Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Could you give the web site, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I am going to yield after I mention something, about 2 minutes, to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, because the facts are what they are. It is what it is. We are highlighting these. Because we are using third-party validators, Mr. Delahunt, we are highlighting these with third-party validators, just in case the Republican majority, and like I told you, for the 109th Congress, I am done with trying to get the Republican majority to see it the way not only that the experts see it, that are bipartisan, or nonpartisan, when it comes down to national security, and the American people. We can talk about energy, we can talk about safety of America, we can talk about our operations overseas, all of these things are by third- party validators. Mr. Delahunt, the real issue is when you have a situation like we have in Iraq, you call in those individuals that are speaking out. Who? These major generals and these brigadier generals and individuals that are retired now, and retired because they couldn't say it when they were enlisted. What, they are not longer useful to country? We don't want to know what they have to share with us, to help us learn, to help us protect America? When I was in the State legislature for 8 years, when someone would come to my office, and even here now in Washington, I want to talk to the man or the woman that is in the drop program, those individuals that are already getting ready to retire, because they are going to tell you the truth. They are not concerned about what is going to happen. I want a sergeant major in the military to come talk to me, because a sergeant major, a command sergeant major is the highest enlisted individual in the armed services. You can't touch them, because they are respected by the men and women that serve under them and with them. They will tell you the truth. Those are the kind of individuals that we need before the full Armed Services Committee. Those are the kind of individuals that we need to highlight under the dome here, be it House or Senate. That is what we need. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening in this Congress. So just because the Republican majority says it or the President says it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. We are saying that we are going to bring balance, we are going to bring oversight. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as I yield to you, if there was a Democratic President in the White House, they would be challenged by the Democrats in Congress. Challenged. Not just, oh, well, you know, we are Democrats first and then Members of Congress second. That has never been the case, Mr. Delahunt. There has always been oversight. President Clinton used to have fits because of what Members of Congress were saying and doing as relates to their oversight responsibilities on issues that they disagreed with him on. So to bring balance to this government, we need this House to be Democratic-controlled.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. They want it.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say, that as world leaders meet in New York this week to determine next steps on the Darfur crisis, we here in the U.S. Congress must commit to finding ways to break the current deadlock and lead new international action to stop the ongoing genocide. We need to begin an all-out diplomatic offensive on Darfur in order to prepare the way for a peacekeeping force that can ensure protection for the people of Darfur. The Coalition for International Justice estimated that 450,000 people in Darfur have died since the deadly genocide began some three years ago. International attention to the Darfur conflict largely began with reports by the advocacy organizations, Amnesty International, in July 2003, and the International Crisis Group in December 2003. Since then, countless organizations have put in untold hours trying to stop the carnage and human suffering. Groups like: International Committee of the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, World Vision, SAVE DARFUR--an alliance of more than 100 faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations, including: Amnesty International USA, International Crisis Group, American Jewish World Service, NAACP, American Society for Muslim Advancement, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Church World Service. In all, dozens upon dozens of groups and organizations have prioritized stopping the killing in Darfur before there is no one left to be killed. It is high time that we, the U.S. Congress, join our name to that list. We've done it before. When the U.S. Congress decided in 1986 that South Africa's ways of Apartheid could no longer be ignored, the 99th Congress jumped in and passed of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act was won over a presidential veto. The bill imposed sweeping economic sanctions against South Africa, divesting capital from the government, and authorized several measures to assist the victims of apartheid. Virtually every member of Congress felt pressure from their home districts to do something about apartheid and cities and colleges in their districts were divesting, and the bi-partisan vote led the way ending an oppressive regime. We are at the point with Darfur. I continue to hope and pray that the Bush Administration makes this a top priority in New York this week, and to pressure Sudan and its allies, particularly Russia and China, to accept the will of the international community for an international force to protect civilians in Darfur. In the meantime, I hope that we all gather in support of Congresswoman Lee's Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, DADA, of 2006. Divestment worked to end Apartheid and it can work in this instance. We can make a difference. We can save lives. We can stop the genocide.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I recently took two actions regarding the genocide in Darfur that I wanted to bring to your attention. At the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, the president of Sudan claimed that the genocide in Darfur is a myth propagated by Jewish organizations raising money for Israel. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir remarked that those ``who made the publicity, who mobilized the people, invariably, are Jewish organizations.'' This statement is unconscionable and demands a vigorous response. Such Anti-Semitic remarks have no place in our world, let alone at the U.N. General Assembly. Furthermore, the mass killings, rapes and displacement of innocent civilians in Darfur are tragically well documented. The United States Holocaust Museum has issued a Genocide Emergency for Darfur. Today I signed a letter with several other Members of Congress demanding that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan retract his baseless remarks. The letter calls on the Sudanese government to abide by the Darfur Peace Agreement and the will of the U.N. Security Council. A copy of this letter is reprinted below for your information. In addition, I am an original co-sponsor of the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2006. This legislation will ban federal contracts going to corporations doing business in Sudan that directly or indirectly support the genocide. Countless organizations have dedicated untold hours to stopping the carnage and human suffering in Darfur. These organizations include the American Jewish World Service, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross and the NAACP. The U.S. Congress must enact the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2006 and join this list of international groups working to end the genocide in Darfur. Sundown on Friday night marks the start of the Rosh Hashanah holiday, the Jewish New Year 5767, thus beginning a 10-day period of personal reflection and contemplation for Jews around the world. This is a moment in human history when the poignant expression ``Never Again'' must be repeated over again, coupled with real action to end this tragic period of human suffering. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, President of Sudan, Washington, DC. Dear President al-Bashir: We were shocked to hear your comments on Tuesday, September 20th, at the U.N. General Assembly where you stated that reports of deaths and refugees in Darfur are ``fictions,'' and that those ``who made the publicity, who mobilized the people, invariably, are Jewish organizations.'' Many of us have traveled to Darfur and seen the death, destruction, and misery of the innocent civilians in Darfur with our own eyes. The last 3 years of violence in Darfur have resulted in the death of an estimated 200,000 people and millions have been forced from their homes. This atrocity has been encouraged and facilitated by your government. We are grateful that the American Jewish community as well as other faith communities have made a priority of raising the issue of genocide in Darfur. Instead of using the ancient technique of making the Jewish community the scapegoat for your failures, we hope that you will take a close look at your own actions. In direct violation of the Darfur Peace Agreement and the will of the U.N. Security Council, your government has recently deployed approximately 26,000 troops and attack helicopters to the Darfur region. Your actions have directly resulted in an increase of attacks on civilians and humanitarian aid workers. Mr. President, we call on you to apologize for and retract your dangerous and fictitious accusations directed towards the Jewish community. We also demand that you work to uphold the Darfur Peace Agreement, and actively and immediately strive to end the genocide within your borders. Finally, we encourage you to work closely with Special Presidential Envoy Andrew Natsios who is ready to aid your nation to achieve a final peace. Rather than fanning the flames of conflict, we hope you will act to save lives.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you, Mr. Ryan. I can tell you, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, when I pulled in here close to the Chamber, I was off campus, and I saw your car there and I knew everything was going to be well represented here on the floor. And I am glad that you brought issue and put life in the lungs of what is actually happening here. When you talk about minimum wage, I can tell you right now, as it relates to the middle-class squeeze on families, especially as it relates to lower incomes and higher costs, these are rising health care costs up here. And here are the falling incomes of those individuals as they continue to make less and less and they are having to spend more and more. And I think it is also important, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, to point out the fact that we want to take this country in a new direction. That is what we are talking about. You want to talk about salary increases, Mr. Speaker. For Members of Congress, we are saying here on the Democratic side of the aisle we are not going to vote for another pay increase for Members of Congress until the American people get an increase. And we do know, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, that we had some legislation on the floor because we were hammering away at the Republicans on this side, majority, okay, on the other side of the aisle about an increase for American workers. What did they do? The Potomac two-step, put together all kind of stuff that was unpassable in the Senate, and then brought it to the floor knowing full well that it wasn't a well-intentioned minimum wage increase. We want to take it to $7.25 an hour. They know full well, and I am saying ``they'' because that is what Newt Gingrich is calling the Republican majority. That is not me, Mr. Speaker. That is what Mr. Gingrich said when he said ``they.'' It is important for us to say that we are willing to stand up on behalf of the American people, all American people, Republican, Democrat, Independent, those who are not voting yet, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, and to make sure that they receive an increase. And what happens with salaried workers, let's just say there are people in our districts that are not individuals that are making the minimum wage, they are making a little more than the minimum wage. And if they make $8, $10 an hour, when the minimum wage goes up, then there is going to be a renegotiation of their salary. And these CEOs, I mean, I am not disliking CEOs. Mr. Ryan and I always say that profits are good, we think it is a good word, it is not a bad word. But when you have CEOs that are making more than 500 employees in a company and you are having individuals who are not able to cover their health care costs, Mr. Speaker, I think that is something we bring into balance. And this Democratic caucus, when in the majority, if allowed to be in the majority by the American people, have already said one of the first business actions that we would take is increasing the minimum wage, amongst other things.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Tubbs Jones. And I can tell you, it is always good, Mr. Ryan, having a member of the Ways and Means Committee here to be able to share some higher thoughts on legislation here that we are talking about. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, I think it is very, very important that we shed light on what has actually happened here in this Chamber and what has not happened. There are a lot of pieces of legislation that are coming to the floor as we close out this 109th Congress, as we start right before the elections, before we go on what we call a lame duck session after the elections. Members of Congress, many are on jets and driving, or planes, trains, or what have you, going back to their districts. We decided to be here, the 30-something Working Group. We have another hour after the Republican hour to come back here to be able to share the information not only with the Members but also with the American people and make sure that they know that we are here on their behalf as Americans first. I think the facts are overwhelming here, but I just want to make sure, because whenever you identify a problem, you have to have a solution coming shortly thereafter or right before. So I am going to take the opportunity in addressing the Members and talking about the solution, and then identifying the obvious problem. Not a problem that we have identified within the Democratic caucus, but the U.S. Department of the Treasury has identified, the Inspector General, the Department of Homeland Security has identified, and that the Government Office on Accountability have also identified as major issues that are facing our country that we haven't faced in the history of the Republic. I am saying since we have been a country, we haven't been in the posture that we are in right now, and I think it is important that we present those facts. We are saying on this side of the aisle we want to take America in a new direction. That new direction consists of six points. It goes beyond, but mainly six points. First, the protection of Social Security is so very, very important. I am from Florida, and Social Security is a major issue in Florida and throughout this country. As we look at disability benefits for American workers when they are injured on the job, to be able to have Social Security which they paid into, they can receive their full benefits. When you have retirees, one thing they can count on, and they probably can't count on a pension from a company that they have been working for or at for some 25 or 30 years, but they can count on Social Security because it is backed by the U.S. Government. And also survivor benefits. As we look at survivor benefits for folks that were working, and if they pass on, their children have an opportunity to educate themselves. There are some Members of Congress here who are presently serving who have taken advantage of survivor benefits that have made our country stronger in preparing these bright, young minds to be able to lead our country in the future. I am really sad to report that it continues to be under attack by the Republican majority and the Bush administration. I am concerned about that. But we have made a commitment for 2006, taking America in a new direction, that we will protect Social Security, as we have protected it from attempts by the Republican majority and the President, who burned all kind of jet fuel to try to ram a privatization plan down the throats of the American people. I think it is important that Members go on HouseDemocrats.gov and get our plan as it relates to securing Social Security. Looking at affordable health care, I think it is important that we look not only at prescription drugs, but also make sure that there is a major focus on health care. And there are health care professionals, I had a major health care insurance company come into my office just this week and say something has to happen. From the small business to the Fords and the GMs of the world, health care is crippling this country. We have a war in Iraq, but we have a war here as relates to health care in the United States. We are dedicated to making sure that we have affordable health care for children and seniors, and making sure that we use our buying power to secure lower prices for our seniors as it relates to part B. We talk about energy independence, investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East. We are talking about E85 and alternative fuels and using coal. We are the Saudi Arabia here in the United States in regards to coal. We have enough coal to supply the whole world as it relates to energy, and we can use it for our own benefits to secure America, and that is homeland security in making us stronger. We have already put out our innovation agenda, Mr. Speaker, and also energizing America, making us energy independent. Members can also view that on HouseDemocrats.gov. That is making sure that the next generation is ready to take over. And for this generation, broadband for all Americans, making sure that all Americans have access to the superhighway, and making sure that they have broadband opportunities. Making sure that we reverse the tax increase that the Republican majority has put as it relates to student loan opportunities. There is legislation filed in this 109th Congress that would reverse that and cut it in half; and make sure that we give tax credits to students, and also parents who are trying to educate their children. That is something that is very, very important. The Republican majority has brought a great increase in the cost of college. We have said that we are dedicated, and we have the will and desire to make that happen. That is part of our six-point plan. We have talked about the minimum wage. That is so very, very important. We have Members on the majority side that want to belittle that idea. But when you haven't increased the minimum wage since 1997, and say it is okay for you to give Members of Congress pay increases as far as the eye can see since 1997, $3,100, $4,600, $3,800, $4,900, and on and on and on, continued pay increases for Members of Congress. And don't get me wrong, it is difficult for Members who have decided to serve their country and have a home in their district and try to have some sort of a place to live here in Washington, D.C. Yes, I am not knocking cost-of-living increases for Members of Congress, but I must say that I am very, very concerned with the fact that those individuals that punch in and punch out every day, 15-minute break in the morning and afternoon, 30 minutes for lunch, we put them at an unfair disadvantage when we allow ourselves to receive pay increases. The Republican majority has done that. We have said on this side not another pay increase for the Members of Congress until the American people get a pay increase. That is something that we are standing very close to and making sure that we deal with it. When we talk about homeland security, homeland security, there is a lot of discussion about homeland security. We have said that we are going to implement not any ideas that someone in some office here in Congress just says, oh, I think that is a great idea, we will do it if we get in the majority. No. Well-thought-out, well-fleshed-out ideas as relates to homeland security that the 9/11 Commission has called for, and making sure that we implement the 10 unimplemented recommendations by the bipartisan Commission that went through this Congress and that the President spoke to, the National Security Director testified in front of, former and present Members of Congress, members from our intelligence organizations spoke before it, 9/11 families spoke before, and survivors of 9/11. They all took an opportunity to testify in front of this committee, and there are a number of issues that are unfinished business as it relates to that. Some of the higher points, and I won't go over all of the 10 points right now, but one simple one, air cargo. What is going on with that? I mean, we are running around at the airport giving up hand sanitizer, shaving cream; taking off your jacket, belts and shoes before you get on the plane. Meanwhile, cargo goes in the bottom of the plane, no problem whatsoever. It took the Brits to disclose a liquid explosive attempt on a plane that was headed to the United States of America before the Department of Homeland Security started saying maybe we ought to deal with that because that was one of the 9/11 recommendations. We are saying that we don't want to be reactionary. We want to be proactive. We want to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and that is something that we are dedicated to doing if we have an opportunity to do it. Some may say, Congressman, why aren't you doing it? We are not doing it because we don't have the chairmanship of the committees or the ability to bring a bill here to the floor after going through the Rules Committee, to bring these pieces of legislation and ideas to the floor. Another thing, Mr. Speaker, and I will to go beyond the six points here to say that we have the will and desire to work in a bipartisan way. I feel personally that there are some Members on the Republican side that understand the importance of implementing the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I don't want to go off on a philosophy that nothing major is happening in the United States so we must be doing something right. I would be on the side of recommendations by a bipartisan commission led by a Republican former governor who continues to give low marks to this legislative branch because we have not carried out the things that we needed to carry out. Mr. Ryan, before I yield back to you, I want to mention as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Oversight and Management, there was a company that was awarded the SBInet contract that put surveillance cameras along the border. Something that I am not proud of is the fact that there are two other similar programs prior to this program that has been renamed for the third time that spent $426 million of the taxpayers' money. Towers were built in some areas, cameras did not work in other areas, it was not monitored the way it was supposed to be monitored, yet we awarded a $2.5 billion contract to a company. We have the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security who is going to be coming before our subcommittee after the election in November, I must add, and he will report that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have the capacity to be able to take on such contract, or monitor the contract, in a way to make sure that we don't have cost overruns and making sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent inappropriately. The 9/11 Commission, one of the 10 points was that we add 2,000 border protection officers yearly. The President sent his budget to this Congress and only asked for 215 border officers. You want to talk about Article I, section 1 oversight, making sure that we ask the tough questions? We are not doing it. The Republican majority doesn't want to do it. We are saying that we have the will and the desire to do. So let's make that we do it, and we are up front and straight with the American people. Mr. Ryan, as we start to look at not only the new direction we want to take American in, as the Democratic Caucus and as a Congress, we want to make sure that we identify where we are falling short. Mr. Speaker, all of this is very achievable if individuals were just to legislate and have oversight and work in a bipartisan way. Legislation is brought to the floor in the closing days of this 109th Congress to split the Congress as it relates to philosophy. There was a bill up last week that talked about building a double- link chain fence along 200 miles or so of the border with no funding. That is like me saying, Mr. Ryan, I would like to build a monument out on the Washington Mall to celebrate the great victories that this country has had, whether they be educationally or whatever the case may be, over the history of our country, but I am not going to appropriate any money for it. But we are going to take it to the floor, and we will pass it anyway. Just on that, on the basis of the fact that there is no funding, it is like an empty suit. It is like a suit hanging up in the closet and no one in it. It is important that we come straight with the American people. If we are serious about protecting our borders, let's do it for real. Let's not pass a bill without appropriations. Let's not bring a bill to the floor talking about giving authorization to local law enforcement agencies to interrogate undocumented individuals in our country without any funding, because what the Federal Government is going to do is hand that responsibility to local sheriffs and city police officers and send the recommendation for the 250 Border Patrol officers to the House when they know we need 2,000. Let's stop handing it down to local governments and saying it is your responsibility. Let's man up, woman up and leader up and do what we have to do on behalf of the American people. We are saying if we are in the majority, we will do it.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Ryan, I look forward to continuing, until the clock runs out on this Congress, to continue to come down to the floor to share with the American people. Mr. Speaker, we can't get any higher than where we are right now as it relates to the commitment and the will and the desire to put America in a new direction. Mr. Ryan, I think with the leader coming down to the House, to this floor a few minutes before 8:00, 8 p.m. eastern standard time after a full day of legislative session, she has pretty much laid it out as relates to the Democratic plan, put this country in a new direction and have real security. Forget about the first 100 days, like a lot of politicians like to talk about; the first 100 hours of a Democratic Congress and all of the things that she identified. I am willing to yield to Mr. Ryan, and we can close out, and then we can move on from this point. I don't think that we can add any more this evening to what the leader has already said. A lot of times we can talk about what the leadership said they would do, but when you have the leader of our caucus, the leader of the House Democrats, hopefully the future Speaker of this House of Representatives, she has said on the Congressional Record, not for the first time, second time, third time or fourth time, but tonight of what we would do if given the opportunity.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, let me say this: Since we are getting into the debate of who can be appointed or what have you, I could be a millionaire, but I am not. Let me just say this, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, either. But let me just say this. As we continue on with the 30-somethings coming to a close, as we wait on our Republican colleague to come get his or her next hour, I just want to say that it is very, very important because this is very serious business. Sometimes here in the 30-something Working Group we spend a number of hours, I must say, Mr. Speaker, a number of hours not only studying before we come to the floor, of sharpening our tools and talking about what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, talk about the history of what we have done in the past, and talking about the legislation that is filed in this Congress. You heard Leader Pelosi. She said we have a minimum wage increase for the American workers at $7.25 already filed. It is not some saying, well, if we could or we are dreaming of a piece of legislation. It is already there. So when we talk about the first 100 hours to the Republican majority and to the American people, this is not something that we have to say, well, wait one second, wait one minute, we have to draw up some plans. They are already there. They are already there because the American people have said that they want it, overwhelmingly. And at the same time we talk about real security and securing America. It is not something where we are going to come up with some plan or some gimmick. It is already there. Taking the recommendations, you heard the leader, in the first 100 hours, the Democratic majority, the 10 uninitiated 9/11 recommendations that are vital to securing this country will be implemented. Like I said, as the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee here in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the schemes that have been brought about, that we are going to monitor the border and what have you. The American people want something more than monitoring. They want to secure the border, whether it be south or north. They want to secure it, not just monitor it. So let's just say, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that this new $2.5 billion initiative to monitor the border actually works. And the reality, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the President, years after the 9/11 Commission report has been sent to the Congress and went to Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com and folks have copies of it, two or three copies of it, read it three times, still sends his budget to the Hill calling for 250 Border Patrol agents. If the Democratic amendments were adopted, Mr. Speaker, we would have over 6,000 new Border Patrol agents at 2,000 Border Patrol a year, as the 9/11 Commission called for. It was not that we went to the Democratic caucus and said, hey, let's just come up with a number of what we think should happen. We took the bipartisan recommendation from the 9/11 Commission. So like I said, the leader has already laid the foundation. The leader has come to the floor here in the p.m., a little bit before 8 p.m. eastern standard time, to deliver the message on behalf of the Democrats in this House that have the will and the desire to lead and said what we would do in the first 100 hours. So now that I know that our Republican colleague is here now, Mr. Ryan, I know that you were going to give the information out.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour. We would also like to share with not only the Members but the American people that it was an honor to address the House this evening, sir.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour, the 30-something Working Group. We come to the floor for the second time tonight to share the new direction for America. There is great reason to promote a new direction for America, especially as it relates to our actions near the U.S. House of Representatives. I don't want to take any great deal of responsibility for what is said or what is done in the White House, because I am a Member of Congress, and Article I, section 1 authorizes us to take legislative action. Also within our rules and the spirit of our rules is to have a level of oversight and also investigative powers here in the House. There are a number of things that are taking place in our country that have been pushed forth or have been rubber-stamped by this House out of the administration that should not be, and we want to make sure as we start talking about our new direction for America, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, that if we are in control we look forward to working in a bipartisan way, making sure that Republicans who do want to be a part of this new direction can definitely participate in that process if it is within the spirit of making sure that we have real security here, here in the United States as it relates to implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Also, making sure that we have better pay for jobs that American workers carry out day in and day out. The minimum wage has not been increased through this Congress and through the White House since 1997. It is very unfortunate that we do have some Members on the other side of the aisle that are willing to vote for pay increases to Members of Congress, including Senators, but not pay increases or a minimum wage increase for the American people, which we have said on this side of the aisle that one of the first actions of the Congress, of the Democratic Congress, would be to make sure that we move the minimum wage to $7.25. Making sure that we deal with the cost of the increased college tuition that has been brought about through this rubber-stamp Republican majority. We are willing to reverse that and make sure that we give tax deductions to those that want to educate themselves and those family members who want to assist in that process, making sure that we expand Pell Grants. A lot of promises were made right up here at this podium just below your podium there, Mr. Speaker, the President made as it relates to the expansion of Pell Grants, and that has not happened. It has decreased in many ways. Energy independence. It is important that we do this. Just today I was watching the evening news talk about how some billionaires in other parts of the world and here have invested in an initiative of the Clinton Foundation as it relates to making us energy independent. Some $10 billion of the president and CEO of Virgin Airlines has put in over the next 4 or 5 years to make sure we can look for alternative fuels. These are private citizens that are now stepping up to try to look for alternative fuels because they have seen what it has done to the United States of America. Since the Congress does not want to rein in big oil companies and wants to have a special relationship with big oil companies where they receive more subsidies than they will ever receive in the history of the Republic, and also higher profits and the highest profits that they have ever experienced in the history of the world, leave alone the United States of America, and still there is no legislation that is really promoting alternative fuels through this House. We are dedicated and committed to making sure that not only the research, but making sure the access for E85, using coal and other alternative fuel initiatives, to make sure that we invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. And what is happening right now, the Republican Congress is voting to invest in the Middle East versus the Midwest. Making sure that health care is affordable for every American. I think that is very, very important. Some people may say, well, Congressman, you are talking about individuals. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about small business having an opportunity to provide health care for their employees. We are talking about companies as big as Ford having a plan to lay off or a plan to have early retirement for many of their employees, mainly because of health care costs, of what it is costing big companies here in the U.S. and small companies as they go to provide opportunities for their workers. And looking at the issue of balancing the budget, I think that is very, very important as relates to bringing this out-of-control spending and borrowing Congress. The Republican majority has borrowed more money from foreign nations in 4 years than in the history of this country. No other time, 224 years prior to this Republican administration that we have now and the rubber-stamp Republican majority that we have here in the House, no other time in the history of the country, this is not our numbers, these are the numbers of the U.S. Department of Treasury, that we see that kind of activity taking place. We are the only party, Mr. Speaker, I must add here, in this House that has actually balanced the budget. Other people can talk about it. We have actually done it. If there was a job interview, and the Republican Conference versus Democratic Caucus and individuals talk about balancing the budget, the qualifications are clear that here on this side of the aisle, without one Republican vote, I do not like to say that, but without one Republican vote, that we balanced the budget. It is what it is. It is history, and it could be the future as it relates to this House if allowed to lead this House by the American people. Also, when we look at the Social Security, we talked about this in our last hour. There are a number of Republicans and also the President has just said if he gets the kind of rubber-stamp Congress he has right now, he is going to continue to celebrate in moving towards the area of privatization, privatizing Social Security. That is not what I am saying. That is what the President has said. So I think it is important for people to understand that. On this side of the aisle, there was about 1,000 town hall meetings that took place in districts throughout the country, and we went to other parts of this country to have town hall meetings where other Members would not have town hall meetings on this issue, along with a coalition of a number of groups that were out there that were concerned about Social Security not only for seniors, but also making sure that we have survivor benefits for those that have passed. They had paid into Social Security so that their family members would be able to educate themselves, and those individuals that were on the job and all of the sudden were injured on the job, regardless of what the benefits of the job, Social Security was there to give a little bit towards making their lives somewhat livable. And through the privatization scheme that Republican majority, rubber stamp, along with the President of the United States, who flew all around the country and tried to sell, and the American people still said no, taking us through that process all over again versus trying to balance the budget and go back to the years when the Democrats were in control. We actually balanced the budget, and we saw surpluses as far as the eye can see and a healthy future for the Social Security Trust Fund. That is not Democratic talk. That is American talk. And guess what? It is action, and it was action. What we are hearing now is a lot of we want to cut it in half, we think we are going to cut the budget in half, we believe that we are going to do the better job versus the other person. I mean, you can talk about the issues. You want to talk about border security, Mr. Speaker, Republican majority, we can talk about it. They said the American people are fed up. Well, how did they get fed up? And how do we get to the point that they got up to 80 or 90 percent of some of the things I heard here on this floor today; how did they get there? I guess some members of the Republican majority come and say, well, it is the Democrats' fault. We are in the minority. We do not have the power to bring legislation to the floor, to be able to have real border security, because if we had the power, Mr. Speaker, when the 9/11 Commission report and recommendations were sent to this House and to this Congress and to this White House, we would have 6,000-plus more border agents right now on the border. We would have a real strategy. Maybe we would save $429 million that was wasted in monitoring the border in cost overruns and scandals that the inspector general, Department of Homeland Security, has identified. I am talking fact, not fiction. Maybe, just maybe, the new plan that has just been released to a U.S. company for $2.5 billion would have the oversight that they have and also have agents that can respond to monitoring our borders. I mean, we are understaffed as it relates to law enforcement on the border. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress wants to do everything that they have done thus far and passing responsibility and unfunded mandates to the State and also to local parishes and counties and cities to say that, oh, yeah, we will give you the authority to carry out our function. Meanwhile, while the police officer and the first responder, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was once a upon a time in life as a State trooper. Goodness, we had enough to deal with not only enforcing the laws of the State of Florida and local ordinances there, but at the same time now I have got to become a border agent because the Republican Congress decided to shortchange me, but allow these big companies to run away with the lack of oversight. The headlines of the Department of Homeland Security is not today, Mr. Speaker, about how secure in America. It is about how someone ran off with a contract, how we overspent as it relates to Katrina contracts, how we continue to have overspending and lack of accountability in the war in Iraq. All of these issues, the cost overruns, I went over to the Department of Defense. There is a lot of stuff over there, but I am saying cost overruns and the lack of oversight as it relates to the Department of Homeland Security, and I am a member of the committee, trying to bring about change, but guess what? I am in the minority. The only thing I can change here is that the Members, I am almost done, Mr. Speaker, in trying to encourage the Republican majority to see the light, like the 9/11 Commission and first responders throughout this country have seen the light and survivors of 9/11 families have seen the light, of saying just do what we have laid out, the work product from the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. The COPS program is something that the Association of Police Chiefs wants; it is what the Association of Sheriffs wants. It is something that local communities, Mr. Speaker, they want it. The cops support community-oriented policing support from the U.S. Congress. Now, if 20 percent or 10 percent of that funding is in place, it would be shocking, and it is not there. As a matter of fact, in many areas it has been zeroed out. And so this is where people get an opportunity to see its government at work: bike patrols, preventing crime before it happens. I think it is very, very important. Mr. Ryan, because we believe in third-party validators in the 30- something Working Group, I just wanted to take out the Washington Times, by no stretch of the imagination the liberal paper, because as the Republican majority always talks about, you know, when I was in Florida, they had this caucus called the Freedom Caucus, and they wanted to be conservatives. But I just wanted to say that I think it is important that we bring third-party validators, not just fiction, but third-party validators. The Washington Times. It is an article, I guess Members can go online, July 9 of 2006. I take this stuff and I read it, and I make sure that we get it to be able to bring out in such a time as this. Here is an article right here: ``Social Security Battle.'' The President is quoted here saying: ``If I get a Republican Congress,'' okay, ``I am going to rekindle the fight to privatize Social Security.'' He says it right here. I didn't go in the back and print this up. He says it right here. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we identify those issues and that we bring it to the floor and we also share with the American people. I guarantee you, there is not one Member of the Republican conference that is going home that is having a town hall meeting, because very few took place, as it relates to the privatization of Social Security, since it was so unpopular. I guarantee you, while we all go back to our districts and ask our constituents for their vote and for their vote of confidence, that nowhere in campaign literature that may be printed are we saying, I support the President in privatizing Social Security. Well, you know why that is not the case, Mr. Speaker? It is because it is so unpopular, because the only people that have a guaranteed benefit in a Social Security privatization plan is Wall Street, over $535-plus billion. I believe the GAO just came out with a report recently. And also I stand here, Mr. Speaker, I mean, we come to the floor to do business. We don't come to the floor to play around and whatever, picking things out of the sky saying that we believe or are using fiction and all. Here is something right here. Members can go on WWW.house.gov/waysandmeans--democrats where you can get this report here of ``Social Security Privatization, A Continuing Threat.'' And it quotes the Governmental Accountability Office and what they found. And here is a copy of the GAO report, just a summary right here, just some points, confirming that the impact of the Bush plan would result in a benefit cut. And I think it is very, very important that people understand that and that you understand that benefits will be cut. We had some folks here on this floor, Mr. Speaker, it happened in 109th Congress, all of us here in this Chamber right now. And those Members in their offices know full well that people came here to the floor and said, you will not experience a benefit cut. It is not about the special interests getting what they want, Mr. Speaker. It is about the American people getting what they need and what they deserve. Because special interests is not paying into Social Security, when you look at what the average American has to pay into Social Security. And then we are going to privatize it so that others can benefit off of social security benefits for the American people? If you drive an F-10 or you drive a flex vehicle, this is your issue. If you are an American worker and you got injured on the job and you are on disability, this is your issue. If you are a retired American or coming close to retirement, even though you may have a pension or a 401(k), this is your issue. Because this is what the Federal Government has said, that we have your back on Social Security. When all else fails, when Enrons of the world take place and when all these kinds of things take place where people thought that they were going to have something and they don't necessarily have it the way they thought they were going to have it, one thing that they can count on, Mr. Speaker, and that is Social Security. One thing that they can count on. So when we start talking about privatizing Social Security, there were going to be some very happy special interest folk that for Medicare thought that they were going to be able to bank in on the sweat and sacrifice of American workers and taking that Social Security benefit and put it into some sort of stock exchange scheme, and to say that, oh, we are going to let everyone have their own students. And they really went after young people. And I want to commend a number of people that need to be: Rock the Vote, and different coalitions that were out there that worked so very, very hard. And the 30-something Working Group, Mr. Speaker, we came to this floor night after night and day after day commending those organizations, as we moved down the line. The AARP and a number of other groups were out there against this. And, now, for the President, after being defeated by the American people and by the Democratic minority, I must add, here in this House, by defeating the Republican majority that was willing to walk in lock step and rubber-stamping what this Republican President, and regardless if it is a Republican or Democratic President, there is something fundamentally wrong when you have a President that can say yes in the Oval Office. And that the U.S. Congress, forget about Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, forget about what is here. The President can say, yeah, we can do it. Just like Vice President Cheney and his aides had the conversation with Big Oil executives in the White House who cut a deal on energy in 2001, gave them a head nod there in the White House, and then came to Capitol Hill and got exactly what they wanted that then turned around in record-breaking profits, oil companies. Here it is right here, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, we come to the floor to carry out business on behalf of the American people. We don't come here, somebody hand us a sheet and say you start reading this, this is what we want you to read. Look at these profits. A meeting happens in the White House. I know I have my article here somewhere, and I will pick up the article on the back end of this chart. It happens in 2001. In 2002, $34 billion in profits for Big Oil companies. 2003, $59 billion. 2004, $84 billion in profits. Record-breaking. 2005, $113 billion in profits, and climbing, Mr. Speaker. Profits, Mr. Ryan and I always say, is not a dirty word. But let me tell you what makes it disgraceful, dirty and unclean, if I can double describe things here, is the fact that the American people at the same time these profits were taking place were paying through the nose, and still in my opinion paying through the nose, for overpriced fuel and for overpriced gas here in the United States, need it be heating oil, need it be diesel or what have you. And the American public is paying for this because now trucking companies have a fuel surcharge on it, and so not only are you paying at the pump, you are paying at the grocery store and you are paying at the department stores. Again, third-party validator, and I am going to yield over to Mr. Ryan here in a minute, is the fact that we have the White House documents. Here is a Washington Post story, 2005, November 16, front- page article. This is the kind of stuff you save, Mr. Speaker. You don't like, oh, read it and then put it somewhere off to the side in the recycling bin and let it go. You keep this because you want to remind your colleagues on the other side of the aisle that you know exactly what they are doing to the American people: ``White House documents shows that executives from Big Oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001,'' it goes back to the chart that I just identified here, ``something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry executives testifying before Congress.'' That is okay if the Congress doesn't want to hold their feet to the fire and hold them in contempt, but folks thought they were going to jail. And these are our constituents that are paying through the nose. Meanwhile, we are letting them out the door. The document obtained by The Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil Corp., also Shell Oil Company, BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts that are still being debated here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case. I don't need to come up with any slick slogans. I don't need to talk to anyone about what will sound good on the floor. I don't need to do that. I can walk through these Halls of Congress with great confidence. I sleep well at night because I know we are here saying we are willing to put this country in a new direction, we are willing to deal with real energy-efficient ways of dealing with fuel and alternative fuels. Last point, Mr. Ryan. This is what happens when you have a rubber- stamp Congress and special interests that reach right into the legislative process here, or the lack thereof. Here is ExxonMobil. I didn't do this; this is what they have done. You have the regular, special, super plus. You have got a couple of prices there. Here is the E-85 here. Here is the little sticker that is on the pump: ``Cannot use your Mobil credit card.'' I am even going to say, ``Non-Mobil product.'' Some might say, well, if we just put ``cannot use your Mobil credit card'' and leave that ``non-Mobil product'' off, then someone may say, well, that is a little bit too unfair. But I think it is important as we look at this, if you can walk into a Mobil station and buy a bag of chips or a carton of cigarettes or 10 gallons of milk with your Mobil credit card, which you can do, then why can't you buy E-85, an alternative fuel that is going to help us continue to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East and help us towards energy independence? Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you very much, Madam Leader, for coming down. You definitely cement what we have been talking about for 3 years on this floor. Mr. Speaker, we had it from the top person. If we have an opportunity to lead this House, and we sure hope that we will have that opportunity, you heard it from the person who will drive the agenda and make sure that we are able to do what we have to do. Leader, I want to thank you for having confidence in those of us who are young Members here in this House to be able to carry the message, to carry the fight to stop Social Security from being privatized. We have an article in the Washington Times that talks about the fact that if the Republican majority is back after the elections, that the President feels that he has the support here in the House to privatize Social Security, and they may very well do it. I want to thank you for allowing us to come to this floor and share with the Members our plans and alternatives, and make sure that they know full well that we are ready to move in a new direction. One thing that I mention all the time, and you mentioned in your comments, bipartisanship can only be allowed if the majority allows it. I personally appreciate as a Member who has spent 8 years in the State legislature and has worked in the Florida Senate in a bipartisan way, a lot can be accomplished on then the State and now this country. And I know if we are allowed to lead with that philosophy, America's agenda will move forward. Like the leader said, the American people are far ahead of us. We are trying to catch up with them. We are saying that we have the will and the desire to do so. Thank you for coming here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I am going to have to leave before the hour is over, and I have to take Mr. Ryan since he laid it out in the field last night. But let me say this very quickly. The facts are what the facts are. Some individuals say it is what it is. And the bottom line is we have a rubber-stamp Republican majority. I do not spend a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about what the White House should have done and what they did do or whatever the case may be because I am a Member of Congress; so by my being elected in the 17th Congressional District, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, right next to your district, by the people of South Florida, they federalized me to come to the Congress to do what? Carry out Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That means the legislative body has oversight and is the investigative body. We are not doing any of those. Let me just take a moment. Today we had a number of visitors to the Capitol. The American Cancer Society came to the Capitol. A number of survivors came to the Capitol. They have a walk that is going on right now outside on the Mall near the reflection pool of the Capitol. I want to commend them for their efforts for coming here to Washington, D.C. I want to also say they have a Wall of Hope out there for those individuals that are survivors and those individuals that have passed on. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz had a joint press conference on breast cancer today. I think it is important that we lift those individuals up because I know that there are Americans who could not make it. My sister is a breast cancer survivor. I went out with Mr. Ryan this evening to sign the wall for Florida, and I put my sister's name in. She couldn't be here. I called her and told her that I put her name on the wall. I had an opportunity to sign it. I know that we in the Congress, all of us, are a part of making sure that we have enough research to be able to look and find ways that either we can prevent cancer from happening, or find medicines and procedures that can take away the issue of cancer. I know there is a commitment by 2015 to eradicate all cancer here in the U.S. So that is very, very important. I just wanted to lay that out because I know we wanted to all commend them. We have serious issues that we are talking about, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have got to lay out the commitment of those who did come up here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. I think it is important to the point, sir, that the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor to share the truth and to share the reality of what is happening here in Congress and what is not happening here in Congress. And I think it is very, very important, very important that we bring the facts to the floor. As you know, General Abizaid, who is over Central Command and the lead commander in Iraq, said earlier this year that after Iraqi elections, Mr. Speaker, that we would see a downtick in U.S. troops in Iraq, in the war in Iraq. Because of a lack of a coalition, Mr. Speaker, Iraqis are no longer in the driver's seat as it relates to being able to stand up on behalf of their country. And so because we don't have a coalition, and the second largest coalition in Iraq, Mr. Delahunt, is U.S. contractors paid for by U.S. taxpayers. And I have another example, because I believe there is a war in Iraq, but there is also misunderstanding and deception here as it relates to border security, Mr. Delahunt. This is fact, not fiction. And I just want to take 3 minutes to just talk about fact, not fiction, because I know that Mr. Ryan is here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is here, and we need to be able to lay these facts out. Just today was a story leaked, and tomorrow the Boeing Company will receive what we call the SBInet that will do surveillance on the border between the U.S. and Mexico and also between the U.S. and Canada. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we had two other initiatives prior to this one as it relates to surveillance of our borders that spent $426 million, Mr. Speaker, and it was cost overruns and did not meet the contractual agreement that they made with the Department of Homeland Security. Now, this is a $2.5 billion initiative that Boeing will have. Let's put Boeing aside, because I am not here to talk about Boeing. I am here to talk about the lack of capacity of the Department of Homeland Security and the lack of effort as it relates to the Congress to make sure that we protect our borders. The 9/11 Commission that I spoke of in detail last week, Mr. Speaker, said that we need 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year; 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year. You thought the President heard that message? Maybe not. You want to talk tough on border security and homeland security, or you just want to talk common sense on border security and homeland security? The President sent his budget to this Congress because he felt that he could do it, because this Congress, A, doesn't have the will and the desire as it relates to the Republican majority to make sure that we have enough border agents on the border. Now, we can burn all kinds of Federal jet fuel in the Republican leadership going down to the border talking about, ``Oh, I am here to make sure that we protect our borders, and we want to make sure that things go the way they are supposed to go.'' But the bottom line is, and I think this is important for every Member of Congress to understand, the fact is that 215 border agents were requested by this administration. On the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Speaker, we call for 2,000 border agents in line with the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report. Now, $2.5 billion, the Department of Homeland Security and even before they were created legacy agencies that are now in the Department of Homeland Security oversaw the two initiatives prior to this new one, changing the name, but not the oversight. Now, I am the ranking member on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Integration. We have three hearings, Mr. Speaker, and we had those hearings because the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security said that the money was squandered, 426 million of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars. They had cameras that didn't work. They had cameras in areas where Border Patrol agents could not even respond to watching individuals cross the border because they didn't have enough agents. On 9/11, combining three shifts of 24-hour shifts on 9/11, there were 250 agents on the border between Canada and the United States of America, 250. Now, we are not talking about all at once, we are talking about three shifts. So I think it is important. If we are going to talk about what the facts are, and that is what I enjoy about our working group that we have here is that we come to the floor with the facts. We have the will and desire because we have amendment after amendment that shows that here on this side of the aisle that we called for the 2,000 border agents since the 9/11 report was released, that was a book in Barnes and Noble and on Amazon.com and a number, and I encourage Americans to take a look at that, because this Republican majority is not following that. Come to the floor, tough talk, but not backing it up. And the great frustration of so many Americans as it relates to not only responding, yes, we can go out and link ourselves up and sing ``God Bless America'' out here on the steps of the Capitol, but the real commitment to protecting and having real security that we call for in our plan, HouseDemocrats.gov, anyone can get it, any Members of Congress can get it, of real security is making sure that we scan our containers for nuclear weapons, to make sure that we check air cargo before it goes in. We have passengers and Americans basically taking off everything to get on a plane, but meanwhile the cargo goes in the bottom of the plane unchecked. The frustration that Mr. Delahunt has is the fact that people come down to the floor saying one thing, and it is actually another. It is like me saying, ``Look over there,'' when the action is over here, or the lack thereof. So I think it is important that we outline these issues. Not the Democratic Caucus, not Mr. Ryan, not Ms. Wasserman Schultz, not Mr. Delahunt that comes here with this report. We are talking about the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security that says the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have the management capacity to oversee a contract even smaller than the $2.5 billion contract. So nowadays before the election, Mr. Ryan, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that we have monitors, and that we are going to monitor the movement on the border. How about the apprehension of individuals who are crossing the border? How about having border agents who are able and detention centers that are able to handle the capacity of those individuals who are coming over? And then we had an amendment on the floor, a bill on the floor, recently saying that we are going to build a double-link fence. I voted against it because it was a joke. We are going to build a double-link fence of 200 miles or so on the border that individuals are crossing; but, better yet, it doesn't appropriate any money to build the fence. You want to talk about the Potomac two-step in the worst way. That is just like me going to my kids and saying, ``Hey, guess what? We are getting ready to go to Walt Disney World, but meanwhile we don't have the gas money to get there.'' I mean, you know, we are making fun of this, but what I am saying is that this is for real. And so we have Members coming to the floor who are representing to not only, Mr. Speaker, you, other Members of the House that we are actually doing something on the majority side, and we are not doing anything but saying we are going to go right, but then going left. I am talking about the Republican majority that is doing that. So if we are going to be real, if we are going to have real security, Mr. Speaker, that we talk so much about here on this floor on this side of the aisle, if we get the majority of this House, we have the will and the desire to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. You want to respect those families, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that you talked so eloquently about just a couple of days ago here on this floor when you took the opportunity to walk the Members through what they haven't done and what they should do? We want to respect the memory of those individuals, we want to respect those first responders who put their lives on the line, climbed up that building; some lost their lives; some are still living with the aftermath of their heroism. If we want to respect them, then let's do what they said do. And if you are a Republican, Independent, or Democrat, you have to have a problem with the fact that these Members are coming to the floor representing one thing and doing another. So they can burn all kinds of Federal jet fuel and taxpayers' expense all they want to, Mr. Delahunt. And your frustration as it relates to Afghanistan when we had them on the run and now we have commanders, need it be NATO commanders or need it be U.S. commanders, saying we need help. General Abizaid, he had a press conference 48 hours ago, says, no, troop levels won't be coming down; we are going to still have 140,000 troops in the war in Iraq. We have 147,000 troops right now in the war in Iraq, and we will probably end up having 147,000 troops that are on their fourth and fifth deployments. Yesterday in Iraq, we lost four marines, leave alone the countless number of Iraqi individuals that are not even wearing a uniform, just trying to make a living, that have lost their lives. We have a policy here in the U.S. Congress of saying, because the President said stay the course, and we have a rubber-stamp majority that is not even exercising Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The lack of oversight and the lack of legislative authority, and this is what we get. We get individuals coming to the floor making statements that they know full well are not true on the reality of the appropriation and the reality of the direction of the policy of this country. Follow the President. So shall it be written, so shall it be done. That is not the democracy that the American people woke up early one Tuesday morning to vote for representation here in this House. Mr. Ryan, as I yield to you, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Green Party, Reform Party, they voted for representation and we are saying that we have the will and the desire to provide that representation.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. He is yielding to me. Mr. Ryan, it is better when someone else talks about your great contribution.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, even you participated in this fund- raiser. This is very important. This was a fund-raiser to raise money for the police officers who lost their lives here protecting the Capitol, to make sure that their children have an opportunity to go to college and be all that they can be. Mr. Ryan got caught up into the moment last night. He played quarterback. Made a couple of plays, running the ball, bad knee and all, and ended up hurting his knee. Tonight he comes with not only the will and the desire, but the dedication. He is standing here on one leg with crutches. He is here to deliver the message on behalf of the 30- somethings. We commend your dedication for watching out for not only the American people but those at the U.S. Capitol. We appreciate your sacrifice for being here tonight, standing on a bad leg and trying to recover at the same time.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is always a pleasure to join you in doing the 30-Something hour, and since us ``somethings'' are carrying the hour tonight, since we do not have the 30s here, I understand they are en route, but I want to thank you for your dedication to be able to deliver a positive message here in the Congress.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Delahunt, when I came and shared with you the positive message, I mean, when I said the positive message, I wanted to make sure that people understand there are people here in the Congress willing to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we do the things that we need to do to make sure that the American troops that are on the ground not only in Afghanistan, but in the war in Iraq, that there are Members of Congress who are willing to come to the floor and give voice to those individuals who are there.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have to, Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is important that we take this in a very serious manner. Even though it is Eastern Standard Time, it is approximately 11:20 p.m., and we have worked a full legislative day. We have a full legislative day tomorrow. And we are here to give voice to those that are counting on not only Members of Congress, but Members of Congress that have the will and desire to move us in a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that for those Members who want to join this side of the aisle in making sure that veterans, those who have allowed us to salute one flag, to be able to get the kind of health care that they deserve from this government, to allow those small businesses that want to provide affordable health care for their workers, all of the way up to the Fords and the GMs of the world who would like to provide health care, because we haven't addressed those issues here in this Congress. The corporate community and also the business community are suffering because of it, as well as the workers. Forty million Americans are trying to figure out how they are going to provide health care to not only children but for individuals who punch in and punch out every day. These are issues that we are willing to address and that we have had here as it relates to legislation in this Congress. I think it is important that we focus on bringing balance to this process, not just coming to the floor, having discussions. I can see if we were just here talking about what the majority is not doing. We are not only identifying what they are not doing, but at the same time we are saying on HouseDemocrats.gov that we have plans for security. We have plans for making sure that we invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. We have plans as it relates to a real strategy for the war in Iraq versus just a slogan that says stay the course. We have a plan to make sure that we educate our children, an innovation agenda that has been out for a very long time. It is nothing new, nothing that we revealed in days before the election, some under 50 days before the next election. The American people, and I am not talking about just the Democratic American people, I am saying Independents, the Reform Party, all have an opportunity to make a decision on behalf of the future of our country. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and the 30- something Working Group, as you know we were here earlier with Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Ryan, and for those others of the 30-something Working Group that were not able to make it to the floor, making sure that college is affordable for the next generation, making sure that we are not worrying about competing with the school down the street but competing with a school on another continent, we want to make sure that we do everything that we are supposed to do here in this Congress in giving every American a level playing field, if not an advantage over other countries, and making sure that they have what they need. We have fought the obvious battle here in making sure that our troops have body armor, making sure that those families that had to buy body armor for their loved ones, husbands, wives, uncles, daughters, making sure that we fought for those issues. I would give credit to some Members on the other side of the aisle who did stand up against the majority. But unfortunately, we have overwhelming support for a rubber-stamp majority, those individuals who are willing to follow the Republican leadership and not standing up on behalf of the American people. I think it is important that we give voice to those individuals. I am glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the minimum wage and she focused on domestic issues. We have a war in Iraq, but we have a huge challenge here in the United States of America. We have a huge challenge. We have blue and red States that are suing the Federal Government for lack of funding on Leave No Child Behind, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation that we felt we could move forth in a bipartisan way, not only in this Chamber but also in the Senate. But it takes a majority to bring about true bipartisanship. We have shown that we have been able to do it. We have shown on this side of the aisle that we can balance the budget and secure the future of not only Social Security but also secure the future of our country, not having other countries having their hand in the pocket of the American taxpayer. Earlier Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the whole issue of border security. It was an hour that the majority had, not the last hour, the hour before that, talking about how we are securing America and we are strong, this, that, and the other, and coming to the floor and sharing words without third-party validators. Who are the third-party validators? Our third-party validators are the American people who are saying that they are concerned about what is happening in this country because we don't have the kind of balance that our democracy calls for. Who is going to hold in check an administration that is willing to do anything to make sure that, you know, let's say the poll numbers, or to use 9/11, something that is not dealing with honoring those families and those first responders, but to talk about a false agenda as far as securing America. We can do a better job. Have the majority done some things? Yes, they have done some things. I am a level-minded person, and there are some things that have been done. But have we secured America in the way we should? As it relates to our agenda and securing America, we have put that up front. Not just as it relates to uniforms and badges, but also from a fiscal standpoint, we are saying we don't want America's back broken because of the record-gaining debt of this administration and the Republican Congress. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am going to tell you right now, this poster here is very interesting because this poster is the longest-living poster that we have in the 30-Something Working Group arsenal of posters, to be able to break this down so everybody can understand. We don't want to confuse Members or the American people by using big words and acronyms and just kind of talking inside a Washington game. We want to make sure that people understand. We want to make sure that people understand that here as it relates to our efforts on the Democratic side of the aisle, that it is not about the Democratic National Committee. That it is not about, because I am a Democrat, I am right. It is not about okay, I am going to speak to only the Democratic Members of the House, because that is not what this democracy is set up to do. This democracy, Article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, says as a legislative body, we have oversight and investigative powers. We are supposed to hold this government accountable. The House is the only body you have to be elected to. The Senate, you can be appointed as a Senator. If a Senator was to say I have to retire, health reasons or whatever the case may be, or somebody is picked for Vice President, a Governor in that given State can appoint an American citizen to carry out that Senator's term. That has happened. That has happened in this Congress. When we look at the House of Representatives, we are the true body of the democracy. We have to be elected. If any Member of the House has to leave, they have to hold a special election to fill a seat. Let me say, it takes the House and the executive branch to do what has happened. $1.05 trillion has been borrowed in 4 years between 2001-2005. President Bush, he is our Commander in Chief and he is our President, period, dot, but he cannot do it by himself. The Republican Congress allowed him to do it in raising the debt ceiling. We had those letters out here, and we still have those letters from the Secretary of the Treasury saying we have to raise the debt ceiling. What does that mean? That means we haven't been responsible, the Republican majority, in administering the dollars that the American people have given in trust to this Congress and this House to do on their behalf. Spending is out of control, borrowing is out of control. Borrowing is out of control. $1.05 trillion. In 224 years, and here I am in the 109th Congress, a second generation Member of the House, okay, and this has never happened in the history of the Republic. This is not something that happened maybe 20 years ago, even 100 years ago. In 224 years, 42 Presidents have not been able to accomplish what the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress has been able to accomplish in allowing foreign nations to buy our debt, to have their hands in the pockets of the American people, and counting. This chart, as far as I am concerned, when we get back here after November, we are probably going to have some new numbers. That $1.05 trillion is higher. This chart is falling apart, goodness gracious, because this chart has been the wake-up call. We decided to come up with this chart to paint the picture, regardless of what the Members on the other side who come to the floor say about fiscal responsibility. The Government Accountability Office released a report that there are agencies that are coming to the Hill that can't explain where millions of dollars have gone. And we are supposed to have oversight. We have the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that says if anyone in the Pentagon says anything else about redeployment of troops or a different strategy than what I believe, ``I believe,'' or that the administration has embraced, then they are fired. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, not even a hearing, not even a Member from the Republican side outraged to the point where they are going to their party leaders saying we have got to call the Secretary of Defense in and find out what he is talking about, because this thing is supposed to be, using your own words, Mr. Speaker, using their words, saying if we hear from the military commanders on the ground what they need, we are going to give it to them. So when you have this lack of oversight, no matter what your party affiliation is, no matter what your motivation may be to vote or not vote in November, you have to have issue with individuals that are saying, ``Either it's my way or the highway.'' That is okay if you had a household somewhere and you are the big paycheck guy or gal or whatever the case may be and you are paying the bill. But when you are paying the bills with U.S. taxpayer dollars, we have to bring issue to that. And because of that relationship that this Republican majority has with the executive branch of this government, of our government, I must add, it is problematic when you have folks that are not willing to ask the question. When we walk through these doors into this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and the lights are up in this Chamber, and it says the board is open, what we call the voting board is open, and we take our voting card out, and we come in here to vote, we are voting on behalf of 600- or 700,000 Americans that have elected us to come here to represent them, not what the special interests say that we should do here in this House. There are some very obvious issues that should be resolved, that need to be resolved, but will not be resolved as long as we have a rubber-stamp Congress in place. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I sleep well knowing that we spend every moment that we can here on this floor until the clock runs out by the rules of this House to allow us to come here and give voice to those Americans that deserve better. We are saying that we are willing to put this country in a new direction, not just saying it in fiction. It is on the Internet. It is on housedemocrats.gov. We have press conferences. We file amendments in committee. And the only reason why those amendments and that legislation does not have breath in the lungs of the legislation that we file, the reason why it doesn't have a heartbeat, is the fact that we are in the minority. Now, the only way that can change, Mr. Speaker, is that we need a majority of this House to bring accountability back to this government to make sure that we have balance, to make sure we have fiscal responsibility, to make sure that we stand up on behalf of children who can't even vote, and to make sure that we give voice and to make sure that we give direction and to make sure that we have the backs of our men and women that have sand in their teeth right now in the war in Iraq, and to make sure that those individuals that are in Afghanistan that are standing on behalf of the hope and the prayer and hopefully the willing desire of this Congress, to make sure that we have their back, to make sure that we have a true coalition, to make sure that other countries can look at this country and know when that whatever the President's says, it does not necessarily mean that that is the final word. Yes, we support our President. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to allow this Congress and this legislative branch to function in a way that it is supposed to function. And right now that is not the case because individuals are willing to rubber-stamp exactly to the word, to the comma, to the period to what the President calls for. And it is on domestic policy, and it is also on foreign policy. And I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we carry out our duty. No other President in recent times, Mr. Speaker, I must add, has been able to celebrate the kind of rubber stamp that the Bush administration has received. That is not good for America. That is not good for any party affiliation anyone may have, and that is not good for the future of our country. And that is the reason why we are here in that light.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I can tell you that as you start to go down the line of the facts and not fiction of what has happened and what has not happened here in this House, you can't help but think that we only have tomorrow that we will be in session, and we have next week that we will be in session. There are a number of conference reports out there, bills that have passed both House and Senate that are in limbo that a conference committee has not even been appointed by the leadership of the House on a bipartisan, in a bipartisan way or partisan way to even deal with those issues. We have an immigration bill that the American people would like to see some action on. No action whatsoever. And I can sit here with great confidence to say that it will not happen. A lot of things have, you know, a lot of talk on the majority side about an immigration bill. A lot of talk about protecting our borders and bringing legislation to the floor, if it even made it through a committee, and I will take out my Sharpie here of a double-lined fence to protect our border and bringing it to the floor for a vote. And you take out the legislation and you start to do something, what my teachers used to say, reading is fundamental, and you do not see here where the money has been appropriated to even build a double-line fence that we are coming to the floor and being asked to vote on. It is not a joke.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. No money. Yes, we are going to build this fence. It is going to be for 200, or if someone sat in the back room somewhere off the chamber and said, do not make it 200, make it a 300-mile fence, let's build a fence all of the way, let's put one in the middle of the Gulf, and we are going to run a fence underwater, folks have to put on masks and SCUBA equipment, put it underwater, yeah, that is the ticket. But no money to be able to pay for the fence. Better yet, I think that folks find some sort of gratification or, I guess to prove a point, to say we are tough on security. But we are not going to put our money where our mouths are. The same thing, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Leave No Child Behind. The same thing as it relates to what, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about as it relates to the minimum wage. The 30-Something Working Group night after night pounds the Republican majority as it relates to the imbalance of accountability on behalf of the American people that are making minimum wage. We have a proposal on this side of the aisle to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, that will take other workers who are not on the minimum wage, that are making $10, $15 or $20 an hour, their wages will go up. Meanwhile, CEOs are getting everything that they want, making triple- diple time of the worker who is going in there and working every day. Need it be someone that is retired, that is trying to make ends meet, they are going in, they are punching in and punching out every day, 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes in the afternoon and 30 minutes for lunch if they get that. The CEOs are getting what they want, and guess what? The Members of Congress are getting what they want. These numbers that you see up here are not minimum wage or even salaried workers in the United States of America. The minimum wage worker has not received an increase since 1997. Look at it. Zeros across the board for the American people. But look at Members of Congress. Now, here is the difference between the minority, those of us that are the Democrats and the majority, those that are in the majority, that has the power and the influence and the committee chairpersons that are able to move legislation, and the speakership and the majority leader, and the Senate, and the White House. What has happened? They all got raises. And the difference between us and them is that we said we will not participate in another pay raise for Members of Congress until the American people receive a pay raise. And that is a fact. And that is a promise. And the other promise that we have made on this side of the aisle is in the majority, within the first 100 hours that the American people will receive an increase in the minimum wage. And that is a fact. That is not fiction. That is fact. That is on the Record. That is in legislation that was filed in the 109th Congress that cannot see the light of day because the majority does not want it to happen. Now, here is the other issue as it comes down to accountability. There is a big differences from that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle. We have said we are willing to move forth in a bipartisan way and tackle the major issues that are facing this country today and tomorrow. The Republican majority has already shown that they do not have the will nor the desire to follow through on anything that I am talking about at the levels that we are talking about. We are talking about moving this country in a new direction to make sure that every American can participate, whether they are driving a pickup truck or a flex vehicle here in the United States, making sure that Democrats, Republicans, independents, members of the American people in general, those who cannot even vote will have the opportunity. We have a proposal on reversing the cost increases that the Republican majority has put on the backs of the American worker and the American family and in educating the next generation of leaders that are here to make sure that they have enough money to attend college, that makes sure that there is no devolution of taxes. And what do I mean? In the 30-Something Working Group, we do not believe in big slogans and Washington inside talk. We believe in making sure that the American people understand. Devolution of taxes is saying we cut their taxes here, and that we do not put it on the backs of the States, because by their constitution, by State constitutions, they have to balance. Here in Washington, they just put it on the credit card or they ask a foreign country to pay for the mismanagement of this Republican majority. So there is a big choice here. The big choice is that do we want to continue to go in the wrong direction, from a fiscal standpoint and a respect standpoint as it relates to our veterans and their services, also as it relates to health care, or do we want to go in a new direction in making sure that we deal with our fiscal issues? Because on this side of the aisle, we balance the budget. Not one Republican on this side can say that they had anything to do with balancing the budget. We are almost going to run out of time. But I am just going to say go to www.housedemocrats.gov, or www.house.gov/dems. The Members can go on and see the report on making sure that we keep Social Security as a public program versus privatization. A member actually came to the floor after we finished last week and said that no one in my party ever said anything about privatization of social security. I kind of wanted to ask the gentleman to yield, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to bring a statement out that the President said less than 10 hours earlier saying that if they get the majority and he is able to get the next Congress, as he has it now, to rubber stamp, you are going to pursue the privatization of Social Security once again. So we want to make sure the American people know about it.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of, Dr. Joseph Patrick Lee, the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida. Dr. Lee was an institution at Barry University, known throughout the Barry family and to generations of students. He was an extraordinary scholar and an excellent administrator. He served quietly, competently, and well, helping to develop and expand Barry College into the major University it is today. His passing is a huge loss. Dr. Lee was also an integral part of the South Florida community for over 25 years. He served on the boards of directors of numerous community groups, including president of the Miami Shores Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club of Miami Shores. Dr. Lee's many honors included: the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship; Danforth Foundation National Fellowship; Fulbright Fellowship, Universite de Paris; and National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Fellowship. He was elected Commissioner of Florida's Southern Association of Colleges and Schools from 2000-05, and served on its executive council in 2004. Born November 30, 1942, in Leitchfield, Kentucky, Dr. Lee came to Barry University from Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, North Carolina, where he held the positions of vice president for academic affairs; academic dean; and associate professor of French. His love of language led him to earn his doctor of philosophy from Fordham University in New York, with a major in French, minor in Spanish. He earned his bachelor's degree from Brescia College in Owensboro, Kentucky, majoring in French with minors in English, Spanish and history. Considered a preeminent scholar of Voltaire and an internationally respected scholar and lecturer, Dr. Lee co-authored ``Livre dangereux: Le Dictionnaire philosophique de Voltaire'' in 1994, and published book reviews in 10 journals. Dr. Lee became Barry University's vice president for academic affairs in 1981. As its chief academic officer, Dr. Lee was an integral part of Barry University growing from a small college of just under 2,000 students to today's institution of more than 9,200. Barry University, Florida's fourth-largest private institution of higher education, provides bachelor's, master's, law, and seven doctoral degree programs across the state. Founded in 1940, the university is sponsored by the Dominican Sisters of Adrian, Michigan. Barry University, named one of the most diverse institutions of higher education in the South by US News and World Magazine for the last seven years, possesses a diverse student population from more than 70 countries characterizing Barry's global community. Dr. Lee's life mirrored the diversity found at Barry University. His research and travels took him to France, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, and his reputation led him to more than 30 locations throughout the United States and the world as a speaker and guest lecturer. Further, he was a member of more than 15 professional organizations, including the American Association of Teachers of French, American Association of University Administrators, American Comparative Literature Association, American Society for Eighteenth- Century Studies, British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, Modern Language Association, North American Association for the Study of Jean- Jacques Rousseau, and the South Atlantic Modern Language Association. Dr. Lee also was appointed to the editorial board of the ``Complete Works of Voltaire,'' and was national secretary-treasurer for Delta Epsilon Sigma. Dr. Joseph Lee's achievements were great, as was his commitment to Barry University's community and the broader community of South Florida. I offer my sincere condolences to his family and all who were touched by his greatness.