Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, at the risk of being the little girl who shoots her hand up in the first row of the classroom, that would be the last time Democrats were in control right before the 1994 switch from majority to minority.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be none

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield, I am so pleased. We are all pleased that we have been joined by Mr. Altmire and the 40 other Democratic freshmen in his class who are majority makers who came to Congress to help us move this country in a new direction and make it possible to move this country in a new direction. The stark contrast you are talking about, where you have tired old, same old, do business as shall Republicans standing with the Republican standing with the President, supporting his veto, his suggestion that he would veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Now, I sit on the Appropriation Committee so I know what is in that bill and had an opportunity to comment on it and participate in it, and I am proud to have supported it. But I would like Mr. Altmire, given that he is part of the new direction Democrats and our freshmen class who brought us to this point, to outline for us, let's talk just exactly what the President is talking about vetoing. Let's outline that for folks.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Were PAYGO rules, in other words, not spending more than you are taking in, were those in place before Democrats took over the Congress?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I mean just a few months ago, before November 7, in the 109th Congress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And who reinstated the PAYGO rules to make sure that we didn't spend more money than we took in?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman outlining what the President has been threatening to veto. I want to take it a step beyond the Homeland Security appropriations bill and outline a few of the other bills all related to homeland security that the President has also threatened to veto. Tonight what we aim to show, fact versus fiction, is basically who is for homeland security and who is just kidding, who is just talk, who is just a lot of hot air, versus who is supportive of putting forward substance. The only thing I can think of in terms of a reason that you have these veto threats and suddenly the President discovers ink in his pen, never having threatened a veto in his first 6 years, instead of an ``R'' next to the idea there is a ``D'' next to the idea. Now this is from a person who has talked a really nice story about being bipartisan and working with the Democratic Congress. This is how he has been proposing to work with the Democratic Congress: proposing to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill which has a lot of very important issues that went unaddressed by the Republican Congress. Also, threatening to veto the 9/11 Commission recommendations which was his own 9/11 Commission. We just passed that bill in our Six in 06 agenda with a vote of 299-128. And that would fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The Homeland Security authorization bill which is the statutory provisions in Homeland Security that go with the appropriations bill, he has threatened to veto that. That authorizes $40 billion for the activities of the Department of Homeland Security and includes strong accountability measures which were nonexistent under the Republican majority. He has threatened to veto the rail and transit security bill, H.R. 1401, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop plans to protect rail and mass transit and authorizes $6 billion over 4 years in grants to protect those systems. We don't have a system in place to protect rail and mass transit. In south Florida, we don't have a really strong mass transit system. You do in the major populations across the country. How many times have you been on a train and been checked or gone through security? There are no security measures around our rail system. We proposed legislation to do that, and the President is threatening to veto that. The Dubai Ports bill, maybe people have forgotten about the proposal that the administration was completely supportive of and allowed to sail through their FISA process that would have allowed essentially a state foreign-owned company to own port terminals in America. I mean, that just sailed through the administration's process. They basically ignored Federal law and allowed it to happen. We passed a law to tighten that. That passed 423- 0. No threat to veto there. We weren't going to allow that situation to continue. We need to ensure foreign countries do not own our port terminals and further undermining our security in America. Now we have passed the military construction appropriations bill that would ensure that we have the largest single increase in veterans health care in American history, in addition to the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act which responds to the Walter Reed scandal, also ignored by the Republicans. That passed 426-0, but it took Democrats to pass that legislation. Really what this is about is who is for homeland security and who is just talk; who is for homeland security and who is just kidding. At the end of the day, actions are what speak louder than words. It is what you learned in kindergarten: Follow what people do, don't just listen to them talk, talk, talk. We have to show the American people what the Democrats are trying to accomplish that Republicans and this President is trying to block.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you can e-mail us as well.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would it be none?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's zero in specifically on what we did compared to what they did. If you recall, that was the energy bill that they held open for 40 minutes longer than our normal time limit so they could twist enough arms to get the votes to ensure that they could give the oil companies $14 billion in subsidies, give them those subsidies in the face of world record profits. Now, you know, we support profit. Profit is a good thing. Profit is not a bad word; it's a good thing. But when you are doing what they did, which was forgive the royalties that the oil industry would have been required to pay the Federal Government; they are supposed to pay the Federal Government to use the land that they drill on in exchange for the oil that they pull out and make a profit on. And the Republican majority gave away the $14 billion and said, no, no, no, very profitable oil industry, that's okay, you don't have to pay us. Just put that in your pocket, no problem. And what we did, as part of our 100-hour agenda in the Six in '06 bills that we passed when we first became the majority is we passed a bill that repealed those $14 billion in give-aways and said, what we are going to do with that money is we are going to use it to fund alternative energy research so that we can make sure that we truly make a commitment to wean ourselves off of our addiction to foreign oil, which were nice words that the President said in the State of the Union last year, but then promptly he signed that energy bill that gave $14 billion in subsidies away to the oil industry. So I just wanted to jump off that poster because it really needed to be zeroed in on.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important legacy of Virginia Graeme Baker, a 7-year-old child who was the unfortunate victim of entrapment by a residential spa drain. On June 15, 2002, Graeme attended a pool party with her entire family, her mother Nancy and her four sisters. Everyone was having a great time swimming, when all of the sudden, one of Nancy's daughters came running to tell her that Graeme was in the spa. Nancy ran to the edge of the spa, and all she saw was dark and bubbling water. Her daughter, frantically crying and pointing into the tub, insisted that Graeme was there. Nancy jumped into the spa and saw Graeme with her eyes pinched closed, her hair and limbs moving with the current of water from all the jets on the side. Graeme was entrapped by the powerful suction of the drain spa and could not free herself. Nancy pulled and pulled with all her strength to help her daughter. It eventually took the strength of two adults to free Graeme from the spa. It was sadly too late; Graeme passed away in the hospital later that afternoon. I can only imagine the immeasurable grief that her mother and Graeme's entire family went through. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the fifth anniversary of Graeme's death, and I want to take this moment to acknowledge the enormous loss suffered by the Baker family. Following Graeme's death, Nancy and her father-in-law, former Secretary of State James Baker, became and still are tireless advocates for children and children's safety. When I met Nancy, I was immediately taken by her tragic story of the loss of her daughter. I was most affected by Nancy's incredible desire to ensure that what happened to Graeme did not happen to any other child. Nancy has channeled all of her energies into raising the issue of pool and spa drain entrapment, a hidden hazard responsible for hundreds of injuries and numerous deaths, to a national audience. Her passion is an inspiration to me, and I am proud to sponsor the Pool and Spa Safety Act, H.R. 1721, in memory of Graeme Baker. I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, the lead Republican sponsor of this bill, Chairman Bobby Rush and Chairman John Dingell for their support of this badly needed legislation. The progress made on the Pool and Spa Safety Act would not be possible without the hard work of the entire Baker family. I hope my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, join me in honoring Virginia Graeme Baker, a remarkable little girl, and her mother Nancy whose dedication and tenacity is truly making the world a safer place for all of our children.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, if you had one, it was not evident. It was absent because one of the main reasons that the people insisted upon putting Democrats in the majority and moving this country in a new direction is because there was an absence of reform here, an absence of oversight, an abdication of the Congress' responsibilities. And that's why Democrats are in charge. That's why we are making sure that we actually reform the process, put transparency into the appropriations process, own up to the earmarks that we sponsor and make sure that people know what we're asking for when we want to bring home funding to our districts, not do it in the shadows as was the practice up until the 110th Congress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his leadership on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and I applaud him and members of the subcommittee who helped craft this bill. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill is a top priority for the country, and it should be a top priority for every Member of this body. Now, let's be clear. This bill protects the American people on Wall Street and on Main Street, on your street and on my street. We owe it to the American people to provide the highest levels of safety and security possible, and this bill does just that. The legislation will help protect our homes, families and communities from those who would do us harm. This bill protects our borders. It fully funds the Customs and Border Protection Agency and adds 3,000 new Border Patrol agents to secure our borders. This bill funds our first responders and provides them with the critical equipment that they need. It ensures that our own local police departments have access to the information and intelligence they need to perform a meaningful role in counterterrorism. This bill restores the President's cuts to firefighters to ensure that those who protect our homes, our small businesses, our schools and our communities have the resources that they now lack to keep us safe. The bill restores critical interoperability funding that will allow local police, firefighters and emergency responders to communicate during a crisis. This bill protects our airports and our airplanes with baggage screening funding, and it protects our ships and seaports with funding for maritime security. Mr. Chairman, I have my 8-year-old daughter with me this week, and as we observe the antics from my friends across the aisle, I'm reminded of a game that my daughter often plays with her friends called Consequences. Probably each of us has played that game at one time or another, but not when the stakes are as high as they are in this Chamber. Basically what happens is, each child writes down on cards an event and a consequence of that event. The cards are shuffled and read out loud in a muddled sequence, with one event leading to consequences that then make no sense at all. This is not child's play, and Members of the people's House play the game of Consequences at their peril. By obstructing this critical bill, they have elevated the politics of pork over the security of the American people. Mr. Chairman, Republicans should stop playing the political game of consequences and join Democrats in focusing on getting things done and protecting our homeland, because the real consequences of holding up this bill are serious. That is what the election on November 7, 2006, was about. I was elected in the 109th Congress, and I didn't see any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leaping to their feet to demand that their name be published next to the appropriations request that they submitted. I didn't see anybody leaping to their feet on the other side of the aisle insisting on reform. Where were the reformers on the other side of the aisle in the 109th, in the 108th, in the 107th, in the 106th? Where were they? Now, suddenly, they're leaping to their feet, saying to the American people that they know what the election on November 7 was about. Why didn't they do any of this or insist on any of this before now? Because they didn't believe in it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor Norman Rosenshein, Commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America for his tireless efforts and dedication on behalf of America's veterans. Jewish War Veterans of the USA, is the oldest active veterans association in the United States, founded by civil war veterans in 1896. Today, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA is dedicated to those programs that support the needs of our veterans' community; combat anti-Semitism and bigotry; support American youth through scouting, scholarships and anti-drug programs; and assist oppressed Jews worldwide. Mr. Rosenshein served in the U.S. Army on active duty from December 8, 1964 until December 7, 1966. He joined the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America in January 1970. Since 1970, he has been an active member of David Blick Post 63 of Elizabeth, NJ. During that time Mr. Rosenshein has held all of the post offices until finally in August of 2006 when he was elected National Commander. In addition to the Jewish War Veterans, Mr. Rosenshein is active in his congregation, having served as their Vice President. Because of his expertise, Mr. Rosenshein was appointed to the New Jersey Healthcare System Veterans Stakeholder Advisory Group in 1995 and presently serves on their committees. I applaud Mr. Rosenshein's whole hearted commitment to the Jewish War Veterans. He has proved himself a tenacious advocate and his continuous contribution for their welfare and wellbeing is truly commendable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. What we are doing, you are absolutely right, Mr. Ryan, is creating an incubator for al Qaeda. That is exactly what has occurred. In fact, if you recall, we heard a few years ago a lot of back and forth from the President about whether he did or didn't say that the reason that we actually went into Iraq was because of the connection, supposed connection, between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Then I know Tony Snow, the White House Communications Director, has said no, we never did say there was any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Now, yesterday and this morning at the Coast Guard Academy graduation, now, finally, how many years into it, he can hang his hat on there being a connection between al Qaeda and our involvement in Iraq. Why? Because he created that situation there. Because we created an incubator and a hotbed that is an environment for that. Of course, if you have a culture like that, and I mean the culture in which bacteria will grow, just like a petri dish, if you create a petri dish like that and culture it, of course you are going to see the bacteria grow. If you create an environment in which bacteria can grow, it is going to explode like wildfire. No wonder. It boggles my mind why he believes that what he is saying is not transparent to the American people. It certainly is transparent and evident in the polling numbers, because he has literally an approval rating in terms of the way he has handled this war that is below 30 percent now. You would think that politically we would delight in that as Democrats. But it actually makes me sad, because how can a President be effective on any other issues when he clearly won't even be able to get the American people to listen to what he is saying because they are so soured on the direction that he has taken this country? That makes it very difficult for us to even reach out in a bipartisan way and attempt to work with him, because he has no credibility at all. He has his own party Members who are finding it very difficult to do anything in terms of their agenda domestically, and we don't see any outreach. He has created an impossible situation, Mr. Meek.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We encourage you, any of the Members, anyone listening, to sign onto our Web site. The charts that we have been describing tonight are up on that Web site. You can reach us, e-mail us, at 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov, and you can also reach our Web site by signing on to www.speaker.gov and look for the 30-something link, and you can find all the things that we are working on in the 30- something Working Group.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are wrapping up in a few minutes, but I have got this gas tank replica here, which is pretty ancient-looking. It's actually decrepit itself. I bring it with me to the floor because it is the only explanation that I can find as to why our good friends on the other side of the aisle and this President seem totally unresponsive in trying to address this problem and work with us. My only explanation is that perhaps they don't pump their own gas, or perhaps the last time they actually filled their own tank, and saw that ticker, and realized how much it cost to fill up a tank is when gas pumps look like this. That's my only explanation, given this is the 30- something Working Group. Maybe it has been since the 1950s that they filled their own tank, unlike the people that we represent, who are trying, struggling to fill their tank every day. We are going to continue to back up our words with action. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 30-something Working Group under the leadership of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think you are right. I think also, as the summer begins and then wears on and we have an opportunity in the summertime to go home and spend some time in our districts and interact with our constituents, that the issues that pile up, at we're going to have a difficult time dealing with, because we are still mired in this hopeless war in Iraq, are going to continue to fray the patience of the American people, and I think our friends on the other side of the aisle will hear from their constituents. I keep wanting to move a little bit and talk about gas prices, and I'm chomping at the bit to do that because you've heard me talk about this before. I'm one of those minivan moms. I drive my kids around in my minivan to soccer games and to school. And last summer when we were frustrated with the rise in gas prices, I remember exploding on the floor here talking about how it cost over $55 to fill up my gas tank. And then, of course, conveniently, right before the election, the prices came down again. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that an election was imminent, and I'm sure the oil industry didn't do anything deliberate to ensure that that would happen. But amazingly it is now May and those gas prices have not just crept but leapt back up, and I want to just share with you the timeline that has existed since this administration took over in the executive branch. We are now paying more than double for gas than when President Bush first took office. This chart will illustrate that the average price per gallon on January 22, 2001, at the beginning of the Bush administration, was $1.47, and then as of May 21, 2007, just a couple days ago, the average price per gallon today is $3.22. Now, what that means is that amounts to real money. When you're talking about it costing 20 or so dollars to fill up your tank or $25 to fill up your tank, that's a manageable amount of money. But when you get to $50, $50, Mr. Murphy, is an amount that I think about. I mean, when I am faced with paying a bill that's $50, that's real money to me. To me, that gives me pause. I have to make a decision, normally, about other things unrelated to things that I absolutely have to have like gas, about whether or not I am going to actually spend $50. Do I have the money? What else will I not be able to buy if I spend $50 on this item? Gas is not like that. Gas is something that's not optional. You have to drive your kids to school. You have to make sure you can get your car to the grocery store. If you don't go to the grocery store because you don't have gas, your family doesn't eat. If your kid is sick and you can't fill the gas tank, then you can't take them to the doctor, and they get sicker. How are you going to get them to the emergency room if they get so sick that you need that kind of health care? Those are real problems that Americans face when gas prices reach that point. What we are doing in the Democratic Caucus and as we continue to fight to move this country in a new direction is we are working on an energy package that we will bring to the floor by July 4, an energy independence package that will ensure that we can crack down on price gouging, like the legislation that we passed off this floor yesterday, that we can really start to respond to the oil cartel and make sure that they are pursued for the antitrust violations that they engage in, and that we really invest in alternative energy. The President's remarks during the State of the Union last year were just words. When he referenced his desire to see America end our addiction to foreign oil, nice words, but no action to speak of. Nothing that I can see in any policy is reflective of the words that we heard in this Chamber during that State of the Union. We, on the other hand, are going to make a difference. Mr. Murphy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Like happens to you sometimes, my blood is starting to boil because all that it takes, I'm sitting here listening to this back and forth that we're going through here and example after example about the reasons for the American people's outrage, for our outrage, for our persistence in trying to move this iceberg and get some progress and end the blank check and establish some accountability. You know, it's very simple. All the President has to do is be a diplomat himself and agree to come to the table and compromise and negotiate and end the my-way-or-the-highway politics. He is not king. Yes, he was elected President, but he was elected to one branch of the government, which, the way our government is set up, is designed to work coequally with this branch of government. He has disdained the legislative branch, and this is the representative body of the United States of America. The people who elect us elect us to be their voice. They elect one person, an executive, and they elect 435 of us so we can have a collective diversity of opinion and that the result in terms of the outcome of policy is a combination of that diversity. And he has no respect for it, and that's why his numbers are where they are. That's why the support for this President, the bottom has dropped out of it. And that's why over the next several months we will push this iceberg with all our might, and I can feel it, that their ability to continue unabated with the disdain and disregard that this administration has shown for the American people and our opinion, it will come to an end and it's going to come to an end in a fashion that we will help bring about the change that the American people ask for. And that is the only way that this is going to happen, if we continue to fight, we continue to push hard, we make sure that we go out to our communities like we will all do next week. I know I'm having a town hall meeting next Wednesday in my district to talk specifically about the war in Iraq and how people feel about it, get their feedback, talk about the other issues that are important to them, because people are tired. They're tired of the war. They're sick of the deaths. They're sick of the death toll, and they want us to be able to talk about how we're going to expand health care. We have the SCHIP program that we need to reauthorize later this year. We have 9 million kids that we need to find the money to cover. We have to make sure we can reduce the cost of health care for small businesses. We have a deficit that has ballooned out of control, that we're trying to get a handle on, no thanks to our friends on the other side of the aisle. We have a lot to do, a long to-do list, and it would be great if the President would just recognize that we all need to work together and end his disrespect for the American people and for the democratic process because it's gone on for far too long. And we have a lot at stake here. And I just have reached my level of frustration. I know my constituents have, and that's why I'm proud of our caucus because we have hung together. We have stuck together and pushed and pushed and pushed each other so that we can get behind a policy that not all of us are 100 percent behind. Everybody didn't get their way with the legislation that we put forward with benchmarks and timelines. But you know what? That's what this representative body that we were elected to is all about. It's about compromise and it's about standing up for the people who don't have a voice. They elected us to be their voice and I have been very proud to be a Member of this institution, really proud of our Democratic leadership. And I'm just hopeful that we can get beyond this war and start talking about things like the $3.22 a gallon that our constituents are paying, on average, for their gas as we approach the summer season as well.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, Mr. Meek, I would have segued into the issue of our skyrocketing gas prices.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Meek. I have to tell you, I have thought recently when people come up to me, you would think that there are people that would say, Debbie, Kendrick, Tim, what does it really matter? We have been spending billions of dollars for the last 5 years. We are over there in Iraq. Yeah, the American people are opposed to this, and we are in a pretty bad situation over there, and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight, but how does this affect my life? At the end of the day I am eating, my children are eating, they are going to school. Iraq is far away, and it is not impacting me whether we continue the war in Iraq or don't continue the war in Iraq. Gradually day by day, the percentage of people that don't feel that way, that get it, that understand what the impact is, not just on the perception of America in the world, but what the domestic day-to-day impact is, is growing. Besides the President's popularity ratings, which are in the toilet, we have a situation here where people are realizing, for example, that our National Guard is unable to be 100 percent ready to take care of us and do the job that we actually created the National Guard to do. Mr. Meek, next Friday is June 1, the official start of hurricane season, even though we have had activity a few weeks in advance of the beginning of hurricane season. And yesterday NOAA came out with their prediction on how busy this storm season is likely to be, and their prediction is 10 to 14 named storms, and a good chunk to be in the category 3, 4 or 5 category. We have a National Guard that has equipment that is still over in Iraq, and when it does come back, it comes back in such terrible shape, it isn't going to be ready to take care of Americans who are in need after the aftermath of a natural disaster. That is a direct result of our inability to extricate ourselves from Iraq, our inability to hold the Iraqi Government accountable, to establish benchmarks, to make sure that there is some progress made, and that they don't have an open-ended commitment and a blank check even after the Iraqi Parliament, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, have indicated that they don't want us there anymore. There was a resolution that came out of the Iraq Parliament that indicated they didn't want us there. There is an incredible frustration among the Iraqi people about our being there. There is a worldwide concern about our presence there; and, most importantly, the American people want us to bring the troops home so that we can refocus the attention that we are paying in Iraq on training those troops to stand up on their own and for the Iraqi Government to function on their own.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have just known me longer. Thank you, Mr. Meek. It is a pleasure to be here. We have been trying to get the three of us back together again. It is a good problem to have. We have a lot more on our plate now that the Democrats are in the majority. The other good part of our problem is that we have expanded the active members of the 30-Something Working Group, with the Speaker that is in the chair this evening and a number of other Members, Mr. Altmire, and we are really happy about that. But I am glad the three of us were able to come back together this evening to continue our effort to speak to both our generation and to the American people, the rest of the American people, about our concerns and the Democratic new direction that we have been successful in moving in since November 7th when we were victorious in the election and when the American people indicated to this Congress that they wanted to move in a new direction. We struggled through the last number of years. Gradually, and unfortunately a cloud hung over this institution and this Capitol, a culture of corruption had developed, Mr. Ryan, and we just could not allow it to continue any longer. The American people were fed up with it, and that is why tomorrow we are going to be considering lobbying reform and ethics reform, so that we can inspire the confidence of the American people once again in their leaders, both as individuals, because traditionally they have said to pollsters that they support their Member of Congress, they like their Member of Congress, but they can't stand the institution. That is a sad state of affairs. We need to make sure that our institution, the one we are proud to serve in, is one that the American people can be proud of as well. There has been too much corruption here, unfortunately led by individuals formerly in the leadership in this institution on the other side of the aisle for far too long, and we need to take some significant steps to clean it up, which is why we are going to be considering this legislation on the floor tomorrow. We also talked about during the campaign and leading up to, and now since Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, took office, that we are going to implement the priorities that were important to the American people, including the minimum wage. We passed our ``Six in 06'' agenda in the first 100 hours that we were in the majority. The minimum wage was part of that. The implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations was a part of that. Making sure that we could repeal the $14 billion in subsidies that we gave away to the oil industry under the Republican leadership, that was a part of that package, and a number of other provisions. Our priorities since taking control of the House of Representatives have been a reflection of the priorities of the American people. We have been interacting with this President, which in my experience the only thing I can analogize it to, Mr. Ryan, is like trying to move an iceberg. This is a person who occupies the White House now that seems to have no respect for the system of checks and balances, no respect for the fact that the Founding Fathers created three branches of government that were considered coequal, and that he was not elected king of this country. The Founding Fathers very definitely intended for us not to have a monarchy, not to establish a monarchy, and he doesn't get to just decide what is going to happen, particularly when it comes to war and executing the powers of the Presidency. He does have to have input from us. I can tell you from my perspective, I think from your perspective, Mr. Meek, and Mr. Ryan as well, that this is the beginning of the end. The actions we have taken, insisting upon him not having a blank check and ending the blank check and the open-ended commitments that have been there, it is the beginning of the end.