, rubber stamped, no problem. Deficits as far as the eye can see. Yes, you can have all of the study groups and all of the folks that write documents, and you can have all of the Republican Members come to this floor, but the reality is that this Congress has overseen the largest increase in the deficit in the history of the Republic, period. Go to Congressional Record, pick up the newspaper, it's there. The Republican Congress, the only way I think that the Republican Congress is going to change its ways is when we have real leadership in this House. And the only way we do that is when the Democratic Caucus becomes the majority caucus in this House on this floor to put in the policies that need to be placed in the statute books, in the budget, in committee and making sure that we put this country back on the fiscal track it should be on. How can I say that with boldness? Because we have done. It's almost like a job application. Someone tells you they can do something and you don't see it on their resume that they have actually done it, it is hard to believe they can do it. It is on our resume without one Republican vote balancing the budget. I think it is also important to get the Republican Congress of the rubber stamp so you're making sure that they don't have the ability to rubber stamp. When you have the ability to rubber stamp, you are in the majority and that is what the American people are going to have to speak to, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping we are able to see some change in philosophy here in the House. And we encourage the Members, if you want to share your thoughts or comments or you have other alternative ideas, we want to hear them because we believe in working in a bipartisan way. House_Democrats.gov/ 30somethingworkinggroup. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to thank our working group that met earlier this week a couple of days ago, and I would also like to thank the staff and thank everyone that takes part in what we do and why we come to the floor. I would like to thank the Democratic leader for the time. Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House of Representatives.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. and Mrs. Edgar and Magali Fernandez. For nearly four decades, they have been pioneers and leaders in the field of early childhood care and education, which is of crucial importance to our society and to every parent of young children. Their careers have culminated in the establishment of the South Florida Association for Child Care Management (SFACCM), a non-profit professional organization which was established in 2000. On Saturday, June 10, 2006, SFACCM will hold its first summer institute, a one-day seminar for those seeking to become early childhood education professionals. SFACCM, which is an affiliate of the Florida Association for Child Care Management, is a professional organization of education providers dedicated to ensuring quality in early learning through advocacy, education, and accreditation. Mr. and Mrs. Fernandez's leadership of SFACCM has served as an inspiration to countless other educators and has helped set high standards in early childhood care. Those helped by SFACCM's programs number in the thousands. Mr. and Mrs. Fernandez have long realized the importance of early childhood education as key to success in adulthood; it creates a strong foundation for our society and helps families and businesses to thrive. Edgar and Magali Fernandez truly value the need for the quality care and learning that our children deserve. I know that my colleagues join with me in expressing our sincere appreciation for the contributions of Mr. and Mrs. Fernandez to our community and to our state. Their endeavors to ensure the quality and affordability of early childhood care and education are having a huge, positive impact on the lives of countless children--our most important national resource. Congratulations to them both on 36 years of caring.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey Johnson was a strong and gifted young man. I recognized it, and my staff recognized it, when he served as a high school intern in my Congressional office. His teachers also recognized his abilities, as did his coaches, and even college administrators at institutions he never attended. He was a bright and shining young man with talent, direction and purpose, and he had unlimited potential. When Jeffrey put his mind to something, and focused his energy on it, he would overcome any obstacle to achieve it. Today, Thursday, May 25th, Jeffrey would have graduated Summa Cum Laude, and received the Miami-Dade County School Superintendent's Diploma of Distinction, from Carol City Sr. High School. He was imbued with intelligence, as evidenced by his grade point average, which landed him a Bright Futures full academic scholarship to St. Thomas University in Miami, where he looked forward to studying law. I truly believe that Jeffrey would have become a leader in our community and perhaps even in our country, a person of consequence, a role model for others, and a force in the world for good. Sadly, however, this strong, gifted, 17-year-old young man was tragically and senselessly killed in a shooting early Sunday, May 21, 2006. Our entire Dade County community is consumed in grief and sorrow because of his passing. His funeral services will be held Saturday, May 27th, at the New Birth Baptist Church Cathedral of Faith in Miami, Florida. The heart of every caring person aches because of the burden that now must be borne by his father, Jeffrey Sr., his mother, Brenda, and his beloved sister, Jarrika. The magnitude of their loss is truly beyond understanding. I had the distinct honor and special privilege to have this young man serve as an intern in my office, where he epitomized standards of excellence and personal warmth in responding to the needs and concerns of my constituents. Many of them recall Jeffrey as the young intern who greeted them with utmost respect and empathy. He easily stood as a model student, defined by his quiet but dignified demeanor. His exemplary conduct and his study ethic garnered him the unique distinction that served as an example to all students seeking to prepare themselves as the leaders of tomorrow through the power of the educated mind and the sensitivity of a caring heart. Jeffrey was a very special young man, and we are fortunate to have known him and are grateful for the gifts he left with us. Every person of goodwill is moved by his extraordinary life and the tragedy of his premature passing. I pray that his family will somehow be comforted by the fact that Jeffrey graced our lives, that he touched the lives of so many people during his all-too-brief time on this earth, and that we will never forget him.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Michael M. Adler, who today concludes his two-year term as President of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, marking 30 years of dedicated service to the Federation and the community. Michael Adler's connection to Miami is strong, and for him, community involvement is a family affair. He has the distinction of being Federation's only second-generation president, following in the footsteps of his father, the late Samuel I. Adler, who held the position from 1984 to 1986. For two years prior to being elected President of Federation, Michael served as the General Campaign Chair for the Federation/United Jewish Appeal Campaign, which raises more than $22 million annually for much-needed services in Miami, Israel and in almost 60 countries around the world. Michael has also served on and chaired numerous committees as part of his service to Federation. Along with his wife, Judy, he was a founding member of the Young Adults Division, chairing it from 1975 to 1977, and was later Chairman of the National Young Leadership Cabinet. In addition to his Federation activities, he has also served as President of Temple Emanu-el on Miami Beach from 1995 to 1998. Over the years Michael has received many awards and honors for his involvement, including the UJA's Herbert H. Lehman Award for Distinguished Service, and the Federation's prestigious Stanley C. Myers Presidents' Leadership Award. His successes extend far beyond his activities in the Jewish community. He is Chairman and CEO of the Adler Group, one of South Florida's largest and most successful real estate companies, and he has been involved with several successful business ventures in Israel, working closely with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when Sharon served as Israel's Housing Minister, to oversee the construction of new homes for immigrant families. Michael is also active in the political community, founding NACPAC, a local pro-Israel action committee. He now serves as Chair of the Jewish Democratic Council's Political Action Committee, and is very active in the Democratic Party. Our entire community owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Michael Adler for all that he has contributed to so many people over his years of caring and service. I know I speak for all my colleagues in extending to him a heart-felt ``thank you'' and our best wishes to Michael, his wife, Judy, and their children Matthew, David and Rachel.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Okay, great. UK, $223.2 billion; the Caribbean, $115.3 billion; Taiwan, $71.3 billion; and you have OPEC Nations that are oil Nations, $67.8 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion of our debt; Korea, $66.5 billion of our debt; Canada, $53.8 billion of our debt. But let me just give you this silhouette here. This is the United States of America. It does not belong to those countries, and guess what, the American people have not delivered it to the countries. The policy of the Republican majority has delivered that debt and that ownership of the American economic pie in a record-breaking way, Mr. Speaker, in the last 4 years, $1.05 trillion of foreign debt borrowed by this country and by this administration and by this Congress. So it is very, very important, if we are going to have a paradigm shift, that we talk about those pay-as-we-go amendments. Time after time, if we say we are going to buy it, we are going to pay for it; we are going to find a way to pay for it. We just will not put it on the credit card.