Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Well, I can assure you, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, there will not be any oversight. There will be no investigation because this Congress simply will not do it.

If there is one theme that has characterized the 6 years of this administration and the 6 years of control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate by the Republican Party, it is a lack of transparency, is secrecy, is a refusal to be held accountable. And much of the responsibility comes right here to this institution.

Now, let me just divert for one moment and cite the example of accountability and oversight in the case of the war in Iraq.

Both the decisionmaking process that led us to intervene militarily in Iraq and what has happened since the so-called major combat phase was announced.

It was announced by President Bush as he flew in and landed on that aircraft carrier saying the mission was accomplished.

I happened to be the senior Democrat on a subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, that in that particular capacity I, along with other Members, Democratic Members, have requested again and again and again an opportunity to ask some questions about the whole array of issues, the fraud and the corruption that has absolutely gone wild. It is the Wild West. Everybody that has come back from Iraq that has been in a position to observe and witness the corruption by contractors, by Iraqis, by Americans, by other foreign nationals says it is unlike anything we have ever seen.

Well, you know how many hearings we have had? Let me rephrase that. Something unusual happened today, more than 3 years after the end of the so-called combat phase. The House International Relations Committee had a hearing on Iraq, and witnesses from the administration actually appeared and testified. I am not even going to comment on that hearing, but I would commend Members from both sides of the aisle to go and to read the transcript in the Congressional Record, because we had an opportunity to ask some questions. Clearly, clearly, at least on the Democratic side, no one was satisfied with the answers, but we had the opportunity.

Madam Speaker, this is 3 years after March and May of 2003; 3 years later.

Now, an effort was made by some of our colleagues saying, well, we have had hearings. Well, we have had hearings, but I don't know where we had them, because we certainly haven't had them in a room that the American people can observe what the answers were.

I think we know what it means.

But the reality of it is it isn't even the issues themselves, because they stonewalled on the 9/11

Commission until public pressure compelled them to agree to have an independent commission; they would not release the e-mails and other documents in terms of both before Katrina landed on the Gulf States and afterwards from the White House, and they refused to do an independent commission there; and in Iraq we have had no hearings until today.

I thought it was interesting that, like I said, some of the Republican Members said, well, we have had hearings. Well, the subcommittee that has jurisdiction, of course, is the Middle East Subcommittee, and the ranking member Mr. Ackerman went through his own records and looked all through the year 2003 to see how many hearings even peripherally might have been related to Iraq. None. None.

In 2004, in all of 2004, that particular subcommittee had one hearing related to Iraq, but it was about the United States and the Iraqi marshlands, an environmental response.

In June of 2005, the next year, there was a hearing on Iraq's transition to democracy. Nothing about all of the other obvious issues that were begging out to be addressed; the competence of the civilian leadership and the role of Secretary Rumsfeld and the disagreements with the military that have performed so well in terms of their service in Iraq.

Do you know what? We really do have some heroes in this country, people who will speak out and tell the truth and who are not afraid of laying it on the line. If I could indulge you, Mr. Ryan, and you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think we have got to recognize what these nonpoliticians, who were leaders in Iraq, the men and women who served this country, had to say about the competence of Secretary Rumsfeld and the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense. If you would indulge me.

Back in March of this year, Major General Paul Eaton, who was responsible, by the way, for the training of the Iraqi security forces, had this to say in reference to the Defense Secretary. Now, these are his words; not my words, but his words. ``He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.''

That was a Marine general, highly decorated, well-respected and regarded by his colleagues and peers, Paul Eaton.

Not a single hearing. I would think, Madam Speaker, if there was a genuine desire on the part of this House to examine in depth the truth of what is happening in Iraq and in the real world, we would have those generals, Madam Speaker, come before the appropriate committees of this House and inquire of them why they make these statements, such as the statement last Thursday by retired Army General John Batiste, again Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. Again, I am quoting this American hero.

``We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a Secretary of Defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team.''

Now, you know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that the Defense Secretary has come here on the floor of this House, Madam Speaker, in this well, and behind closed doors has briefed us, but we never hear from those generals. We never hear from the generals, Madam Speaker.

Why? Why can't we have a hearing and invite Paul Eaton, a former general in the United States Marine Corps, and Retired Army General John Batiste? Why can't we do that? Is that asking too much, Madam Speaker? Is that asking too much, to let the American people hear for themselves? If there is an answer to that, will someone please give it to me? We haven't had the exercise of any oversight on Iraq ever. Ever.

But don't we owe it to the American people, Madam Speaker, to hear directly in the United States Congress at a full committee hearing from General Paul Eaton, from Army Major General John Batiste, and also from Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold? Again speaking about the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, these are his words. ``My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who never had to execute these missions or bury the results.''

Those are very, very powerful words. This is a very tragic and special moment in American history, Madam Speaker. We are at war. We have lost thousands of men and women in this war. The American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this war.

And, Madam Speaker, why can't we hear from those generals in a public forum? Why? Well, I am not going to reach a conclusion as to what the answer is.

You know, I think it is important to understand that in a democracy, if we are going to enjoy the full measures of citizenship, that those in power, those elected representatives of the people have to act in a transparent way and have to exercise that responsibility to hold accountable all those representatives of government transparency.

I mean, we can have disagreements, and we can do it in a very respectful fashion. But if we do not have the information, if we do not have the facts, if we never hear the truth, then we are doing a disservice to the American people, because we are denying them the opportunity to enjoy the full measure of being an American citizen.

Thank you for that exposition. I just want to return to the original theme. We are connecting the dots, because I think really what is required is an openness that heretofore has been missing. And I honestly believe that the dreadfully low polling numbers for the institution would be changed dramatically.

In other words, rather than 23 percent of the American people approving the performance of Congress, 23 percent as opposed to two- thirds of the American people disapproving of the performance of Congress, can only change with transparency and aggressive oversight.

By aggressive oversight, we don't simply mean partisanship and partisan attacks. We mean putting it all out on the table, letting men like these three generals and many others. I think of the former AID director, the Agency for International Development, who is currently at Georgetown University doing a professorship, who recently made a statement saying that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is plagued by incompetence and turf battles within the administration. It would be healthy.

It would be healthy for us, for the institution, because you said something earlier about the confidence of the American people. If we are going to change those poll numbers, we have to come together, assume our responsibilities and become aggressive about holding the executive branch accountable, holding ourselves accountable, as you just pointed out, and reviewing the performance of the judiciary.

We could debate about it, but let the American people hear directly, without the filter of partisanship, whether it be Democratic or Republican. Let them hear directly as to the observations of those that are involved in whatever the issue is.

I mean, I would suggest that in the aftermath of the passage of the so-called prescription drug benefit program, that aggressive oversight would have entailed bringing before the appropriate committee of Congress those who are involved in hiding from the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate what the estimates were in the administration of the cost of that particular plan.

We should have all been outraged. We should have demanded to hear from the participants, but we didn't. We failed, I would suggest. And know what we have today? We have the lowest rating, I believe, since I have been here, by the American people, according to a poll that I just saw before coming over here, of the performance of the United States Congress. We are a democracy. We have got to become institutionalist once more.

We have got to defend the prerogative of the Congress, whoever is in the White House.

I will tell you what I have learned, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is that when one party controls all of the levers of power in a democracy, accountability just disappears. I am not saying that is peculiar to Republicans. Maybe it is innate just in human nature. We don't want to embarrass our President, if he is of the same party, but we have got to restore a sense of pride in the institution. That is not happening here today.

One hearing, one legitimate hearing on Iraq in 3 years? Meanwhile, thousands of military personnel have died, and we are spending close to $1 trillion already, and more in the pipeline. It is not right. That is why the American people are losing confidence in the U.S. Congress.

This was a test.

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the President today, and I thought it was interesting that for the first time that I can remember, this President indicated that maybe it was time to take away those tax breaks for big oil. I mean, that is just a desperate response to falling polling numbers, because those tax breaks and

subsidies for big oil, Madam Speaker, were the product of his energy policy combined with the rubber-stamp Republican Congress that has run this country for the last 6 years.

Whose policy is it, Madam Speaker? It is not a Democratic policy that is responsible for a gallon of gas going from $1.45 on January 20, 2001, to $2.91 today.

If the gentlewoman would just yield for a minute.

I think it is important to review that for every year that this House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republican majority, during the summer months, from April 1 to September 30, the price of gasoline has dramatically escalated.

Mr. Meek, in 2002, if you went to your local gas station, you paid $1.39. The majority, in 2002, in this House of Representatives, Madam Speaker, was Republican.

In 2003, Madam Speaker, the majority in this House was Republican. And if you examine that chart, there was about another 20 cent plus-up for a gallon of gas.

Of course.

Well, they did, but it didn't help. What they did is they put forth a welfare program for Big Oil. I mean, that is truly what they did.

Well, how about $16 billion worth of subsidies for Big Oil? And this, of course, this is not for poor folk, because the big oil companies, Madam Speaker, they are doing remarkably well in this country. They are showing profits that only can be described as embarrassing in a free enterprise system.

I yield to my friend.

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Some people might be concerned about our commentary here and you referring to profits as being obscene, because, obviously, in a capitalistic society we understand and think profit is a good thing. So I think it is important that people understand what we mean. While giving away the store, while giving away $12 billion in tax breaks.

Sixteen billion all together.

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sixteen billion all together. Forgive me.

Subsidies and tax breaks. Let's just call it welfare for Big Oil.

That is the oil welfare program.

Could I interrupt for a minute?

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes.

Could I ask my friend from Florida just to repeat that. $34 billion, and that was all of the major oil companies?

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes.

Would you, for the sake of our conversation here, would you identify them, if you can read them from the chart?

So the five of them, Madam Speaker, in the year 2002?

In the year 2002 had a combined profit of $34 billion. And then, of course, that was just the beginning.

So, in one year, you are telling me that it almost doubled, or did it?

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not quite, not quite doubled. No. About a third more in profits.

Okay.

$84 billion.

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. $84 billion.

In 2 years. I guess that is productivity.

And that company is?

And my memory is that Exxon-Mobil, for the year, had a profit of $39 billion, that one company.

Three years ago. Now, that is why I use the word ``obscene,'' because something is wrong with our free market system.

I encourage profit. Clearly profit is important. And it is what made this country unique in terms of our ability to have a high standard of living. But this is not free market. This is not free market. This is something different. This is either price gouging or some sort of market.

This is oligopoly or a tendency towards monopoly, and this House has done nothing, Madam Speaker. There has not been any antitrust hearing as far as the oil companies are concerned, Madam Speaker. We have not had any hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction, which is the Judiciary Committee, that would shed some light on why in 3 years they went from $34 billion to $113 billion. And we wonder why, Madam Speaker, we wonder why the American people are losing confidence in the House of Representatives, the people's House.

Well, there is such a thing as royalty payments, but in this administration there is a rule that has created a situation where even though the dollar value, as we can see from these various charts, has exploded in terms of revenue to the oil companies, the royalty payments that they make, Madam Speaker, have declined by $7 billion. And this is the energy policy of the Bush administration and the Bush Republican Congress. And yet we hear on this floor complaints about the Democratic proposals.

You cannot run against Washington, Madam Speaker, when you are Washington. You just cannot do it. You cannot argue with yourself. This is your mess. This energy policy, you own it, Madam Speaker. The leadership in this House, the leadership in this Republican Senate, and the leadership of the Bush administration own this reality today, which is over the past 3 years big oil profits have more than tripled. And we here in this Congress, in collusion with that White House, have provided welfare to Big Oil on top of that.

That is truly, Mr. Meek, obscene.

In my day that was called penny candy.

But stop for a minute and just see what the values are. We hear a lot about values. Here we are providing a wealthy program for big oil, and at the same time we are not adequately funding the so- called LIHEAP program, which provides assistance to low-income families, working families, so that they can get through the winter, so that they are not forced to make a decision between having food on the table and staying warm.

The LIHEAP program has been around for some time now, and it has been a program that was introduced in a Democratic Congress, supported by Democratic presidents and adequately funded. Today, only 20 percent of those who are eligible based on income, who would qualify if the funding were available, only 20 percent of those receive that assistance.

It gives them basically a discount on the purchase of their energy for heating their homes.

You said it better than I did. It gives them a break on their bill, and it is administered through community action programs. And, we don't fund it adequately. I think that the total is a little over $2 billion annually. Now, stop and think: $2 billion for hundreds of thousands, millions, actually, of families that would qualify in this country for some help to stay warm so they didn't have to make that choice between eating or freezing. Yet, we are giving $16 billion in subsidies to major oil.

This is Alice in Wonderland, Madam Speaker. Up is down and down is up. How does the majority justify this? How do you justify that in moral terms, Madam Speaker?

This is more than just public policy. I would suggest to you that doing that amounts to a violation of our moral code and moral responsibility as leaders in this country. That is what it is.

But this is a nightmare.

I think it is really interesting to note for the record, Madam Speaker, that the relationship between this rubber-stamp Congress and this White House is so close that in the 6 years of this Presidency, he has never had to veto a single piece of legislation that came from the United States Congress. Not once, Madam Speaker, not once.

It is so. Tragically it is so.

Well, I tell you what is happening. Because we are talking about oil, and we are talking about home heating oil, and we are talking about staying warm. We are talking about heat. And the heat is coming, because, you know, we are going to hear a lot of hot air, but the American people are putting the feet to fire of those who have not supported a public policy regarding energy that makes sense for all Americans, not just Exxon Mobil that last year made $32 billion, and, by the way, whose CEO who is now retired, is earning a pension, Madam Speaker, of $150,000.

I hope you heard that, Madam Speaker, $150,000. Now, you might say that is not much money. Well, it is a lot of money when you get $150,0000 every single day of the year. It is a pension that is evaluated.

One hundred fifty thousand dollars. Not every 10 years. Not every 5 years. Not every year. Not every month. But every single day as long as he lives, $150,000. The pension package, according to newspaper reports, Madam Speaker, was $600 million. That is for one person. For one person.

This is a moral issue. This is a moral issue. There are people that are having difficulty, they are working hard, but they are having difficulty making it, and yet there is a CEO who runs a corporation that earns $39 billion in a single year. And he has a pension of $600 million that provides him with $150,000 a day. Is that right, or is that wrong?

Mr. Meek, if the gentleman would yield.

I think you are talking about Newt Gingrich, who was the father, if you will, of the Gingrich

revolution back in 1994. And, in fact, my friend and classmate, because we came in together into the House of Representatives back in January of 1997, Steve Rothman, we were here when Newt Gingrich presided over this House.

Both Steve and I can attest that this was a man who was partisan, very conservative, and when you hear him saying, and this is as recent as this past Friday, ``they,'' and by ``they,'' he is referring to the Republican majority in this House, ``they are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that can't function.''

Let me thank you for asking those questions. And as you explained it, I was thinking that you found something rare, and that is somebody in this administration who gave you a straight answer.

And an honest answer, by the way.

Another honest, straight answer.

If the gentleman would just yield for a minute.

30 seconds. I will let you get back to it. But you know what? I am just looking at that, Japan at $680 billion. Japan is actually subsidizing partially that tax cut, or that tax refund for the extremely wealthy in this country. I mean, that is where that money is going. I wonder if that extremely wealthy taxpayer might consider taking that tax refund in yen?

Because the way we are going, we are going to bankrupt this United States of America.

You know, if I can interject for a moment, your point is well made. And I think the American people have to realize that these statistics that they are hearing tonight are accurate. That New York Times piece that we were referring to earlier, it goes on to say that because of these recent tax cuts, even the merely rich, even those that are very rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and I am reading from that piece, are falling behind the very, very wealthiest. In other words, what we are doing, we are creating a super rich elite in this country.

There was another New York Times story that came across my desk. And for those that are listening to our conversation this evening, I would refer them to an article that appeared in the New York Times on January 29 of this year. Corporate wealth share rises for top income Americans. In 2003, and this is the most recent data, the top 1 percent of households owned 57\1/2\ percent of corporate wealth in this country. That was up from 53.4 percent the year before. This top group, this 1 percent, in 1991 had 38.7 percent. In other words, this 1 percent is doing so well that they are leaving everybody behind. The top 1 percent is gaining so much money and corporate wealth in this Nation that the other 99 percent have experienced a decline in their share of the wealth of America.

Sure.

How about restraining spending?

I just want to congratulate you all for a very thoughtful conversation. You have hammered home the truth.

And I think what we are saying to the American people is that if you govern, you have to govern responsibly and that your rhetoric has to match your deeds. Otherwise, you fail the American people. And the truth is that today in America, this administration, this Bush White House, and this Bush Congress are failing the American people.

Debbie was making a point about the job growth. I think what is more telling is that the jobs that are being produced today and the jobs that currently exist are paying less. A family of four in America today is making less than that same family income 10 years ago. This is not about criticism. This is about telling the truth and being responsible.

We use terms like PAYGO. Well, I think we owe the American people an explanation of what PAYGO means. It means what they do most every day of their lives. They make decisions and choices based upon what they have in their pocket, and if they don't have the money in their pocket, they don't buy it. It is really that simple.

That is what we are talking about this evening and on other occasions. Let's go back to those real conservative values, those genuine American, conservative values. I can't believe I am saying this. But the longer I serve in this body and listen to the neoconservatives, I find myself describing my own philosophy as fiscally conservative.

Ironically, it is the Democratic Party today that stands for sanity and stands for responsibility and doing it the old-fashioned way. That is what we are. Maybe we are an old, traditional party. But, do you know what? We made America great. When America was in trouble because of the Depression, it was those great Democrats Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman that brought the country back, because we know there is a social compact out there that doesn't say only the very, very wealthy get most of everything. In a society which is really a community, where there are mutual rights and responsibilities, everybody has a shot.

Today what we are seeing is America becoming much like a banana republic, where it is the haves, the elites, and then there are the rest of us, and that is sad.

What are the colors of the Gators, could you tell us? Do they happen to be blue and orange?

Well, congratulations once more.

If my colleague would yield. I don't want to skip past that, because I think it is important to analyze what kind of jobs are being created. And I think we all concur that the number of jobs are insufficient to move American society ahead to realize the American dream, if you will. But the reality is it is not the kind of jobs that carry with them the ability to have a living standard that most Americans enjoyed 5 years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago. These aren't good jobs at good wages. These are menial jobs, in many cases, at low wages. There is a difference.

The truth is that the median income for an American family has declined. It hasn't grown. So that while there may be jobs out there, Americans are falling behind. They are losing their health care. They are losing their pension. And what is really tragic is that they are losing the hope that all Americans have for their children and grandchildren. That is what I am experiencing.

I yield.

They prefer jobs at low wages. In essence, it is really that simple. Low-wage jobs are being produced by the policies of this administration and this Congress that is complicit. Complicit. And we know there has not been a single veto by this President because this is a Congress that goes along with this administration.

I am on a diet myself.

My friend, before we let Debbie go through that litany, and it is a long litany, let us also understand it is not just those of us here that recognize that. It is not just Democrats. It is Republicans.

I will tell you I find it particularly ironic that the leader of the Gingrich revolution that brought a Republican majority to this House in 1994 recognizes what has happened to the majority in this particular body.

This is what Newt Gingrich had to say about them: ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.''

Again, let me repeat it. This is a quote of Mr. Gingrich that appeared in the Knight Ridder newspaper this past Friday. And this is his observation about what is occurring in this body over which he presided: ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.'' That cannot function.

It is us versus them, and he ain't part of ``them'' anymore.

As he said in this particular interview, if I can compose for a moment, here is an additional quote by the former Speaker of the Republican Congress. The reporter writes that he cited a series of blunders under Republican rule, from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He said the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq, Mr. Meek.

That is Newt Gingrich, who I know because when I first came to Congress, he was the presiding officer of this branch.

My colleague, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who preceded me in terms of service here in this branch, would also know and clearly could articulate that Newt Gingrich is someone who, whether you agreed with him or not, said it like he saw it. And this is what he sees today: A Republican Party in disarray, a Republican Party that can't govern. That is the bottom line.

You are saying we have an ownership society, Mr. Meek.

But they raised the debt limit. Didn't they?

It is a lot easier to raise that debt limit, Mr. Ryan.

But it is a tragic comedy because the lives of young men and women in Iraq are constantly at risk. We all know what we have lost in terms of our youth, and we all know what the cost has been in terms of the taxpayers' dollars.

What I find extraordinary is, and Sheila Jackson-Lee alluded to it earlier, every Democrat on the International Relations Committee recently, in fact yesterday, signed a letter requesting an oversight hearing in terms of what is going on in Iraq, why the rampant fraud, abuse and corruption. We have been requesting that for 2 years, and you know what, we have never received an answer, not a single hearing.

If I were a Republican Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, and I read the op-ed piece by Retired Army Major General Paul Eaton, who was responsible for the training of Iraqi security forces, and received hardly anything in terms of support from the civilian leadership of this Defense Department, if I read what he said, I would insist that we listen to this individual, someone who served his country well, and you know what, they just want to ignore it. But I have to read what General Paul Eaton had to say because I think it is remarkable.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our Armed Forces. In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

That is from an individual who has served this country in Iraq with valor and distinction and his recommendation to this Congress is this: ``Congress must assert itself. Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently, so that their opinions and needs are known to the men they lead.

``Our most important, and sometimes most severe, judges are our subordinates. That is a fact I discovered early on in my military career. It is, unfortunately, a lesson Donald Rumsfeld seems incapable of learning.''

What a damning indictment, and yet not a sound from the majority in Congress. If I had read that, I would have asked him to come and testify before the committee of jurisdiction the next day.

Amen.

There is no oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and I really welcome the enthusiasm and the optimism that have been expressed by the Congresswoman from California and the gentleman from Florida.

I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution. However, I have served as an observer in past elections in Haiti, elections that prompted great hope, but resulted in great disappointment. So I believe for a moment it is important to reflect, and I would quote the words of Luigi Einaudi, who was tasked by the OAS to mediate between the opponents

of the former president of Haiti, Mr. Aristide, and I am going to quote his words.

This is a gentleman who knows Haiti well and Washington well: ``Haiti is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy of partisanship and hate and hostility. These were divides among Haitians, and they are also divides among Americans because Haiti came to symbolize within the United States a point of friction between Democrats and Republicans that did not facilitate bipartisanship or stable policy or communication.''

In the end, he was unsuccessful. Aristide was overthrown in February of 2004, and Haiti continued to descend into violence and despair. But it wasn't Einaudi that failed. Haiti's political class bears much of the responsibility for this tragedy because of their self-serving and cynical refusal to place nation over people in exchange for self- aggrandizement.

But here we also have our share of responsibility. A recent New York Times story entitled ``Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Towards Chaos'' should be essential reading for all of us, and I will insert this article into the Record.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti, American Ambassador Dean Curran, once referred to the ``chimeres of Washington.'' A chimere in Haiti is a thug hired to intimidate one's political opponents. And different Haitian political actors, both Aristide and his opposition, had their chimeres in Washington.

It has been my experience that there has been more advocacy than neutrality about Haiti on the part of the United States. Too often we join the zero-sum game of Haitian politics. We picked sides and supported them at the expense of Haiti and its long-suffering people.

For example, some here, working in coordination with Aristide's opponents, would place so-called ``holds'' on U.S. assistance in Haiti, blocking aid for the police, for the judicial system, for human rights observers, for election monitors; and Haiti's fragile institutions collapsed, starved from the outside and rotted from the inside.

I would note, and it is important to note this, that many of these holds were placed during the term of Rene Preval when he was the president in the past. Others who supported Aristide failed to recognize his shortcomings and deficiencies and failed to encourage him to put forth a positive vision for the Haitian people. The end result was that Haiti's fate was not only decided in Haiti, it was also decided here in Washington.

But now, with this most recent election, Haiti does have an opportunity to move past its past, and we have the same opportunity here in Washington. For Haiti to have a future, two things must happen: First, the Haitian political class must act like small ``d'' democrats and make a priority the needs of the Haitian people; and second, Americans must put our differences aside and commit to a bipartisan policy of noninterference in Haiti's internal politics.

I want to participate in that. I have had conversations with groups whom I have had profound differences about Haiti with in the past, such as the International Republican Institute. And maybe I am naive, but I sense an emerging consensus that we must come together on the part of all who have an interest in Haiti and encourage a new and constructive approach.

I am not saying that the U.S. should abandon Haiti, far from it. In fact, we should increase our aid. But I would recommend that we should provide assistance through multilateral organizations like the United Nations.

Yesterday we met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who agrees that the international community must provide a deep and sustained commitment to Haiti. In fact, I believe that Haiti should be the first test case for the United Nations' new peace-building commission, and the U.S. should give it its full support. And I have to admit that for the first time I do see a glimmer of hope for Haiti, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that a real ambition.

Mr. Ryan, if you would just yield for a moment.

I think it is important to recollect for a moment our friends from the other side of the aisle, part of the Republican majority of this House, tonight were on the floor and they were talking about how for this Congress, this Bush Republican Congress, national security and homeland defense were a priority.

It would appear that simply by repetition, by saying it somehow it translates into meaningful national security in real homeland defense. Yet we find again and again and again that this country, as a result of the actions by this White House and this Bush Republican Congress, have failed to provide homeland defense that is meaningful for this country.

That report, by the way, it should be noted, was conducted by the Government Accountability Office. That is an independent arm of this Congress. This is not Democrats picking on Republicans.

If my friend would yield for a moment.

I want to commend a Senator, a Republican, that requested this particular GAO investigation and inquiry and commissioned that it be undertaken by this independent arm of the U.S. Congress. This is what that Republican Senator from Minnesota has to say about the findings and the conclusion of that report.

The Senator 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.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, a Minnesota Republican, who heads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which held a hearing said he was alarmed at the ease with which investigators brought the unspecified radiological material and transported it across the northern and southern U.S. borders.

Now, when I hear that this Bush Congress and this Bush White House have done something about homeland defense and national security, Madam Speaker, who is kidding who? Who is kidding who? Can't we have some honesty?

If I can, there is a second report in addition to the one that we were just discussing. This second report, again, commissioned by the Republican chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, its conclusions were this: The Homeland Security Department has placed 670 monitors at ports around the country. At the current pace the department will fail, let me repeat that, fail to meet its goal for installing 3,034 devices by September 2009. To reach the goal the department would need to install 52 monitors a month for the next four years, though its current installation rate is 22 a month, the report said.

Now, this is to determine whether radioactive material that could be used in a dirty bomb is being detected. Now, by the way, if you happen to live in Miami or if you are from Georgia, you should know that the ports of Miami and Savannah, Georgia are among those without the devices that they need. So if you should be living in those particular States, be aware that you are vulnerable to have from the sea, through the ports, material that could be used in a dirty bomb come into your neighborhoods.

Just put the facts out on the table. I just find it so amusing when I hear that national security and homeland defense is something that this side of the aisle, the Republican side of this aisle, the majority that runs this House in conjunction with the administration that is headed by a Republican President and a Senate that has a majority of Republicans are suggesting that national security and homeland defense are a priority, and yet study after study, committee after committee reports that we are ill prepared.

I think it was you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that alluded earlier to the experience of Katrina and other national disasters. I mean, there was a report issued again by a subcommittee of this House that concluded that the response to Katrina was a failure of leadership. I mean, that cannot be said any more succinctly or simply.

A member of the committee, again, a Republican, let me repeat that, not a Democrat but a Republican, our colleague, Chris Shays from Connecticut, said this: The report is very tough on the President. It is very tough on the Department of Homeland Security. It is a blistering report but I think it is fair.

The panel found that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was detached, and that the then-FEMA Director Michael Brown was clueless, Shays said. In one of the excerpts Chertoff was chided for executing critical responsibilities late, ineffectively or not at all, according to the report and to Mr. Shays.

Yet, when I turn on any of the stations and the issue is homeland security, the spokesman for the Homeland Security Department is often Secretary Chertoff. So let us just continue along that road, and you know what is going to happen? We are going to continue to find a failure of leadership in every instance that this administration is implicated in.

Madam Speaker, we never had a plan when we went in there, let alone a strategy to leave.

If I can just make an observation, Madam Speaker, I asked my staff to count the number of hearings that the International Relations Committee has conducted in terms of the United Nations and the need to reform the United Nations, and also hearings that had a focus on the so-called Oil-for-Food program. Throughout Congress there were dozens of those hearings.

Do you know how many hearings we have had in the International Relations Committee on the issue of corruption that we know is going on in Iraq, Madam Speaker? Would you think maybe there have been 20 or 15 or five? No, there are none, despite repeated requests from Members of this House. Not a single hearing into the corruption that many different sources have acknowledged is rampant in Iraq in the past 3\1/ 2\ years. Not a single one. Because this Congress is afraid. This Congress is protecting the administration and is abrogating its responsibility.

Not a single hearing. Not a single hearing, Madam Speaker. Not one.

Can anybody, can any Member, Republican or Democratic, please respond and provide an explanation, when there have been reports after reports after reports, indictments, reports from the special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction. It cries out for investigation. It cries out for oversight, Madam Speaker.

You know, when the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, came in, and in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and began to administer as a viceroy, if you will, for the nation of Iraq, there was $8.1 billion left over from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. There was an audit done subsequently. Not a single penny of that $8 billion plus can be accounted for. That is outrageous.

Why haven't we heard from this Congress the need to conduct oversight hearings? If the American people were aware of the requests that have been made continuously to do the kind of work that we were elected to do and is not being done, there would be outrage, Madam Speaker.

Not the right, if I can correct my friend and colleague, but the far right.

Not the traditional conservative Republicans that have made an enormous contribution to this country and whom we respect, but the radical neoconservatives.

And it is so interesting now to hear from those that were there right after the inauguration talking about how at the first national Security Council meeting, Madam Speaker, there was discussion about war and going to Iraq and changing the regime and making it a national priority.

Again, if you want to get into competence, put aside whether you supported going into Iraq. I happen to be opposed because this administration in my view never made a case. But that is irrelevant. Talk about lack of competence.

Let me refer you to a story that appeared in the New York Times about a month ago. It states that the American general in charge of training the new Iraqi military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration strategy to use those forces to replace departing American troops was hobbled from its belated start by poor prewar planning and insufficient staffing and equipment. The account by Major General Paul Eaton on January 31, after 33 years in the Army, suggests that commanders in Iraq might by now have been much closer to President Bush's goal of withdrawing American forces if they had not lost so much time in the first year to begin building a capable Iraqi force.

I am quoting a decorated American hero: ``We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25 million with six men.'' Referring to General Eaton, he worked into the autumn with a revolving door of individual lone talent that would spend between 2 weeks and 2 months and never receive even half the 250 professional staff members he had been promised. The general's assessment of the problems he confronted was seconded by Walter Slocumb, sent by the Bush administration to Baghdad 6 months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national security and defense.

Again, Mr. Slocumb, an Under Secretary in this administration said, ``I have to agree with General Eaton that it was hard to get the resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of urgency in Washington.''

And today we hear this President, this Secretary of Defense, talking about the need to train Iraqis. Why didn't they listen to their own military commanders, specifically the one that was in charge. He was calling on them to do something and they turned a deaf ear, and we are still in Iraq today because of their incompetence.

Well, there is Saudi Arabia. The gentleman remembers Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Those are the 19 hijackers that were responsible for the deaths of in excess of 3,000 Americans. Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, and how much money do we owe OPEC?

You know what I also find disturbing and it really provokes a certain, let me use the word ``disgust.'' When the administration is criticized, particularly some individuals, rather than speak of the policy, they speak in a language that refers to ``them'' or ``those'' or ``some,'' never identifying ``them'' or ``those'' or ``some.'' It is a particular trait of Secretary Rumsfeld. Actually, in today's Washington Times, there is a story about a speech that the Secretary gave to military officers at the Army War College. Let me just quote from the story.

``Defense Secretary Rumsfeld delivered harsh words to war critics yesterday saying, `Some view al Qaeda operatives as victims.''' That is really unfortunate, because I would call on the Secretary to have the courage to stand up and identify who those ``some'' are. I dare say there is not a single Member in this House, Madam Speaker, that would view an al Qaeda operative as a victim. That is just simply disingenuous and certainly I would suggest demeans the office of the Secretary of Defense.

Who are ``some,'' Madam Speaker? Not any American that I know, Madam Speaker. None. But if an American wants to criticize this war, this policy, this mismanagement by this Secretary of Defense, not only are they entitled to do it, Madam Speaker, they are obligated if they embrace everything that America stands for.

Mr. Speaker, I heard Mr. Meek mention the lack of oversight that occurs within this institution, within this branch; and it is a very serious problem, and many have spoken to it.

What I found interesting, while I was at my desk, a friend and colleague of ours, I think it was Mr. Conaway from Texas, talked about a bill that he has, I presume, already filed, which would require Members of Congress to read the Constitution once a year.

I listened to him with some fascination, and I would propose that he should consider expanding that particular proposal to include a recognition that a constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives is oversight of the executive branch and that every Member of Congress should make a solemn pledge before God to honor that responsibility, to conduct oversight.

Because I believe if every single Member of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, respected that constitutional principle, we would not be beset by the problems that are becoming obvious to the American people. But I didn't hear any mention of that by our friend and colleague, Mr. Conaway.

We are not meeting our constitutional responsibility because the majority party, the Republican Party in this branch, refuses, refuses to conduct oversight of the executive branch because of fear of embarrassing the White House. Well, again, their constitutional responsibility does not flow to the White House. Their constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, goes to the American people, not to the White House.

I mean, it is remarkable that during the course of the Bush Presidency we have failed to conduct in-depth probes about some of the most serious allegations of executive abuse and misconduct.

And let me just note a few. The possible role of the White House in promoting misleading intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. Just recently, Mr. Speaker, a former CIA official, who served from 2000 to 2005 and has retired, penned a book that indicated that the intelligence was cherry-picked. Yet this House refused, refused to do any oversight; to ask a single question; to bring an executive branch official before the appropriate committee to ask questions that the American people deserve to have answers to.

And what about the responsibility of senior administration officials for abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere? What about the role of the White House in withholding the Medicare cost estimates that were in their possession from Congress while we were debating a significantly expensive piece of legislation? In fact, it was acknowledged that the executive White House official in charge threatened to fire, he threatened to fire the Medicare actuary if he told Members of Congress that it was not going to cost $395 billion, according to their estimate, but about $700 billion. And again, no oversight.

And I could go on and on. But I have to tell you, if we are going to read the Constitution, if we are going to impose on ourselves the requirement, Mr. Speaker, to read the Constitution, then let us act in a constitutionally responsible way and meet our responsibility so that the American people know what is happening here in Washington and who is responsible.

Of course not.

But the point is, Mr. Ryan, we cannot afford it because the debt that the American people now owe is in excess of $8 trillion, and on that $8 trillion we have to pay interest.

And what is the amount of interest on an annual basis, approximately? Do we have a range?

So that is interest of $230 billion. Just imagine what we could do with $230 billion.

That interest, by the way, do you know where that interest is going to, at least a significant piece of it?

China.

And OPEC and other countries. Because to subsidize these substantial, very large tax cuts for just a small segment of the American people, we have to go into the financial markets and borrow money so that we can reduce taxes, and then that tax relief ends up not benefiting the vast majority of Americans.

But we are borrowing it. We are borrowing it from overseas. We are borrowing it from nations, many of whom could be potential adversaries, yet we are sending dollars over there of interest payments so that they can invest in roads, in health, and particularly in education, while we are slipping behind. We are slipping behind.

You know, there is a lot of talk in Washington about how this economy is growing. But what you never hear about is that the average American family is losing every year in terms of its income. It is going down. The most recent statistic was that in this past year it went down 2.7 percent. Well, that is hurting families. And that $230 billion, let us say we just invested that. That is interest payments to China, to Japan, to other countries, and to the OPEC countries. With $230 billion, we could give every young person in this country a free college education, send them to the finest graduate schools in the country and ensure that their futures would be bright. But what we are doing is we are putting on our young people a debt that they will never, never in their lifetime be able to pay off. That is just simply wrong, and that is where we have a disagreement.

But you know what is interesting, and if I can just continue, because I am going to have to leave to catch a plane; but not only are Democrats criticizing this White House, but conservatives, people with impeccable conservative credentials like Bruce Bartlett, who just wrote a book and who served in the Reagan administration; like Andrew Sullivan, another noted conservative.

Well, here is what Andrew Sullivan said, and he wrote a book, too. I can't wait to read it. It is coming out soon. ``The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back.'' Sullivan called Bush ``reckless'' and a ``socialist'' and accused him of betraying ``almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for.'' Now, those are not my words, those are the words of Andrew Sullivan.

And Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official, had this to say. He called the administration unconscionable, irresponsible, vindictive and inept. And his book is entitled ``How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.''

Yet here we are serving in this branch and we never, never meet or exercise our constitutional responsibility to review the actions of this administration, because the majority does not want to embarrass a Republican President. And I agree with much of what is said by these commentators: ``This is a big government agenda. The notion that the Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy.''

Something is amiss when you have people with these conservative credentials making these harsh statements about this administration and this Republican Congress not daring to exercise its oversight.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Speaker for according me the time. I am claiming it on behalf of my colleagues who will be here shortly with me, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan, the cofounders of the 30- Something Working Group. We will be exploring an array of issues this evening dealing with many of the subjects that my colleague and the gentleman from the other side of the aisle discussed this evening.

Much of what the gentleman said or some of what he said I would agree with. It certainly would be a contribution to the public discourse if there were an open and transparent debate and discussion on the issues that are confronting the American people.

I only wish that were the truth, not just the official truth but the real truth because what is lacking within this institution, this body, is an open and transparent and real discussion, genuine debate and respectful discourse.

I find it interesting that the gentleman talks about cutting spending and indicates that this side of the aisle supports raising taxes. Well, that is just simply inaccurate.

I think the only tax that we can agree on that ought to be cut is the tax that is in the form of waste and fraud and abuse. Tragically, what we have observed over the course of the past 6 years is an abundance of fraud and waste, a corruption tax, if you will, Madam Speaker. But what we have not seen is an open and transparent and respectful process to discuss these particular issues.

If the Chair would bear with me for a moment, I am going to read excerpts into the Record of a deal that was struck between conferees on the Senate side and on the House side that did not include the Members of the minority party. How can you have a discourse or

a conversation when Members of the minority party are excluded?

You cannot, that is right, and I welcome Mr. Ryan to the floor.

Mr. Ryan, let me pause for a moment and find that particular report so we can discuss transparent and open and respectful discourse and inclusion. The previous speaker was correct; there ought to be inclusion. But there is none and that is a sad comment on democracy within this institution. I would only hope that the rhetoric that I heard earlier would be matched by action and deeds on the part of the Republican leadership in this House.

Madam Speaker, let me read into the Record an article from The Washington Post. It is dated January 24, 2006.

We talk about saving money, Madam Speaker. We all want to save money. We had an opportunity to do that, Madam Speaker, but we failed because of a closed-door deal that reduced a savings that was possible by $22 billion.

Again, I am quoting from the Washington Post: ``House and Senate GOP negotiators, Republican negotiators, meeting behind closed doors last month to complete a major budget-cutting bill, agreed on a change to Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.''

Now, let me repeat that, Madam Speaker, and may all those that are observing our conversation tonight, our colleagues and all those in attendance here, listen carefully. It would save the health insurance industry $22 billion. Not the American taxpayer, but the health insurance industry it would save $22 billion.

``The Senate version would have targeted private HMOs participating in Medicare by changing the formula that governs their reimbursement, lowering payments $26 billion over the next decade. But after lobbying by the health insurance industry, the final version made a critical change that had the effect of eliminating all but $4 billion of the projected savings,'' for the taxpayer, Madam Speaker, not for the HMOs. But who loses in that closed-door deal? And yet we hear, the taxpayer. You cut spending.

I can't wait until this budget is finally produced here on the floor, because we have not had a budget in years, until President Clinton was the President, that has been balanced.

No, I understand that. But, do you know what? Let us remember then we had dialogue and a working relationship between the President and the Congress. Let's give credit. What I am looking for, when I hear talk about let's sit down and talk, of course, we welcome that, and let's have this understanding. Let's work together.

How can you work together when you have closed-door deals going on that eliminate a savings to the taxpayers of America for $22 billion? Is this about saving the HMOs and the health care industry money, or is it about taking care of the American taxpayer?

So, please, please, let's match the rhetoric that we hear here with action, not with closed-door deals that benefit the health care industry, the $22 billion, and think nothing of helping the American taxpayer.

Reclaiming my time, they are borrowing that money, but they are not giving it to the American taxpayer. They are giving $22 billion of it to HMOs in this country. They are not giving it to the beneficiaries, they are not giving it to the American taxpayer. They are giving it to the health care industry.

OPEC.

Reclaiming my time for a moment, it is like we have developed a new class in the United States, and I am trying to think of an appropriate term. The one that just came to mind while you were speaking was we have a class now of welfare kings.

Welfare kings. What about, Madam Speaker, this $22 billion? Who is it going to? It is going to the welfare kings in this country. That is who is receiving it. It is a tax on Americans. We had a savings of $22 billion, but somebody, behind closed doors, by the way, without the presence of the minority party, decided to give it to some welfare kings.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the American people understand who is running the show here in Washington. In 2002, the House of Representatives, the majority were Republicans. In 2003, in 2004, in 2005, and 2006, they were Republicans; in 2001, in 2000, in 1999. And since 2001, January, we had a Republican President. And the same is true on the other side of this building in the United States Senate.

So when I hear the head, I presume our colleague is the Chair of the Official Truth Squad, say, you know, we have got to curtail spending, and the Democrats want to take money out of your pockets, I am really befuddled, Madam Speaker. I am really confused, because you are in charge. You are running the operations of Government. Where have you been? Why did you not cut before? Why did you not manage this in a away that was competent? Why did you go and borrow money from the Chinese? Why did you borrow money from the Koreans?

Exactly. And what is the story? When you come to the floor, the rhetoric is, we want to work with you. And yet when Democrats say we are willing to sit down and have a respectful and substantive discussion about the issues that are confronting America, what do you do? You close the doors on us. You do not tell us where you are meeting. You do not tell us what time.

And you gave a break to the HMOs of $22 billion, which is like asking the taxpayers, you are increasing the tax to the American taxpayers by $22 billion at the same time. It does not compute.

It is going to the welfare kings.

Can I tell you where else the money is going? The money is being wasted. And the money is being wasted because of sheer incompetence and mismanagement. And no big contracts, no big contracts. I will tell you where the money is going. Let me give you one example.

Can you all see this right here to my left, this chart? Row after row after row after row of trailers. And they are all sinking into the mud. These were the trailers that FEMA, the Federal agency that responds to natural disasters, purchased I am sure for hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not have the exact amount.

Three hundred million dollars. So there is $300 million sitting out there, sinking into the mud, that will not ever be used. Meanwhile, we have thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of people in Alabama, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, the Gulf States, that were devastated by Hurricane Katrina and they do not have any homes. They are homeless. They are living in their cars.

It is a natural disgrace. Six months after the disaster. But because this administration has made incompetence a virtue, we are wasting $300 million of the taxpayers' money, Madam Speaker. I mean, think of that. If you want to talk about fraud and abuse and mismanagement, that picture, let me suggest, epitomizes.

How do you say, if I can interrupt, how can you say we were fully prepared? We were fully prepared? The President said that to the American people in the aftermath of the hurricanes and in the disasters that befell the Gulf States.

This is just a closeup of the picture of the chart that I showed earlier of those trailers that are crumbling someplace, somewhere, at the tune of $300 million. Well, if we were fully prepared, God save this Republic in the event of another natural disaster or a terrorist attack. I would suggest to the American people and to you, my friends, that we are ill-prepared. We are not fully prepared. We are unprepared. We are fully unprepared because of the incompetence and mismanagement that we witness on a daily basis near Washington.

Madam Speaker, if I can, that is the problem that the Secretary of Treasury has. He is representing an administration and a rubber-stamp Congress that can only be described as irresponsible when it comes to fiscal policy. I mean, maybe we ought to write back, now, this is a letter dated March 6, 2006, and say, you know, we are sorry, but we are not going to raise the debt limit anymore; we are done, we are finished, we are closing you down.

Why should we be voting to raise the debt limit? With all of the fraud and the mismanagement and the abuse of the taxpayers, why do we not say go back to that conference committee and tell them to reconsider their closed deal that cost the American taxpayers $22 billion? Why do we not do that instead? Or why do we not recommend that the Bush administration stop spending $1.6 billion on advertising and public relations contracts; why do we not do that? Why do we not tell them to stop the no-bid contracts that are leaving resources sinking in mud somewhere in Arkansas to the tune of $300 billion? Why do we not tell them that they ought to go find the $9 billion that they cannot find that is somewhere in Iraq that is unaccounted for?

You know what? I am not going to vote simply because the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is representing an administration that is in accord, if you will, with a Congress that cannot handle the budget in an appropriate way.

You know, the three of us were watching you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, lead the first hour, and it was very informative and we want to congratulate you on a great presentation.

Many of our female colleagues on the Democratic side participated, and you talked about the role of government, particularly as it impacts women. You know, the truth is, and we have seen it just recently in South Dakota, that if the Republican majority has their way, they will see to it that the woman's right to choose will be ended in this country. They will do everything that they can to effectively repeal Roe v. Wade.

If you are familiar with that South Dakota law.

Exactly. In case of rape or incest. This is a dramatic change in terms of the role of government as reflected in the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade and all of the advances that have been made in terms of civil rights and other issues.

But I know we all want to get back to discuss the issues that impact every American.

I think we ought to inform our colleagues here and those that are observing our conversation what the Democratic policy is in terms

of inspection of goods coming into this country is not 5 percent, but 100 percent. We have what I would call a zero tolerance policy, and it can be done, and it can be done in a very cost-efficient way, in a way that not only will prevent a terrorist attack coming in via our maritime shipping, but will be efficient in terms of taxpayer dollars.

Do you know in Hong Kong every single container ship that comes in, every piece of cargo, goes through a high-technology review? Every single piece is inspected. I guess what my point would be is that if they can do it in Hong Kong, we can do it in the United States of America. We can do it. We should have a zero tolerance policy, period.

Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by saying we should not ever mislead the American people. We know and they know who is in charge here in Washington. When I hear comments that would suggest that Democrats are in any way impeding or obstructing this Congress, my response is that is absurd. The Republican Party is in control.

If the gentleman would yield for a moment.

I just also want to concur and extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). That is a high honor and one that the gentleman is very worthy of; and those of us who belong to the 30-something group want to express our pride. Great job. We expect big things.

I did not yield.

If my friend would yield.

That is, I think, such a valid point. There was a recent interview by Brian Williams of ABC News with the former head of FEMA. Do you remember Mike Brown, also known as ``Brownie'' to President Bush?

Well, during the course of that interview, for the first time, I would suggest, there was much new information revealed by Mr. Brown. Do you remember when there was confusion as to when the President was first informed about the potential destruction of Hurricane Katrina? And the President claimed that, Well, he saw it for the first time on TV? Well, Mr. Brown has a totally different version of that particular scenario.

Sure.

Well, I think we have to obviously factor into the account that he was kept as a consultant after he was fired from the payroll, and he is now no longer on the payroll of the American taxpayer. So maybe that is part of the basis for his new-found candor.

But he claims that he had a conference call with President Bush and a variety of officials, both at the Federal, the State and the local level where he articulated his grave concern that in his gut this was going to be one of the most devastating natural disasters ever to be experienced in our history. And clearly, his gut was right on that particular occasion.

Let me just, if I may, for several minutes, just read excerpts of that particular interview. This is Brian Williams. I want to ask you, Why didn't you shout it from the mountain tops? Or do you feel that you did?

I told everybody in that conference, and this is Mr. Brown's response, the President, Chertoff, the State, New Orleans, my gut tells me this is the big one. I want to push everything forward as far as we can. I want to jam up supply lines. I want to cut bureaucratic red tape. I want to do everything that we can.

So what date did the President first hear your voice?

The first time was probably on Saturday before landfall, August 27. But the alarm bells were being sounded on Sunday, prior to landfall, because not only was I having conferences with the President on the telephone, but he was also on the videoconference with all of the State emergency managers, all of the Federal departments and agencies, and listened in to the entire conversation, including the Director of the National Hurricane Centers' warnings.

And so when we see trailers in Hope, Arkansas, and you made that allusion, Mr. Ryan, that some of them may not be fit for families anymore because of the rot that the weather has caused, whom do we get angry at?

First of all, you can get mad at me, said Mr. Brown, if you want, but I think we ought to get mad at Congress, we ought to get mad at the President, we ought to get mad at Secretary Chertoff. ``I raised the flag, Mr. President, and I told you that FEMA was being marginalized.''

Mr. Ryan, this absolutely segues into your observation that they have brought government agencies down to the point where they are now ineffective. They are practically incapable of delivering basic services in times of emergency.

But you asked, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, about the reaction of the White House to issues that ought to be part of our public discourse. And the response is ``trust me.''

How can we trust the executive branch when we have a former director that stands up now and says, Mr. President, on at least a couple of occasions and on numerous occasions to your staff, I raised the flag and told you that FEMA was being marginalized and was not going to be able to respond and, in fact, was on a path to failure. I told you so, Mr. President.

Where was the executive branch? Where was this Republican majority in terms of exercising its responsibility to oversee and to hold accountable executive agency performance? It was not there because this Republican majority, in its management of this Congress, has done nothing more than simply to rubber-stamp the administration's proposals.

If we did not have a rubber-stamp attitude towards this administration in this Congress, believe me, we would be delivering a service to the American people that all of us could embrace.

The day before, Debbie.

In his own words.

And they want us to trust them.

And the execution of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the so-called part D, what has occurred, let me suggest, is that the Republican Party in both this branch as well as in the White House, but particularly in the White House, has developed a habit, a habit of incompetence and a habit that could have been, in my judgment, interrupted and dealt with if we had aggressive oversight and accountability by Members of the House and Members of the United States Senate.

But rather than doing that, when you speak to Democrats who are ranking members of full committees and subcommittees about conducting investigations, whether it be into energy, whether it be into the reconstruction of Iraq and the magnitude of corruption that is part and parcel of that reconstruction, the list goes on and on and on, and they say no. And that is why we are being embarrassed today. That is why someone like Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, stands up and says, Mr. President, you have marginalized FEMA. We do not have the capacity to do it. I told you so. And yet not a word, not an agreement to work in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to ensure that the mistakes that have been made are not replicated, are not continually being made to the detriment of the American people.

OPEC.

Isn't it ironic, if the gentleman would yield, that we speak about energy independence, and I think that there is a consensus that clearly it is in our national security to develop an energy program that weans us from being dependent on foreign sources of energy, with a particular focus on OPEC.

Well, I wonder if we can wean ourselves from borrowing tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, from foreign sources like OPEC, like the Chinese, like the Japanese.

We have now created here in the United States, and I will utilize President Bush's phrase, an ``ownership society.'' Well, the reality is that under his leadership, with the approval of this Congress, we have created an ownership society in the United States. Unfortunately, the owners are the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese and OPEC.

Because of the economic policies. So what do we gain? What do we gain from securing our independence in terms of energy and at the same time become increasingly reliant on other nations, including potential adversaries and competitors like China to provide subsidies for tax cuts?

To me, that makes no sense. We lose our political flexibility. We cede, I would suggest, some of our sovereignty when we allow ourselves to become borrowers from foreign nations.

Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield for just 1 minute. What if one day those nations that are purchasing and buying our bonds, our Treasury notes, Treasury bills, for some reason they decided, maybe because of some political reason, they decided not to purchase in the financial markets American debt instruments? What would happen to our economy? Does anybody have that answer? I mean, I have my own theories, but I am not sure. Could they come over and foreclose? I wonder what they would do.

Now, here is Red China. Red China. It is kind of ironic when you think of Red China, and here we are piling up this red ink, Red China piling up red ink and it is all American red ink. And in 5 years, we have gone from owing the Chinese, Mr. Speaker, $84 billion, to over $200 billion.

I listen to the debates on the floor of this House, I listen to them in committee, and when I hear my Republican colleagues and my friends on the other side speak about China, it is always with trepidation, it is concern about Taiwan, it is looking at China as a potential threat. And yet here we are, knocking on the door of Mao Zedong's China saying, you know what? Would you buy this instrument from us? Give us your dollars.

I am telling you, I think we are putting not only our economy at risk, but we are putting our national security at risk. It is like having a Middle East gulf state operating American ports without doing due diligence. That is exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker. We are giving the country away.

We did not know anything about Katrina being a devastating natural disaster. We did not know about FEMA not having the resources. We did not know about the lack of coordination. You know what? You know what? They know nothing. They do not know how to govern.

And that is what I would describe as a habit that has developed over time, a habit of incompetence.

I am just thinking here. You know how the political pundits divide this country up into blue States and red States. Well, you know, if you would bring back that previous poster, you know, you ought to paint those numbers there in red, because here is what is happening to the United States. It is becoming all red. It is becoming all red while we sit here and whistle in the dark.

Because we are indebting ourselves and our future to foreign nations and that map says it all, Mr. Meek, says it all.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I want to welcome Congressman Miller and Congressman Holt to the 30-Something Group. The two of you have created, of course, a new definition of the 30-Something Group, but we will let that pass for the moment.

I think it is important to frame the issue that we have, you or Congressman Miller, detail for those of us here and those who are watching the international comparisons that you have expressed a concern about. Because I think we all hear terms like the global village and the global economy, and I think we recognize that that is the reality. But I know I hear figures, for example, where China is going to graduate a multiple of four or five times

what this country will do in terms of students that have majored in the sciences and math.

Really dark.

I think these are the points we have to stress is that the trends, as you allude to, are running in the wrong direction; and I guess if we do not jump start with this initiative and work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to suffer. The future of the 30-something generation is at risk here.

And we want to fully fund, if the gentleman would yield, we want to fully fund the landmark legislation that was passed in a bipartisan way under the leadership of Mr. Miller and others and Republicans that was described as the No Child Left Behind Act.

What has happened to that, Mr. Miller?

Can I suggest that what we will see with that trend line in terms of the increase of the number of scientists and mathematicians and computer personnel is those jobs, those well-paying jobs will also trend towards China and India and OPEC and all those countries that we are borrowing from today. And we discussed this last night, that we have borrowed from that, are funding those tax cuts that translate into 1 percent of Americans, the most affluent, receiving 40

percent of the benefits. We are putting ourselves on a trajectory that will put America permanently behind.

Combined.

If I may, you sum it up so well and yet you have to make an investment; and the reality, as we have discussed, is that investment is not forthcoming. It just is not because, as

Mr. Ryan indicated, it is going elsewhere, and it is going to feed that corporate welfare that is eating the budget, along with tax cuts for the most affluent of America.

Well, there is only so much money. The pie is not infinite, and the pie gets bigger around here because this administration and this Congress authorize the borrowing of money that we will have to pay back in the future with interest to China, to India, to the OPEC nations, and to other investors.

So there is nothing left, other than the rhetoric that we hear, to invest in the priorities that we believe the American people would embrace such as innovation. Let me just cite one example, if I can.

This is a report by The Washington Post less than a month ago, and remember, Democrats have had nothing to do with this because we are barred by Republicans from participating in the behind-closed-door negotiations to establish those priorities. Think of what a democratic process that is. Let me read to you:

``House and Senate GOP negotiators, meeting behind closed doors last month to complete a major budget-cutting bill,'' this was their effort to save money, ``agreed on a change . . . that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.''

One version would have targeted private HMOs participating in Medicare by changing the formula that governs reimbursement, lowering the payments to those insurance companies by $26 billion over the next decade. But after lobbying by the health insurance industry, the final version made a critical change that had the effect of eliminating all but $4 billion, according to CBO.

In other words, they turned around and said we apologize to those HMOs, those insurance companies, and we will give you back $22 billion of the $26 billion, and we will not let it happen again. Think of what we could do with that $26 billion in terms of innovation.

Let me refer to this chart. I think it is very telling. How can we afford those tax cuts that are trillions of dollars at this point in time, particularly if they ever became permanent.

I will not leave out the oil industry or the pharmaceutical industry. We just heard what happened behind closed doors. But how are we affording to do that and at the same time ignoring the kind of initiatives that are embraced in this project for innovation that we have been discussing and that the President speaks about but does not fund.

Let me tell you how we take care of the corporate welfare program and how we take care of those tax cuts. We borrow or they borrow. The Republican majority borrows the money. I think it is particularly dangerous to do that not just because it will create deficits that could very well implode our economy and reduce the United States in terms of its economic capacity and future, but in addition it is dangerous because from whom do we borrow this money?

As of November, 2005, this is what the chart reveals: $682 billion from Japan; $249.8 billion from China; and yesterday we had a hearing in the International Relations Committee that discussed, and the Republican chairman and others that were clearly from the right of the political spectrum were describing China as a potential enemy and adversary, and yet we are borrowing money from the Chinese to support tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

I find it particularly interesting that we are borrowing money from OPEC. Not only are we purchasing oil from OPEC, but we are borrowing money from OPEC. And yet to hear the rhetoric in this Chamber and our committee rooms about OPEC, one would consider them, well, to use George Lucas, the Darth Vader of the international order in terms of its impact on America. Mr. Speaker, we have borrowed, we owe them almost $70 billion. What are we doing?

I think it was interesting to hear our friends and colleagues on the other side say we have to hold them accountable in Washington. We have to hold those bureaucrats, we have to hold them accountable. Let us get on with the job. I find that confusing.

I thought, now maybe you can give me some guidance here. I thought the Republicans were the majority party in this House and in the Senate for a substantial period of time, and I am confident that President Bush was elected in 2000 and it is 2006 and it has been 6 years. Who is in charge? Who is in charge, Mr. Speaker?

They are the ones that should be held accountable. This is not about bureaucrats. I understand it is an election year and all of a sudden they are going to position and posture themselves as outsiders. Outsiders, that is a bad joke. They run this place. They run this town. They know how to exercise power.

It was a long process all day, Mr. Meek. But I just about accounted for everybody that it was appropriate. And a happy Valentine's Day to you and to your family. I had an opportunity to meet your family recently, and they are great folks. They really are.

That is right. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Meek, if I can. I think you made a reference to reports that are now being released, and you indicated that it is a partisan report. I think it is very important to explain that the report from the House committee that reviewed this, the aftermath and the prelude, if you will, to Katrina and what went wrong, was for all intents and purposes a Republican effort.

Two Democrats sat with our Republican colleagues; and in the aftermath of their effort, these two Democrats, both from Louisiana, have recommended that it is essential to create, as we did in the aftermath of September 11, an independent commission that reviews again the prelude, during, and the aftermath of the natural disaster that devastated this country in the form of Hurricane Katrina back on August 29.

Maybe like the 9/11 Commission, we can have an 8/29 Commission that all Americans can have confidence in--in its integrity. But I think, too, that we ought to review really the damning findings of the Republican effort that really, in my judgment, speaks to the incompetence of this administration.

You know, we use the word or the term ``culture of corruption'' frequently in explaining what is occurring here in Washington. But I think you might agree with me that it is incompetence combined with cronyism that really are the building blocks, if you will, of that culture of corruption that creates a huge cost to the American taxpayers.

I am speaking in terms of billions of dollars and multiple lost opportunities, dashed dreams, and unfortunately this, let me use the term ``corruption tax,'' that even cost lives. And I think we have witnessed this because of what occurred by way of a natural disaster on August 29 and what has occurred in Iraq in the aftermath of our invasion.

And I do not want to delve tonight into the disagreement that I have in terms of the rationale for this administration to invade Iraq.

I do not want to talk about weapons of mass destruction. I do not want to talk about links to al Qaeda. I do not even really want to talk about the failures to bring democracy to far corners of this world according to the Bush doctrine. But I think it is important that we talk about the corruption that is ongoing and reveals itself on a frequent basis by reports coming from independent sources, coming from, actually, the special inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq and coming from trials that are now occurring in Federal district court.

But before we get to that I think it is important to review what went wrong with this administration's response for Hurricane Katrina. And again, I think we have to, in a sense of fairness, applaud some of our Republican colleagues who really said it better than you and I can say it, and I am sure they cannot be accused of being partisan since they are Republicans. But I thought what was particularly interesting to me was a quote in my hometown paper or one of my hometown papers, the Boston Globe. It was an observation by Tom Davis, who is the respected chair of the Government Affairs Committee.

He made the observation that President Bush is in Texas, Chief of Staff Card is in Maine, and the Vice President is fly fishing wherever. I mean, who is in charge? And I guess that is really the question.

We have had a Department of Homeland Security for several years with the ultimate Federal responsibility to prepare Americans for disasters, whether they are triggered by a terrorist attack or whether they come via a natural disaster; and the performance of this administration can only be described as a disaster, a debacle, if you will.

I thought it was rather ironic that today, as I was watching the news, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Chertoff, announced he was going to hire 1,500 disaster specialists. I guess my response was, what took so long? What took so long? How long has it been? Since 8/29, since August 29.

If the gentleman would yield for just a moment, today I was at a hearing and the hearing happened to be on China. It was a subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, and there was a reference made to the Bush doctrine.

Well, I would submit, given that President Bush has accomplished in one term more than all of his predecessors combined in terms of accumulating debt held by foreign nations, some of whom are particularly hostile to the United States, that we should describe the Bush doctrine as one of borrow and spend, not pay as you go, but borrow as you cut taxes. And I made the observation if you connect the dots how are we conferring a massive tax cut, 40 percent of which is reserved for 1 percent of Americans. Who is paying for that particular tax cut? Well, at least a trillion of it is being funded by Japan, China, Britain, the Caribbean, Taiwan.

And listen to this, that tax cut is also being paid for by money borrowed from OPEC, OPEC. That means that we are not just buying our oil from the OPEC cartel, but we are also borrowing money for them to support a tax cut for 1 percent of our affluent citizens. And then Korea, Germany, Canada and others makeup the difference. This is extraordinary.

It is going back to OPEC.

Along with the dollars we are using to buy oil at $60- plus a barrel to heat our homes.

Are you aware with the President's budget that 263,000 of our veterans will be denied access to veterans health care?

And the Chinese and OPEC.

Now, of course, we are presented with a plan that would cut Medicare and cut Medicaid. So if you are a senior in this country, and, of course, we are here representing the generation of 30 somethings, but if you happen to be getting close to that point in your life where you receive a Medicare card, be careful. Do not count on it.

A while back there was a speaker who preceded over this Chamber who said Medicare, let it wither on the vine. Well, I wonder if that particular submission to cut and slash Medicare is the beginning of the withering process. It just is not right. But, as we were saying earlier, a lot of it is just rank incompetence. But when you combine this magnitude of incompetence that we have witnessed surrounding Katrina and surrounding the reconstruction of Iraq, it easily evolves into corruption.

There was an audit done or at least a preliminary audit done by the General Accountability Office which, as Members know is a nonpartisan, independent agency to review government expenditures; and they discovered that the government has squandered millions of dollars in Katrina disaster aid, including handing 2,000 debit cards to people who gave phony Social Security numbers and used the money for such items as a $450 tattoo.

A $450 tattoo. Federal money also paid for $375 a day beachfront condos and almost 11,000 trailers that were stuck in the mud and unusable.

The GAO auditor, Gregory Kurz, told senators during a hearing that the amount of waste and abuse and fraud could be hundreds of millions of dollars. They just do not know yet.

As he indicated, FEMA may also have brought too many temporary homes, including 11,000 units that currently sit empty in sinking mud in Hope, Arkansas, while they are needed in Louisiana and Mississippi. It is the incompetence of the planning process that was nonexistent. Today, the Secretary of Homeland Security announces, I am going to address that, I am going to hire 1,500 disaster specialists. Good job, Mike, heck of a job.

And to pay the interest and our debts off to the Chinese, Japanese, the Koreans and OPEC.

If I can, just for a moment, just to digress, because we have been talking about Katrina and the fraud and the mismanagement associated with the Katrina spending, I think it is important to remember, too, that about half of the 700 contracts that have already been issued were issued on a no-bid basis, and they were issued to corporations that have obvious political ties. But that is a subject for another night.

But, again, it goes back to just incompetence and lack of planning.

And lack of due diligence. But it also exists, tragically, in a far greater magnitude, with American tax dollars that are being used to build schools, roads, hospitals, dams, and levees in Iraq. I mean, I have a major concern about the fraud and the corruption that is going on in Iraq with the use of American taxpayer dollars.

I don't know if either one of you, but I am sure many who might be watching this evening, witnessed the CBS news ``60 Minutes'' program that aired this past Sunday. It really was remarkable. They highlighted one firm called Custer Battles. Custer Battles was started by an individual with the name Scott Custer, a former Army Ranger, and Mike Battles, an unsuccessful congressional candidate from Rhode Island, who claimed to be active in the Republican Party and have connections at the White House.

They arrived in Baghdad without any money; yet within a year, they had $100 million in contracts. They have now been charged with fraud and abuse, mismanagement, et cetera. They were supposed to provide some security services for the Baghdad airport. The security director at the airport communicated via e-mail and had this to say: ``Custer Battles, this is the company, has shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. Other than that, they are swell guys.''

The number two man at the Coalition Provisional Authority's Ministry of Transportation, the American-run temporary government running the affairs of Iraq immediately after the invasion, had this to say: ``It was the Wild West. There were $100,000 bricks of $100 bills. The money was a mixture of Iraqi oil revenues, war booty and U.S. Government funds ear marked for the coalition authority.'' This is a member of the administration.

When asked about Custer Battles' performance, the top Inspector General for the Army in Iraq reviewed it to see if the company was living up to its contract, such as it was. His name is Colonel Richard Ballard. When asked, he said: ``The contract looked to me like something that you and I would write over a bottle of vodka. Complete with all the spelling and syntax errors and annexes, to be filled in later. They presented it the next day and they got awarded about a $15 million contract.'' They were supposed to provide security for commercial aviation at the Baghdad airport, but the airport never reopened for commercial traffic.

Now, do you think that they canceled or voided the contract? No, they got another contract after that. It was for a bomb-sniffing canine team.

And OPEC.

Happy Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time, and I want to associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, at least this resolution provides us an opportunity to pose a serious question, an opportunity that, unfortunately, Democrats are usually denied in this people's House. I want to read some findings of a recent poll about the realities on the ground in Iraq.

Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe that attacks against American and

British troops are justified; 72 percent do not have confidence in coalition forces; 82 percent are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops; and less than 1 percent of the population believes that coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security. That is the reality.

Let me note too, by the way, that this poll was conducted by Iraqis and commissioned by the British ministry of defense.

This data provokes a question for the proponents of this resolution: Now that we have a free, democratically elected Iraq, are we prepared to leave on their timetable? If the new Iraqi Government tells us, we want you to leave immediately, will we do so? Will we listen to them? For if we listen to the views of the Iraqi people as reflected in this poll, we can anticipate such a request in the very near future.

Or will we insist on staying until we believe they are ready to stand up? Will this administration attempt to influence what the democratically elected Iraqi Government asks us to do in this regard, or will they be pressured to be quiet on this particular issue? Because the American people deserve to know the answer to this question now, and the Iraqi people deserve to know the answer to this question now, as well as the duly elected representatives of the Iraqi people from the elections that occurred this past week.

I guess the real question is here, Will we really respect democracy in Iraq and the democratic process, or will we simply give it lip service?

Mr. Speaker, I think the point that our colleague Ms. Wasserman Schultz was making about arithmetic and the fact that, despite the rhetoric, the reality is that the deficit will increase as a result of the action that this Republican majority will take during the course of this week in concert with the Republican Senate in terms of spending cuts and tax cuts, these so-called reconciliation bills.

I think it is important to note a very disturbing statistic that was referred to in a Wall Street Journal article, and that is that the Federal Government's budget deficit in December, in December 2005, the month just concluded, was in excess of $83 billion. That is for a single month. That is an increase of some 43 percent from a year earlier, that is from November of 2004, and a record high for any November in American history.

So the direction that this country is headed with the economic policies that are debated and voted on, again recognizing that there is a Republican majority, I would submit are heading our Nation into a potential economic tsunami. Distinguished economists from all places on the spectrum have expressed concern. I am sure during the course of our conversation, knowing how well prepared you all are, you 30-somethings, you will be able to provide a quote for our colleagues and for those that are watching our conversation this evening. But stop for one minute and simply think of that figure, $83 billion.

We are also giving money to the Iraqi people and denying it to the American people.

If I could talk about the immediate future for one moment to follow up, because I think you make a prescient point.

While we are standing here today, there was a report that I listened to that indicated that the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, a highly respected and regarded Member of this House, Chairman Bill Young from Florida, and the senior Democrat, the ranking member whom you alluded to earlier, John Murtha, again, highly regarded, well-respected, served his country in Vietnam, a senior Democrat, on the Defense Appropriations bill that their staffs are preparing, already an additional $100 billion in that supplemental budget to be put to this House, to this Congress, for approval in the not-too-distant future. That is an additional $100 billion that will be utilized in Iraq, not here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that incompetence has characterized this administration for the past 5 years. And I say that with no glee. I say that purely from a concern about the quality of life that our people are experiencing here in this country as a result of miscalculations, incompetence, and a blind belief and denial of reality.

Do you remember prior to the war when we were told by the Secretary of Defense, and now I am going to quote Mr. Rumsfeld, ``When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi Government and the international community.''

His deputy Paul Wolfowitz, he made the following statement: There is a lot of money to pay for this that does not have to be U.S. taxpayer money and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction.

If you remember the name of President Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, when he predicted that the cost of the war with Iraq would range somewhere between 100 and $200 billion, he was dismissed, he was fired.

I do not want tonight to talk about intelligence and the issue of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, et cetera, et cetera; but there has consistently been mistakes and miscalculations because there is such a conviction of righteousness, if you will.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer in a moment to this chart to my left, but I think in fairness we have to note that just this past week, for the first time, President Bush has acknowledged that mistakes were made. I want to commend him for that, and I know we all share that.

He acknowledged last week ``that the multibillion dollar reconstruction of Iraq,'' and I am using his words now, ``has `been uneven' and hobbled by corruption, misplaced priorities and insurgent attacks.'' This report is from the Washington Post. It is dated December 8. It goes on to state: ``In an unusually stark assessment of the situation in Iraq,'' the President ``described several strategic errors in managing a rebuilding effort that he said proceeded in `fits and starts.' By learning from its mistakes,'' the President said ``the administration has reshaped its approach.''

I think it is important that we note that. We welcome that. But it is long, long overdue, and as I said earlier, we are anticipating receiving in the next several months a request, a supplemental request, for an additional $100 billion. Let us talk about what our priorities are in terms of the American people and our involvement in Iraq.

I was here when a supplemental budget came before us. I, and others, advocated that rather than just simply giving this money for reconstruction to the so-called interim government that we put it in the form of a loan. Every other major donor country insisted, clearly providing favorable terms and conditions and years to repay, but that they would be reimbursed so that their children and grandchildren would not have to confront the order of magnitude that we see in terms of our deficits.

Look at this chart for a minute. We are cutting $505 million on student loans, and the interest rates, therefore, will be higher. That is a cut to a generation of students that we need to be engaged at the highest level to compete in this global economy. Yet, at the same time, we are providing $508 million of transportation and communication, including construction of 28 railroad stations in Iraq's southern provinces, and we will never see a dime of that. That is a giveaway. That is a grant. Despite the words of Secretary Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Wolfowitz, that said that we would not have to pay a dime of American taxpayer dollars, what we are doing is we are funding that project and cutting necessary programs for Americans, and we are giving it away overseas.

The tragedy of it all is that there is pervasive corruption going on in Iraq today with those dollars, and the President has acknowledged that. He has acknowledged the fact that there is corruption today in Iraq and American taxpayers dollars are being misused and wasted and stolen. Meanwhile, our own people are suffering.

That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That ought not to be happening, and there is a responsibility on the part of this Congress, because we have not had a single oversight hearing, despite the requests of many Members, including myself, to take a good and hard look at this massive corruption that is ongoing today as we speak in Iraq.