Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I was sitting in the Cloakroom, and I heard my good friend and colleague from Iowa refer to the gentleman from Massachusetts. And I just wanted to clarify for him it was not I that said to stabilize Afghanistan what is needed is 150,000 more troops; that was the defense minister of Afghanistan.

If you continue to yield for just a moment, I do not want to interfere with the gentleman's hour.

But I would suggest to my dear friend that the defense minister of the country in question, Afghanistan, should be considered the ultimate expert. And, again, my good friend earlier indicated that there were Members on this side of the aisle that were reluctant, or were critical before we went into Afghanistan.

Again, with all due respect, I would suggest that the vote in this institution was something along the lines of 430-1. So that that particular authorization received unanimous support. And I dare say it was a good decision and a right decision.

The problems that I and I know some of my colleagues on this side, as well as some of your colleagues on the other side, have is that we left there too early and that is why the expert in this case, who is the defense minister of Afghanistan, said that for the country to be stabilized so that democracy, which we both, I think we all want to see for the Afghanistan people can really take hold, five times the security forces that exist today are necessary.

No. What I am suggesting is that we should participate in training Afghans to meet those particular numbers, because we had set a benchmark of some 70,000. And that benchmark has been revised downward, downward from 70,000 to under 50,000.

And the defense minister in Afghanistan says we need more resources. In fact, I am sure the gentleman is aware of this, but President Bush just recently said that he would take under consideration, Madam Speaker, doubling the $2 billion that were appropriated so that more training could be provided. My problem is we should have done it 4 or 5 years ago.

Mr. Meek, I want to commend you on that eloquent exposition of the issues that I know resonate with the American people. Could you do me a favor? Could you hold up that last book once more?

The last one. Hold it up, will you.

Just show it. I hope that those that are watching can see the cover. Except I would expand on the title, ``Energy Plan.'' I would add a dash, and I would add the words ``A Blueprint to Win the War Against Terrorism,'' because therein, in that plan, lies the secret, and it shouldn't be a secret, because I think it is obvious to many of us, that if we can adopt an energy plan, no longer will we find ourselves hostage to governments and societies that disagree with our values. And that is the case now.

Six years into this administration, and gas has gone from $1.40 a gallon at the pump to now it is over $3. The Middle East is destabilizing.

But the reality is, and we spoke about this, myself and some other colleagues earlier, today we are losing the war on terror. At least that is the opinion of people, including the American people, in 34 countries out of 35 where a poll commissioned by the BBC was taken. Just recently, a bipartisan group of experts in foreign policy and national security concluded that we are losing the war on terror.

Now, in the previous hour my good friend from Iowa made the observation, why should we care whether people like us or not? Why should we care? Because, again, if you take a look other polls, and not just, by the way, in the Middle East, but on every continent, the image of the United States is poor. We are reviled. As the GAO said, anti- American sentiment is broadening and deepening. Yet my friend from Iowa says, why should we care?

I think what he meant is why should we care about those who are sympathetic to or are active participants in acts of terror against the United States, and that makes sense.

But we should care, Mr. Speaker. We should care about the rest of the world, because if we are going to have success in the war on terror, we need other people to help us. We cannot do it alone.

If I can just cite one example, Mr. Meek, in a story just last week in the Washington Times, Secretary Rumsfeld was in Tajikistan, a Central Asian country, and while he was there he expressed concern about what is transpiring in Afghanistan. This is what he had to say, if I can just ask for your indulgence for a minute. I have to put my glasses on, Mr. Meek. You know I have a birthday coming up.

I didn't want the world to know that, but you let that secret out.

The story reads, ``U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to oust the radical Taliban regime. Although the country now has a democratically-elected government, the Taliban has been making a comeback.''

Now to quote the Secretary. This is Mr. Rumsfeld. ``Western Europe ought to have an enormous interest in the success of Afghanistan, and it is going to take a lot more effort on their part for the Karzai government to be successful.'' He was alluding to the President of Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai.

But what he is saying is Western Europe has got to help us more. So what we are looking for is help from Western Europe to contribute troops, to contribute resources so that that fragile democracy in Afghanistan can survive.

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is important what the British people think of the United States. Now, again, if you would bear with me, let me go to an article, Mr. Speaker, that appears in the New York Times dated July 3. Now, let's be really clear. This is not Pakistan, this is not Tajikistan, this is not Mexico, this is not Venezuela, this is not President Putin's Russia, this is the United Kingdom, with whom it is written we have a special relationship, Mr. Speaker.

Where we have had a relationship between our peoples that is extraordinary for decades. Now, according to this poll, it was asked whether the United States is doing a bad job in Iraq, is indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks of it, and whether it is obsessed with money.

Now, according to the pollster, in an analysis by him, this was one of the prominent British papers that commissioned the poll, it indicated that there has never been a time when America was held in such low esteem on this side of the Atlantic.

The special relationship that British leaders have long believed exists between their country and the United States may still live in Downing Street and at Camp David, but it has atrophied among the British public.

Among the responders in the new poll, Mr. Meek, 77 percent did not see America as a beacon of hope for the world. Asked to rate President Bush as a leader, more than three-quarters described him as either pretty poor or terrible. Seventy-two percent said his foreign policy, instead of being driven by a desire to build democracy, was merely a cover for American interests.

About two-thirds of responders said that they believed that American troops were doing a bad job in trying to win the hearts and minds in Iraq. Eighty-three percent of responders said the United States does not care what the rest of the world thinks.

We should care. To answer the question that was put forth by my friend and our colleague from Iowa, the reason that we have to care is because we live in a world. If we are going to

achieve our goals, we have to do them in a multi-lateral way. We need the British people to support us. We need the Irish people, we need people all over this world. We want to reach out and be that beacon of hope.

Are you aware, and again I know we are changing subjects here, but I do not know if you are aware that there has been a decline in the number of enforcement actions against employers for hiring undocumented workers.

If I can interrupt just once more. Of course you are aware that the Republicans have been in the majority in this chamber for 12 years.

They have controlled the White House.

They have controlled the United States Senate I think for 10 out of 12 years

I think it is important that people understand that and understand who is Washington, D.C.

That was the year that some started to express concern about border enforcement.

Can you tell us what that number is, as compared to the 417 under President Clinton?

Three, one, two, three.

Could I just submit a hypothesis for a minute?

You know, one of the leaders in the neoconservative movement, a Mr. Grover Norquist, coined an interesting term called shrinking government, until it practically disappears. This neoconservative ideology, I suggest, is responsible for those statistics. Because what we have done in the past 6, 8 years, is reduced government to the point when no longer are we adequately enforcing our laws as well as our border.

So what we see is a real problem that was created by this Republican majority working with a Republican President.

Did you have a chance, by any stretch, to reading the lament of the former Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich?

Can you tell me what his solution to the crisis that this country is now facing in terms of its democratic institutions and its relationship between a White House that has acquired incredible power and a Congress that continues to see power to the point where it has become a rubber stamp for a President that has no restraints whatsoever? What does Newt Gingrich say is that solution?

Well, I would suggest that that is a remarkable statement by an individual who led the Republican Party to a majority in this House.

When he says it is time for the American people to start firing everyone, that is to me a demonstration that he recognizes that the government is not functioning as it ought to function. We are allowing this institution, this House, to wither.

Government isn't withering; it is not government, it is Congress that is allowing democracy to wither. That is dangerous.

Unless you have a Congress that stands up and says no, and serves as a true check and balance, then you have a democracy that is at risk.

You know what, it is time for Congress to stand up and insist on answers to hard questions.

Let me go back to Iraq for one moment. I heard a rumor that the Iraqi

prime minister intends to come to Washington soon. I think we all deserve an answer to a question that was raised by one of our leaders in the Democratic Party, Jan Schakowsky, who circulated a Dear Colleague today.

Maybe you have not heard this yet, but the Iraqi prime minister, where we have spent close to half a trillion dollars and 2,600 Americans have died, the head of their parliament, Mahmoud al- Mashhadani said these offensive words. He ``accused `Jews' of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the parliament and government so they can install their `agents' in power.''

These are his words: ``Some people say `we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.' These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.''

This is what my friend from Iowa was earlier talking about democracy? What kind of democracy would tolerate and countenance that kind of virulent, anti-Semitic remark from the Speaker of the parliament? The same Iraqi government that has a bilateral military agreement with Iran. Does this say something about the policy of this administration that has enhanced the power and influence of Iran in the region, Iran by the way, who is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and we know and the whole world knows what is happening today in Lebanon and the Gaza strip?

Where was Mr. Ryan this evening?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan for yielding the time.

As I was waiting to come over, I had an opportunity to watch our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about immigration, and I discovered something tonight, and that is that they really have a great sense of humor.

Now, we know individual Members over there that are friends of ours, we enjoy them, and they have a sense of humor, but collectively they have a sense of humor. They were eloquent in their comments and their observations, and I noted that they continued to refer to the Senate bill, Mr. Speaker, as the Reid-Kennedy bill. Well, I guess we must be playing some sort of funny game because I am going to ask my colleagues to help me.

Whatever happened to John McCain? Did he just disappear? I thought it was Senator McCain, who there is a rumor, Mr. Speaker, that he might be a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, that he had something to do with that Senate bill. Has anybody seen Senator McCain? Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, have you seen Senator McCain?

Congressman Ryan, have you seen Senator McCain? It used to be the McCain bill, and now it is the Reid-Kennedy bill. I mean, who is kidding who?

Now, you have a Senator, I believe, from Florida by the name of Martinez, Senator Martinez. I thought that he was involved in the amended version of the Senate bill that eventually passed. Am I correct?

Do you think it has anything to do with politics?

You are all silent. I mean, can you help me, please? I am just confused, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happened to John McCain? Does he still support this bill, this possible candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008? Whatever happened to Senator McCain?

Well, yeah.

Mr. Speaker, I have to get back to the point that you made when I yielded to you about the missing John McCain. Since tonight listening to their remarks about immigration, somehow they want to put it on the Democrats that the problem is and was created by Democrats.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, if you want to give this Senate bill a label, the truth is, it is supported by President Bush. Now, can you help me? Is President Bush a Republican, Mr. Meek, or is he a Democrat?

So he is a Republican. So why do not we refer to it then as the Bush-McCain bill that is distinct from the other bill?

I am not going to refer to it again as the Bush-McCain bill.

I know that we worked hard. And I will yield to the gentlewoman in a moment. That we have worked hard to secure the borders. That is what we have been trying to do for the past 6 years.

I am going to refer to my notes here for a minute.

We, as a party, have filed amendment after amendment as appropriations bills have come to the floor. If they had been adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents today patrolling our border, 14,000 more detention beds, and, Mr. Speaker, 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than now exist. But those amendments were not adopted because the Republican majority voted against them. That is why. That is why we have the problem today that is causing this contentious atmosphere in this Chamber and in the other Chamber.

But let's speak to the truth. Let's not just simply politicize this debate. Let's put the facts out. Who has been in charge of this institution for the past 12 years? It is the majority Republican party, Mr. Speaker. And across this Capitol building, who has been in charge, Mr. Speaker? It is the Republican Party, and George Bush has been the President of the United States since January of 2001.

Today we have a problem with illegal immigration. Who is responsible?

MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, let's play a game. Let's see which caucus is really for border security and which conference is playing ``let's pretend.'' And we will deal just with facts here, just with factual information, unlike what they do, which is either, A, make it up as they go along; or, B, say something that is not true enough times so that people believe it; or, C, just pick and choose the numbers that work best for them and represent that they are doing something when they are really not. So any of those three things is what happens on the other side.

Here is the reality on border security, Democrats versus Republicans: From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, on average, 642 new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Despite the fact that 9/11 highlighted the need for more border security, in its first 5 years the Bush administration added, on average, only 411 new Border Patrol agents.

Under the Clinton administration, 642 new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Under this administration, since 2001, since 9/11, only 411.

It gets better. Between 1999 and 2004, we are talking about enforcement, you know what, the Republicans talk a good game about it, we have got to increase enforcement, we have got to make sure that we crack down on illegal immigration, we have got to make sure that employers are not harboring illegal immigrants and breaking the law in hiring them. Well, let's see if they really mean that.

Between 1999 and 2004, work site immigration enforcement operations against companies were scaled back 99 percent by INS. Subsequently, INS was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and now it is called CIS. But in 1999, the United States, this is the year before President Bush took office, the United States of America initiated fines for hiring illegal immigrants against 417 companies. Mr. Delahunt, in 2004, it issued fine notices to three companies. Three.

1999, the year before President Bush took office, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies for hiring illegal immigrants. In 2004 they initiated three.

So in the space of some 5 years, enforcement actions against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants----

Well, I think you have summed it up. What irony that at this moment in American history the American people are borrowing from Communist China so that the most affluent among us, truly the most affluent among us, 1 percent of the population, receives a disproportionate tax cut. I mean, if this was written in a novel 10 or 15 years ago, people would be shaking their heads.

We are borrowing money from Red China so that the wealthiest Americans can buy a Hummer, because that is really what is happening. That is connecting the dots. Of course Democrats support tax reduction, or tax cuts, tax cuts that are fair. That is the difference. You know, a family that is supporting their sons and daughters in terms of their tuition bills for college education, there should be tax credits, there should be tax deductions. I mean we could list a vast number of thoughtful tax cuts that would benefit everybody, that would benefit the middle class rather than creating a society in these United States of those that have and those that are getting less and less every day. Real income, real income for that family right square in the middle of our population has declined, and that is why people are unhappy.

And of course we are all supporting with our tax dollars the war in Iraq. It is costing us $8 billion a month, or $2 billion a week. Just imagine if that money was going into building roads here, to rehabilitating schools, to providing scholarships for American children to go to college, to invest in our national health system what we could do with that money. But we are doing all of those things not in the United States, we are doing it in Iraq. And we are losing the war on terror because of the distraction by this administration from the real enemy, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, and that is what is happening in this country.

Yet you are so right, Mr. Meek. What do we hear? We hear, boy, there is an immigration problem and it is a hot button issue. And it is a hot button issue. But they refuse to accept responsibility. It is like they live in an alternate reality. It is not the real world. How did we get to the point where there are somewhere between, the numbers I hear are 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants? Because they refused to provide the funding for detention centers, for immigration agents, or for border control officials.

When we brought them to the floor, and I know that I voted for those increased fundings, yet we hear from our friends today about they are standing up, but I wonder how they voted. I would hope that each and every Member of this Congress on both sides of the aisle would go back, review their voting record on all of the amendments that we put forth to increase border security and see how they voted, and then come to this floor and acknowledge that vote before they speak.

Well, I think that is underscored by the fact when we hear them express concerns about immigration, about illegal immigration, we have not heard a single voice from our friends on the Republican side criticizing the President for the failure to enforce. Well, maybe one voice. Maybe he is here tonight. But no criticizing the President for the failure to enforce our immigration laws, particularly against employers.

Imagine, three enforcements against American businesses for hiring illegal immigrants in the year 2004 when in the last year of the Clinton administration there was far in excess of some 400. That is a disgrace. And it is the responsibility of this Republican Congress to criticize their lack of aggressive oversight on this issue. The problem has become all of ours, but it was created by the lack of funding to strengthen our borders while Democrats have been putting forth proposal after proposal to increase those numbers.

With that, I yield back to my friend from Ohio.

I thank my friend and chairman of the 30-something Group for yielding. I apologize for being a bit tardy, but I had business back in the office.

No, that is not the case.

But I heard you talk about Medicare, and it provoked a special interest.

A personal special interest, because I don't know if you are aware of this, I am somewhat embarrassed to acknowledge this in a venue such as this, but a week from today I will be on Medicare.

July 18 is my birthday, and I hit that magic figure that entitles me to be eligible for Medicare. And if there is a single program that has made a difference in the lives of senior citizens, I was going to say elderly, but I think I will change that now, of senior citizens in this country, it is the Medicare program. There has been study after study which concludes that there is a connection between longevity and the advent back in 1965 of Medicare and health that now the older segment of the population enjoys. It is absolutely an essential, critical program.

Part of that, as Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was saying, is the fact that today, rather than referring people to hospitals, the percentage of treatment that is given to senior citizens is through prescribed pharmaceuticals. It has made clearly a world of difference.

And when we had this debate back in December of 2004, about the so- called prescription drug benefit, Democrats argued that to prohibit the Federal Government from negotiating with the large drug manufacturers for discounts, substantial discounts, as you just indicated, as they do now with the VA, was nothing but a windfall profit for large drug companies. I don't know what the estimate is now, but you said millions. Let me respectfully disagree with you and say tens of billions, maybe in excess of 100 billion, but it is clearly a substantial amount of money.

Just stop and think for 1 minute. That money would eliminate the doughnut hole. And by the doughnut hole, we mean once the cost of a particular prescription exceeds an amount, I think it is $2,600, for the next $3,000-plus a senior citizen has to pay for that prescription out of his or her own pocket.

We are already receiving calls, I do not know if your district offices have had this experience, but the volume of calls from seniors saying, you know, I didn't realize how quickly I would reach that so- called doughnut hole, and I can't afford the next $3,000 to meet my medical needs. And I need those drugs that take care of my cardiac problem, for example, and I can't afford it, Mr. Congressman. What am I going to do?

I know you are saying that we can address that, and we can address that without adding to the deficit, but I think that is a commitment that ought to be made to people who are on Medicare so that they can enjoy a longer and more healthy life as they age, because they deserve it.

I don't know if any of you saw it, I think it was yesterday in our major newspapers, I noticed that there was a story relative to a report that indicated that much of the information that seniors received relative to the prescription drug program was erroneous and inaccurate. And we all know about the confusion at the beginning of the program.

And what is happening now, as I said, senior citizens were unaware of the fact that that limit would be reached so quickly, which would put them into the doughnut hole, or I call it the ``abyss.''

Right. Because that has happened so quickly that they believed initially that it was only the moneys that they had to pay out under the so-called copayment system. But, no, it was the total amount of the cost of the drug between what they had to pay out of their pocket and what the government was paying.

So all of a sudden, people who are spending $600, $700, $800 a month on a drug regimen for, let us use the example of those who have a cardiac problem, will find themselves, in 3 or 4 months, having already reached that cap and now they are on their own. And that is happening now.

Meanwhile, we cannot negotiate with drug manufacturers because the Republican majority was protecting the pharmaceutical industry.

They don't believe in government. That is the truth. Their version of government is simply the smaller the better.

Exactly. Unless it involves involving the United States in a quagmire.

I was going to make that point and you did it for me.

But let me say what we now see is big government, big government promulgating and pursuing an agenda that is not a conservative agenda. I think we should make that distinction. It is a neoconservative direction because traditionally Republicans have been committed to responsible government, pay as you go, live within your means.

And government is important, but there are areas where government does not have a role. And yet here we are today with this President and this Republican majority presiding over the largest expansion of government in American history. And the expansion of government only benefits a small segment of the American population.

That is what I would suggest is causing the anxiety and the negative reaction that we hear when we march in those parades.

What about this Medicare drug program? It sounds good, but it is not helping me. Who is it helping?

And how do you respond to a question: Why can't you negotiate with the large drug companies and secure discounts like you do through the Veterans Administration? Why can't you secure discounts of 40, 50, 60, 70 percent? Why can't you do that? Why can't Congress insist?

And the answer is because the Republican leadership will not allow it. It simply won't allow it.

And, Congressman, we read about the oil companies, the energy companies, Big Oil, if you will. We understand that in 2002 their combined net profit was $35 billion; that's a lot of money. Now we see new figures that it exceeds $113 billion. It has tripled in about 3 years. Congressman, can you explain to me why you and your colleagues approve of giving taxpayer money to Big Oil in the amount of $14 billion? Can somebody help me answer that question?

If I could ask our chairman from Florida, just to raise once more that chart.

Right. You know what I find interesting is, you pointed it out. It is the first time I have heard it, that you can't use that particular credit card, a Mobil credit card, did you say?

Right. But it is at a Mobil station?

Okay. But it is not a Mobil product. And you interpret it, as I did, as a way to discourage people from using a fuel source that, over time, could wean us from that mideastern oil and allow us to rely, again, once more on that farmer, that American farmer from the Midwest?

Okay. That is what we are talking about. That is really what we are talking about.

But you know what I find interesting? You raised it here in our conversation this evening. But has anybody, any chairman, if you are aware of any committee, standing committee of this House with this majority, requested or invited or insisted that the chairman of ExxonMobil come before it to explain to us and to the American people why does that product have that sticker about it when it is at a Mobil station? Just a simple question to educate us.

And it is clear that if it is a question that is not being asked by the majority, then nothing will change. And I would suggest it is the responsibility of this Congress and its committees to ask those questions because the American people deserve answers. And we are abrogating, we are not meeting our responsibility of oversight when those questions are not posed; and they are not being asked in this House of Representatives at this moment in our history, and it is a disgrace.

Thank you, my friend. I hope that you had a pleasant break. I know you were working, but I hope that you enjoyed your stay at home.

Professor Allison's observations really echo the conclusion that was reached by a bipartisan group of experts, including many from the administration of President Reagan, and that conclusion was that the United States is losing the war on terror.

We read that our friends on the other side of the aisle have made a political decision to talk about national security, to talk about terror and what they have accomplished. Well, the truth is, nothing has been accomplished, except the loss of thousands of American lives with a financial cost going on some half a trillion dollars.

You know, one only has to watch the nightly news. I was in the cloakroom earlier and watched the national news. It was depressing, it was sad, it was tragic. What is going on in Baghdad today and all over Iraq is an orgy of violence and blood-letting.

We hear these distinctions between sectarian strife, between insurgents versus the terrorists. I still can't quite figure them out. All I know is that lives are being lost, that we Americans are taking this burden on by ourselves.

And don't talk to me about the coalition. It is an American burden almost exclusively.

Let me just read to you this report from The Washington Post. And, again, this is a survey taken of some 116 experts. In the relationship between Iraq and the war on terror, I think it is all too sad that many of our friends and colleagues on the other side, but particularly in the administration, have an alternate reality. We have made these arguments before, that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. There was, with one exception, unanimous support to invade Afghanistan to deal a blow to the Taliban, which were allowing al Qaeda safe haven and the ability to train and to grow.

What we have done with this policy is we have created more terrorists than existed in 2001. There has been an explosion, not just of violence; there has been an explosion of terrorists. We have made Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists. They are leaving Iraq, and they are going back to Afghanistan, as you pointed out, Mr. Larson. There is a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and things are beginning to unravel again.

I yield to my friend.

And you know where we didn't do that, John?

We didn't do that in Afghanistan.

We cut and ran from Afghanistan. We were distracted by this vision, this neoconservative vision of invading Iraq and bringing stability and democracy to the Middle East. And yet now, now we are paying the price in Afghanistan.

I yield back to my friend.

I know we have been joined by several of our colleagues, Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Van Hollen, and of course I see Mr. McDermott over there also. And I know Mr. Van Hollen has expended a considerable amount of time and effort in becoming conversant, an expert, if you will, with what is occurring in Afghanistan. But before I yield to either him or to Maxine Waters, let us just take a look at USA Today.

This is dated June 20 of 2006, more than 4 years after we invaded Afghanistan. The headline reads: ``Revived Taliban Waging Full-Blown Insurgency.'' I know that all of us who are interested in this particular issue can tell you that what is happening in Afghanistan today is very dangerous for stability, for the very fragile, extremely fragile democracy; that Afghanistan has become a narco-state that is providing 90 percent of the world's heroin. What have we wrought with this policy?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment, I would like to just quote another statement by Michael Scheuer that I really think tells it all in a very concise way. All of us should listen because this was an individual who participated in that group of experts, by the way, again bipartisan, many well-known Republican foreign policy experts who served in the Reagan administration, and this is what Michael Scheuer had to say, the man who headed the unit in the CIA to track down Osama bin Laden. His comments were really about Iraq and its relationship to Afghanistan and what has happened as a result of the Bush policy, supported by the majority in this Congress, to the war on terror.

We are clearly losing today, Mr. Scheuer said. Today, bin Laden, al Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally, the United States foreign policy towards the Islamic world.

If I may, before you yield to Jim McDermott, I think it is important to follow what Congressman Van Hollen just talked about in terms of the diversion of resources.

Several weeks ago, the foreign minister of Afghanistan came to this country and made a statement, and it was reported in the Washington Times, that the government forces, the security forces, the army and the police, are being outgunned and outmanned by the terrorists in Afghanistan.

In response the administration said, Well, we will double the assistance to the security forces. This is more than about 5 years, I daresay, since we invaded Afghanistan. This just simply goes to the point that in Iraq, with Katrina, with Afghanistan, with just about everything, we have seen a level of incompetence and mismanagement that is simply mind-boggling.

Last week, they are talking about increasing military assistance to the security forces in Afghanistan. In the meantime, it is going very badly in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I know we all remember when President Bush made that surprise visit to Baghdad to meet with the Iraqi leaders. And on the way back, he was on Air Force One, and he brought some reporters in. He had this to say about his conversations with the Iraqi leaders:

There are concerns about our commitment in keeping our troops there. They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave them before they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them they did not need to worry.

But I guess when he is referring to just, I think his words were, ``almost to a person,'' he did not mention that the Vice President of Iraq came to him and said, please, Mr. President, would you provide a time line for the withdrawal of American troops, the clear inference being, until you leave, we are not going to be able to resolve the issues because you are fueling this violence by your presence.

What was interesting was that the President of Iraq, the Kurdish leader Talabani, corroborated this request by his Vice President and said that he supported it. They want us out.

Those that want Americans soldiers there, I would suggest to you, have a motive that is dark, because they realize that with the presence of American troops, they have an excuse, they have an excuse to commit violence. They have a rationale to inflame passion. And what is the result? We have seen it over the course of this weekend and today with hundreds being executed, murdered, in a situation that is clearly a civil war.

We hear terms like low-grade civil war. I guess that is something like being a little bit pregnant. I mean, it is just simply----

50,000 civilians who have died.

So my point is, to go back to where we began, all of us want to win against

terrorism, which we can agree is scourged. However, the rest of the world--there was another poll that was taken; 34 out of 35 countries, this was commissioned by the BBC, and this poll found that in 34 out of 35 of those countries more people believed, 60 percent believed that the war in Iraq increased terrorism, and 15 percent disagreed and said it impacted terrorism and led to a decline. Sixteen percent to 15 percent, and yet this administration, this Republican leadership, is tone deaf to that.

I am convinced we all, everyone in this Chamber, everyone in this government wants to defeat terrorism. It is just they do not know how to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is unfortunate that the United States did not participate in the establishment of the Human Rights Council. We were one of four nations out of over 170 that did support it who opposed it. But following the elections to the Human Rights Council, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Kristen Silverburg, had this to say: On the whole, we think this demonstrates some progress. Those are her words.

And the truth is that the Human Rights Council is an improvement over the discredited Human Rights Commission. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it does require candidates to be elected for the first time by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, not through selection. It also requires that those who serve on the council have their human rights records regularly reviewed and allows the human rights abusers to be suspended from the council. And the reality is that the only member of the council that is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is Cuba. Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea were kept off. And the dominant majority of its members are democracies.

I note that my friend and colleague from Texas, the proponent of the amendment, sent around a ``dear colleague'' about his amendment, and therein was a statement that a council that includes China does not signify reform. Well, I would submit that that puts him at odds with our ambassador to the United Nations and the Bush administration. Because Ambassador Bolton has initially suggested that the five permanent members of the Security Council, which clearly includes China, automatically be given membership on the Human Rights Council. And the administration subsequently, through Ambassador Bolton and Secretary Rice, have publicly committed to work with the council to make it effective.

If the United States turns its back on the council, it will condemn the principal international human rights forum to failure and allow the handful of bad apples that remain in the body to dominate it.

Instead, the United States should work with the 37 democracies elected to the 47-member council to strengthen and depoliticize it and ensure future elections to the council exclude members that commit human rights abuses.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that it is not a perfect mechanism. Would I have preferred to see a pure and pristine body created? Of course. But the truth is, and the gentleman has acknowledged it, we live in an imperfect world; and I would suggest the best example of that is the allies that this Nation has brought into the coalition of the willing. Let me just cite a few:

Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan, headed by an individual by the name of Islam Karimov, who is responsible for the massacre of almost 1,000 innocent civilians in Andijan.

Part of our coalition of the willing includes Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, where the son of the president recently came and visited with President Bush in the White House. Read our Department of State's human rights reports on Azerbaijan.

Another traditional ally of the United States, Egypt. Go read the Department of State's human rights reports on Egypt.

And the gentleman is correct to talk about Saudi Arabia, where women don't have the right to drive.

We are in a world that is imperfect, but there is no doubt that this particular council represents an improvement and has the support of the Bush administration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. What I find interesting is ever since, well ever since before the invasion the administration has not been forthcoming, has not played it straight with us and with the American people.

And I just got in from Boston, my plane was late, I am sure that many of you encountered those kinds of difficulties. But I had an opportunity to listen to my friend, Mr. Inslee from Washington. And he talked about the Iraqi people not wanting us to stay, if you can accept the results of that poll, which presumably are valid.

And you make a point about the prime minister talking about a timetable. And yet during the course of, I do not want to call it a debate, but during the course of the speeches that were given here last week regarding Iraq, we heard a term like ``cut and run,'' you know, cut and run.

Well, I find what is interesting is that now there is some cutting, or there appears to be some cutting. But you know what was unsaid during the entire conversation that was held on this floor? It is not just the Iraqi people that want us to leave, or at least to provide a timetable, but maybe President Bush was not hearing what the prime minister and the vice president and the president of Iraq had to say when he made his visit there a week or 10 days ago.

Because flying back on Air Force One with the media, this is what he had to say, ``There are concerns about our commitment and keeping our troops there. They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave before they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them they did not need to worry.''

But I guess when he says ``almost to a person,'' he is not referring to the vice president and the president of Iraq. Because it was reported in the Associated Press last week that the Iraqi vice president had asked President Bush for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.

And that was confirmed by President Talabani, and in addition, President Talabani agreed with that request. So it was not just Democrats and others that were interested in a timeline for when we are getting out of there, but it was the Iraqi president and the Iraqi vice president.

And yet we hear terms like cut and run. Cut and run. The only thing we are cutting here are taxes for the super-rich and running up a deficit. That is what we are cutting and running here in this institution. Everyone recognizes there is a responsibility, but we did not get into this mess. Should we trust this administration?

We were told by the Vice President that we were going to be greeted as liberators. False. The Secretary of Defense said the war would not last more than 6 months. False. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from oil revenues. False.

We heard from the Vice President and everyone else that there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. False. False. False. And now we are told that, well, we cannot put out a timeline or a timetable to withdraw.

The Iraqi people want it. I dare say the American people need to know

about it. It is in the best interests of our national security, because what we are doing there is we are creating terrorists. We are eroding the efforts against terrorism worldwide the longer we stay there. We are viewed by the world as occupiers. All you have to do is take a look at the recent polling data, the most recent one being from a very reputable foundation, the Pew Foundation, 33 out of 35 countries have a negative image of the United States. Our own Government Accountability Office that my friends on both sides of the aisle know is a nonpartisan agency of the U.S. Congress has said this: anti-American sentiment is broadening and deepening and is a threat to our national security and will hurt our efforts against terrorism.

And, of course, there is a possibility and a real potential that it will hurt us in other areas, and furthermore it could very well erode and hurt our commercial interests.

And the American taxpayer.

Well, I would conclude by asking a question, which is that, ultimately, what has occurred because of our invasion of Iraq? Let us project 2 years, 5 years, 10 years.

We hear so much talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Well, you know what I see, I see an emerging relationship between Iraq and Iran. I already have noted that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq. In my memory, please help me, wasn't Iran one of the original members of the access of evil club?

And just recently, I noticed where the prime minister suggested that the international community ought to leave Iran alone and drop its demand, drop its demand that Iran prove that it is not developing nuclear technology for purposes of a weapon.

Now, what is happening here? Are we going to end up with the legacy of this loss of American lives and American taxpayer dollars with a more influential Iran? I mean, please, has anybody even talked about this or considered it? Do we hear this as part of the debate and the discourse even among think tanks, even among the popular media outlets?

If I could interrupt my friend, it was very reminiscent of the glory days of the Boston Celtics. In the old Boston Garden and in the new Garden they hang, I think, 16 flags representing world championships won by the Boston Celtics, and I hope at some point in time the Miami Heat does as well.

Of course. They are in the rebuilding mode.

Let me give a very concrete example that was reported Saturday in my hometown newspaper, one of them, the Boston Globe. The headline read: ``Cost of college piling debt on Massachusetts families.''

``Massachusetts families fell a total of $562 million short of being able to pay for college in the State last year, according to State officials, highlighting the struggle for families to afford higher education in Massachusetts.''

Now that $562 million represented the portion of college costs a family cannot afford to pay that is not covered by Federal, State or institutional grants or loans. And when aid falls short, many students make up the difference with private loans they have trouble repaying.

Here is a quote from a young student: ``My dad had to take money out of his 401(k) twice because during the semester we weren't given enough in grants and student loans to meet the amount we had to pay.''

The article goes on to say that students are covering the funding gap with higher-interest private loans, credit card debt, and too many hours of work outside of school.

Now I sat on the Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary where for 5 or 6 years we reviewed the proposal for the so-called bankruptcy law. I was always struck by the number of solicitations that were going to students to utilize their credit cards. Some would send a check.

I remember in the debate bringing a blown-up posterboard of a check that my daughter received for $2,500. And as part of the solicitation, there was an opening salutation that said: ``Have a good spring break.''

Well, the truth is that those credit card solicitations were putting in the hands of students credit cards that carried with them 18 percent, 22 percent, 26 percent, 30 percent interest rates. So what we are doing is not only creating a culture where credit card debt is an acceptable norm for paying significant loans, but we are graduating our students with average debts of about $10,000 on which they are paying these exorbitant credit card rates.

I would suggest that this particular study illustrates exactly what you said. Rather than cap loans that students can take out, or that parents can take out in their behalf, what we are doing is forcing these young people, our future, to go to private sources such as credit cards, and private lenders at rates that would make the Mafia blush. They ought not to be called interest rates. They ought to be called the vig. That's what the Mafia charges for a loan.

So what happens? We graduate young people, and for years they are carrying around this debt that is impossible if they are going to go on and get married and have a family of their own. It is like graduating from college and having a mortgage that you are paying off at some ridiculous rate of interest. And forget about owning a home, forget about taking a chance and initiating your own small business if that be your choice.

One can only imagine that young person graduating from college with this debt.

But being 30-something, things were better.

For you when you were 20-something than your 30- something.

But the point that you are speaking to, I think everybody understands, is that the country is heading in the wrong direction. In the space of 15 years, people that were in your situation, as you just described it with your husband, newly married, in a short period of time being able to afford a down payment, no tuition debt, and prospects for a bright future. That is not happening today. And a lot of our friends can understand it because they continue to talk about, well, the economy is growing. I guess the question is who is it growing for? It is not growing for the middle class. It certainly isn't. It isn't growing for low income. In fact, it is not even growing for those who are affluent. It is growing for the superwealthy.

And yet we have not begun to even address the real issues of rebuilding the Gulf States, of taking care of the people in Mississippi and Louisiana, and allowing the insurance companies in those States to tell people that, sorry, you are not covered, despite the fact that they were told early on. Thankfully, we have leaders, and I am particularly proud of someone like a Gene Taylor and others from the Gulf States that stand up and speak to these issues, and Members on the other side of the aisle, for that matter. I was listening to Senator Lott just recently speaking about this issue.

But the truth is, you are right. The consequences of the plan of the Bush administration and the Bush Congress has resulted in $3 per gallon of gas, a deficit that is a Hall of Fame record, a dependence on China and Japan and

the United Kingdom and OPEC countries to finance our debt, a decline of the median income for a middle-class family in this country, and housing that is not affordable today for most Americans, and as you suggested, Tim, a health care system that is, to call it a system is hyperbole. It just is not a system. And this is what we have.

We finally have seen the plan, and the plan is being rejected by most Americans because it is clear that it is taking this country in the wrong direction, and if it continues in this way, we will become a second-tier Nation.

And let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who is running the government. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that this administration for the past 6 years has been run by a Republican President, a Republican Vice President. All of the Cabinet members, with one exception, are Republican. The House has been run by the majority party, which is the Republican Party. On the Senate side, Mr. Speaker, the majority party has been Republican. So what we are seeing and what we are getting is Republicanism, but not really the traditional mainstream Republican Party that has made significant contributions to this great country.

Can I just digress for one moment?

We had a 10-hour, I don't want to call it a debate because it was not a debate.

It was a long Special Order about Iraq. And I thought what was particularly striking was, as people spoke even on the other side, the references that were made specifically to Secretary Rumsfeld.

Now, if you had a CEO of a business that was running the business into the ground, that was being exposed by his own subordinates again and again and again, what would happen in the private sector? And just look back at what the administration had to say.

I mean, I always think of what the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had to say about the Vice President. He said the Vice President was so obsessed with attacking Iraq, that it was as if he had war fever. Well, you know, the problem with fever is that you become delusional and you see things or hear things that aren't necessarily there no matter how true you want them to be. I mean, it was the Vice President himself who said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. I think that lasted for maybe 1\1/2\ days. Rumsfeld himself said that the war wasn't going to last any more than 6 months. Wrong. His Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from its oil revenue. Wrong. We were told that the administration had a coherent plan for reconstruction and bringing peace to a nation that had experienced the brutality of a Saddam Hussein, a coherent plan. Wrong. It just goes on and on.

The truth is that the administration's incompetence, absolute rank incompetence, has set back our efforts to deal with terrorism all over this planet.

And you don't have to take our words for their incompetence. If our staffer is present, I would like to just put on some of the quotes, not coming from a partisan Member of Congress, but from people who served their country. Here is one coming now.

Well, this is as good, I guess.

The former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, speaking about this Republican Congress, can you read that for me.

To go back to the point that Mr. Ryan was making relative to if this were a business, if this were a business, which brought me to the point of the incompetence specifically of the Secretary of Defense, and to think despite call after call for his resignation, would this have ever happened in the private sector?

And as I was saying, this is not your words, our words, my words. Here is retired Army Major General Paul Eaton. This is back in March. He is speaking about the Secretary of Defense, and these are, again, 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.''

Now, it is okay, I guess, for the President to ignore those words, but if we had a Congress that took its oversight role seriously, I would have expected that once those words appeared in print that the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, possibly the Armed Services Committee, and I know you serve on that, Mr. Ryan, would have immediately issued a request to Major General Paul Eaton to come before it to give his opinion and his views. Did we see that?

The silence coming from the Congress is just overwhelming. There has not been a single committee in the House of Representatives that invited General Paul Eaton to come before it and testify. Talk about a rubber stamp.

Well, now here is retired Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold. He had these words to say in April: ``My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results.''

Has there been a request from one single committee of this House to Marine Lieutenant General Newbold to come before us to listen to what he has to say about the incompetence of the civilian leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld? Not one invitation that I am aware of.

And here is retired General John Batiste, again, speaking about the Secretary of Defense. This was reported in The Washington Post on April 13: ``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.''

I know there are more posters. Now, what would have happened in the private sector? Is this a way to do business? Is this competence? I could go on and on and on.

If I can, for just a moment, I hear all this foo-for- all about we have to stay the course, and we will stand down when they stand up.

It must have been a shock to President Bush, do you remember when he made that visit, I think it was about a week ago, to Baghdad? Well, on his way home he was discussing the visit with reporters and his conversations with Iraqi leaders and he made this statement that was reported in the Associated Press: ``There are concerns about our commitment in keeping our troops there. They,'' meaning the Iraqis, ``are worried almost to a person that we will leave before they are capable of defending themselves, and I assured them they didn't have to worry.'' That is the President.

But apparently when he said ``almost to a person,'' he is not including the president of Iraq and the vice president of Iraq, because the Associated Press reported the day after that Iraq's vice president had asked President Bush for a timeline, for a timeline, for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

Here is the quote: ``Vice President Tarik al-Hashimy, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on Tuesday when the U.S. President made a surprise visit to Iraq. President Talabani, in a statement that was released after the meeting, said `I supported him in this,' meaning the vice president.''

So when we hear that we can't give a timeline or a table for when we withdraw, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis are asking us to do it. They are asking us, Mr. Speaker.

So, please, you know, cut the politics. Run away from the politics. Let's cut and run from the politics and talk about the truth.

Mr. Speaker, Colin Powell thought Vice President Cheney was so obsessed with attacking Iraq that he suffered from war fever. The problem is that fever can make you delusional and you can see things that aren't really there, no matter how much you want them to be true.

The Vice President said that we would be greeted as liberators. False. Secretary Rumsfeld said that the war would not last more than 6 weeks. False. Secretary Wolfowitz said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from oil revenues. Again, false. We were told that the administration had a coherent plan for postwar Iraq. False.

The truth is that this administration's incompetence has set back the effort against global terrorism. Don't take my word for it. Simply come to this floor and read the statements of these generals, patriots all.

The administration claimed that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Again, false. But they are not talking about a link that does exist and should cause us all profound concern. That is the relationship between the new government in Iraq and Iran. The new Iraqi government is full of Iranian allies. They have signed a military cooperation agreement. And the Iraqi Foreign Minister just recently said, Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the international community should drop its demands that Iran should prove that it is not trying to build a nuclear weapon.

And we are supposed to believe that our national security has been strengthened, and that we are making progress on the war on terrorism?

The truth is that the war in Iraq has not just simply been a distraction from the global war on terror, it has actually increased the power and influence of the number one state sponsor of terrorism, according to our own Department of State, an original charter member of the axis of evil club, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I appreciate your observations, but I would just add one other component of what is not a pretty picture. If you don't have the desire, if you don't have the political will, or if there is influence that contradicts the best interest of the consumer, that in an of itself is a recipe for disaster.

But just imagine combining that with incompetence. That is when you have a tsunami, and that is what we are seeing time and time again from this administration without any accountability from the Republican majority. Tomorrow there will be--and it is not going to be a debate, it is going to be a lot of speechifying. There will not be any give and take.

But for the first time in over 3 years since this Congress voted to invade and to authorize the administration to invade Iraq, there will be a discussion of Iraq in the war there for the first time in over 3 years. I think what that tells you is that there is no debate, there is no discourse, there is no willingness to hold the administration accountable for incompetency.

Put aside all of the other concerns that you articulated, Mr. Meek. But there was a story today in the newspaper that just underscores what you are saying, and I think emphasizes my point regarding the competence of governing or the lack thereof.

Let me read for just a moment. You have got to bear with me. This is from my hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, and it is today. The government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in bogus assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, getting hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation, and even a divorce lawyer, Congressional investigators have found.

Now, let's be very clear. This was an investigation conducted by a nonpartisan agency that is an adjunct to the United States Congress called the Government Accountability Office. Here is what they found.

Someone stayed in a Hawaiian hotel for 70 days with taxpayer help. These same GAO investigators went undercover to expose the ease of receiving disaster expense checks from FEMA. They provided lawmakers with a copy of a $2,300 U.S. Treasury check for rental assistance that an undercover agent got using a bogus address. The money was paid even after FEMA learned from its inspector that the undercover applicant did not live at the address. When you don't hold people accountable, things get awful sloppy, if you don't hold Federal agencies accountable, whether it be the White House, the Department of Defense sooner or later.

Of course.

What the American people are demanding, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, is accountability. Because if there is accountability, then we will have competence in our government. But as you just indicated, whether it be Katrina, whether it be the prosecution of the war in Iraq, there has been no accountability by this Congress, none whatsoever. We are paying the price. We are paying the price in terms of our national treasure. By that, I mean our young men and women who are serving in Iraq.

We have already paid and are heading in the direction of one-half a trillion dollars for the prosecution of that war. What do we have to show for it? Well, we have generals from the Department of Defense who stood up as patriots, condemned what they saw in terms of incompetence by the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense.

I would ask one of you to quote retired Army General John Batiste on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had this to say on April 13.

Mr. Ryan.

And who served his country well, a highly decorated Army general who was sent to battle, to war, and there was never a plan crafted and designed for the peace.

Three years later, where are we? We are in Iraq, we are mired now in a sectarian battle between militias, insurgents. It has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

General Paul Eaton was responsible for the training of the Iraqi security forces in Iraq. What do we hear now? All we ever hear is that the Iraqis have to do it themselves, or we will stand down when they stand up. We will help them stand up. That was 3 years ago.

How long does it take to train a U.S. Marine or U.S. Delta Force operative or a U.S. Army Ranger, a member of the Airborne or a U.S. Army soldier or Navy? Three years? No, because the civilian leadership of this administration has been incompetent from the beginning.

This is what Paul Eaton had to say about what is happening in our Department of Defense.

Mr. Meek.

Mr. Ryan, do you realize that it has been more than 3 years, and this is the first time tomorrow that we will have a conversation about Iraq? There should have been hearings for the past 3 years. These heroes, these American heroes should have been invited to come before the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and allowed to testify about the incompetence of the prosecution of the peace in Iraq by this administration. But, no, they have been shut out, we have been shut out, and the American people don't know what is happening.

I yield to my friend.

I would like to ask a question of Representative Jackson-Lee. If Democrats were the majority in this House, would there be a forum for General Greg Newbold, retired Marine Lieutenant General, to express his opinion before the appropriate committee of jurisdiction so that we could learn and the American people could observe what the truth was in terms of the prosecution of the war and the peace in Iraq? Would that opportunity be afforded to the American people?

This majority is prepared to give this administration, this White House, this Secretary of Defense, a pass on their incompetence.

And incompetent.

Tomorrow we are going to hear terms like cut-and-run and defeat.

That is what we are going to hear on this floor, and I challenge that Republican majority to use those terms when it comes to these generals, to these American patriots who have served their country. Ask them if they even would ever cut and run. They have demonstrated their entire careers, but they had the courage to stand up and say this is rank incompetence.

You are not doing right by the American soldier and by the American military and you are giving them a pass. You are letting them pass.

Every day there is a growing number.

That is why, as Mr. Meek so eloquently observed earlier, it is time to take the country in a new direction. And there are specific proposals out there that will take this country in a new direction. He has enumerated several of them, whether it be health care or education.

How about just plain old common sense when it comes to managing our money? One-half trillion dollars and we are still mired in Iraq, tax cuts that benefit not even the wealthy in this country but the super wealthy, and if you notice this mismanagement, this incompetence in terms of our economic and fiscal policy, it is hurting people. Has anyone observed the Dow Jones? Has anyone called their broker to find out how their 401(k) is doing? There won't be an American left other than the super rich that will be able to retire.

We have an ownership society.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't improve on everything that has been said. I am excited about the challenges ahead. I think we are going to take this country in a new direction. I think it is going to benefit the American people, whether they be Republicans or Democrats or unenrolled.

It's America.

I think that really sums it up. If Democrats take control of this House, it is going to open the doors. It is going to open the windows. We are going to get a breath of fresh air, and accountability will be in vogue once more, for the first time in a long time.

This is the 30-something Working Group, www.House- Democrats.gov/30something.

This is Leader Pelosi's 30-something Working Group, www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30something.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I just found it somewhat ironic to listen to our friend from Oklahoma when he talks about the search that was conducted by Saddam Hussein for weapons of mass destruction, because it clearly was this administration during the 1980s that aided him in that pursuit.

There is documentation out there that shows the transfer of dual-use technologies to Saddam Hussein by the Reagan-Bush administration. There is also sufficient evidence, and we can say he is a bad guy now, but maybe he was a good guy back in the 1980s, because he was taken off the terrorist list.

In fact, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was a special envoy of the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein. When Saddam Hussein unleashed the hell of mustard gas on the Kurds in Halabja, it was that administration who said, no, we are not going to allow the U.N. to condemn our pal, Saddam Hussein. So I am glad he concedes that point because it is right and just that he concedes that point.

I find it interesting now that we are embracing other good guys in this world, like Moammar Gadhafi, a great democrat who was taken off the terrorist list. I wonder sometime if we will regret that. But we are not here to talk about that.

I am here because I was to echo the sentiments expressed by the gentlewoman. I don't think they can be repeated often enough, because the reconstruction of Iraq has been plagued by mismanagement, waste and fraud. The examples are too numerous to list. I would need the entire hour, and I will not burden my colleagues with that.

But let us suffice it to say that the Bush administration cannot account for $9 billion, that is billion with a B, that it purportedly transferred to Iraqi ministries. But we cannot find it, it is missing.

Let me just cite one specific example about the work of a company called Custer Battles, which I think illustrates the order of magnitude of corruption, fraud and abuse that has been perpetrated on the American taxpayer while we have other pressing needs in this country.

They were retained to provide security at Baghdad International Airport, including personnel, equipment, and K-9 teams to process passengers and cargo. They were totally inept, and they were corrupt. They had a K-9 team that consisted of someone's pet that certainly couldn't sniff bombs. I don't know what they were doing, but they were not sniffing bombs there.

But in any event, the director of airport security wrote this about them. Custer Battles has shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows. Now that is the director of the Baghdad International Airport. It is rife over there with mismanagement, with fraud and abuse.

Now, how do we know these problems? We certainly don't know them from the activities of this institution. I am the ranking member on a subcommittee of the International Relations Committee dealing with oversight and investigations. Last week we had our first oversight hearing into the activities of the administration when it came to the reconstruction phase.

But we do know about these problems, because we know them through the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Construction, Stuart Bowen, whose reports have been objective, accurate and hard hitting, giving praise when it is due and giving criticism when it is due. They describe in clear, simple, understandable terms how the administration's incompetence, mismanagement and lack of planning have exacerbated our problems there.

But now this bill, as the gentlewoman said, shifts the oversight responsibility for new Iraq reconstruction funds from the Special Inspector General for Iraq to the State Department Inspector General. Since the Department of State Inspector General has a fraction of the resources that were provided to the Special Inspector

General of Iraq and clearly limited experience, this means that oversight of Iraq reconstruction will be drastically reduced. We can't afford that now. We can't afford it. We cannot afford it, and yet this bill does it.

The American taxpayer cannot afford that. It is an egregious error in judgment to remove the Inspector General of Iraq, who is appointed by President Bush, from that oversight role.

Well, I would urge because of those reasons that this rule be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, if I can just interrupt for a minute, I think the question you are posing is, what are our national priorities in a time like this where people are pressed and there is a tremendous degree of economic uncertainty? One only has to take a look at the Dow Jones today. The Dow Jones went down another 100 points today. Last week it was around 300 points. The week before that it was 200 points.

Most Americans are looking at their 401(k), Mr. Speaker, and they are noticing that they are slipping behind. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, if you compared the Dow Jones Index today with the Dow Jones Index in the last several months of the Clinton administration, you would discover that after 6 years, after some 6 years of economic policies that only favor not just the middle class and the upper middle class, but the super- rich, you will discover that the Dow Jones hasn't moved.

All of those people who were planning on the customary growth in the Dow Jones so they could retire are now finding themselves compelled to work more years so that they can sustain themselves, so they simply can sustain themselves. Our friend from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, she can tell you that in terms of the old-time pensions when somebody worked for years for a company and then they retired, they got a pension every month that they could count on, plus their savings, those pensions are gone. They no longer exist. They are gone.

And then we hear our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about privatizing Social Security, you know, PSAs, private accounts. Well, I guess if you looked at it from that perspective and you had no growth for 6 years, you would be beside yourself. You would be devastated emotionally. But that is what has happened.

And you know what we are doing with our money? We are not spending it on the priorities that everyday people have. The war in Iraq, for example, is closing in one-half a trillion dollars, Mr. Speaker. One- half a trillion dollars. That is trillion with a T.

And one only has to review the reports by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and what you see is a record not just of incompetence and mismanagement but abuse and fraud. You know what, Mr. Speaker, this is the only country that is really at the plate in Iraq. We are not loaning this money, we are not loaning this money to the Iraqi people, we are just giving it away. It is the greatest welfare program in the history of humankind.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I just want to conclude something. So with this giveaway program, this giveaway from the American taxpayers, we have not even spent the money well. The Iraqis have not spent the money well. We were going to build 150 primary health care centers in Iraq. Only six have been built, and they are running out of money. Great record. A great record. That sounds to me like the Babe Ruth of mismanagement, waste and absolute pilfering of American tax dollars.

Why can't we do it here in the United States, Mr. Speaker? Why can't we build 150 primary health care centers for our own people? Would somebody please respond. All I know is we are taking this money and we have brought it over there. And by the way, one of the most incredible readings that anyone could take on is the special inspector general's report about the missing $9 billion; $9 billion is simply unaccounted for.

If I could just rephrase it a different way, because Ms. Kaptur mentioned the phrase ``the importing of capital.'' And what we are doing in terms of our economic policy is that we are exporting our manufacturing base. In other words, that icon of an American company, Maytag, who I am sure provided good jobs and good wages to generations of Americans who represent, if you will, that core American middle class that really distinguishes a healthy democracy from other systems. We have taken that, we have exported those jobs because of these economic policies. Simultaneously, we are importing capital from abroad. And I think this is a very telling chart, in the past 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, we have borrowed, in addition to the pre-existing national debt, $1.18 trillion. Of that $1.18 trillion, 1.16 is from overseas, from those countries that are evidenced on the chart beside Mr. Ryan.

Now, what have we done with that money? We have financed a war that is being pursued heroically by our military personnel and incompetently by our civilian leadership. In addition, the tax cuts have not favored any particular percentage of the American citizenry other than the super rich.

If one takes a look at the chart beside Mr. Ryan, if you earn $40,000 a year you receive a tax benefit of $17. Just think of that, $17. If you make over $200,000, your tax break amounts to $1,300. Even if you make $1.5 million, you get $4,500 off your tax liability. But if you make more than $1 million your tax break is $42,000. So we are borrowing from overseas to advantage the top, not just the top 1 percent, the top .001 percent in this country and funding a war in Iraq that is costing us dearly in terms of our national treasure, which are our young people, as well as dollars and cents being provided for by Americans who are going through very, very difficult times, that I would suggest is reflected in our financial markets if you look at the difference between this past month and that Dow Jones Index and that Dow Jones Index in the year 2000.

With that I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Ms. Kaptur, do you remember when the President talked about ownership society? The rest of the sentence was, it is not going to be Americans that will own America. It is those whom we are indebted to.

We are selling ourselves to other countries, given the obvious statistics that just jump out at you. For what? For what? For war and for a tax break for the extremely wealthy in this country. That is all that it is doing, and it is at the same time putting a burden on generations of Americans that obviously are unborn at this point in time. And what a disaster.

And meanwhile, we are building roads, we are building hospitals, we are building schools, we are building dams and levies, we are building deep water ports, where? In Iraq. And we are not building them here in Ohio. We are not building them in Massachusetts, we are certainly not building them in New Orleans. We are not building them here in America where there is such a crying need. And meantime, our people go forward, whether they be seniors and concerned about their retirement security, or whether they be young people and have debts of 40, 50, $100,000 because of education. There is something wrong.

Of course.

And if the gentlewoman would yield.

I can give you a similar economic picture of what is occurring in my district back in Massachusetts. There was a recent headline in the Cape Cod Times. And in that particular region, where you have many second homes, we are breaking records now in terms of mortgage foreclosures. One can just foresee what is happening as we talk to our colleagues among ourselves, that the ingredients and the components for an economic downturn of significant proportion are out there. And it will be as a direct result of the borrowing, the reckless spending, the giveaway programs that are going on today in Iraq, and the mismanagement, the fraud and the abuse and the lack of accountability. When you add it all up, it spells a recipe for economic disaster for America.

I hope it is in Ohio or maybe Kansas or maybe Ohio.

Marcy?

If the gentleman from Ohio will yield for a moment, the greatest risk to any democracy is a disparity between those that have in a society and those who do not. There is only so much poverty and uncertainty that any democracy can tolerate. If this trend should continue because that gulf between the affluent, particularly the very affluent among us, and the rest of America is growing so large that we have to step back and take a hard look. And I think what is important to understand here is that occasionally you hear somebody from the other party talk about, well, Democrats don't do this and they don't do that. The truth is that all of the sources of power in this country today at the national level are controlled by Republicans. They control the House, Madam Speaker. They control the Senate, and they control the White House.

You cannot blame Democrats. This is your package. You have got us here. You have owned Washington. Do not say that Washington is the problem because if you say that Washington is the problem, you are admitting that you are the problem because you are Washington. And that is the reality.

I am going to ask the gentlewoman to help on this because she serves on the Appropriations Committee, but there has been a raging debate in this country about immigration. There is nobody, I dare say, on either side of the aisle that does not believe that our borders should be secure. And the best evidence, however, of a sincere intent to secure the borders is the recent history of the Appropriation Committee's lack of action in terms of creating the suitable or the necessary funding for Border Patrol. The American people should be made aware when we hear our friends rail on the immigration issue that they have voted time and time again against Democratic amendments over the past 5, 6, 7 years to increase funding for Border Patrol so that our borders would be secure. And I hear that, and I just have to laugh because they own it. They own it. They want to indulge in the rhetoric. They want to talk tough. But when it comes to producing the resources so that we can say our borders are safe and secure when it comes to illegal immigration, they are missing in action.

Did we get a Republican vote ever?

What a dangerous thing, Ms. Kaptur, a debt-free America.

They do not want a Wall Street. They do not want a financial market that has not moved upward in 6 years. It has just slid and stagnated. That is what has happened here. All you have got to do is pick up the paper every morning and check the Dow Jones.

Ms. Kaptur, I know that you are still under that cutoff of 40, but it is great having you on board because I feel very lonely here with these young people.

Of course not. I think we all know that is an inaccurate statement, but I think what is interesting or even more interesting----

Is how are we affording these tax cuts? Who is paying? Where is the money coming from? You remember that movie about follow the money?

I think what is particularly disturbing is the reality that we are borrowing money to subsidize tax cuts that are skewed in favor, disproportionately, for 1 percent of the American people, and when you examine the record, and I understand we do not have any charts this evening, but when you examine the record, you discover that we are borrowing money from foreign countries to provide the funding for the tax cut, and that includes the People's Republic of China, mainland China.

Now, I know that there are many in this institution that are very concerned about the emergence of China as an aggressive competitor in terms of the global economy. Some would even suggest that China is a potential adversary, and yet, here we are, borrowing money from the People's Republic of China so that we can confer a disproportionate benefit on the top 1 percent of the American people.

If you give me just another moment, I think I have a chart here and I know that it is difficult to see, but let me hold it up and let me refer to it.

Public debt held by China quadruples under Bush. In the year 2000, American Treasury notes and bills in the possession of the Central Bank of China amounted to $62 billion. That figure today is in excess of $270 billion, four times more in the course of 5 years, four times.

Now, I think you would have to conclude that our relationship with China, both commercially, politically and in every aspect of that relationship, we are losing leverage.

Just a minute. They are holding Treasury notes, and the American taxpayer is sending money to China for the interest payments on those American negotiable instruments, on those Treasury bills. We are supporting education in China.

Not here in the United States but in China.

That China debt has to be updated because China is escalating.

I hate to interrupt. I thank my friend from Florida. They have a plan which is to increase the debt that the American people owe to foreigners.

You know, those numbers that we were talking about in terms of China, that $270 billion, let us just pick a number and try to help me calculate what the interest payments are to the Chinese Government every year, 4, 5 percent? Can we agree on 5 percent, because that is easy?

Well, what we are doing is we have a plan that is a consequence of their fiscal policy and their tax policy that sends in interest payments every year to China, $25 billion a year. Now, when you stop and think about the $25 billion that goes to China from the United States taxpayers every year, what could we do with that $25 billion?

Ms. Wasserman Schultz indicated there was a plan by Democrats regarding energy, ethanol, the use of farm products, biomass. I bet we could fund that program. I bet we could do more with that $25 billion rather than send it to the Chinese, not to reduce principal but simply to pay the interest.

And in addition to China, Mr. Speaker, the OPEC countries, they hold debt, American debt, in excess of $75 billion. Now, 5 percent of $75 billion, you know, is probably $4 billion, something like that. Those are just interest payments, Mr. Speaker, that we are sending to the OPEC countries. I mean, this makes no sense at all. It erodes the strength, the economic strength and the position of the United States of America in the international community.

The President often talked several years ago about creating an ownership society. What he failed to tell us was that America was being sold piecemeal to the Chinese, to OPEC and to the Japanese. I mean, we no longer own our wealth. It is foreign governments, foreign nations that are our competitors and our potential adversaries, according to some, that are buying America's wealth.

Going back to my era, aren't you?

Just like that.

Mr. Speaker, if I can, I ran across a column in one of the publications that circulates throughout here on Capitol Hill. It was actually in the Roll Call newspaper. It was this past Monday when it was published.

The headline is entitled, ``GOP Banking on Economy.''

You know, it is no secret that a growing majority of the American people believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The last poll that I saw just recently exceeded 70 percent of the American people believe that the country is going in the wrong direction. I happen to share that particular view.

It seems to perplex some of our friends and colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that while the economy in terms of macro statistics is growing, that they are receiving no political benefit. I noted that the House majority whip from Missouri, who happens to be a friend of mine and someone for whom I have great respect, had this to say, ``I spend a lot of time wondering about this myself. Why is it that with this incredibly strong economy people do not embrace the economy with the same kind of confidence that everything indicates that they should.'' That is what the House majority whip Roy Blunt said in an interviewed taped by C-SPAN this past weekend.

Let me offer my own explanation.

It is because the benefit of the booming economy is extremely limited. The vast majority of Americans are not benefiting from the economic growth

that is occurring in our country. I think that is reflected in what happened here today in terms of the debate about the new tax cuts that are being proposed, Mr. Speaker, by our Republican colleagues and friends.

Let me just cite some interesting statistics. If you earn between $20,000 and $30,000, the benefit that you will receive from the tax cut that applies to dividends and capital gains amounts to $9 on the average. So as a result of today's work by this Bush Congress, if you earn between $20,000 and $30,000 you received a tax break of $9.

If you earn between $50,000 and $75,000, you got a tax break of $110. But, Mr. Speaker, if you earned more than $1 million, you get a check from Uncle Sam as a tax refund of $42,000. Let us just reflect on that for a moment. Who is benefiting from the policies of the Bush administration and the Bush administration Congress? Let me put this in other words, in different terms.

If you took what happened here today, what this Congress did today, 77 percent of American families, families now, had their taxes reduced by $30. That is 77 percent of American families had their tax bill reduced by $30 at the same time, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, Mr. Speaker, 0.02 percent of American families got a tax break of $42,000.

So what is happening? What we are doing is we are creating an America that is beginning to look like a banana republic. It would appear that those that have and really have, not just have a lot but have a stupendous amount of wealth, are receiving a totally disproportionate share of the prosperity that the country seems to be enjoying. But 77 percent are getting $30.

And to stop and think today, that tax cut, Mr. Speaker, amounted to $70 billion. And you know what, Mr. Speaker, to give that 0.02 percent $42,000, we are going to borrow, we are going to borrow that $70 billion and we are going to borrow it from China, from OPEC, from Japan, from Korea, and from Canada.

We are going to borrow, and you know what, Mr. Speaker? We are going to add to that deficit, and that is why people who are Republicans and conservative Republicans, like our former colleague Pat Toomey, who is the President of the Club for Growth, is saying things like this in the Philadelphia Inquirer, ``There is a very high level of frustration and disappointment among rank-and-file Republicans when they see a Republican-controlled Congress engaging in an obscene level of wasteful spending, and it is really coming home to roost.''

Yes. That is not all he said, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is Mr. Toomey, President of Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group, who served in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, and this is what he is saying about the Republican Congress: ``Republicans have abandoned the principles of limited government and fiscal discipline that historically have united Republicans and energized the Republican base. Too many Republicans have gotten too comfortable in office.''

That is what Pat Toomey, a former colleague, a member of this Congress a short time ago, is now saying about the Bush Congress.

We are saying let us be fair. Fairness here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I asked this today in a hearing in the International Relations Committee of Secretary Zoellick, and he indicated that now the debt is $262 billion that is owed by the United States Government to the Chinese.

I think it is very important. I think that Number 9 explains the reason why the majority whip is perplexed, because what is clear to me is that the economy, if you were a student of economics and took a look at the macro view and saw growth, why the people aren't responding appropriately.

The reality is that the economy, Mr. Speaker, is superb. It is outstanding. It is phenomenal, if you are in the top 1 percent of the American population, Mr. Speaker.

The economy grew.

And by the way, Mr. Ryan, it was interesting tonight on ABC News, for the 16th straight meeting of the Federal Reserve, interest rates were raised.

You know what that means, Mr. Speaker? That means that if you have an adjustable rate mortgage on your home, you are paying more money. You are paying more than that $30 that this Republican Congress refunded to 77 percent of American families today. You are paying a lot more. And the reason is that because of the reckless spending that Pat Toomey refers to here, because of the reckless spending, you are jacking up interest rates, Mr. Speaker.

The majority party in this House, in this Senate, is complicit with the White House in terms of hidden costs like mortgage interest, like credit card interest. A while back it was 11 percent on your credit card. You know what it is today, Mr. Speaker? Today, the average interest rate on your credit card, it is 16 percent. You think that is a savings for the American people? You wonder what's wrong.

And Ms. Wasserman Schultz tells us that the median income for a family in this country has actually declined. And you think the economy is good?

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, please just don't say it is the poor. It is not the poor. It is the middle class.

It is even the relatively affluent. They are not doing anywhere near as well as the top 1 percent.

It is hurting the middle class.

And they are paying 16 percent on that credit card bill.

You forgot one thing, Mr. Ryan.

What do we get? Do you know what we get? We get a price of gasoline per gallon that cost $1.45 4 years ago. We now can buy it for $3.25. That is what we get.

I think this is fascinating, as you go through this litany

of consequences of, you know, Bush, Republican, neoconservative economic policies.

I think what we see here, the cumulative effect in the aggregate of all of these policies is the erosion of the middle class in this country. Debbie, you are correct. More and more people are getting closer to falling into that poverty.

The middle class, if this reckless spending, policies that advantage only the extremely wealthy continue in this country, we won't have a middle class. We will look like some banana republic in Central America.

This is the reality that we face. I think we can all agree that without a healthy vibrant middle class our very democracy is at risk.

But the economy is growing, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the economy is growing.

But the economy is growing. But the economy has grown.

But the economy is growing.

I think just to underscore, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here tonight is the overall Republican economic policy that favors the top 1 percent of the American people.

I think we have made our case. Can I just give you one more statistic?

Back in 1991.

Give me just a minute. Back in 1991, the top 1 percent of the American people, the population, top 1 percent, owned 38 percent of the corporate wealth in this country. One percent in 1991 owned 38 percent of the corporate wealth in this country.

Today, today, the top 1 percent of the American population in terms of wealth owns 58 percent of the corporate wealth.

Let me suggest it is more than just an economic policy that is creating this economic divide in this country that is truly making us a class society that is dangerous for democracy. It is more than that. It has, I would submit, no moral underpinning.

There is no basis in morality for this level of disparity of wealth and income among Americans. This is economic Darwinism. This is, as you said so eloquently, Mr. Ryan, not what America is about. This doesn't reflect the social compact that we all adhere to as Americans, where we encourage individual initiative, but at the same time, recognize mutual responsibilities and a willingness to share.

This is not sharing. This is just, I don't want to use the word ``immoral,'' but it doesn't have, I would suggest, the kind of moral underpinning that reflects American values.

Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of this House.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the hour this past hour, my good friend from Iowa spoke about a variety of different subjects; and he made mention of what we ought to have done in terms of immigration and other issues. In part I agree, and in part I disagree.

But I think what is important and it cannot be stated often enough, whatever the problem is, whether it be the mismanagement of the reconstruction phase in Iraq, whether it be the price of gas at the pump, whether it be illegal immigration into this country, it comes back to one basic fact: that over the course of the past 6 years, 6 years now, this country has been presided over by a Republican administration. President George W. Bush was elected in the year 2000. It is now 2006.

Back in 1994, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan, this House saw for the first time in 40 years a Republican majority. Across this Capitol building, the Senate has been controlled for most of the past 10 years and is currently controlled by the Republican Party.

So what I really cannot understand is why have all these things not been addressed? What has happened to our borders? There are laws on the books now. We have had waves of illegal immigration coming across our borders for the past 6 years.

My friend from Iowa was talking about how many come across daily. Where has this administration been? Where has this Congress been? Are they just waking up? This is not a recent problem. Because the truth is, they can talk about Democrats. They can talk about problems that are out there that are real and that are serious. But they are Washington. They own this town. They run this institution. They run this government. If there is a problem with the price of oil, or if there is a problem with immigration, or if there is a problem with health care or the environment, they had the power to address it.

What I would suggest is that they have failed. They have failed. They have been unable to get their act together. They could build fences. They could have kept the price of gas down. They didn't have to get us into this mess in Iraq.

But that is what they have done. That is the legacy of this White House, confirmed with the stamp of approval by this Congress.

But, Mr. Ryan, they are in charge here. They have to muster up the votes. Where were they? With all due respect to my friend from Ohio, they are in charge of the border. They are in charge of immigration. They are in charge, period. And what have they done? They have failed.

If the gentleman would allow me, the energy bill that passed this Congress just about a year ago, in June 2005, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Speaker, that was a bill that was passed by the Republican majority. It was passed with only minimal support from Democrats.

Do you know what the cost of a gallon of gas was when you pulled up at that gas station back in June of 2005 when this House passed and the President signed the Republican energy bill, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan? It was around $2 a gallon. Let me answer my own question.

Now, do you know what? It is just about a year later, and the fact is a year after this Republican majority passed their bill, their energy act, gas is now $3 a gallon. $3 a gallon. They run this institution. They pass the laws here. This is their bill. This is their $3 a gallon problem. It is all of our problem, but the consequences of what they

have done for the oil and gas industry in this country translates into a problem for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is to the majority in this House and to this administration, where have you been? What have you done? Well, you passed last year the so-called Energy Policy Act. And that basically provided welfare to Big Oil. It produced in excess of $14 billion of tax incentives and subsidies to Big Oil. All

the while their industry, Big Oil, is experiencing record, record profits.

In 2001, the five major oil companies in the aggregate had $34 billion of profit. In 2005, as a result of the Republican energy policy, the oil companies recorded historic profits in the amount of, can you help me, Mr. Meek, read that? Does that say $113 billion?

Is that 113 billion?

So in 2002 it was $34 billion of profits for Big Oil. And in the space of 4 years, actually 3 years, that has trebled to $113 billion.

Now, maybe I am simple minded. But why would this Republican Congress and the White House feel the need to pass an energy bill that was all about protecting the subsidies to the oil companies while there are record, historic profits?

Mr. Speaker, can somebody please explain that to me? And do not tell me about, you cannot drill here and you cannot do that, and you cannot do this. And if Democrats only whatever, fill in the blank. This is the Republican policy.

This is the Republican House of Representatives. This is the Republican White House. The consequences of that policy, the consequences of that policy is the $3 plus per gallon price to the average American as he or she goes into that gas station. That is what it translates into. And Democrats have had nothing to do with it because you are Washington, Mr. Speaker, you are Washington.

I do not even want to explore the motivation. I mean, clearly there is a perspective. But I think what is necessary is to put the facts out in very simple form. And that is really dramatic. The story is told in very dramatic terms by that chart.

The result of the Republican energy policy is when President Bush, working with a Republican Congress, came, was elected, was inaugurated as the President of the United States. By that chart, and I am sure it is well documented, the price of gas was $1.45. And today it is double. It is $2.91.

That is understandable. And what is also irrefutable is that during that time the House, the Senate, and the White House were in power. And the consequences, the consequences of their energy policy, the Republican energy policy, has been a doubling in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Huge increases in the cost of heating ourselves in our homes during the winter, and similarly dramatic increases in the cost of cooling ourselves in the summer, and for those particularly who live in the southern part of our country.

That is the energy policy. But part of that energy policy is to ensure that Big Oil in this country reaps record profits, and simultaneously receives corporate welfare. That, let me suggest to my friends, is the Republican energy policy, period.

Now they are panicked. Let us be honest. Now they are running around. I think it was the majority leader in the Senate. You know, they obviously are polling. It is an election year. And what is clear is that the American people are waking up and are demonstrating their anger.

So they come in with not proposals that would, for example, increase the miles per gallon of our motor vehicles, but let us give everybody, every voter a $100 rebate if they own a car.

I mean, that is laughable. That is really laughable. And how are they going to get the $100, Mr. Speaker, to give to every voter? They are going to go and they are going to borrow the money. They are going to borrow the money from somewhere. OPEC. China. Japan. Korea. So in a difficult political situation, with elections looming, they are going to buy off the voter with $100.

That is a $10 billion bill. And we do not have the money, Mr. Speaker, to do that. We do not have the revenue to do it. We have to go into the financial markets and borrow that money. And this administration has established another record which is that more than 80 percent of the money that we have borrowed comes from overseas, Mr. Speaker, from the Chinese, from OPEC nations.

And you have the chart right there, Mr. Meek. So we go and we borrow the money from foreign central banks, from foreign investors, to buy off the American voter at $100 per, because the American people are angry as a result of the Republican energy policy that has created a potential disaster for our economy.

Can I just add one other. The prescription drug benefit, so-called part D, there was information----

There was information available to the White House that was not provided to the Congress in terms of the costs, and now we are faced with profound problems in terms of the execution and the implementation of that plan. Seniors are frustrated and confused. The so-called donut hole is going to be a stone wall that many seniors are going to run into.

But the head of the Medicare trust fund told the actuary that was in possession of the White House estimates of the costs of the program, that if he disclosed those figures to this Congress, that he would lose his job. In other words, do not tell anybody anything.

It just supports your point about an administration that is shrouded in secrecy, that refuses to be straight with the American people and, I might add, refuses to indulge or to engage, rather, in genuine consultations with the Congress and particularly Democrats. We are kept out of any thoughtful, legitimate, genuine interaction in forming policy.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about the energy policy, it is the Republican policy. It is the Republican $2.91 a gallon at the pump, up from $1.45 four years ago. It is your price per gallon. It is not Democrats. So please do not even suggest that Democrats had anything to do with the price that is breaking the average American family.

Let me just add another illustration.

What it comes down to is that let me go back to the Medicare reform issue, the so-called prescription drug, just to remind our colleagues and the American people that there was no consultation with Democrats about the prescription drug benefit. In fact, there was a so-called conference committee that should have brought Democrats and Republicans together to discuss the proposal, but Republicans in this House chose not to even inform the Democrats on that committee where the conference committee was meeting. They were shut out. They were shut out on that. They are shut out on energy. They are shut out on consultations in terms of the war, what led up to the war.

I mean, this is a problem of our institutions being eroded because of the proclivity of this administration and this Republican Congress to operate behind closed doors and keep out the bad news from the American people and other important policy-makers in our government in our democracy.

Sure. Our e-mail address is www.housedemocrats.gov/ 30something.