Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have had 224 years, Mr. Speaker, of leadership that has only has been able to borrow $1.01 trillion from foreign nations. The Republican majority along with the President has in 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, has been able to borrow $1.05 trillion in just 4 years. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, since we do not have our chart, I just wanted to give those facts.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I believe we have until 34 after the hour. So let me just quickly, since you are talking about the debt and what this Republican Congress has done, we actually have a new chart here tonight. As you know, Japan has bought $682.8 billion of our debt. China, we are just talking about China, Red China, $249.8 billion of our debt.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, do you want to close real quick?

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of Miami's great spiritual leaders, Pastor Arthur Jackson, III, of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church of Carol City, which is located in my Congressional District. Pastor Jackson came to his calling through the love and influence of both his father, the late Rev. Arthur Jackson, Jr., and his mother, Mrs. Arthur Jackson. Spiritually, God has lifted and anointed him to preach the gospel to the wounded, lost, and broken. Ask any of Pastor Jackson's thousands of congregants what they most like about him, and you are likely to hear, ``He is real'' He relates to his flock in an honest and genuine way that brings out the best in people. During the hurricane season, for example, Pastor Jackson sent his deacons out to check on the elderly, to make sure that their houses were properly boarded up before the storm and afterwards, to make sure they had food and water and any other help they may have needed. During Pastor Jackson's tenure at Antioch, the church has gone through a complete spiritual, financial, and structural metamorphosis. In December of 1996, the Congregation purchased surrounding lots and broke ground for a new structure--a $2 million building that was consecrated in August 1998. After only seven years, the congregation had already paid off their multi-million dollar mortgage. A man of character, integrity and wisdom, Pastor Jackson's consistent obedience to God has taken the Antioch congregation from the ``Faithful Fifty'' members, to a blossoming ministry of nearly 6,000 members. Pastor Jackson serves God and his community through the ministries he has nurtured. I congratulate Reverend Jackson on his Pastoral Anniversary and extend best wishes to him, his wife, Jacquaneise, and their daughter, Jaden.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. And the special giveaways and special interests. Let me just quickly, I just want to make the point here. Oil companies, look at the subsidies and look at the profits. They have reaped $113 billion in record breaking profits in 2005; 2004, $84 billion; 2003, $59 billion; 2002, $34 billion. It is coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that after the meeting at the White House with the oil companies, that was uncovered, after they denied all of this, that they were a part of the working group, that the profit level went up. Now, I am not just a Member with a conspiracy theory, but just the other day in the Democratic Caucus, we had a gentleman that came to speak to us about alternative fuel sources. The question was asked, well, is not the oil companies, I mean, they have commercials going on talking about how they are investing in alternative fuels. This is an actual shot of a pump at an ExxonMobil station. Here you have regular, you have special and then you have super plus. But this is the interesting part, Mr. Speaker, because this is the ethanol part here that says E-85 which is an alternative fuel. Guess what is happening here. This sign here, and I hope that, Mr. Speaker, the Members can see it. You cannot use your Mobil credit card. So basically what they are saying is that you can use your credit card for the gas because we want to keep you on this stuff, but if you get a vehicle with alternative fuels, even though you are a customer of ours, you cannot use our card for that fuel. Now, I guarantee you I can walk into the little food mart here at that ExxonMobil and buy a case of sodas if I wanted to with my ExxonMobil card. Someone who is a smoker can buy eight packs of cigarettes.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Sunflower seeds, what have you, but we cannot buy alternative fuels. Now, meanwhile, back at the ranch, I see the ExxonMobil CEO on The Today Show, and he is saying, oh, we believe in innovation and alternative fuels, but that is not what it is saying at the pump, Mr. Speaker. So I think that when we start looking at what is wrong with the Republican majority and what we are willing to do, if the American people sees fit to put Democrats in control of this House, that we will fight the big oil companies. We will make sure that there is no price gouging. It will not be a question of having to appoint a group to go out and look at this issue. They will no longer have the kind of open access special interests has had in this House and that is a fact. That is not fiction; that is fact. So I think it is important when you start looking at all the money that is being borrowed to fund the millionaire tax break, all the money that is being borrowed to make sure that special interests get their tax cut and their subsidies and all these things, meanwhile the American people are paying for it. I am not going to pull this stuff off the chart tonight, but these are the countries that are owning a part of the American apple pie due to the fact they want to have the great American giveaway.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it is just not natural to think that the oil industry, the CEOs, the board members of the oil industry will say, well, we want to do the right thing. Matter of fact, we are going to take money out of our pockets and profits and we are going to put it on the table and we are going to make America energy independent. It goes against financial logic for them. Their stockholders now are making more money than they have ever made in the history of the country. When they have their shareholder meetings, Mr. Speaker, they do not go there and say, boy, people are paying a lot of money at the pump. What should we do? What should we do? No. We are making more money than we have ever made in our lives, and we are being subsidized by the Republican majority in Congress. What can we do to keep the Republican majority in control of the Congress so we can continue getting what we are getting? That is what is happening. What has to happen on behalf of the American people, they have to have a Congress that is willing to say, you know, that is not going to happen any more. We are going to make sure we work very hard so we can start stroking away from this kind of business here. Folks are talking out of both sides of their mouths saying that, oh, we believe in innovation and in alternative fuels, yet at the same time denying their customers the right to use their credit card to buy ethanol. This is on a pump. This is on the pump. This is on the pump. This is not something that some environmental group ran out and put a sticker on a pump. You can pull up to an ExxonMobil station now and see that on the pump. That is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. It is not natural for that to happen. It is not natural for the Republican majority to say, well, Mr. President, we don't agree with your tax policy because its wrong that we are borrowing money from foreign nations and we are selling America way. It is not natural. It is not natural for the Republican majority to say we have to have oversight. We have to make sure that we have no more Hurricane Katrinas. Yes, there were some committees that met and found out the obvious, that things went wrong. But there were no solutions that came out of the report of the partisan committee here in the House. It is not natural for the Republican majority to stand up to companies that are raking in record profits off the backs of the American people. This is well documented. And, Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to beg the Republican majority to do the right thing at this point, because history doesn't reflect that they are willing to be bipartisan in a way that will benefit all Americans, with making sure we work in a bipartisan way. One thing our leadership has said and one thing we have embraced here in the 30-something Group is that when the American people see fit, hopefully in November, if they are willing to have a Democratic Congress to stand up to this White House and to stand up to the special interests here in Washington, D.C., then we will have bipartisanship. Because bipartisanship can only happen when the leadership allows it. I am saying the leadership in charge allows bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, well documented. There are conference committees when we pass a bill in the House and the Senate that comes together and the Democratic members are not even welcome to the conference committee to sit and talk about the ideas and exchange with the Senate so we can send a positive package to the President of the United States. That is not happening.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it has just been truly a pleasure watching you share not only with the Members, Mr. Speaker, but also with the American people, and we wonder how we got to where we are now. I am just wondering how did we got to where we are now? Mr. Speaker, I think we have gotten there because of this rubber stamp that is here. It is not just a rubber stamp. It is the Republican Congress rubber stamp, and it is very, very unfortunate that the people that are paying the price for this rubber stamp are the American people at the gas pump. This is graduation time. A lot of parents are going to see their children walk across the stage, but guess what, college assistance and affordable loans will not be there for those children because we are willing to give $42,000, $43,000 in tax breaks to millionaires. The Republican Congress says they gave tax cuts for the American people. Yes, they are American people, too, but I am not talking about the middle class. The middle class family does not consider themselves millionaires. I am holding this rubber stamp because this is what got us here. Mr. Ryan talks about paying for that. Let us put that rubber stamp over here. How we are paying for it is we are making history in all the wrong places: 224 years, $1.01 trillion borrowed, Mr. Speaker, over 224-year, 42 Presidents combined, $1.01 trillion. The Republican Congress and President Bush, he could not do it without the Republican Congress, has been able to borrow $1.05 trillion over just 4 years. 224 years versus 4 years, even though we are at war, even though we have little health care for Americans, if any, and Mr. Speaker, we have given out tax breaks to the oil companies.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as I close, and then I am going to be quiet, because I just want to make this last little point. It is unfortunate that it is not natural for the Republican majority to do the right thing. I don't care if you are a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat, or you are thinking about voting and you are 17\1/2\ years old and you can register and vote in November, you have to have a problem. Or 17 and about to vote in November, because you have to be 18. You have to have a problem the way the Republican majority has put this country in a bad posture for the future and the present. If I don't say anything else tonight, I just want to make sure that the Members understand what they are doing to the country. Not to Democrats. We are all in this. When we go to the pumps, they don't have a price for Democrats and a price for Republicans and a price for Independents. We are all paying the same price. We are all paying the same price at the pump. So when folks pass policy and say, oh, well, we got what we wanted. It is not about carrying the Republican leadership on your shoulder saying we beat the Democrats on this one. No, you beat the American people, and the American people have had enough of it. We are here to make it abundantly clear, and we are carrying a message on behalf of all our colleagues on this side of the aisle, and hopefully a few Republicans on that sides of the aisle, that we are willing to lead on behalf of the American people and not K Street, not the special interests, not somebody's cousin that happened to get a lobbying job that came here to get the right policy here, like they did in the White House on these oil companies. Am I upset? You're doggone right I am upset. So I just want to make sure that we are clear on that, crystal; that everyone understands and we break this down so that the average Joe and Sue and Sally can understand what we are talking about here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know why it is breaking down, because special interests have been allowed to infiltrate the U.S. House of Representatives. The K Street Project until denounced a few months ago was alive and well in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, you know it. I know it. The majority and minority know it. Articles were written, you have to be a part of the K Street Project or you are out of it. There was one Member of this House who said if they are not on the list as being a part of the K Street Project that is contributing to make sure that Republicans stay in the majority here in the House, and that also means if they did not hire staffers or ex-staffers that Republican leadership Members asked them to hire, they were not going to have access. I am going to read this Washington Post article, Wednesday, November 16, 2005, front page: White House documents show executives from big oils companies met with the Vice President's energy task force in 2001. Well, let us look at the chart. What happened in 2002 after they met? Wow, $34 billion in profits. ``Something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recent as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. A document obtained this week by The Washington Post,'' and that was November 2005, ``shows that officials from ExxonMobil, Phillips, Shell Oil and BP, Inc., met in the White House complex with Cheney's aides who were developing national energy policies, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.'' The bottom line is it is just not natural for the Republican majority to be part of my revolution. Their revolution is making sure that the special interests get what they want, not the revolution of accountability or any Contract for America that they came up with. So they got in majority, and they lost touch with the rhetoric that they were sharing with the American people, and look at what happened. The facts, after the meeting in the White House complex was documented, not the fact that the White House came forward and said, we had a meeting; no, we had to do some insight and investigation. And guess what? The American spirit broke through, and somebody said, yes, there was a meeting, I was there. Not me, but the person who reported that. There was $34 billion in profits after the meeting. Let us look at the profits here. I think that was a pretty good meeting on behalf of the special interests. That is why Mr. Toomey is saying what he is saying. That is why Mr. Gingrich is saying what he is saying, and that is the reason why the average American person is saying, I am not voting party; I am voting for my family. I am not voting because somebody said, you are a Republican and this is what you have to do. I am not a registered Republican, but I guarantee you those people who delivered the Republican majority in this House voted for the things that they were promised some 12-14 years ago, not what is going on right now here in this House. If they want a change, they have an opportunity to do it, and we want to make sure that everyone knows they have the power, and not to believe the rhetoric of the 30-second ad about why you need to elect me because the facts are not there on the majority's behalf, the Republican majority's behalf, that they are going to deliver for the average American worker, the average American senior citizen, the average American child that is trying to get an education. Because when they walk across that stage this week and next week, they are going to pay more than ever for their education, and it comes by way of the cuts in the budget to make sure that oil companies and millionaires get their tax breaks, and make sure that individuals who are carrying out bad policy as it relates to not having a strategy in Iraq continue to carry on that bad policy, and no one can wave an Independent or Republican or Democratic flag and say what is happening right now is good in Congress. What we have to do is change the majority in this House to a Democratic majority because we have the will and the desire to lead, and I believe the American people know. And I believe the Republican majority knows it. I think it is going to happen, and it is going to happen because of what they have not done and what we are willing to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. MEEK

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to 15 outstanding students in Miami-Dade County schools who were honored on May 16th at an impressive ceremony in the Dade County Auditorium. These 2006 Miami Herald/EI Nuevo Herald's Silver Knights were cited for their academic excellence and all-around leadership, as well as for their dedication to uplifting the lives of others. This honor reflects their personal achievement as ``visionaries and role models'' for whom we feel absolute pride and unique honor. These exceptional students represent the best and the brightest of our youth, and it is in this spirit of service and commitment to their fellow man that our community will rest assured of a bright future. The awardees and their achievement areas are: Athletics--Amanda Estevez from Florida Christian School; Business--Stephanie Fink from Coral Gables Sr.; English--Gerardo Munoz from Miami Sr.; General Scholarship--Xavier Gonzalez From Coral Park Sr.; Journalism--Marcus Parramore from Coral Gables Sr.; Math--Gongqi ``Gina'' He from Palmetto Sr.; Music--Cathy Kim-King Ng from Sunset Sr.; News Media--Kemy Joseph from Homestead Sr.; and Speech--Clarissa Parks from Coral Reef Sr. I would also like to commend the following honorees, who are my constituents and attend schools in my District. They are: Art-- Charolette Jarrett from Dr. Michael Krop Sr.; Drama--Brittany Little from Miami Northwestern Sr.; Foreign Language--Dave Fils-Aime from Dr. Michael Krop Sr.; Science--Zachary Sandoval from Dr. Michael Krop Sr.; Vocational-Technical--Chynna Clayton from Turner Technical Sr. In a special manner, I am extending my commendation to Nicholas Nelson- Goedert from North Miami Beach Sr., the Social Science awardee, who is currently serving as an intern in my District Office. There are other Silver Knight Honorable Mentions from my District: Business--Diana Augustin from Turner Tech Sr.; English--Dmitriy Rokhfeld from Dr. Michael Krop Sr. High; Foreign Language--Carol Toro from Miami Country Day School; Music--Drew Davis from Dr. Michael Krop Sr. and Trestiese Davis from Miami Central Sr. High; Math--Willedra Mosley from Miami Carol City Sr. and Kevin Pan from Dr. Michael Krop Sr.; Science--Genevieve Carvil from Carol City Sr.; and Speech--Rhyanne Carrington from Miami Norland Sr. This group of accomplished young men and women represent the finest high school seniors around, and their individual and collective achievements give me comfort in knowing that the future of our community is in good hands. With earned scholarships they will soon be attending their respective schools of higher learning to once again compete and demonstrate their abilities and character in tackling the demands of a yet greater challenge. Bound by the same commitment to hard work and personal ethic, I am confident that they will bring to fruition their dreams of personal achievement and scholastic excellence in a manner that will benefit society as they go about spreading their contribution of good will as productive and responsible citizens. Against innumerable odds that would have intimidated lesser spirits, and guided by their faith, work ethic and utmost discipline, these young men and women have genuinely earned their kudos as the 2006 Silver Knights. My pride and honor in representing them in Congress are only exceeded by my deep gratitude for all that they have done to uphold the honor and dignity of our community.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the 80th anniversary of the City of Opa-Locka, Florida, which I am proud to represent in the United States Congress. Home to more than 15,000 residents in Northwest Miami-Dade County, ``The Great City'' of Opa-Locka has had a long and colorful history, from its founding in the mid-1920s, rapid expansion prior to and during World War II and its recent efforts at revitalization. The name Opa-Locka is a contraction of the Native American name for the area, ``Opa-tisha-woka-locka'', meaning a dry place in the swamp with trees. The area was developed in the early 1920s by aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss and was based on the Arabian Nights theme with streets that have names like Sultan Avenue, Ali Baba Avenue, and Sesame Street. The Arabian Nights style is also reflected in the city's architecture, which features 105 original buildings with an array of domes, elaborate minarets and outside staircases in brightly painted colors built between 1925-28 during Florida's land boom. Officially incorporated in 1926, Opa-Locka today maintains the largest collection of Moorish architecture in the Western hemisphere and 20 sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Opa-Locka Airport also has a long and colorful history. In 1918, the Navy relocated a blimp hangar to Opa-Locka from Key West. In the early 1930s, a Naval Reserve Training Base was established here. Commissioned NAS Miami in August 1940, training in fighter, dive-bombing and torpedo bombing skills took place at various times during the history of the base. In addition to serving as headquarters for the 7th Naval District, the station supported a naval air gunnery school, a Marine Corps Air Station, a Coast Guard Station, and a small craft-training center. The peak complement, reached in 1945, consisted of 7,200 officers and men and 3,100 civilians. During the early days of World War II, Opa-Locka's pivotal role in training pilots resulting in the airport having the unique distinction of supporting more takeoffs and landings than any other airport in the world. Opa-Locka today is a working community that is looking to the future and working hard to revitalize its economic and cultural base while maintaining its small town, close knit sense of community. City Hall, the old Opa-Locka Hotel and the original Opa-Locka Train Station have recently been renovated. Additionally, a new State of Florida Services Building and a variety of new business have located in the City in recent years, and recent interest in Opa-Locka airport holds promise for the future. As the city begins its ninth decade, I congratulate its leaders and citizens and look forward to working with the government, businesses and people of Opa-Locka in building an even stronger, more vibrant community in the coming years.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of Miami's great spiritual and community leaders, Bishop Victor T. Curry. On May 21, Bishop Curry will celebrate his 15th pastoral anniversary, and I want to echo the same sentiments of joy and gratitude that the 15,000 members of the New Birth Baptist Church in Miami will lift up to Almighty God on this happy occasion. Bishop Curry's ministerial journey truly represents the best and the noblest of our community. As bishop, senior pastor, and teacher of New Birth Baptist Church, he is leading his congregation in the ways of God and has tirelessly worked to enlighten our community on the path to spiritual wisdom, social responsibility and good government based on the laws of God and the dictates of conscience. I want to acknowledge the tremendous work he is doing in constantly guiding not only the members of New Birth Baptist Church, but also the entire family of the ``The Cathedral of Faith International.'' He has truly exemplified the model of Christ as the Good Shepherd, and has led his flock, sharing with them the words of God's wisdom and the good news emanating from the gospel. His motto--``From Vision to Victory''--has impacted the lives of countless people, for Bishop Curry has carried forth his message of hope in person, in newspapers, on television, and on radio. He has demonstrated, both by word and by example, his unconditional love for and commitment to our children, the elderly, the poor, the disenfranchised, and those less fortunate among us. I therefore join with his congregation and our entire community in honoring Bishop Curry on his 15th pastoral anniversary and in wishing him many more in the years to come.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again. I would definitely like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing me to have this hour, this 30-something hour, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and also Mr. Steny Hoyer, our whip, and our chairman Mr. James Clyburn and also Mr. Larson, John Larson, our vice chair of our caucus. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor every day that we are in session, almost every day, to share not only with the Members how we should work in a bipartisan way leading on behalf of this country, but also to share with the American people how important that its elected representation here in Washington, DC, need it be Democrats, Republicans, Independents, that we come together under one flag and we salute one flag to make sure that we fight on behalf of what they need, not what the special interests may need here in Washington, DC. I can't help but segue out of that opening into this historic day in American history. This historic day, and it wouldn't be anything that I would say that we should put forth a House Resolution to designate it as some sort of special holiday, but I think the Members need to be made aware of what happened 5 years ago on this day that might have put into motion, I believe had a lot to put into motion of what the American people are feeling now, not only on the east coast or in the Midwest or on the west coast or north or south, but what they are feeling of the sound of the ring at the gas pump when they are pumping gas into their tank, the feeling that they have when they can no longer carry cash because all of the cash is being spent on fueling their tanks to be able to give their children a ride to school or be able to help a sick loved one to a doctor's appointment, or a small business person trying to figure out how he or she is going to go up on the cost of their service or the product that they provide to a given company because of these gas prices. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory; and so that is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, the 30- something Working Group, we have gone back to looking for the facts of how do we get to where we are now, where did we fall short as a Congress on behalf of the American people. Now, when I say fall short, I want to make sure that the Members don't get confused. I think here on the Democratic side of the aisle that we have done a very good job, if not an outstanding job, of trying to represent the people that wake up every day and want to provide, want to put forth their best role, their best foot in this great democracy of ours. I think on the majority side that it has been well documented that there has been access into energy policy here in this country in government- funded buildings where special interest was top shelf. That is a heavy charge, but let me just back it up here. 2001 on this day, not yesterday, not tomorrow, but on this day, Vice President Dick Cheney and his energy task force had a secret meeting bringing together big oil companies, energy lobbyists, CEOs, and other special interests to craft the administration's energy agenda, an agenda to deliver Big Oil big dividends. This is well documented within the media, this is well documented as it relates to testimony in some committees before Congress. Big five oil companies, $32.8 billion in the first quarter profits this year, free drilling rights on public lands, $9 billion in subsidies; $20 billion over 5 years, and waived royalty fees, another gift that was given out of this energy policy. Big Oil comes through for the GOP. Big Oil gave 84 percent of their campaign contributions to Republicans in the last 24 months. Bush- Cheney got more than $2.46 million in 2004 as it relates to campaign contributions. More than $70 million to the Bush and Republican Congress since 2000. Democrats want to take this country in a new direction, and I think it is important that we point out some of the things that have taken place. Now, some may say, Well, Congressman, I mean, that is good, you pointed that out. But, Mr. Speaker, I must go down memory lane to remind the Members and also the American people that this meeting was well denied by many: What are you talking about, a secret meeting? What do you mean? We do everything in the sunshine here in Washington, DC. We have transparency. We believe that we are here on behalf of the American people. Well, let me just say that, and I want to point to an article that I pointed out last week, and I think it is important because we come to Washington every week for the business of the people and I think it is important that we point this out. This is a Washington Post article that is dated November 16, 2005. As a matter of fact, it was on the front page: White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. We should have a problem with that. The document obtained, this week, November of 2005 by the Washington Post, shows that officials from ExxonMobil Corporation, Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and BP of America, Inc., met in the White House complex with Cheney's aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts of which are still being debated. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we bring that to the attention of the Members and remind them as we Members come to the floor, especially on the majority side, and start talking about, well, you know, I don't know how we got here. I don't know why these oil prices are the way they are. And I am going to show that chart there in a minute, but like it is some sort of, like it is someone there like a puppet, like pulling the strings and, I don't know how the puppet is moving. Well, let me just remind the Members with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that when we tried to come forth with an energy policy last year that would be meaningful for all Americans, not just some, and definitely not the folks that were invited to the White House. Now, I don't know and I don't know this as a fact, but I would have a pretty strong, I guess you can, like some people say, you could take this to the bank that everyday Americans were not called to the White House and asked how energy policy should be put forth in this country, because all of these subsidies were being placed on the table for these big oil companies. And when it was reported, I remember very vividly, Mr. Speaker, that some folks said, well, it is in innovation, that is the reason why we are meeting with them. They are the professionals. Well, why while they were giving their advice, they were cutting their deal. And I think it is important for us to again say what this means to the American people. Gas prices across America doubled. Big Oil profits quadrupled. I have already gone over that, but Big Oil has profited in a way that no other time in the history of this Republic, and I think it is important that people understand that we, those of us that are on this side of the aisle, Democrats, we believe in investing in the Midwest and not the Middle East. It is far too expensive, and I think we have figured that out and I think the Republican majority hopefully will get the message. The bottom line is, like the commercial, Mr. Speaker, got milk? The bottom line, have you gotten enough? Have you gotten enough of the back-room deals? Have you gotten enough of the secret meetings that are later revealed? Because there are some people of good will that will share this with the American people. I mean, on this side of the aisle we have called for and I am going to talk about an amendment that we put forth that was voted down on party lines that made a lot of sense; but I guess because Democratic Members put forth that amendment on behalf of the American people, I guess it wasn't good enough, because we weren't invited to the meeting. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the only way we can have bipartisanship here in Washington, DC, like I have mentioned before in other floor speeches, is that the leadership has to allow bipartisanship. You can't come from a minority position or the minority here in this House, as the Democrats, and say, well, we want to work in a bipartisan way. That is a statement. The action is the leadership, the Republican leadership of this House and this Congress say, well, we want to work in a bipartisan way and we will; we will let the minority Members know, the Democratic Members know when we will come together in a conference committee. We will sit down with Democrats to craft legislation, energy policy, prescription drug policy, health care policy. You name it. Social Security policy. We will come together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we put forth the will of the American people. But that was not allowed. We are calling for on this side, we ran our amendments in committee and here on this floor, relief for consumers and farmers and small businesses, investigate and punish price gouging by big oil companies. Investigate and punish price gouging by big oil companies. Stop billions in tax breaks and subsidies and handouts that are ongoing to big oil companies. Keeping Americans, Americans home-owned and home- grown out of poverty of paying so much for energy prices. Increase production and use of American biofuels. Increase cars and trucks that run on ethanol. Make ethanol and biodiesel more available at the pump. Increase energy independence and create good-paying jobs in rural America, research and development to create cutting-edge technologies and biofuels. Now, I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, because some folks may say, well, you know, Congressman, that is great, that is some great points there, but it is here on the innovation agenda. This is like the quick read on our promise to the American people on innovation. And we have a number of folks that have endorsed this innovation agenda and that are Democrat and Republicans, not only in the area of education and broad- band technology but also as it relates to energy independence in 10 years. Mr. Speaker, that is not an if we do get in the majority, when I say the Democrats get in the majority, that is when we get in the majority what will happen. That is a promise. That is not something like a campaign slogan and saying that, well, you know, we filled our, you know, we will represent you well. No, that is the plan. And the Members can go on housedemocrats.gov if they want to get information on the innovation agenda. It is just that simple. Just like that. It is just that simple. The energy plan is right here. Ready, set, go, Mr. Speaker. Ready for bipartisanship or a Democratic majority. I think it is going to take a Democratic majority to get us to where we need to be to be able to put forth the kind of leadership that is needed in energy level. Again, Mr. Speaker, not talking fiction but fact. I hold in my hand here a report that was done by the minority staff and the Government Reform Committee talking about the Bush administration energy policy and the 5-year review of what it is going to cost Americans in the long run. We know this, Mr. Speaker, because we have tried to offer and head off what is happening right now. And I think it is important that the Members understand. That report is out there in case Members want to take a leadership role on the Republican side and say maybe we need to start working with the Democratic side on some of these issues. I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to point out that as we look at these record-breaking prices at the gas pump, that we look at the subsidies and cut out the talk about is there price gouging or not. I think the American people are going through a major head-scratching session throughout this country of saying I am paying through the nose; they are saying there is a gas shortage; but meanwhile, these big oil companies, even though they show up on the Today show trying to explain to Americans why the prices are what they are, they are getting another membership at the golf club. Forget, let alone buying golf clubs, they can buy these country clubs now because it is record-breaking profits, and it is very, very unfortunate that that is the case. I want to say that last fall, Mr. Speaker, we had an appropriations amendment on the floor that we put forth that would have increased the opportunities for another look at the innovation, make sure that it falls on the side of the American people, that we do not use environmentally sensitive land to be able to carry out the will of big oil companies who just want to continue to do what they have been doing over the years but, hopefully, ahead in the area of biofuels, more emission vehicles and also innovation. We have talked about the innovation, and I think it is important we brought that to the attention of the American people. I also have to, Mr. Speaker, share with you today, I have given the Web site out. I just want to make sure because I want to make sure the Members are able to follow me. Let us talk a little bit about border security, and I think I am now going to talk a little about it because a lot has been said, very little has been done. I think it is important to look at the facts of what is actually taking place here, and I do have some facts here, and I also have a solution, something that folks like to talk about but they do not like to enact. We talk about immigration and border security, the President gave a speech last night and said that we need to protect the southwest border, we need to protect America. My goodness, if we do not do it, we do not know what is going to happen. We have got to keep the terrorists out. Well, last I checked, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of terrorists and well-known terrorists, even a recent documented case in Washington State of a terrorist coming through the Washington-Canada border and all along the northern border and some other places here in the United States. So to say that it is all in the southwest United States, that that is the issue and we need to deal with it, I think that there are some other underlying issues that are there. And I just want to share with you that when you look at a leadership that has been in place, Mr. Speaker, for oh, well, I know 6 years with a Republican President in the White House, Republican-controlled House, the double-digit years, and now look up and say we have a problem where we have to send the National Guard--the National Guard to the border? Well, I guess it would be easy if Democrats were in control anytime during that time, because you can point at the Democrats and say that is the reason why we have to send the National Guard, because it has been mismanagement of the government and we have not adhered to the number of recommendations and reports that have been coming out over the years saying that we have to increase the number of border patrol agents and because of the lack of oversight and the lack of follow- through and executing any of that; we have found wasteful spending from the Department of Homeland Security, need it be secure borders or whatever the initiatives were dealing with cameras and sensors and all. We were so busy giving out these contracts to the special interests that no one bothered to hold the light of accountability over these contracts, and so we find ourselves in these quick fix, make money for folks, that can influence this process over what should happen in a functional government. Let me get that Gingrich poster if I can. I want to bring Mr. Gingrich, not Mr. Gingrich, Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Speaker, who delivered the Republican majority to the Republicans, and this is what he is saying. He is saying, ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.'' They, Mr. Speaker. When you have a former Speaker of the House that said ``they'' that means he is separating himself. ``They'' means that they are no longer the people I knew when I was there. ``They,'' they is like a group of people that the relationship may not be what it was, but I do not know what they are doing. They are over there. They are not on our side. I guess that is what the Speaker is saying, and so I think it is important for us to look at the reason why this Republican Congress, Mr. Speaker, is being seen as they, even by individuals that were in the leadership of bringing about and delivering the majority. Border. There are 1,000 fewer border patrol agents than were promised in the 9/11 Act. There was a lot of discussion around the 9/11 Act that passed off this floor, but there are 1,000 fewer than what was promised to the American people. The Republican-controlled Congress has broken the promise it made in funding additional border patrol agents, immigration enforcement officers and detention beds, especially in the 2004 Congress when it enacted the Intelligence Reform Act, or better known as the 9/11 Act, which mandated an additional 2,000 border patrol agents being hired over each of the 5 years. But the President's subsequent budgets have failed to include adequate resources to implement the act. Indeed, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget called for only 210 additional border agents. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had to read that part, and I am going to stop right there for a moment, because sometimes when they have the newscast on these cable stations, they run the breaking news at the bottom. I wish I had one of those ticker tape little areas under the President last night to read out in the fiscal year 2006 budget; that is, 2006 budget only called for 210 additional border patrol agents. That is the facts. That is not something from the Democratic Caucus. That is not something that I was walking down the street and just said, hey, I am going to say to the President. No, you can look in his budget, you can look it up on line, you can look in the White House Web sites archives, if they have not taken it off just based on I said something about it. Now the President is ringing the bell saying, let us send 11,000 National Guard troops down to the southwest border even if there are documented cases of what is going on on the northern border. The Republican Congress has not done much better. In the fiscal year 2006, they only funded an additional 1,000 agents, only 1,000, even though the 9/11 Act called for 2,000 agents per year. I am going to read off, Mr. Speaker, a little later on the amendment that we put forth here on this floor that was voted down by Republicans and voted for by Democrats. The act also mandated an additional 8,000 detention beds, but only in the fiscal year 2006 the Congress funded only 1,800 additional detention beds. Again, I must add, one may go on prime-time television, say another thing, but the facts state different. We call it the Potomac Two-Step. The President and the Republicans continue to underfund the border patrol. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget does not fully fund the authorized level of border patrol, while the Democratic budget substitute does. The fiscal year 2007 House homeland security appropriation bill that was marked up in subcommittee last Thursday falls 800 border patrol agents short and 3,130 detention beds and 500 immigration enforcement agents short of the authorized levels that was passed off of this floor just a few years ago. Again, I mean, I am so glad that God has given me breath to come to this floor to share this with the Members and the American people, because if we look at the prime-time address or some sort of press conference, we will never get down to what is actually happening here in Washington, DC. I can tell you, on this side of the aisle, we have had enough of this kind of talk and lack of action. Now, let me just pull out here that this border security, Mr. Speaker, is a nonpartisan issue and should not be a Democrat-Republican issue. It should not be, well, that Independent in the House has a proposal, that Independent. It should not be former Members of the House, Speaker of the House, calling Republican majority ``they,'' as though they are not working in a way that they should work on behalf of the American people. Not my words, but Speaker Gingrich's words. I can tell you that it is important that we move in the direction of making sure that we do not cater to certain major conservative voices, telling the President let us send 11,000 National Guard troops. Let me break that down for the Members in case some of the Members probably do not understand what that means. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Last I checked, we had an issue as relates to end strength. We do not have the necessary personnel to even take on the obligations that we have now. We have men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and other very dangerous places, in the Horn of Africa, at this time. And when we talk about the National Guard, that means someone in your neighborhood will be called up for, what, for 2 weeks to go to the southwest border. For 2 weeks, they are going to be trained, mobilized, fed and dropped on the southwest border, for 2 weeks at a time. I am going to tell you what that means for Members like me, Mr. Speaker, and there are 20-some odd Members from Florida, 25, 26, 27, and counting the two Senators. But this means for Florida that our Florida National Guard, hurricane season is starting in 3 weeks, have to have in their mind that they are going to the southwest border to protect only the southwest border and not really carry out a mission of homeland security against terrorism. That means that those individuals that have been deployed and pulled away from their families from some area of 12 months to 14 months at a time, in Iraq now, has to come back home, kiss the kids, hug the wife, and then head off for 2 weeks over to the southwest border. Now, this is something that has been going on for some time now and something that we have been calling for to be changed. In addition, I hold in my hand here, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission report, at least the cover of it, a report card, the final report of the 9/11 Commission, dated December 5 of 2006. And this report card basically, and I will come down before the week is out to bring my copy of the 9/11 report to the floor, and I can read into the record verbally several pages of that report of things that should be taking place now or should have been taking place, and it has not. The 9/11 report basically called for exactly what we passed here on this floor: 2,000 additional border patrol agents annually, okay; almost coming to the tune of 12,000 additional border patrol agents; of making sure that we are able to deal with attrition, we are able to make sure that we have professionals that are on the border. Being a border patrol agent is not just something you can hop up and just try to do tomorrow. Making sure that we move from a G-11 status to a G-13, which means that there is higher pay, paying these men and women for being the professionals that they are and making sure they have the kind of force that they should have. Border patrol is not something that should be enforced or carried out when the poll says that we are not doing anything. It is something that is to protect the United States of America and it should not be a knee jerk. Everything cannot be: Well, what if this? Well, we will send the military. What if we? We will send the military. We have a volunteer force. They signed up to stand up and do what they have to do on behalf of this country. My hat is off to them. They allow the veterans who, Mr. Speaker, serve in this Chamber, and also we represent throughout this great country of ours, they fought to allow us to salute one flag. And that is something I don't take lightly. But when you have a Republican-controlled Congress that doesn't believe in bipartisanship, in working together, I think it is important to be able to point out some of these issues that are of great importance. When you start looking at guidelines for government sharing of personal information, that is a ``D.'' Wow. That is in the news today. That is their report from 2005. When you start looking at checking bags and cargo screening, that is also a ``D.'' I wonder how they came up with that? That has been in the news recently. When we start looking at the issue of critical infrastructure assessment, that is also a ``D.'' When you start looking at the issues of how do we deal with FBI security workforce, that is a ``C.'' When you start looking at the guidelines for intelligence oversight reform, that is a ``D.'' When you start looking at unclassified top-line intelligence budgets, that is an ``F.'' When you start looking at the issues of moving in the direction of securing our borders, also very low marks. I think it is important that we point this out, and this will be on our Web site for your perusal, the Members, if they want to take a look at it. I think it is important to talk about the issue at hand, of what the President has shared with us last night, and to talk about it being willing to endorse something. And we will put a copy of that amendment that we put forth on the homeland security piece and what it called for on the Web site as well. Well, in December of 2005, Democrats had a motion to recommit on H.R. 4437. In that amendment we called for an increase of border patrol numbers, border patrol officers by 3,000 additional agents, totaling 12,000 in total, and to expand the new training facility to be able to handle the capacity of training those officers. We called for increased border patrol agents and inspectors, pay agents, from G-11 to G-13 that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that would put these agents on par with other law enforcement agencies so that we don't end up being the training ground for other law enforcement agencies that then take the dollars we have put into training, recruiting, and all of those things that goes into bringing those individuals on; that they are not taken away by other law enforcement agencies. Immigration and customs enforcement, which are ICE officers, 2,000 additional agents and 250 additional detention officers. This is a plan, Mr. Speaker. This is not something where you just jump up on television and say we are going to send 11,000 National Guard troops. That is not a plan. That is a Band-Aid. And I want those comments of what Republicans are saying about that plan. We have here where we also call for 100 additional U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys. One hundred additional U.S. attorneys to be able to handle the cases. We don't want them sitting in detention centers taking up all that bedspace. That is 400 in total to be able to deal with the prosecution of individuals that come into the country illegally, and also those smugglers. We are also calling for immigration judges, 75 additional immigration judges. We called for Coast Guard, 2,500 additional enforcement personnel, or 10,000 in total. It is also important to be able to deal with the investigations of fraudulent schemes and documents, so we called for 1,000 investigators that would be able to investigate those fraudulent documents so that we can have, guess what, competence. We are finding in the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, the reason why these procurement officers are going through so much trouble and not being able to have oversight over these contracts is that we haven't put the individuals there to oversee the contracts. So the contractors, those that come in, government contractors know they can come in and take advantage of the government and there are several months before we figure out what is going on, or before the Department figures out what is going on. The amendment also calls for a thousand entry inspectors and K-9 enforcement teams, 375, that would take the place of many personnel individuals. These K-9s have been an effective tool in the effort against terrorism in U.S. enforcement throughout this country and along the borders. I think it is important to look at a plan, not a Band-Aid. Now, speaking of a plan and a Band-Aid, let's talk for a minute about these 11,000 troops. An L.A. Times article today. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he agreed with the President on the need for a border overhaul and immigration policies, but he criticized the plan of the National Guard on the border. Border State Governors were not consulted about the proposal in advance, and there are many outstanding questions about the impact of the President's proposal on Californians, he said in a statement. It remains unclear what impact only 6,000 National Guard troops will have on securing the border, says Schwarzenegger. I am concerned that asking the National Guard troops to guard our Nation's borders is a Band-Aid solution and not the permanent solution we need. I just wanted to say that Governor Schwarzenegger, being a Governor in a State, a large State, where usually the National Guard reports to the Governor of that State, until they are federalized I mean, I would be concerned if no one at least had a conference call and said, hey, we are thinking about doing this; Governors, what do you feel about that? Okay, let's just take that out. Let us just talk about the way they do things here in Washington, DC. Let us just talk about Republican Governors, and say, what do you think about this; and how do you feel about how your National Guard can play a role in this? Well, that is from Governor Schwarzenegger. Here is a Member of Congress, Congressman Jones of North Carolina. This is his quote. ``If Bush had done this 2 years ago, we could have seen a real solution that might have improved the environment for the debate about what we should do now.'' That is from that same article, and we will have this on our Web site a little later on today for the Members that would like to have that information. We put forth that amendment, Mr. Speaker, going back to the amendment which was voted down on partisan lines, I guess because Democrats had an idea and a solution, not just a Band-Aid. I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, for us to take a step back and to make sure that the American people know that we should all be on their side. And I do believe my colleagues in some areas are on their side, but there are too many people listening to the special interests here in Washington, DC. We have a plan. We put our energy plan on the table. It is on Housedemocrats.gov. It is there. It wouldn't just be on the Web site, it would be implemented if the Republican majority would work in a bipartisan way with Democrats in putting forth these plans. Maybe we wouldn't be paying more at the pumps if the Democrat proposals and amendments that were on this floor at the time we were dealing with energy policy on price gouging, there wouldn't be a question whether there was price gouging or not because there would be enough U.S. attorneys to be able to deal with it. The oil companies would know there would be a $3 million fine, plus prison time, jail time. It is criminal to spend $56 to fill up the tank of an F10 Ford truck. It is criminal to have folks running around here putting $10 at a time in their tank and only getting three gallons, if that, in some cases to make it back and forth from work. And I think it is important that people understand what is happening. I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, to the American people and the Members, and I just want to mainly talk to the Members, that we have time. We have time for a revelation, a paradigm shift for the majority to say we are willing to work with Democrats in a real way. But guess what? History doesn't speak to that. Recent history and the history of 5 or 6 years doesn't speak to that. I am very concerned that people are paying for a one-sided policy, a Republican majority policy, a White House policy, a rubber-stamp policy, Mr. Speaker, of saying, Mr. President, whatever you want, we are willing to fund it. We are willing to give tax breaks to billionaires that we cannot afford; we are willing to give tax-free giveaways to the oil companies, which has never happened in the history of the country; we are willing to turn our heads and ignore real price- gouging policy and laws because somebody from the oil companies may end up going to jail. Well, let me tell you what is happening. Gas prices are so high now that I know, I mean, I know for a fact that crime will go up because of gas prices. People are going to do what they have to do to fill their tanks or to put some gas in it. And I am not encouraging that. I used to be a State trooper. I want those individuals to be dealt with. But I wonder why we would put the country in the posture it is in now to benefit the few oil companies that are out there? We can talk about the rubber stamp a little further, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that not only when we talk about oil, we talk about immigration. As I said, when I talked about the incompetence of one-sided policymaking without working in a bipartisan way, I just want to say that it seems like the Republican majority here in the House are afraid of foreign people but not afraid of foreign money. When I talk about foreign money, Mr. Speaker, I have to get this chart here. I bring this chart out again. I have talked about this chart so much until I see it sometimes when I close my eyes, because I cannot help but point out again to the Members on the Republican side, the majority that is setting forth the policy and that has put this in motion and has been a part of history-making in the wrong way. There are 42 presidents, Mr. Speaker. This is a fact. This is the U.S. Department of Treasury. This is not a 30-something report or the Kendrick Meek report. In 224 years, $1.01 trillion has been borrowed from foreign nations. These are the Presidents and these are their pictures. Four years, 2001 to 2005, the President, along with the Republican Congress, pictured down here, have borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign nations. Well, who are these nations? Well, we have put together, the 30- something Working Group, we wanted to break this down so that the Members will know what they have done. Republican Members would know what they have done, because we have called for pay as you go, and we will talk about that, not just borrowing as we go from foreign nations, putting this country in an economic posture it has never been in in the history of the Republic. I am not talking about in the last 2 years or 20 years or last 100 years, but in the history of the Republic. So what the majority Republican Congress has done has enabled America from being how it was prior to the arrival of the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. Japan owns $682.8 billion of the American apple pie, where they have bought our debt, Mr. Speaker. These are not my numbers, these are the U.S. Department of Treasury numbers. China, $249.8 billion of U.S. debt. China didn't make us do it. It is the policies coming out of the White House rubber-stamped by the Republican majority. If we worked in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority can be able to say, well, you know, both parties made this mistake. Oh, no. History reflects and the present reflects the reality of that statement, or the lack of reality of it. The U.K., $223.2 billion of U.S. debt that they bought. The Caribbean nations, $115.3 billion of U.S. debt that they have bought, not because American people said, hey, let's just go out on a credit card and spend money. It is because the Republican majority said, let's go out on a foreign credit card and spend the money and do things that we can't afford to do like $11 million in National Guard troops that will be activated that we will pick up the bill for because of a lack of policies in taking on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I can't say that enough. Taiwan, $71.3 billion Taiwan owns of our debt. OPEC nations. OPEC nations covering Florida and Georgia, $67.8 billion. OPEC nations have a lot to do with the oil situation right now that are providing most of our crude. Germany, $65.7 billion they have bought of the U.S. debt. Korea, $66.5 billion; Canada, $53.8 billion of U.S. debt. Now, I can talk and speak boldly on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. There is only one party here in this House that has balanced the U.S. budget, period. Not one, not one with an echo in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, Republican that is presently serving or served when the budget was balanced can say that they took their voting card out and they voted to balance the budget where the surplus is as far as the eye can see, until the President was elected and the Republican Congress was emboldened with a rubber stamp. Now, deficits as far as the eye can see. Record-breaking borrowing. How do you borrow in 4 years $1.05 trillion? How does that happen? Mismanagement and tax giveaways and special deals to special interests, that is how that happens. Somebody said, okay, well, Congressman, if this was a two-way conversation, well what about that thing we call the war? What about the thing we call 9/11? Well, what was World War II? What was World War I? What was the Great Depression? There were many other challenges that the United States of America has had over the history of 224 years prior to the Bush administration coming into power and the Republican Congress being handed a rubber stamp. So I don't think the Members would be able to explain this chart or explain the facts of incompetence or explain the fact that they have had a rubber stamp in their hand ever since President Bush has taken to the White House and the Republican majority has had their way of saying, Mr. President, whatever you want, we will do it. And that is how we got to $1.05 trillion in 4 years. That is how that has happened. I think it is important that, again, when we talk about issues and we point out the problem, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The solution will follow, or the attempt for a solution. We talked about pay as we go. Some policymakers call it PAYGO, but I just want to make sure everyone understands what we are talking about in Washington because a lot of times we use acronyms and we lose people. We lose people that elected us to come up here and represent them. So we use these acronyms sometimes not only to cut down a speech or what have you, but to also carry out that dance that happens up here that is called the Potomac 2-Step. If we use enough acronyms, it will lose the people and they won't know exactly what is going on up here. But we on the Democratic side believe in spelling this thing out for everyone. Congressman John Spratt from South Carolina, one of the most honorable Members of this House and ranking member on the Budget Committee, put forth a substitute amendment on House Concurrent Resolution 95 in the 2006 budget resolution that instituted pay as you go. Now, what does that mean? Now let's just make sure that we break this down just in case a Member of the House or Senate or a staff member or just, you know, everyday-Joe or -Sue doesn't understand when we say pay as you go. That means what many of us do every day. If we are going to buy something, we have got to know how we are going to pay for it. If we are going out and we want to buy, I don't know, a radio, and you go out and you buy that radio and the radio costs $100, well then you step back. You can be at one of our favorite American department stores and you say, well, if I am going to buy that radio, where am I going to get the money? Do I have $100 in my pocket? That is the first question that you ask yourself. Then you say, well, maybe I can't afford it. Or do I want to put it on this credit card? Well, what the Republican Congress has done is that they have been taking out the credit card and they have just been charging everything, not only charging everything, charging it to foreign nations, the power of people that have, not people, but countries that have bought our debt not based on what everyday Americans have done as it relates to irresponsible spending and a lack of planning; it is because what the Republican Congress has done. These are our leaders that have been elected to lead. Now, maybe I know this country will be better off financially if there was a bipartisan approach towards fiscal responsibility, but it has not been. And the Republican Congress has put forth, has endorsed and rubber-stamped everything the administration handed down. So Congressman Spratt, along with the Democrats, said, let's institute pay as you go. If you put it in the budget and it is going to be something that you want to spend money on, you better say how you are going to pay for it in real money, not funny money, not borrowing from foreign nations and weakening the economic opportunities on behalf of this country. That is what that amendment did. And guess what? Here's the vote right here. It failed. Not one Republican, 228 Republicans vote against it. It is roll call vote 87, March 17 of 2005. Well, if that one vote, I mean, you look at these two opportunities here, Mr. Speaker. They are the only opportunities that the Republican majority allowed us to even bring something to the floor. We had to work hard to get that to the floor. If the Democrats were in control of this House, which I hope the American people will allow Democrats to be in control of this House, A, we will work in a bipartisan way; B, we will institute pay-as-you-go policies, and we will cut out countries buying our debt and owning a part of the American apple pie. Mr. Spratt, again substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393 of the 2005 budget resolution. Again, 224 Republicans voted, zero voted for pay-as-you-go policies. Roll call vote 91. March 25 of 2004. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point those two things out because I want to make sure that people know that we are taking every opportunity on this side of the aisle to put this country back on track of fiscal responsibility. I can't tell you how many times that I have shared that with the Members, and I can't tell you how many times the Members have come to this floor with the rubber stamp in their hand. And I am going to tell you, I am going to show you what that rubber stamp looks like in reality, because I want to make sure that the Members that are checking this debate out see exactly what we are talking about. This rubber stamp comes in the form of a voting card. This is my not only ID but voting card. And the President wants to give tax breaks that we can't afford to billionaires. Done. Let me vote for it. The President said that we should give unprecedented tax breaks to big oil companies in the time they are making record profits. Done. Let me vote for it. That is fine. Whatever the President wants, so shall he spell it out, we will rubber-stamp it and endorse it. Should we deal with issues as it relates to no plan for a war in Iraq? President said we should. Done. That is what the Republican Congress is saying. And so here on the Democratic side, we are saying, hey, you know something, and this thing that we call a democracy, Mr. Speaker, we talk about a three-tier government. We talk about a legislative branch. We don't have to talk about it. It is in the U.S. Constitution. We have an executive branch, and we have a judiciary. If the American people want to do away with the Republican rubber-stamp Congress, you know what to do. You want to see this rubber stamp thrown out the back door, then you know what to do. If you want Members to come with their voting card to vote on behalf of the American people and not the special interests and what the White House has said that should be done, you know what to do. Because the thing about it, Mr. Speaker, and the only thing that I feel good about these days is that November is coming soon and that the American people are so fed up that maybe, just maybe, and I think we are beyond maybe right now with the scare tactics that will be coming from special interests because they know their day is coming. Their day is coming with the American people, and we will have tax breaks, real tax breaks for the middle class; we will have an energy policy that we will say will be energy independent in 10 years. They know that will happen. They will also know that we will have a true prescription drug and a true health care policy that small businesses and large businesses will be able to provide health care for their employees, and that will be done. They know that we will also move with a pay-as-you- go policy and not a borrow-and-spend policy from foreign nations that will also happen. And so I think that it is important that everyone understand that we are here on their behalf. As I say, as I get ready to close, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is imperative that the Members understand that this is fact and not fiction. If it was fiction, I could not walk around this Chamber and this House of Representatives and this Capitol and speak to Members on a day-in-and-day-out basis. It is not personal. It is just business. And it is the business of the American people. Let me get the chart here so that I can make sure that Members can get more information. Housedemocrats.gov/30-something. You can get all the charts that we have shared with you here today and the reports. That is housedemocrats.gov/30-something. We encourage e-mails and anything that Members want to share with us. Mr. Speaker, what is very unfortunate is the fact that on the eve, or last night, at 12 midnight the clock ran out on seniors here in the United States of America as it relates to the prescription drug plan. On that night, when there should have been great celebration by the Republican majority, what was going on? Going back to the movie ``Wag the Dog.'' No, let's talk about immigration on the deadline of the sign-up time for prescription drugs. So that goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, that it is something their trying to change the debate of the deadline and seniors being confused and now seniors being penalized the next day after. And so I just want to make sure that the Members know that there are some people that are paying attention to what is going on, and they are called the American people. And you do have time to change, and you do have time to bring about this paradigm shift, but history doesn't speak to it. And so, Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing me to come to the floor with another 30- something hour. We look forward to being back on the floor tomorrow if we have the opportunity.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I think it is important for us to identify, you mentioned our real security plan, Democratic homeland security plan, balanced budget plan. We have actually done it. We know how to do it. We have experience there.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Not one Republican vote in passing the Democratic balanced budget plan. Mr. Speaker, that is fact, not fiction.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you for yielding back, Mr. Ryan. Let me just point out real quickly: we will start out with the big one here. People look at Japan; they look at the United States. They say how could a country that size invest in the United States of America $682.8 billion, Japan? American apple pie. They have a big piece of it. China, Red China, Mr. Ryan. Communist China, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Speaker: 249.8 billion of the American apple pie. I know that makes our World War II veterans feel pretty comfortable right about now. And I am saying that in a way that I know that they are highly upset at the point that Japan can come back and own so much of the American apple pie, and not because of their doing but because of the irresponsible spending on the Republican majority side. I am just calling it what it is, Mr. Speaker, because like some folks say, it is what it is, Mr. Ryan. The U.K., $223.2 billion of the American apple pie. Caribbean nations. Many of us go to vacation. I represent a lot of folks from the Caribbean. But guess what, they own $115.3 billion of the American apple pie, buying our debt. Our debt. Historic debt that we have given them in the last 4 years. And I am going to explain that a little further, Mr. Ryan, because I think people need to understand that prior to this Republican Congress and President Bush being elected, there were surpluses. That means that folks were projecting, not a deficit, but money left over for things that we need to tackle. Yes, we need a middle-class tax cut. Yes, we need to shore up Social Security. Yes, we need to have a health care plan so that businesses don't have to ask people to be on Medicaid to pay for their health care on the backs of the American people. No, this Republican Congress and the President opted to give it to millionaires. I don't know how many times I can say that. Millionaires. It is not what I am saying. You can pick up the paper and find out what is happening up here. Taiwan, $71.3 billion of the American apple pie that has been sold away because of irresponsible policies. Canada, $53.8 billion. Korea, again, my veterans, $66.5 billion. Meanwhile, under the Republican budget, Mr. Ryan, veterans are going to be paying a higher copayment, thank you, a la the Republican majority, that is saying that we are for you. Germany, $65.7 billion. Again, our veterans. OPEC nations. This is very interesting, Mr. Ryan, and it is actually covering my State of Florida and Georgia and South Carolina. OPEC nations. Who are they? I mean, these are the nations that are in charge of all the oil. Iraq is in that, owning some of our debt. Iraq. We are spending all kinds of money in Iraq, but guess what? They have enough time to own some of our debt. Iran. Iran. Oh, my goodness. Is this the country, Mr. Ryan, that we are concerned about, that Israel is concerned about and many of our friends in the Middle East that are trying to bring about democracy we are concerned about? You have a number of the United Arab Emirates, again, nations that we are concerned about as relates to Dubai, port deals. There are a number of countries that are here that we are bringing into question. Let me just, Mr. Speaker, let the Members take a look at this map. Empty without the debt on it. I think it is important that Members understand that Democrats, we are the only party in this House that has actually balanced the budget. People can talk about it. They can write great studies about it. But until you do it, you don't know what it takes. Obviously, based on those letters from Secretary Snow, and based on the fact that the Republican Congress has taken pride in endorsing everything that the President has said, we want to give millionaires a tax break and give middle class people a $10 tax break or a $50 tax break. Done. We want to give oil companies, as a matter of fact, I read this last night, I think it is important and I am going to read it again, since I passed by a gas station today and it was $3.07 right here in Washington, DC. This is a Washington Post article dated November 16 of 2005. The White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by environmentalists but denied, as of November, 2005, last week, by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document obtained by the Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil, also from Phillips and Shell Oil Company and BP of America met in the White House complex with Vice President Cheney's aides in developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts of which are still debated in Congress. I rest my case on that. Again, Republican Congress said, energy bill, Mr. President, so shall it be written, so shall it be done, without a question asked. Do you want to go down to the whole issue of what is happening with our seniors now, prescription drugs? So shall it be written, so shall it be done; propane, from the Republican Congress, we will do it because you told us to do it. All this debt that I have right here, under this stamp. Mr. President, do you want to raise the debt limit, okay, fine, we are right with you. Let us raise the debt limit on the back of Americans. Meanwhile, I must add, that when we look at raising the debt limit they are cutting student aid to students to be able to be our workforce in the future and to be able to afford a college education. I am glad to announce that this is actually a bill proposed by Democrats here in this House. This is not a Democratic proposal, this is an American proposal. I believe that Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired. This is legislation that is now filed by Representative Miller here in this House and also from Senator Dick Durbin in the Senate reversing the rate on student loans or student aid. The bill cuts interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for students, with subsidized loans, which can go to students with the most financial need and move it from 8.5 percent to 4.25 percent for parents starting July of this year. This is legislation that is filed now. Earlier this year, in the Republican budget earlier this year a Republican-led Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student loan program in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Ryan, I am just going to go to this page, and I am going to yield to you, sir. Yesterday, reading is fundamental. I blew it up because I thought it was important for me to come to the floor and share with Members because there are to be some Members come this November that will say I don't know what was going on. Do you think they hoodwinked me on this? Here is a copy of the paper right here if you have it on their desk. This is the way the cover looks, Republicans Reaches Deal on Tax Cuts. What does that mean, Mr. Ryan? I will tell you what that means. That means that for Americans that make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, the average tax savings will be $2. That means for those that are making $20- to $30,000 a year, that means that their average tax break will be $9; $30,000 to $40,000, $16. $40,000 to $50,000, $46; $50,000 to $75,000 a year, household income, $403; $100,000 to $200,000, $1,388; $200,000 to 500,000, $4,599; $500,000 to $1 million, $5,562; and those that are making more than $1 million will receive $41,977. Who has whose back? People that I represent, I can tell you right now, very few, I can probably count on both hands and maybe one foot that are making more than $1 million that will celebrate the $41,977 tax break. Meanwhile, guess what? We have men and women that are at war in Iraq. We have men and women that are in Afghanistan right now, and we have companies trying to figure out how they are going to provide health care for their employees. Meanwhile, we have the Republican Congress here saying everything is fine. What are you talking about? I yield, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. The energy plan, Mr. Speaker, it is ready to go. The bottom line is we offer these plans and amendments, we offer these plans here on the floor. Mr. Ryan mentioned something, Mr. Speaker, that I want to just make sure that Members are clear on, crystal clear.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor once again being before the House. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have the time on the floor here, Nancy Pelosi; and Mr. Steny Hoyer, who is our Democratic whip; Mr. James Clyburn; Mr. John Larson, Mr. James Clyburn, the chairman of our caucus; Mr. Larson, who is our vice chair. Once again to come to the floor to share not only Democratic ideas but American ideas, to help push this country forward. Also, to point out some of the issues that are being thrown upon the American people by the Republican majority and their lack of working with the Democratic side of the aisle to bring about good policies for our country. Tonight I am joined by my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Tim Ryan, who is a great American. That is just not by my standards but by the people in his district and many people throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be able to identify or point out the fact that once again this week the Republican majority tried to pass an unjust budget on the backs of the American people. Well, due to the fact that we, those of us on this side of the aisle and hopefully a couple of the Republicans on the majority side is saying no, saying no to the fact that we are here every day at the highest level that we can be without Members being absent from the floor to make sure that we vote en bloc against this Republican budget, that we will set America back versus moving it forward. I think also there are some Members on the majority side that understand by casting a positive vote for this unjust budget that was supposed to have been passed by April 15, they know that if they vote in the affirmative for that budget that they may very well be making a career decision. The American people are watching this process daily and they have been made aware of what is going on here under the Capitol dome due to the fact of the lack of governance on their behalf. I encourage the American people to continue to pay attention. Tonight, Mr. Ryan and I will attempt to share with the American people and with Members of Congress, mainly Members of Congress, of their responsibility to have the backing of the American people and not the special interests. This budget that the Republican Congress passed long ago to bring to the floor out of committee, if it was so great, it would have been passed by now. It is very, very important that we share this with the Members, if we had the opportunity or were given the opportunity to have some positive input into this budget, that maybe, just maybe, we would have passed the budget and we wouldn't have appropriation bills moving through the process without a budget. Right now, appropriation bills are being heard in committee and will be heard in committee for the next 3 weeks, but without a passed budget. I think it is important that Members and the American people pay very close attention to how the Republican-controlled 109th Congress, be it House, Senate or White House, continues, even under the light of a 22 percent approval rating by the American people, and, in the White House, a 31 percent approval rating by the American people based on the White House and 22 percent here in Congress. Still, Republican leaders are trying to shove this budget down the throats of the American people. I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I know we have a minute left, I just want to say this, that it is important that we thank the Democratic leader and the Democratic leadership for allowing us to be here tonight. Mr. Ryan, the web site that you gave out, www.housedemocrats.gov/ 30Something, all of the charts you have seen here tonight and throughout the week, the Members can pull that down off of the website, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Why not?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Crystal clear, Mr. Ryan, that we don't just come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, to talk about Republicans, what they are not doing or what they are doing to the American people versus for the American people. We actually fight in the Rules Committee that is on the third floor of this Capitol to beg the committee, I think it is really heavily weighted, I think it is like 14 Republicans on that committee, or 14 or 12 Republicans, versus 7 Democrats. So that means that two or three Republicans can have a cold and they still prevail and are making sure they keep control of this House and what comes to this floor. So much for bipartisanship. The Rules Committee sets the rules, Members, on what comes to the floor and what doesn't come to the floor. This is what we were able to muster up. Ranking Member John Spratt from South Carolina offered a substitute amendment to pay-as-you-go. Now, this means pay-as-you-go. That means that if you are going to spend, you have to identify where you are going to get the money from. Can I have that chart again. I am not talking about any of this business of borrowing from Japan, from China, from OPEC nations or any of these countries that are out there. I don't blame these countries, don't get me wrong. I don't blame them for getting a piece of the American apple pie. I just wish more Americans could get a piece of the American apple pie. John Spratt put forth an amendment on House Concurrent Resolution 95, the 2006 budget resolution. It failed with 165 voting for it, 264 voting against it. All Republicans voted against it. 228 Republicans voted against it. All Democrats voted for it. Again, that is Rollcall No. 87, and that happened on March 17, 2005. The same Member, ranking member John Spratt from South Carolina, a Democrat, a good Member of this House, substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393, 2005 budget resolution. Republicans voted against this, not one Republican voted for pay-as-you-go, which was the responsible way to get us out of the pockets of these foreign nations. The vote was 224-0 from Republicans. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Speaker, not one Republican. Mr. Ryan, I will yield to you in a minute. I want to get this chart again. I think it is important. I can't bring this chart up enough, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to make this so. If a Member can e-mail us or bump into us in the hall or a staffer or someone from the majority budget office or the minority office can come to us and explain to us how we can break this down further. 224 years, $1.01 trillion from foreign nations. Four years, 4 years, Mr. Ryan, $1.05 trillion since President Bush has been President and the Republican Congress has been working with the President, 4 years from 2001 to 2005. These are not my numbers, Mr. Speaker, this is the U.S. Department of Treasury numbers. These are not my numbers. So this means that the Republican Congress knows this. You know how I know they know it? Because we tell them night after night. You know how I know they know it? Because we were here last night with the same chart. They voted against this PAYGO resolution twice. I can even go further back to show committee votes on partisan lines of voting against it. So this means only one thing, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Ryan, that the Republican Congress is wearing this stamp with pride, that they are willing to rubber stamp anything that the President of the United States sends into this Chamber. I am saying the Republican Congress on that side of the aisle, because the history and the facts are there. This is fact and not fiction, Mr. Ryan. I am hoping. Some days I wake up and I say, you know, I wish the situation this country is in, and when I see my children, my 9-year-old and my 11-year-old and look at their burden, they are going to look back, Mr. Speaker, and say there are some people on this floor that fought for their future and the future of America. White, black, Hispanic, Anglo, American Indian, whatever the situation may be, we are giving them a fixed debt. And if you are a Republican, you have to have a problem with this. If you are a Democrat, you have got to have a problem with this. If you are an independent, you have to have a problem with this. If you are an American, you must have a problem with this, because it is weakening the financial standing of this country. Meanwhile, back at the ranch here in Congress, we have got folks telling the oil companies, don't worry about it. We have your back. As long as we have the K Street Project going on, as long as you keep what we need to stay in control, we have your back. Mr. Ryan, I just want to say this, when I give it to you, sir, I want to make sure you have the last word before we close out, but I want to make sure your constituents, that you share with the Members of this House what happened in Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to say it here on the floor, because I want to make sure my Republican colleagues when they come down to vote on a PAYGO amendment again, that they think about this. There was a race in Ohio, Mr. Ryan, and I want you to talk about it, and I want you to tell the Members of the House what happened, what happened with the write-in candidate that got more votes and the number of candidates on the ballot. So, Mr. Ryan, with that, I want to yield to you, sir, so you can close this out.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, it is set by the legislation passed by the Republican majority. And after that, Americans will be penalized.