Honoring the African Americans who have served in the Armed Forces.

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. Speaker, it is once again an honor to come before the House. As you know, those of us that are in the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor to share not only with the Members but the American people about what is happening under the Capitol dome here, or what is not happening.

We want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come to the floor again: Leader Pelosi and Mr. Steny Hoyer, our whip, and also the chairman, Mr. Jim Clyburn, and our vice chairman in assisting us in moving towards a stronger message to the American people.

I am so glad to be here with my good friend and colleague in the struggle for the truth and to make sure that we move America forward in many areas, even though we are serving in the minority here in the Congress. I think our constituents and also the American people, Mr. Speaker, look for us to use every avenue possible to be able to make their lives more secure, to be able to make sure we stand up on behalf of their health care, that we make sure that future generations have a better environment than what they have right now.

So with that, Mr. Ryan, it is so good to come back to the floor with you again, sir. We usually come to the floor and it is dark outside. It happens the sun is out; and as you know, the Congress is recessed for the week, but we are still here working, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, many Members of the House had an opportunity to witness a strong message again of commitment towards security; and those of us that are in the minority party have been working very, very hard to increase security here in the United States, especially homeland security. We are going to talk a little bit about that today. And I think when we were here, I know when we were here the night before last, we talked about the fact that just because the majority side says that we have security does not really mean we have security.

The majority side has said that we are going to make sure that we are fiscally responsible, but we found out later and we know now that the Republican majority has put us into record-breaking deficits.

If I can, just to start this off, Mr. Speaker, because I like to use visual aids and I know we are going to talk about security, but I think it is important because folks just feel we may come to the floor, the 30-Something Working Group comes to the floor, we go in the back room, we just dream up things to say, and this is not the case because, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there is so much bad news overwhelming the good news as it relates to future generations and this generation on how we are going to function as Americans and as a country.

No other time, I must add, before I bring this chart up, has the country been in the fiscal situation that it is in right now as it relates to foreign countries owning our debt.

Now I want to put this up, and I think it is important. You have seen this chart before. We have said that this chart may very well be in the National Archives one day because it will document that there were Members on the floor identifying to other Members on the majority side because they voted for this to happen. No other time in the history of the country have we borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign Nations in just 4 years. Matter of fact, we were not able to do it in 224 years, Mr. Speaker. We were not able to do it in 224 years; $1.05 trillion just for President Bush and the Republican Congress, it says right here below this picture because we cannot leave the Congress out because he could not do it all by himself. You have 42 Presidents here going back to the First Continental Congress, 224 years, and there they were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion.

Well, folks may say, well, Congressman, we are at war; Congress, 9/ 11. Guess what, these 42 other Presidents had the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, a number of other wars in between. They had all of these issues that were challenging America, but they never sold America off to foreign nations.

Let us talk about who those foreign nations are, and I think it is important again. This chart here has nothing to do with the weather. It is a silhouette, Mr. Speaker, as you can see of the United States of America. Who are we selling our debt off to? Who are we indebted to now? Because before this President and this Republican majority took over, we were talking about surpluses.

I am speaking here as a Democrat from the party that, guess what, we balanced the budget. We told folks that we would balance the budget and that we would cut down on spending, and guess what, we did it. But, you know, once again you have the other side, the Republican majority, saying: Trust us, we are fiscally responsible. Some folks may say the folks on the Democratic side, they like to spend money. Well, who is spending now?

China, Red China, many people in your district in Ohio are training people to go to China to do their jobs. Meanwhile, they are trying to make ends meet, and they are a part of the millions of Americans without health care, and Red China, we owe them $249.8 billion. They bought our debt to that point, and we owe them.

Japan, the little small island of Japan. They own $680.8 billion of our debt. Those are the big numbers.

UK, they own $223.2 billion of our debt.

This is not by the Democrats now I must add, and I challenge any Republican that wants to come down here right here, right now. This is not the WWF cage match. I want them to come here right now and explain to us, how is this positive for Americans in the future and right now?

Korea, $66.5 billion that they own of the American apple pie.

Canada, $53.8 billion of the American apple pie.

Germany, some of our veterans, $65.7 trillion.

Taiwan, the small island of Taiwan, $71.3 billion.

And OPEC nations, now Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting because OPEC nations, we are talking about Saudi Arabia, we are talking about Iraq, we are talking about Iran, who we have real issues with, OPEC Nations, they are a part of the American apple pie; $67.8 billion of our debt we owe them.

Now, anyone, Mr. Speaker, who has been in a financial situation before and has made youthful indiscretions on spending knows when a creditor calls you and they call in the tab for this payment, they disrespect you from the beginning. They do not call up and say, Mr. Ryan, I am calling from whoever the lender may be, when do you think that you can return payment? No, they call you Tim, because they disrespect you from the beginning.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to find ourselves in a situation where these countries are going to start disrespecting the United States of America, not because of something they did. It is because we have had a Republican Congress that has been the rubber stamp Congress for the President of the United States and not doing what they should be doing in Article I, section 1 of the Constitution, and that is a fact. They have been rubber stamping everything that the President has wanted.

This is President Bush's Congress.

And the bottom line is, it is like having, Mr. Speaker, a board of directors of a bunch of people like bobble heads going up and down like this: What do you want, Mr. President? You want to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires? We are with you. You want to give subsidies to oil companies that are making record profits while the American people are paying through the nose for oil and for gas prices? We are with you all the way. All the way, Mr. President, you can count on this Republican Congress because we are going to do it.

Hey, guess what, we are going to put it on the credit card. And folks used to say future generations. This is dealing with right now, and so just because you see a majority stands up there and they have this big chart behind them saying fiscal responsibility, we want to cut the budget in half, the deficit in half; that is not true.

So that is the reason why we are here on this floor today. That is the reason why we are sharing with the American people, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned if I was a Republican Member of Congress because I can tell you right now, as a Democrat who represents Republicans, Democrats, Independents, I represent Americans. They are all coming to me. They are not coming up to me and saying, hey, I am a Republican and I have got to stick with Republicans because I am Republican. No, they are saying I am an American and I am concerned about what is happening in Washington, D.C.; I am concerned about the fact that I am going to have to pay more for my grandchild's education because we have not done what we are supposed to do in the fiscal way to make sure that we are there; we do not cut student opportunities so they can train themselves for the next generation. I am concerned, Congressman, that the Congress is not investing in innovation so that we can have engineers, we can have scientists, so that we do not have to raise the visa rate to be able to bring folks in from another country to take U.S. jobs because we have CEOs that are begging us for the opportunity to have an educated and ready-to-go workforce, and we cannot provide it because these kids cannot get into schools, but meanwhile, we are standing up for the billionaires in this country, and we are standing up for bad policy in this country.

No one is questioning the whole issue as it relates to Iraq. You heard one of our Members just got back, said this is what we need on the ground in Iraq. We go to Iraq. We fought for our troops to get them what they need. The bottom line is we have to govern, and the reason why you see all of these scandals and all of the wasted money, Mr. Speaker, is that the Congress is over here doing this.

Bobble heads on the other side of the aisle saying, we are with you all the way.

So when they say we stand up to the President every now and then, that is not what the Constitution says, Mr. Speaker. The Constitution says that we are the House that represents the people of the United States of America. If they are in a wheelchair, walking upright, if they are white, they are black, Hispanic, whatever the case may be, we are charged to represent them, and when we are making history in all the wrong areas, borrowing from foreign nations in 4 years more than in the 224 years of 42 Presidents, and folks are not alarmed? We are far beyond politics right now, Mr. Speaker. We are in a situation to where either we have some folks on this floor that are willing to lead on behalf of the American people, no longer sell our debt off to foreign nations that we have issues with, or we are just going to continue to go down this fiscal track, slippery slope, until we get to a situation to where we are not going to be the superpower that we have been in the past of the work that these the other Presidents and other Congresses have done.

I will be doggone if I am a Member of a Congress where we are not trying to bring about the paradigm shift to get us back on the fiscal track and make sure that we do the things the way the American people elected us to do it when we come up here.

If a family had this kind of situation where they had debt and they were trying to catch up on that debt, the first thing when you get out of that or you get a second mortgage or you get some sort of loan to consolidate your debt, the first thing that lending officer says is, to do what? Cut your credit cards up.

Because from this point on, you can only buy what you can afford, not just continue to put it on the credit card because you are going to continue to go into the hole.

Mr. Ryan, when you start talking about our stakeholders here, and who is a stockholder in the United States of America or a stakeholder that has stock, you

know, I am a Member of Congress and I guess I put on a suit and a tie this morning and a shirt, and I am wearing a decent pair of shoes here today, but that doesn't make me a stockholder in America, just the way I dress. This voter registration card here does. That is the bottom line.

Anyone that is carrying one of these, Mr. Speaker, are the folks that will be able to speak to us in a way versus another person who is not registered to vote. And the real issue comes down to this: Are we going to be accountable to the American people? That is one question. Are we going to be accountable to those that are not old enough to vote yet and carry one of these voter registration cards? That is another question. Are we going to be accountable to those Americans that do have a voter registration card and know what it means to have a responsible government?

People want governance, Mr. Ryan. They could care less about the Republicans did this and the Democrats did that. They want governance, they want security, they want to make sure their children are educated and they want to be sure we are responsible, being the overseers of the Government of the United States of America. And the bottom line is this: we have some folks that have gotten confused, Mr. Speaker, on the majority side.

There are some votes that have taken place on this floor, this education bill that just passed today that did very little to address the issues of innovation in education, even though the majority side says we are for innovation; even though we are for education, just a little tiny increase here and there, and this is the best bill since bills have been passed.

And, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to just step back for a minute and say the reason why we are here. We are not appointed here in this House of Representatives. In the other body across the Hall, in the Senate, if a Senator was to say, hey, you know, I can't do this any more, I am gone. That is it. Hey, it was great serving for 20- something years, or even 5 years in some cases, but I am not going to do this any more. I have to go take care of my grandkids, my mother is ill, or whatever case, and they go on. In that particular case, a Governor can appoint a U.S. Senator.

But if a Member of the House, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, says, you know, family issues, personal issues, I can no longer come back to Washington every week to represent my district, I am gone, there has to be a special election set. And that is what holds us to a higher power as it relates to representing the people of the United States of America.

It is important that Members realize that folks early one Tuesday morning in some given community woke up one day and stood in line to vote for some representation. And I can tell you right now, the bills that are passing on this floor that are benefiting folks that are very powerful in this capital city, that I feel are not really benefiting the folks back home, I am concerned about. I know my card happens to say Democrat, but there are some cards that say Independent, and there are some voting cards that say Republican, and there are some voting cards that say Green Party and other parties. And guess what, they feel the way we feel.

I share with some Members sometimes that we have to act as though it was our first night being elected, all the things we wanted to do before we hit Washington, D.C., until someone started telling us how we should vote and how we shouldn't vote. We should have those feelings of representing the group of people that have sent us up here. And by the fact they have sent us here, Mr. Speaker, many times we have to look on behalf of the greater country. We have been federalized once we have been sent here to serve in this body.

So, Mr. Ryan, when we talk about stakeholders and stockholders, the stakeholders and stockholders in the United States of America are the people we serve. And folks are getting confused about that, or we wouldn't see this out-of-control borrowing and spending.

Folks are coming before the people of the United States of America and saying, you know, the President is asked, what about Iraq? Well, we are going to be there as long as we have to be there. That is not an answer.

Yes, that is the next President's issue.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about the other night, Mr. Ryan and I were talking, and the next thing you know, it is like Mr. Ryan or my constituents walking up to me in Miami and saying, hey, Congressman, you really need to do something about economic development. Well, that is for the next Member of Congress. It is not for me.

So the real issue is this: Do we want to represent the people that have fought that are veterans, and the American people that are paying taxes for us to be able to salute one flag here today? Or do we want to represent someone that is publicly on the stock market that has an issue that wants to use the U.S. taxpayer dollar to carry on their business when they are making record profits, when they are doing very little as it relates to investment?

So we have to make sure that the rubber hits the road and that everyone understands. Because we know there is going to be a big marketing campaign going on later on this year about who is doing the best job up here in Congress. And what I am seeing of the polling numbers and what people are saying and how they are concerned, the party has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with governance.

And, Mr. Ryan, if they want accountability in Iraq, and if they want accountability as it relates to paying as we go, and if they want accountability as it relates to us following up and saying what we are going to do, and we have all these scandals going on under this situation, what will happen? And what would happen if we had real oversight? If we had oversight, would Halliburton be able to get a blank check?

Mr. Ryan, I just want to also share the fact that we both serve on the Armed Services Committee, and we feel very passionate about what our men and women are doing. And we know that in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, you watch the Secretary of

Defense and you watch the press conference with the President and you would think that it is another beautiful day in Iraq, and it is not.

First question: Is there a civil war in Iraq? That answer usually comes back ``no.'' There is a civil war going on right now. As sure as today is Thursday, there is a civil war going on in Iraq right now. Will it get worse? It probably will get worse. Is the coalition getting bigger or smaller? Well, you know, we are talking to people, and the indicators of the indicators are saying. And they are not making any sense whatsoever.

And the reason they get away with this, Mr. Speaker, is we are not nailing them down as a Congress on the tough questions so they can answer in a truthful way and guide them in the right direction. It is not the Congress's responsibility for the day-to-day operations of war. The President would say it is not his responsibility either, that it is the commanders on the ground.

Well, we found from past commanders and some present that have slipped and said a few things every now and then that we did not have all that we needed to go into Iraq; that we did not have the body armor and equipment and a mission and a plan; we did not have a real coalition when we went into Iraq. We had a number of main countries, but when you look at it, you had the U.S., you had contractors, and then the Brits. And that was a huge deficit as it relates to numbers.

The Brits have said they are leaving this year, and a number of the other countries that were sending 50 to 100 troops there, or technical advisers that were part of our so-called coalition are leaving. Because they are willing to take the training wheels off the Iraqi Government. They are willing not to get into a situation, Mr. Speaker, of a continued borrowing from other countries. You know why they are doing it? Because they know they cannot weaken their country.

The U.K., I am going to snatch them off this map here, $223.2 billion of our debt. I mean, they have it so good they can buy our debt and still operate their country and continue to do what they are doing.

But they have better sense to know they have to take care of home first.

The President can boldly say, because he has the bobble-head Republican majority here that says whatever you say, Mr. President, we are with you.

For a minute there, I was concerned that maybe we could move in a bipartisan way. But, of course, when it came down to the whole Dubai Ports World issue, we had folks that said we stopped that from happening. But the environment was set up for it to happen, that the under secretaries in each department could make a unilateral decision that we will sell our ports off to a foreign nation. Somebody objected, and all of a sudden it became a situation where we had to do something about this after the whole country was in an uproar over the issue.

The Democrats, we were the first ones on the floor saying, what do we need 45 days for? What is there to think about, that we are going to outsource our ports to a foreign nation that there is a question mark concerning where the financing for the 9/11 attack came from. We are going to give them six of our ports on the east coast? What is to think about? 45 days for what? What does the President of the United States say? ``We gave them a handshake. We have to move on with this. You can have your 45 days, I am still going to do what I want to do.''

The Republican Congress was pushed with their back against the wall. But does the Republican Congress have to be pushed to the wall before they stand up and say, excuse me, Mr. President, we don't agree with you, and we are not going to do it.

The same thing happened, Mr. Ryan, when we came to this floor night after night, in some instances 2 hours a day on this floor, talking about the President's Social Security plan. He was going to privatize Social Security. Many of the Members on the majority side were with him. Ho-hum, private accounts, big press conference.

It took the American people to rise up in over 1,000 town hall meetings on this side of the aisle to bring to the attention of the American people that they were going to lose under private accounts, and then the President finally said okay. He flew all over the country and burned all kinds of jet fuel at taxpayers' expense and kind of did the Potomac two-step kind of thing.

Why can't we, as a bipartisan body, because people want leadership, and we are here sharing with the American people that we are ready to lead. We have plans to lead. We have led before in the past, be it war, be it making sure, and I want you to talk about Bosnia a little bit, be it planning to move into an area. I think it is important because yesterday we not only unveiled but said for a second time in many cases our security plan, our real security plan that people can get. They can read it online. They can get it on HouseDemocrats.gov. They can get a copy of this plan.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ryan and I were both in Iraq. We were in Iraq together. We were in these meetings with the commanders and the troops. You ask a question, sometimes folks lose eye contact with you because they are trying to do what the commander in chief said that we need to do. And there are a lot of stump speeches going on, and the President is flying and folks are standing behind him and clapping and all. And we are all supportive of the commander in chief, but when you are riding down the railroad tracks and you are saying, is that the light at the end of the tunnel or is that the train? Is that a train or is that the sun? When you start getting indicators, when you hear a horn and the rails start shaking on the train track, I think you start saying, I think that is a train.

Tough talk: The President throws out statements, talking about folks, we are going to get them and track them down and all this kind of stuff, it makes things even worse. So when we talk to these commanders, and some of them lose eye contact because they know we do not have what we need. And as long as this Republican majority is here bobble heading with the President saying, Mr. President, we are with you. And they have special breakfasts over at the White House. And, of course, Mr. Ryan, we are not invited because we may say something to the President he does not want to hear. We all know that the President does not take good to those who disagree with him, and I guess that rule applies to some of our Republican friends on the other side of the aisle because, obviously, we do not have the kind of uprising we need in the majority to be able to say, Mr. President, we are really going to have to start talking about this Iraq thing. We have to do something about it.

The Iraqi government, you go over there and you have some of the Members of their government, be it elected or appointed, they are sitting up there like they have 10 years to do whatever they have to do, they have 20 years to do whatever they have to do. And guess what, it is at the U.S. taxpayers' expense.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ryan, we have schools that do not have what they need. Meanwhile, we are here on this floor talking about cutting lunches for poor children just because they so happened to be born into a poor family. I have mayors coming to me saying, Congressman, these unfunded mandates for homeland security, I am having to spend all of this money. I have to take money out of parks and rec and decrease the quality of life in my city. The Federal Government just cut the COPS program, but meanwhile, we are building schools and roads and water treatment plants and the President said we were not going to be into nation-building over in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be able to mold the clay and to be able to let the American people know if you are walking down a tunnel, which they know, it is just commonsense, if you are walking down a tunnel and you are walking on some train tracks and you are stepping on those wood slates and you are saying, is that the sunlight or a train, and then you hear a horn and the tracks are shaking, I do not think that is the sun, I know it is a train.

What this majority has to do, and if the American people want us to be able to bring this President into accountability and bring the Department of Defense back into accountability and oversight, you are going to have to have a Congress, in this case a Democratic Congress, that asks the tough questions.

When you sit down for a job interview, you have to have a good resume. You cannot say, in my last job, I agreed with everything that the other guy who was sitting next to me said because I was told to say yes. No. People elected us to lead. People elected us to have plans. People elected us to have plans in all areas to make sure we have accountability for our government. People do not care if it is a ``D'' or ``R'' behind the name; they want leadership. We talk about real security. Real security is making sure that we protect America before something happens.

I do not want a 9/11 or an 8/11 or a 7/11, I do not want those dates to come up and say, oh well, now an event has happened and let's legislate to make sure that we move from 5 percent container checks at ports to 100 percent. Why do we need an event for that to happen?

The reason it is not happening, to be brutally honest, is we have the bobble-head Republican majority Congress that is saying ``yes'' to the President at every turn. Not all Republicans because I do not want to generalize, but enough to allow the President to continue doing what he is doing. And the only way we switch and have the change that you are talking about, Mr. Ryan, is if we have a Congress that is dedicated and bonded, ready to work in a bipartisan way, unlike what we have today, and bringing in the very few Republicans on the other side of the aisle that think the way we do, and say we are willing to represent. We do not care what your party affiliation is, we are willing to represent on behalf of the American people.

We are willing to tell the special interests that we notice you have issues, but we have something at hand. We have other issues such as innovation, such as homeland security, such as making sure that our troops have a clear plan in Iraq. The tough questions need to be asked, and we need to act on them. Some of them are being asked in some places, but they are not being acted upon.

Well, you know, Mr. Ryan, I believe that America is protected best and freedom is protected in advance. We look at homeland security.

Prevention. When you talk about prevention, you are talking about before. When you are talking about reactionary, we are talking about after.

So dealing with this container thing, I don't want the Members to take it lightly, Mr. Speaker. You may say, well, you know, I am in the middle of America. I live in Sioux City, Iowa, and we don't have ports so I don't need to worry; that is not my issue. Well, it is your issue because those containers that are coming in from overseas and from countries that are in question, some may say suspect as it relates to their commitment to the United States of America, they get on those little trucks and trains that I was talking about a little earlier, and they go right down into your community. And if there is a dirty bomb or some sort of substance that will hurt your community and your family, now it is your problem. And I think it is important that we point that out, because I don't want folks to get confused and say, well, I am not from a coastal area; Members who say, you know, well that is not my issue.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I just want to let you know that it was a pleasure coming down to the floor with you again. We got out a lot of good information.

Well, we need it.

Thank you. With that we want to thank the Democratic leader. We want to also encourage everyone to go to our Web site, housedemocrats.gov. We want the majority to go on our Web site, housedemocrats.gov.

These are our plans. As it stands right now, in the state of homeland security is the majority's plan. It is already there, already being carried out. We have a plan to make things better, more secure here in the United States of America, not only here in the House but also in the Senate.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House once again. I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Why not?

When we start talking about what Republicans are saying, prominent Republicans, the chart that you had up with Newt Gingrich saying they are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that can't function, number one, Mr. Speaker, he is saying ``they.'' ``They'' means he is separating himself and he no longer knows the Republican Congress that he gave birth to and that he was the Speaker of. I guess all along the game plan was when we get really in the majority, let's get some years down the road that people forget about the Contract with America, and we will start catering to the special interests. What is so unfortunate here is that the fiscal irresponsibility that has taken place in this Chamber, in the committee rooms down the hall, Mr. Speaker, across the hall, in the White House, has taken this country in a direction that it has never been in in the history of the Republic.

I am not talking about in the 108th Congress or the 107th Congress or the 93rd Congress. I am saying in the history of the Republic, this Republican Congress and the President have taken us down the road.

Now, I just want to say this to my colleagues, those that are Republicans and the one Independent that we do have here. This is not a local, Democratic club. This is the U.S. Congress. And we are here to share fact and not fiction, because we believe that the American people should be leveled with. And we also believe that they deserve a government that is going to represent them, not represent the individuals on K Street.

Let me explain K Street. Mr. Ryan mentioned K Street fairy tales of what is actually happening. The Republican majority embraced a program called the K Street Project. And in this K Street Project, it was a system of individuals on K Street contributing to Republican campaigns. And it was a pay-to-play philosophy. And I still feel that it is a pay- to-play philosophy, because they are getting what they want. The oil companies are getting what they want out of this Congress, not the American people. Other special interest groups are getting what they want out of this Congress and not the American people. If the American people were getting what they wanted out of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, Congress would not be rated and viewed by the American people with a 22 percent approval rating.

Members come to the floor and talk about the President of these United States at a 31 or 30 percent approval rating. We are here, we vote here every day; and the Republican Congress, this Congress that is led by Republicans are at a 22 percent approval rating. So that means that there is a super-majority of the Americans that are not agreeing with this majority. But, still, Members, the Republican majority is still going down the line of fiscal irresponsibility. They are irresponsible. Irresponsible.

Now, let me just say this. Some may say that is a heavy charge there, Mr. Ryan. Well, it is nothing like the printed word. This is not my stationery; this is the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Let me put up my Treasury Secretary's picture here, Mr. Snow, who I think is a decent man. He is just doing his job. He is the accountant for the United States of America. He lets us know pretty much when we are headed down a dark path. And at the end of the tunnel it is actually a train and it is not sunlight.

Here is a letter that he wrote December 29 of 2005. Now, let us think, on the 29th, Mr. Ryan, I was back in my district in Miami with family and friends. Actually, that was a couple of days, maybe 4 days, it was 4 days after Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ, a very religious time for many religions. As a matter of fact, Kwanzaa is being celebrated during this time.

But Secretary Snow found himself in his office on this day. And he wrote a letter to the majority whip in the U.S. Senate saying that, in essence, he is saying that this letter is to inform you that we must raise the statutory debt limit, or we will be unable to continue to finance government operations.

Okay. When you get a letter on the 29th, the end of the year, saying hello, excuse me, I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to run the company. You have to raise the debt limit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the Members understand what I am saying. Raising the debt limit means that you have not done a good job of being stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

That is not the only letter, Mr. Ryan. Just in case we didn't hear the Secretary, he turns around on February 16. Mr. Spratt wants to know what's going on, who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I got this letter that you wrote on the 29th. I mean, we were on recess and all, and you were here in Washington writing this letter. Tell me more.

He goes on. On December 29 I wrote to Congress regarding the need to increase the statutory debt limit. Because the debt limit has not been raised, I must inform the Congress, pursuant to 5 U.S. Code, that, in my determination, that by the reason the public debt limit is not raised, I will be unable to fully invest in the government security investment fund that is called the G fund of the Federal Employee Retirement System in a special interest-bearing account.

Now, let me just say this. Again, a letter by Secretary Snow, appointed by the President of the United States, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, wrote a letter saying we are in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I wish that was the only letter, but it is not. Here's another letter on the 6th of March. Again, I am notifying you, and he gives his reason why he is notifying, that I have determined that the debt insurance suspension period will be on March 6 and last until March 26. During this debt insurance suspension period, the Treasury Department will suspend additional investment of the amount credited to what we call the G fund again. But he is saying that we are not in fiscal good standing at this point. He is saying that he is going to have to suspend.

Mr. Ryan, he is saying that he will suspend it on March 6 of 2006, and he wrote the letter on March 6, 2006.

So the Secretary, Mr. Speaker, waited till the last day to inform the Congress, you know, I have already written you two letters. You are embarrassed to raise the debt limit because it will let the American people know that you are not governing.

Now, if we worked in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, maybe, just maybe I wouldn't be able to come to the floor and say that this is a product from the Republican majority, but it is.

Bipartisanship can only be allowed if the leadership allows it. The Republican leadership has shut out the Democratic voices in this Congress and shut out the one Independent voice we have here in this Congress. So now, for Members that come to the floor and start saying, well the Democrats this, that and the other, we are not in the majority. We cannot bring a bill to the floor. We cannot stop this Republican majority and this out-of-control spending.

One other point, Mr. Ryan. I will take Secretary Snow down for now. Again, Mr. Speaker, you all have seen this chart before. 224 years of 42 Presidents, prior to President Bush, borrowed from foreign countries $1.01 trillion. That is 224 years. That is a long time; 224 years? That is at least four or five generations, if not more of my family personally. Was only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. The President, and the Republican Congress that we have a picture here of, in 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, and this chart will be updated, from 2001 to 2005, have borrowed from foreign nations $1.055 trillion. They have beat out 224 years of history, Great Depression, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, you

name it, bad economic times, good economic times, they have beat out natural disasters. They have beat out 42 Presidents, Democrat and Republican, Mr. Ryan, $1.01 trillion, 42 Presidents. That is all they could muster up. But we give this Republican Congress and President Bush the gavel, $1.05 trillion in 4 years, just 4 years. How does that shake out? Well, who is investing in America now? Who is owning a part of the American apple pie? Who will continue to own, if this Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, is passed, who will get even more of the American apple pie?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again and the 30-Something Working Group, as you know and the Members know, we come to the floor day after day to share with the Members what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

So many times we focus on this side of the aisle on the plans that we have here on the Democratic side of the aisle in helping Americans to continue to prosper, need it be they are in small business or they wake up and go to work every day, educating our children, making sure that we have a healthy and prosperous and safe America.

Before I get started, I know Mr. Ryan will be joining me momentarily, Mr. Speaker. I just want to share with the Members a few plans that we have on this side of the aisle that we would like to implement. The only thing that is stopping us from bringing these plans to the floor and implementing action, well, we are moving in the right direction with great force, is the fact that we are not the majority here, Mr. Speaker, to be able to bring these issues to the floor.

As you know, in the past, I have talked about energy. I encourage Members to go to housedemocrats.gov to pick up a copy of our energy agenda, talking about alternative fuel, talking about bringing about flex vehicles in the industry to be able to allow more Americans to purchase vehicles that are flex vehicles that they can use E-85 and gasoline.

Real security plan, it is there dealing with homeland security. We have already said on this side of the aisle if we are in the majority that we would implement all of the 9/11 recommendations to make America safer. This is a bipartisan commission, as the Members know, that was appointed, and this House was part of it, and they did outstanding work. Those recommendations have still not been fully implemented to protect America.

We have our initiative that we have been trying to promote for the last 3 to 4 months in a very forceful way, which is allowing working Americans to be able to earn more money. It has been 9 years, Mr. Speaker, since the American people have received an increase as it relates to the minimum wage. It is very, very unfortunate that we have Americans that are working for $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage has been the same since 1997, which is now approaching 10 years.

As you know, many Americans have suffered under the low minimum wage that we have now, that is throughout for individuals that are working every day, and I have a few facts here.

Of the last 50-years, I mean, this is the lowest it has been in the last 50 years. Also, 6.6 million Americans will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, and something that I must add, the Republican leadership has said that they vow not to raise the minimum wage again this year or next year. So I think that is something that the American people need to pay very close attention to.

Three-quarters of the minimum wage workers are adults that are over the age of 20, many of whom are responsible for over half of the family's income. One day of work, it takes an entire day's wage for an earner to buy a tank of gas.

Also, studies have shown, Mr. Speaker, that zero jobs have been lost when the minimum wage has been increased.

Eighty-six percent of Americans do support an increase in the minimum wage. Twenty-one States have moved in the direction of increasing the minimum wage. I do not know what is going on here with the Republican majority in not moving in that direction to allow more American people to have money in their pocket to be able to provide for their families.

We have talked many times on this floor in the 30-Something Working Group about the new weight that has been placed on the heads of the American people as they start to send their young people to college.

Just yesterday we had a town hall meeting downstairs in this building, in HC5 here in the Capitol Building, with some young people who are third-party validators with the student loans they have out now, Mr. Speaker. And this is very serious, because now people are starting to prepare their young people to go off to college in the month of August and late July, many of whom are now having to take out these student loans at a very high interest rate. They are going to end up paying almost $100 more a month in interest to pay for their college, and I think that is something we need to pay very close attention to.

It is very unfortunate that on the majority side, Mr. Speaker, on the Republican side, all due respect to all the innovation that one tries to come up with on the other side of the aisle, it is costing the American people more, and it is putting our young people in debt in this country even before they can grab their college degree and earn a living. They are already, on average, somewhere around $25,000 or $30,000 in debt when they step across the stage. That is very, very unfortunate.

We cut student aid here. We increase student loan rates here. The States in turn have to cut, and the cost of college is increased. It increases on these individuals. It is an increase on these individuals.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, for us to talk about the fact that we have the will and the desire on this side of the aisle to move America in the right direction. I talked about this last week, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is very, very important to bring this up here again today; that we are willing to move this country in the right direction, in a new direction, making sure that Americans have more opportunities.

I think it is important for us to point out the fact that on this side of the aisle we have committed again to raising the minimum wage. We have committed to helping this country become energy independent, investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East within 10 years. We have also committed on this side of the aisle, I mentioned it earlier, to implementing all of the 9/11 recommendations.

But one of our major commitments on this side, Mr. Speaker, and also to the American people, is that we have said that we are willing to bring this budget back into balance within a reasonable time; not that we are going to cut the deficit in half, or we are going to balance the budget, but we are going to be able to bring us out of this deficit spending that the Republican majority has led us into with record deficits as far as the eye can see.

We have the resume. On our resume we have the accomplishment of being able to do that. We have accomplished that before in the past, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is something that one needs to pay very close attention to.

When we say a commitment to making sure our fiscal house is in order, it is not a slogan. It is not something that someone says, well, the polls say you need to say you are going to bring spending under control. We have actually attempted to do that.

You have seen this chart before. We can't talk about it enough, because the facts are in. Regardless of the floor speeches that may go on on the Republican side of the aisle, I think it is important for us to outline the fact that we have put our legislation where our mouths are.

We have said that we want to see this House say that if you are going to spend, then spend in a way that almost every American family has to spend. If you are going to buy something, you have to know how you are going to pay for it. You can't put everything on a credit card. And what is unfortunate is that we have allowed other countries to be a part of our country financially not because the American people have made a bad decision, but it is because the majority and the White House have made some bad decisions.

Here I have, Mr. Speaker, a PAYGO rule that on this side we have adopted; that we are willing to pay as we go. If you are going to buy it, you have to show how you are going to pay for it. It is not that you spend or you buy and

then you borrow. John Spratt, who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, on the 2006 budget resolution, and this is the Congressional Record, this is not something the 30-something Working Group put together, this is rollcall vote 87, March 17 of 2005. Republicans voted 228 against this pay-as-you-go amendment that we put forward.

Again, Mr. Spratt and the ranking member's substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393, this is also rollcall vote number 91, March 25, 2004, 224 Republicans voting against pay-as-you-go on a rule we tried to put in place.

When I say try, Mr. Speaker, that is all we can do at this particular point because until Democrats are in the majority, we are not going to be able to put this country into the fiscal position it should be in.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, and I do say once again, I pull my chart out. This is almost my exhibit A here. Third-party validator. And the source that has given us this information happens to be the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Here we show that 42 Presidents over 224 years were only able to borrow from foreign nations, and this is money that the United States has borrowed from foreign nations in 224 years and 42 Presidents, $1.01 trillion. Through World War I, World War II, the Great Depression, a number of other conflicts, slowdowns in the economy, and other issues that have faced this country, 42 Presidents have only borrowed $1.01 trillion.

In 4 years, 4 years with President Bush, $1.05 trillion with the Republican Congress. Just in 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If someone came to me and said, Kendrick, you have to throw all the charts out but one, if you just wanted one chart, this would be the one that I would pick, Mr. Speaker, because I think it reveals what has happened here in this House, how it has been so easy for the Republican majority to put runaway spending on a credit card and allowed foreign countries to be able to own a part of the American apple pie.

What is so very, very unfortunate here, as all of this borrowing has taken place, you would think that student loans would have a lower interest rate, you would think that alternative fuels would have an opportunity to be a part of the marketplace, and that we would be moving towards more cleaner-burning fuel. You would think that we would have a world-class health care system, and that companies as big as General Motors and as small as a mom-and-pop store that has five or six employees in it would be able to provide health care for their employees, and you would also think, Mr. Speaker, that a number of States would not be suing the Federal Government because of the underfunding of the Leave No Child Behind with all of the money that has been borrowed from foreign nations.

But what has happened is that the superwealthy in this country have gotten the biggest tax cut in the history of the Republic. What has also happened is that Republicans have been allowed to spend in record- breaking, I mean, just off the charts. For Republicans to come down here and blame Democrats for spending--I mean, really, I know it is kind of hard for them to keep eye contact with someone like me and those of us in the 30-something Group who knows better, who know what the facts show, that $1.05 trillion has been borrowed from foreign countries. They are weakening our country as they start to move and allow these other countries to be able to own so much of the American apple pie.

And I will close with this before I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who came in before Mr. Ryan. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for us to look at it from this standpoint; that if you borrow money from someone, the relationship has changed. I heard someone from the White House say this morning on the Today Show we are the last standing superpower. Okay, well, you must be talking about militarily, because financially we are getting weaker every day under this administration's policy and the rubber-stamping of this Republican Congress.

I think it is important that everyone understands that we have borrowed money from countries that we have never borrowed money from before in a record-breaking way. The Republican majority has done so without our help, but because they are in the majority, that has happened, and now they are looking at us under a different light.

We still have budgets that are being passed here on this floor that is going to even make the American people more indebted to foreign nations, some that we have questions of their links to possible terrorism and other questionable measures.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Fifty years.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as calm as possible.

Well, I am pleased because the Miami Heat has taken care of business in four games straight. There is going to be a great parade in Miami celebrating the Miami Heat's achievement of achieving the NBA championship, and that team consists of a lot of young guys and older guys that have really worked hard.

I would just like to say this is the first time I have given the Dallas Mavericks any charitable words since I have been here on the floor and in this building, that they played hard. It was a great series and I appreciate the folks that are in Dallas, Texas, for their sportsmanship and the fans. But in Miami, we are very, very excited about it.

Let me just say this, I am saying that this whole thing is about sportsmanship and be able to enjoy and have a good time. It is a great lesson for young people about mental mistakes that people can make.

Life is like basketball, things happen and you have to adjust to those things. Folks were thinking I was going to talk for 30 minutes about the Miami Heat, but I don't want to waste the House time dealing with that, and they will be recognized later on. So we will move on.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz wore the colors. I am not wearing the beads that I was wearing. We were down 0-2. I put the beads on and the Heat just went four games all the way.

Let me say, Mr. Ryan, you were talking about leadership and Ms. Wasserman Schultz was talking about leadership. I think it is important when we look at leadership, that is not just in the White House. That is here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is very, very important that we have a body of Members here that have the will and the desire to lead.

As you all were talking, I was pulling out a couple of examples to show you a lack of leadership. Remember the Wizard of Oz when they said let it be green and let it be red and let it be blue, and that is fine for a movie; but that is not fine for the United States of America as it relates to policy in any area.

Let's start off at the top of the week when the White House said let's talk about the great things that are happening in Iraq or not happening in Iraq. It seems to be just the opposite at the end of the week of what is not happening in Iraq and what is happening in Iraq.

But the bigger question is what is happening here in this House. We spent all kind of time running back and forth into last week, Members coming down to the floor making speeches, getting all puffy in the chest and talking and carrying on about who loves the troops and who doesn't love the troops.

No, I love them more than you do. I have a tattoo, you know, that said I love the troops.

It is not all about how you say it. It's what you do. And the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, nothing came out of the resolution that was passed. I mean, it is not like the resolution was passed and all of a sudden some great policy measure, some sort of major dollars going into veteran affairs or some direction to the Iraqi Government of how we really, where we really stand as it relates to it and relates to the war in Iraq. And I think it is important that, some of the things that I wrote down, Mr. Speaker is, following the Bush administration, and its rubber-stamp Congress has allowed the Bush administration to continue to carry out poor planning as it relates to the war in Iraq. Also, no plan for success. It is okay not to have a plan. Because we are in the majority, we are going to write a resolution that we are not going to even allow a Democrat to even put a period or a comma in, and because we are in the majority, we are going to endorse it, no oversight whatsoever from the U.S. House of Representatives. No oversight, Mr. Speaker. No accountability, no investigations of what is going on with the taxpayers' money that has been stolen in record numbers, no-bid contracts, $17 billion for Halliburton alone.

The Democrats, what do we want? We want accountability. We want to make sure that 2006 is a significant year as it relates to transition and plan for Iraq. We want to make sure that the Iraqi people know that they are going to have to take responsibility for their government more sooner than later. And as long as we start saying we are going to stay as long as we are going to stay, they are going to keep saying it is going to take us as long as it is going to take us. It is in the U.S. taxpayers' pocket, and the American troops that are there will continue to pay the price with life, limb and blood and time away from their families as long as the Republican rubber-stamp Congress continues to rubber-stamp whatever the White House has said.

Another point I wanted to make here. Some troops are on their fourth deployment. What does that mean if you are a soldier? That means you are going back for the fourth time. And it may be 12, 15 months. If you are a marine, many of the marines are definitely on their fourth deployment. A little shorter time, tougher duty, and it goes on and on and on.

Recruiting standards have been loosened. The National Guard units have just 34 percent of the required equipment that they need once they go back into the theater. And that is something that we have to pay very close attention to.

And the last point here as it relates to the no plan and the continue to throw the rock and hide your hand philosophy that this Republican Congress has is the fact that veterans' copayments are going up as it relates to prescription drug care. No plan for veterans when they come back with all of the issues that they are going to come back with to their families. We deserve to give them the attention that they need, and there is no plan for that.

So to come and do the John Wayne, if I could use his name as a tough guy, and to say that, oh, we are going to do this, and using slogans about how we need to, people, anyone that talks about anything about Iraq outside of I am with the President, they are not really with the American people.

Well, let me tell you something. I want a news flash to the members of the Republican side of the aisle. The American people are not feeling your rhetoric. And I think we will know in November about where we are because the American people are looking, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, for some leadership.

I think on the Republican side of the aisle, some folks need to go see the wizard, get some courage and some leadership, and to be able to say we are willing to work in a bipartisan way. I say this with great confidence because a lot of my Republican colleagues know it, and a lot of them tell me. You know, they say, Kendrick, you know, you 30- somethings, you come kind of hard sometimes, but you know something, I can't get upset with you because it is true. Third-party validators know that it is true.

I am sick and tired of seeing these parents get on the Today Show in the morning, Mr. Speaker, and trying to bring some sort of understanding in their own mind of why we are there without a plan, and why are we sacrificing our troops on the front line when it is now taking, going on 3, 4 years to train Iraqi troops, when we have had individuals that were in sophomores in high school that have been trained and

sent into theater and now on their second deployment. It is just kind of hard to explain that for Mr. Ryan and I that are on the Armed Services Committee. It is just hard to understand that, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

So this game of saying that we are going to stay as long as we have to stay, don't ask any questions, I think those days are over. I think the American discourse is going to take over what this House has not done, and I know that they are going to speak in a very positive way towards the party that has the plan.

Now, we have plans and ideas on the table here in the House and in the Senate. But guess what? We are at least talking about a plan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are just not saying, oh, excuse me. What did they say at the White House? Oh, they want to continue a war without a plan? Okay. That is fine. We will just rubber-stamp that. And what else can we do for the President? So shall it be written, so shall it be done, at the price of the American taxpayer and the price of some families as it relates to never seeing their father or mother again.

So I think it is something that is very serious. I am making fun of the fact that there is a rubber-stamp Congress here, but I have to say, ladies and gentlemen, that it is a reality. It is a reality. No questions asked. Rubber stamp. And I hope that the American people pay very close attention to it.

So I am glad that the Democratic Caucus has put their foot down and have said that enough is enough. You won't hear me talk about why can't we work in a bipartisan way, because we have been saying it since I have been here going on now 4 years, Mr. Speaker. So the will and the desire is not on the Republican side to even work with the Democrats. So now you have to move in the campaign that we have now and moving this country in a new direction, and that new direction is going to be inclusion. We are going to include Republicans in a bipartisan way, and moving this country and all the things that we talked about, Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about, Mr. Ryan is talking about, and when folks can go on housedemocrats.gov and find our plan in moving this country in a new direction. We have the will and the desire, and we will definitely do it.

With that I would like to yield to Mr. Ryan.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we spend so much time talking about the budget, and those are great numbers that you have shared here. And I see Ranking Member Spratt here on the floor, John Spratt, who has done such an outstanding job on the budget. And as you know, I always hold this chart up about the foreign-owned debt and where we are going and what is being spent.

Mr. Ryan spoke to how we are paying more on the debt than we are paying on education, veteran affairs and a couple of other areas, too, homeland security. And I saw Mr. Spratt, and I just couldn't resist, sir. I know that you were here to put in a Record statement, but can you just share, just kind of bring into focus what has happened here and what will continue to happen, if the Republican Congress continue to have their way?

Mr. Spratt, I am so glad that you are here because here I hold a letter that former Secretary Snow wrote you about the emergency situation we are in of raising the debt ceiling.

Again, Mr. Speaker, third-party validators. U.S. Secretary Snow, who is like the accountant, or used to be the accountant, of the United States of America, literally begging you, wrote you a letter and said, We have to raise this thing or I am going to have to shut down normal government operations.

That letter was in February. And then there is another one, Mr. Speaker, on March 6 that he wrote, again saying that we have to raise the debt ceiling.

So we have the Bush administration appointees. I use these rubber stamps here, Mr. Spratt, as the rubber stamp Congress that we put here. So this wasn't a part of the letter, but we highlight here the begging, saying that they will not be able to pay into the G fund and other investments that they have to pay into to be able to assist. It is saying they are going to have to suspend investing in the Federal employees retirement fund.

So, Mr. Spratt, I just wanted to bring that out, a third-party validator's saying that they have to raise the debt ceiling. But we spend a lot of time here, sir, as you know, in the 30-Something Working Group because we are working with the fact that young Americans and the future generations, what this is going to mean and what it is meaning right now to American families. And we also highlight the two amendments. This is almost like having the man that has made it happen here on our side of the aisle trying to move into a pay-as-you-go to stop exactly what you are pointing out there, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Spratt.

I yield now to Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.

Thank you, my friend. One quick piece of business that has been mentioned several times here today is the countdown to the Bush prescription drug tax.

Now, for those Members who do not remember, the Republican Congress voted this boondoggle a few months back, told us it was $400 billion before we cast a vote on it, and it ended up being $700 billion. The real number was actually hidden from Members of the United States Congress before they voted.

What happens is through this bill seniors have until May 15 to sign up for the prescription drug plan, and if they do not sign up by May 15, they are going to be penalized with the Bush prescription drug tax, which means that there will be an increase in monthly premiums by 1 percent for every month they do not sign up. So if they do not sign up by May 15, they will not be eligible to sign up, I think, until January of 2007 to begin again. That means there will be a 7 percent increase if seniors do not sign up by May 15.

This is a complex plan, a complicated plan; and we are rushing and forcing our seniors to make a decision. So we just want to put a little X here on Thursday, March 30, a couple days before the Final Four begins, so our seniors know that the countdown is on and

they have several weeks before this President will levy a tax on them.

This is President Bush's Congress.

This is his Congress. They toe his line.

Bobble heads.

You are exactly right. Article I, section 1, of the United States Constitution creates this House of Representatives. It does not say we are going to have a king. It does not say we are going to have a President. That all comes later. Article I, section 1, of the Constitution creates this body, and when things get so turned around that this body is rubber stamping everything, this is President Bush's Congress. They have done every single thing that he has asked and everything that is supposed to be up is down statistically, and everything that is supposed to be down is up.

Now, since President Bush has been in and President Bush's Congress, they have raised the debt limit by $3 trillion. Basically what happens is the CEO, the President, the Treasury Secretary, they come to Congress; they come to the board of directors and say, hey, we need to go out and borrow more money for the business. So the Congress time and time and time again says, sure, keep going, we will not even ask any questions as to where you are spending it.

They raised the debt in June of 2002 by $450 billion; May of 2003 by $984 billion; November of 2004, $800 billion; and just 2 weeks ago, we did it again by several hundreds of billions of dollars. Almost $9 trillion is the limit the United States can go and borrow.

As the gentleman from Florida said, we are borrowing it from the Chinese, the Japanese, OPEC countries. Can you imagine, we are going to the oil producing countries to borrow money? Are they not getting enough of our money right now? I think they get plenty of our money, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what did the Democrats try to do to stop the insanity? We have a little provision here that was implemented in the early 1990s, and it basically said if you want to spend money, you have got to go find it somewhere. You have either got to raise revenue or you have got to cut spending from another program in order to bring it into balance. It is called pay-as-you-go, just kind of like you do at home.

Right.

That is a great point, and I thank the gentleman.

So, in this Congress, the Democrats have tried to reimplement this pay-as-you-go system because Bush's Congress, Bush's House, Bush's Senate, President Bush, they got rid of the PAYGO requirements. They said we did not need them anymore, and the Democrats, time and time, you know, we hear a lot about, well, what is the Democrats' plan? This is the Democratic plan: We want to implement PAYGO rules back into the United States Congress to rein in this spending. John Spratt from South Carolina, our ranking Democratic member on the Budget Committee, tried to put a substitute amendment in on the 2006 budget resolution, and that amendment failed. Zero Republicans voted to reimplement the PAYGO rules.

We tried again with another Spratt substitute amendment, H. Con. Res. 393. I am not making this up. This happened. It is in the Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker. The Members can go and look and check it out. It failed 194-232. Zero Republicans voted to reimplement the PAYGO rules.

Mr. Thompson from California tried; Mr. Stenholm, a former Member from Texas, he tried. Mr. Moore from Kansas, he tried. We have been trying to implement fiscal restraint on Bush's Congress, and they refuse to accept it time and time again.

Now, the funny part about it, and not really funny ha-ha, just funny peculiar, is that this is the same outfit that campaigned in 1994, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. They wanted to enshrine balanced budgets into the U.S. Constitution and make a constitutional amendment. Now, 12 years later, they are the most fiscally irresponsible group that has run the show in the United States Congress.

Time and time again, when Democrats have tried to rein in spending, we keep butting our heads up against the Republican majority, President Bush's bobblehead Congress that just continues to say ``yes'' to every single thing that they do.

I remember, too, my good friend from Florida, time and time again we heard about how government needs to be run like a business. And you know what, put me in. Sign me up. I agree. I think it should be run like a business. But when you apply this scenario to a business model, we are the board of directors, the United States Congress, and the majority in particular. The President is the CEO. So if the CEO keeps going back to the board to say, hey, we want to go borrow more money, the board should at least ask some questions, like, Where are you spending it?

And when you hear where they are spending it, in Iraq a $1.5 billion a week, and then Halliburton, who is getting the contracts in Iraq, is inflating prices and has been fined already for inflating prices, basically bilking the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, is what that is called in laymen's terms; yet there is no oversight. Where is the $9 billion dollars in Iraq. Where is it? You got it. No, I don't. You don't have it? He's got it. Wait a minute, I don't have it. Nobody knows where it is, $9 billion.

This is not an operation that is being run like a business, especially in Iraq. Then we look at what happened when Katrina hit. That operation, FEMA, was certainly not run like a business, because you don't put a horse lawyer in charge of an emergency management operation. That is the bottom line. You put people in who will respect the operation and respect what needs to be done.

So if all this is happening, we've got to make some changes. And if it is General Motors, the American people do not have a vote as to who is on the board or who is the CEO of the company. But, fortunately, my friend, in the United States of America, the American people have the opportunity to pick a new board, and in November of 2006 the American people are going to have an opportunity to pick a new board.

It is the next President's issue.

Here is the choice, my friend. The American people will have a decision to make. We can either go and keep following President Bush down this unknown path, that I don't even know sometimes if the President knows where we are going as a country, or we can change course and we can go in a different direction than President Bush's direction. Because that direction, as you have seen, has led to more borrowing from foreign interests than the previous 42 Presidents.

We are not making this up. That is from the United States Department of the Treasury. And when you look at the interest payments that we have to pay just on the interest, and here is a great example, Mr. Speaker: for the 2007 budget, we will spend about $230 billion just paying the interest on the money that we owe all these other countries.

So if China loans us money, they loan us the money and then we send them the interest. So China takes the interest and invests it back into their state-owned companies and wipes out the manufacturing base in the United States. That doesn't seem too smart. That is President Bush's direction. The Democrats want to take the country in another direction.

So $230 billion out of the 2007 budget is going to go just for interest. Wasted money. Flush it right down the toilet, `cause it is done. Then what are we going to spend on education? Fifty billion. We have $230 billion on the interest and $50 billion on education. You know, 10 or 15 on homeland security, and a pittance, just a little more than that, on veterans.

You know, President Kennedy said: ``To govern is to choose,'' and this is the choice that this President makes. The Bush Congress continues to reaffirm with their rubber stamp time and time and time again. So all we are saying is what we want to do is we want to change direction.

I personally would like to stop following the President, because I have seen his track record, and I don't want to follow him. It is just like any leader. You are with them, you want to be with them, but over time they build a record, and this Republican Congress refuses to break free from what the President is doing here. And this is President Bush's Congress, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, you have to be tough, there is no doubt about it, but you have to be smart. What we are doing now is not smart. We talked earlier about the debt and deficit and everything else we have now. In 1993, a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and a Democratic President balanced the budget in the United States. It led to the creation of 20 million new jobs. The Democrats know how to govern.

We had an incident in the late 1990s with Bosnia. General Clarke, a Democrat; Madeleine Albright, a Democrat; President Clinton, a Democrat; we went into Bosnia with a coalition of countries around the world to help us stop basically what we said was happening in Iraq. We went in there, and we did not lose one American soldier. The Democrats know how to administer governments, and the Republicans, quite frankly, do not because the numbers do not bear it out. The budget is ballooning. They have raised the debt ceiling by $3 trillion. They are borrowing money from Japan, China and the OPEC countries, and whoever else will loan them money. The deficit next year is projected to be about $500 billion. Tuition costs have doubled in the past 4 or 5 years. The gap between the wealthiest people in our society and the poorest people in our society has grown to a point we have not seen since pre-World War II, and Iraq is a mess. $1.5 billion a week. We are losing soldiers every day, and there is absolutely no end in sight. We did not go in with enough troops, and whether you supported the war or not, you want to make sure that you succeed, for God's sake.

Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the rebuilding effort in Iraq that we need to see in order to get out of there.

From a security perspective, we need to be tough; we need to be smart. We need to have our act together, and we have a comprehensive plan. You know, these bumper-sticker solutions to complex world problems do not work. They just do not work. They have gotten us into the situation we are in now.

If you look at the plan that the Democrats have, we talk about 100 percent of the ports. Right now, we are only inspecting 5 percent of the ports here. The Democrats have tried. Let us get those charts out about all of the amendments we have offered to try to increase funding for port security.

We only check 5 percent of the cargo coming into the United States ports. That means 95 percent is not checked at all because of the failed leadership on behalf of President Bush's Congress.

What have the Democrats tried to do? Some people ask: What are the Democrats doing? Here is what we are doing.

In June of 2004, Mr. Obey tried to put on an amendment right here in Congress to increase port and container security by $400 million; Republicans refused to even allow a vote. That was for $400 million, and we need $6 billion worth to actually do the job. That is what the Coast Guard says we need. We only asked for $400 million, and could not even get a vote on it.

October 7 of 2004, another amendment by Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo and Senator Byrd to increase funding by $150 million. That was shot down.

We kept trying, we kept going. On September 29, 2005, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo, increase funding for port and container security by $300 million. The House conferees defeated this amendment along party lines. Democrats for, Republicans against.

Again, March of 2006, Republicans blocked an effort by the Democrats to bring the King-Thompson port deal bill to the floor.

Again, Republicans voted against the bill. Time and time and time again, the Democratic minority tried to get President Bush's Congress to support these deals, to support increases in funding so we can get it from 5 percent to 100 percent. We should check all of the cargo that comes into the country. So that is one issue. We need to check the ports. Okay? But there is not one little bumper sticker we could say we are going to have, we are going to put it on all our cars, then the problem is going to be solved. That is just one component.

We believe, in the Democratic Party, that if we do not have a long- term alternative energy proposal where we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we will continue to be in these squabbles and these entanglements in the Middle East, time and time and time again. So the Democrats want to fund the ports. We have made efforts to do that. We want an alternative energy program. We need to get the oil man out of the White House in order to do that. And not only are we trying to take on the oil companies, the Republican majority in the energy bill gave the, check this out, gave the oil companies $12 billion in corporate welfare. So not only are your gas prices going up; your public tax dollars that you send to Washington, D.C., the Republican majority is also giving that to the oil companies on top of what you are already giving them.

The first day we take over, next January, we will implement the 9/11 Commission's report, make sure we put that thing front and center and we do what the bipartisan commission has told this country that we need to do.

The COPS program that you mentioned, our first responders, that program is gone. It is gone. President Clinton had a goal of putting 100,000 cops on the street. And the Republican Congress has almost nearly eliminated that program, if it is not all gone already.

So what we are saying is, real security is an opportunity for all of us to have a comprehensive plan, implement the 9/11 Commission's report, make sure that we secure the ports and fund the funding level that the Coast Guard recommends, not Kendrick Meek and Tim Ryan, what the Coast Guard recommends. Let's develop an alternative energy policy in this country so that we are not reliant on oil from the Middle East that gets us entangled in all of this stuff. And let's make sure we fund our police and fire and our first responders, the first line of defense here.

So be tough, but be smart and make proper investments that are going to yield value and protect the country, not where did the $9 billion go that we are spending in Iraq that no one knows where it is.

Be happy to yield.

Prevention.

Just like you get your food, just like you get the toys that shipped to the local store that you are going to buy, same thing. Those all come in through the ports.

Now, here is what is interesting, Mr. Speaker. And I think this is something that really makes your ears perk up when you hear about this. On March 28, just a day or so ago, Senators said that a report, this is from Bloomberg News, Senators said a report that investigators smuggled enough radioactive material to build two dirty bombs into the United States called into question the Bush administration's efforts to secure the borders.

Now, check this out. A sting operation that was described in one of three Government Accountability Office reports, now this is the GAO, this is not a partisan deal, said, they released a report. The report accused the Bush administration of being slow to deploy equipment that would detect radioactive materials, and they say corrupt foreign border officials and poor maintenance of detection devices have left the U.S. vulnerable to terror plots.

Enough material for two dirty bombs to go off in the United States was snuck in by, you know, through a sting operation that we were trying to figure out what is going on. We are not doing enough.

Now, third-party validator, which the 30-somethings like to promote. We don't want this to be all our opinion here. This is from a retired Coast Guard commander who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He says: ``Both the opportunity for terrorists to target legitimate global supply chains remain plentiful, and the motivation for doing so is only growing. We are living on borrowed time.''

We are not here to scare anybody, but the reality is, when you only check 5 percent of the cargo coming into the country, and your own folks are sneaking in enough nuclear material to set off two dirty bombs, and we are giving tax cuts to billionaires and not funding port security, when we are giving $12 billion in corporate welfare to the oil companies, when we are giving billions in corporate welfare to the health care industry, and we are not funding our national security priorities, when we are spending a billion and a half in Iraq a week, and $9 billion of it no one can find, and we have these kinds of situations, we have an obligation. When we come here the first part of every second year and we swear our allegiance to the United States and the Constitution and everything else, we have an obligation to oversee what is going on. So we have an obligation to come down here and be critical of things like this and provide solutions, which we have time and time again.

Now, President Bush's Congress has not taken any of our recommendations, and they are up for a job review in November; and I hope that the American people, Mr. Speaker, take a good look at what has happened over the past 4 or 5 years and hope that our plan on real security, which you can find on our Web page, housedemocrats.gov, you can get the whole deal and you can see our comprehensive plan to try to do this.

You can also check out our plan on innovation, how to get the country moving economically again. Periodically, we will have unveilings of different ideas that we have. But we have tried on port security. We have tried on PAYGO. We have tried on school funding and we continue to get shot down by President Bush's Congress. So we have got the plan; we just need the opportunity to implement it. For Members who are in their offices and would like to send us e-mails or anyone else, www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. All the charts that were here that we used will all be on the Web site so you can go back and reference them all.

Yield to my friend.

Before we go, I know you have a Florida team in the Final Four this weekend, and I want to wish you the best of luck.

I hope you guys pull it off. Since there is no Ohio team, with a good conscience I can root for Florida.