Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard many times from the gentleman from Pennsylvania the suggestion that drilling for natural gas is low impact compared to oil drilling. In fact, he even called it clean on the floor today. Unfortunately, this opinion runs contrary to scientific findings on the matter. There are drastic and devastating environmental and economic repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor, drilling into the ocean floor.

Mr. Peterson refers to the use of natural gas as a clean fuel, and that may well be true. But what we are talking about here is drilling into the ocean floor so close to our beaches, that is a problem for both my home State of Florida, as well as the rest of the Nation.

According to the Minerals Management Service, once exploratory drilling begins, the toxic impacts are similar for either oil or gas exploration or development. Drilling operations produce hundreds of thousands of gallons of

drilling muds that routinely discharge toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. None of those seem clean to me.

Water discharged from drilling and exploratory operations often contain dangerous levels of carcinogens and radioactive materials such as benzene, toluene and arsenic. None of those seem clean to me either. The impact is not just limited to the off-shore platform. Natural gas drilling requires on-shore storage and processing facilities, including miles of pipelines, roads, ports, helipads and dorms.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to minimize the perception of the impact of drilling for natural gas, when the reality is that it would generate toxic poisons seeping into our oceans, have a significant impact environmentally on our coastline, and be a significant danger to opening the door, not just to gas drilling, but oil drilling as well.

I urge my colleagues to protect the oceans and breaches of the United States and oppose the Peterson amendment, both this one and the next one that is offered.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, I might also add to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, that this President, our 43rd, has racked up more foreign debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined.

So if we are going to discuss who it is that is responsible for the numbers on your mock-up chart, let's ensure that we put the full blame on the 43rd President who is fully responsible for the number on that chart and fully responsible for the debt that has been accumulated more than the 42 other Presidents combined.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 505, to highlight the important contribution of the recreational boating community and the boating industry to our way of life, and to call upon the President to issue a proclamation asking the American people to observe National Boating Day.

As a Representative of Florida's 20th Congressional District, I can attest to the important contribution recreational boating and the boating industry has had upon South Florida's economy and quality of life. The marine industry is responsible for more than $18 billion of revenues and 220,000 jobs in Florida.

Recreational boating is integral to the way of life in Florida. From fishing to snorkeling to scuba driving in our beautiful coral reefs, or simply taking a scenic cruise through Florida's intra-coastal waterways, recreational boating and South Florida go hand in hand.

In fact, recreational boating is such an important part of Ft. Lauderdale that the city has earned the well-deserved nickname, the ``Venice of America.''

But the contributions of the recreational boating community go far beyond my home State. The boating population exceeds 73 million individuals utilizing and enjoying an estimated 18 million recreational watercraft. In addition, the recreational boating industry provides more than $39 billion in sales and services to the U.S. economy, and provides nearly 380,000 manufacturing jobs.

Boating helps to bring us closer to the wonders of nature, and it helps us to appreciate the need to be goods stewards of our natural resources.

It's no surprise that boaters often are some of our most ardent conservationists, because they see firsthand the importance of protecting our fragile ecosystem for generations to come.

It's for these reasons that I rise in support of H. Res. 505, recognizing the contributions of the recreational boating community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and affluence of the United States. This resolution calls upon the President to issue a proclamation to observe National Boating Day, with an appropriate day being July 1.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 505 and vote for its final passage.

Madam Speaker, I just want to address my comments to the remark by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) where he indicated that there is a 7-percent increase in the legislative branch appropriations bill. That is factually inaccurate.

If you take into consideration the $50 million rescission that we had in the CR for 2007, we are actually at a 2.4-percent increase. Not taking that $50 million rescission, which came out of the Library of Congress, we are actually at a 4.4-percent increase in this bill. So that is factually inaccurate. I want to make sure that we are dealing with facts. My colleague is incorrect.

We have really made an effort, both Mr. Wamp and myself, at being fiscally responsible, recognizing that we are in a difficult fiscal situation and constraining our spending, but at the same time making sure we can focus on life, safety and security needs, and the protection and oversight responsibilities that we need to make sure we can do in this institution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2771, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am pleased to present the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch appropriations legislation for the fiscal year 2008.

The Legislative Branch bill is unique in that it appropriates funding for the entire Capitol Building and Grounds as well as nine legislative branch agencies and the 435 Members of this body and their offices. As a new member of the Appropriations Committee serving as a subcommittee Chair, I recognize the tremendous responsibility that comes along with being steward of this great institution, and I am honored by the confidence and trust that Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and my colleagues have placed in me.

Historically, the Legislative Branch bill has enjoyed the bipartisan spirit that has come to define the Appropriations Committee and my experiences in working with the ranking member have been consistent with that spirit. Over the past several months, I have worked with Ranking Member Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, and other members of the committee from both parties to shape and determine the appropriations for the people's House. We held 14 oversight hearings prior to developing this bill, and I am very proud of our accomplishments.

I want to thank the members of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for their help and input, Vice Chair Lee, Mr. Udall, Mr. Honda, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Wamp, Mr. LaHood, and Mr. Goode. The vast majority of our committee is new to the full committee, and we approached our task with zeal and with dedication.

I would particularly like to thank Ranking Member Wamp for his work on this bill. He has been a good partner, and I appreciate his cooperation and friendship. While we have not agreed on every issue, we worked in partnership to address our differences; and notwithstanding a few issues, they were resolved. I would also like to thank Chairman Obey for his guidance during this process and Ranking Member Lewis for his efforts as well.

Madam Chair, the bill provides $3.1 billion for the legislative branch, not including Senate items. That's an increase of $122 million, or just 4 percent, over the actual spending level in fiscal year 2007. This reflects a $276 million reduction in the total amended budget request, and I think that's an important point that Members should note. We are bringing this bill in under the original request.

We used three guiding principles to develop this bill: fiscal responsibility, security and life safety, and accountability.

In terms of fiscal responsibility, we've emphasized that we need to keep this bill tight with a view towards the long term. We've funded the must-haves over the nice-to-haves and have focused on critical investments. We've held the actual spending increase in this bill to only 4 percent, $122 million, compared to the 13 percent, or $398 million, which was the increase that was requested.

In terms of security and life safety, we've made sure this bill makes the Capitol complex as secure and safe as possible. To this end, the bill includes $50 million worth of critical security and life safety projects, including, at the suggestion and urging of my good friend from Tennessee, interoperable radios for the Capitol Police. It also provides substantial increases to agencies with a direct role in the health/safety of the complex. The Capitol Police receive an 8 percent increase, while the Office of Compliance, which ensures that we protect our visitors and our employees in a safe environment, receives a 23 percent increase.

Finally, in terms of accountability, we've crafted this bill to provide Congress with the resources it needs to perform its constitutional oversight role and hold agencies accountable. We've fully funded House committees and included resources to bulk up GAO to better support our congressional oversight efforts. We've also beefed up

the Capitol Police IG office and established a statutory IG office at the Architect of the Capitol to improve oversight within those two organizations.

In closing, we've kept this bill tight so that we're fiscally responsible. We've done so by prioritizing investments for critical life safety and security needs while providing Congress with the tools it needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer.

Madam Chair, we have a wonderful staff. I'd like to thank my committee staff, my personal staff, and Mr. Wamp's staff: Ms. Tracie Pough and Ian Rayder on my personal staff; Mr. Tom Forhan, our clerk; Rob Nabors, the full Appropriations Committee clerk; Chuck Turner; David Marroni; and Mr. Wamp's staff, Jeff Shockey and Liz Dawson, for their assistance. They have assisted both myself and Mr. Wamp as a new Chair and ranking member with our learning curve and worked countless hours to help produce this product.

Finally, I want to thank, Madam Chair, my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their guidance, patience, understanding and encouragement as we endeavored to craft a bill that was fiscally responsible with an eye toward ensuring that our employees and visitors have a safe and secure environment in which to function, as well as make sure that Congress has adequate resources to engage in our oversight responsibilities.

Madam Chair, it is an honor to serve in this role.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.004

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished vice chair of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Welch for his initiative in moving this issue forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, that's correct. As written in the report, the committee believes it is important to offset the greenhouse gases generated by the House, which is why we have directed the CAO of the House to purchase carbon offsets at the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and credits to successfully offset carbon produced by all House operations.

It is the intent of the subcommittee to eventually encompass all House operations, including travel and district operations. I would welcome this report from Mr. Beard and encourage his recommendations on how we will offset the remaining carbon footprint of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Welch.

I look forward to working together on this important issue.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Thank you for yielding, Chairman Davis. Like you, I am very concerned about the Comptroller General's actions and have personally spoken to him to express my concerns.

I am committed to doing all we can to ensure that the Comptroller General does not put up obstacles to workers' rights to organize. In particular, I am dismayed the GAO, as a legislative branch agency, has retained outside counsel, rather than use its own attorneys to represent it before the Personnel Appeals Board. This action is unnecessarily costly and will likely delay the process of determining the outcome of the petition.

The committee has reiterated these points in report language in this bill. We will be closely monitoring the progress of the Comptroller's review of

eligibility, and we are requiring weekly reports on progress in these areas.

Madam Chair, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the hard work of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

I appreciated as a freshman his assistance during the orientation process and want to assure the gentleman, as I have in conversations with Chairman Brady, that the language in our report, specifically as it relates to the culinary language, is simply a request for the GAO to take a look at that issue so that we can incorporate culinary students in an instructional way in the preparation and delivery of food in the Members dining room. In addition, the disability language, while it is a directive, it was intended to make sure that we could keep the safety and security focus of our legislation.

I do look forward to working very closely with the chairman and the ranking member of the House Administration Committee so that we can make sure that we cover those needs that we have in the House of Representatives and the legislative branch agencies.

And I appreciate the gentleman's kind words.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on environmental issues and look forward to working with her on continuing the Speaker's leadership on the Green the Capitol Initiative, both in terms of planting of the trees and the greening of roofs, and I look forward and appreciate her input.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think it's unfortunate that the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished former chairman of this committee, has chosen this opportunity as a message opportunity, as opposed to working together in a bipartisan way, like the ranking member and I have done, to make sure that we can provide for the safety and security of the facilities of this institution.

He knows full well that the Capitol Visitors Center and the employees of the subcontractors that have been engaged to build that facility, while moving entirely too slowly, and we certainly have decried the cost overruns, are required to hire people who legally may work in this country and are required to ensure that a background check and a security check has been done on them. So his remarks are unfortunate, but everybody makes their own choices.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I am really proud of the work that the subcommittee and I have engaged in. We offer this legislation to the House and ask for their support. We have endeavored to make sure that this bill is fiscally responsible, provides for the life, safety and security of the needs of the people who work here as well as the people who visit us here, and make sure that we can engage in Congress's oversight role and provide for accountability for the American people.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Wamp from Tennessee on making sure that we can consistently

provide those initiatives for the American people.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition even though I am supportive of the amendment.

Madam Chair, very briefly, I fully support this amendment and appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that was endeavored in moving it forward.

I do want to express some concern about how the light bulbs will be adapted to the historical lighting that we have in this facility, in the Capitol complex.

I look forward to working with the sponsors of the amendment as we move this legislation through conference to ensure that that occurs.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and Mr. Wamp as we move through the conference process and commend them, as well as Speaker

Pelosi, for including the shifting from the light bulbs we use now to energy-efficient and environmentally friendly light bulbs as part of the initiative of the greening of the Capitol.

I yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons.

While I support the gentleman, who is from the same generation that I am, in his endeavor to make sure that we can communicate and receive information in an electronic format, the approach that the gentleman is taking is absolutely inappropriate and won't accomplish his goal.

We have crafted a tight and fiscally responsible bill. As I outlined in general debate, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase. We actually held it to $276 million below the total request.

In their traditional views, the minority agreed. They said that, on balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible. This amendment would add to existing shortfalls. It would add to what is already a growing funding shortfall in this account.

To be fiscally responsible, we have had to make some tough choices, including funding levels for GPO. The bill already, our colleagues should know, holds congressional printing and binding $62,000 below what was provided in fiscal year 2007. GPO is expecting an $8 million shortfall in this account in fiscal year 2007 in addition to a $3 million shortfall in fiscal year 2006. These shortfalls are due to the flat funding provided to this account since fiscal year 2007, in spite of increasing costs and workloads. These shortfalls will continue in fiscal year 2008. Eventually they are going to have to be paid.

This amendment would make that situation even worse. Most of the appropriation for congressional printing and binding goes towards Congress' printing requirements. I want to point out that the gentleman is incorrect when he states that there is a statute. While there is a statutory number in the Code that the GPO is told to print, they only print the number that is requisitioned. In other words, they only print, on a daily basis, the number that they are asked for. We have a deficit in the account that allows them to print the number that is asked for. GPO has no control over those requirements. It's required by law to produce the information.

If the gentleman is concerned about the number of printed materials being produced, he should take it up with the authorizing committee, the Joint Committee on Printing, and seek reductions in the amount of material that GPO is required to print in the Code.

Simply gratuitously cutting out and leaving people with the impression that we are doing something, when we are not, and all we are doing here is cutting $3.2 million when GPO will still be required to print the Code, is the wrong approach. The suggestion that this amendment was accepted previously but then cut out in conference also leads people to believe that we have done something when we have not.

I refuse to be disingenuous when it comes to being forthright with the American people. We do need to make sure that in the future the Congressional Record is produced electronically. This is not the right way to do it. It is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the amendment offered by Mr. Flake does not say anything about reducing the number of copies printed of the Congressional Record. It simply cuts $3.2 million out of the Congressional Printing and Binding account. It provides no direction. It simply cuts that funding. There is no assumption that any of what the gentleman is suggesting would occur. It would simply further add to the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe the gentleman has his own time.

How much time do I have left?

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I really believe that we should approach this in the appropriate way. If we want to change the statute and go to electronic production of the Congressional Record, that is what we should do. We should not simply hamstring the GPO by requiring them to print a Congressional Record and not ensuring they have adequate funds to do that, when they are already in a deficit situation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this is a fiscally responsible bill. Again, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase, only $122 million over actual spending in fiscal year 2007, and if you take into consideration the $50 million rescission in the CR, we are at a 2.3 percent increase. That is $276 million below the total budget request.

Again, I want to point to the minority views, where the minority agreed this bill is fiscally responsible. They say, ``On balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible.''

This bill funds the must-have's, not the nice-to-have's, by targeting increases towards keeping the agencies running, providing Congress with the tools it needs to perform its oversight responsibility, and funding critical security and life safety projects.

The amendment, if adopted, would eliminate $50 million worth of critical health and safety and security projects that we would be unable to fund if a 4 percent across-the-board reduction were adopted.

This amendment would eliminate funding for things like the $5 million we have in this bill to ensure that the Capitol Police have interoperable radios. According to the new police chief, a new radio system is their number one priority. The existing radio system is 20 years old. It is antiquated and outdated. It is not encrypted nor secure, and it is not interoperable. Hurricane Katrina showed the importance of interoperable communications during a crisis.

It also would eliminate funding potentially monitoring the utility tunnel abatement. We had tunnel workers who were subjected to horrendous conditions and have been exposed to asbestos, and we are endeavoring to make sure that we can make up for that and provide the funding for the abatement. That would be impossible if this amendment were adopted.

We provide $1.2 million for escape hoods for our Library visitors, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the capital, and emergency lighting upgrades in Rayburn.

The amendment would also impair our agency's work. It would put the legislative branch agencies back to a fiscal year 2006 funding level since there was no increase in 2007.

In practical terms, the impact of this would be less capability on the part of GAO to assist Congress in its oversight responsibilities; fewer and less timely products from CRS to assist Members in their legislative duties, a further reduction in CBO's ability to score Member bills, which was pointed out in the Rules Committee as already being a problem; elimination of the digital talking book conversion program for the blind; a reduced ability for the Office of Compliance to pursue health safety issues around the Capitol complex, even as we get ready to add new space with the approaching opening of the CVC; the Architect's operations would be strained to keep up with increases in utility costs; and, finally, since 77 percent of this bill is labor costs, as is most of the increase, this amendment would surely result in a reduction in our workforce.

It is irresponsible. Mr. Wamp and I have endeavored to put forward a bill that is fiscally responsible, fiscally tight, and ensures the life, safety and security needs of the people who work and visit here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

I would ask that he speak for 1 minute and then we will close in opposition.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the former ranking member of this subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

I want to point out and remind my colleagues that Mr. Wamp and I are proud to report to you that we have brought the legislative branch appropriations bill in at $276 million below the request. The easiest thing in the world to do is jump on the table and to cry waste.

I want to also point out that this is a security upgrade, funding for security upgrades requested by former Speaker Hastert and continued by Speaker Pelosi so that we can ensure that we provide swing space for our very cramped space so that we can properly renovate the Cannon and Longworth House Office Buildings.

I ask my colleagues to come over and look at these pictures of the deterioration of our facilities. These are pictures of the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building. If you take a look at the deterioration and life, safety and security upgrades that this facility needs, we can no longer wait to make these upgrades, and to make sure that we can protect the people who work here and the people who visit us. They are deteriorating and badly in need of renovation.

What the gentleman from Georgia's motion to recommit would do is delay for years, if not make it impossible, for us to begin renovation and repairs on our aging House facilities.

My colleagues, this committee does not deal with the sexiest of subjects that confront us every day, and I have only been here for 2 years and the chair of this subcommittee for the last 5 months. You don't earn a reputation as an institutionalist in that short period of time, but it is my hope to be able to do that over time.

We are stewards of this great institution, but we are also stewards just as much of these facilities. My colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Jose Serrano of New York, recently made a wonderful suggestion to remind us of the history embedded even in what may seem mundane, the space we occupy each day. He suggested that we each have plaques in our offices with the names of our predecessors in Congress who occupied that space before us. My own office, I was thrilled to learn, was once occupied by former Congressman Lyndon Johnson.

My point is they may seem like buildings and office space to the outside world, but we know better. How many of us countless times have found ourselves approaching this beautiful building we are now in and marveling privately to ourselves, wow, I work here, what an incredible privilege.

But with privilege comes responsibility. We must think about the institution, but we must also think about our hard-working staff. The number of hours they toil in these facilities is mind-boggling. You might be surprised to learn that the average work space for each of our staff is about 36 square feet. And I want to show you what 36 square feet is. This is 36 square feet. That is how much space that we allot, on average, to our employees.

GSA recommends an average of 100 square feet of space per employee. We need to renovate so that we can make sure we are not cramming our staff into unreasonable boxes for hours on end. Our staff make incredible sacrifices to serve the public, our constituents, and they help us do our job. We must make sure that we keep these facilities, the place they work every day and night, safe for them. We must make sure we keep these facilities safe and in good condition for our constituents and our successors.

Mr. Kingston's amendment is well-meaning, but it is not responsible, and it is not an eye toward the future with respect for our past. I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Yes, it is. It is an initiative from former Speaker Hastert.

I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2764 and H.R. 2771, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section number and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Ryan and Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be here with my colleagues from the 30-Something Working Group once again.

Just to jump off what our good friend Mr. Murphy was talking about, we are in the midst of the ``New Direction Congress.'' Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek and I spent the last several years on this floor railing about the ``culture of corruption,'' railing against our good friends on the other side of the aisle, whose only interest when they spoke about tax cuts was providing those tax cuts to the wealthiest few in this country.

Now, what is amazing about our ability to move this country in a new direction is that we can really focus on those targeted tax cuts that will help the average working family, the regular folks, the people who don't have the ability to just kick back, put their feet up on the desk and live on Easy Street day in and day out.

We are talking about people who live paycheck to paycheck. Not poor people who live paycheck to paycheck, but people in middle America, who make sure that all their bills are paid, just like we are trying to do here with our PAYGO provision, but make sure all their bills are paid. But it takes every dollar they have to do it.

Then you add to their budget the increased price of gas, which increases the price of food, which impacts everything that regular, everyday working families have to deal with. And we hit them under the Republican-led Congress with an Alternative Minimum Tax, that was never supposed to be directed at them, but ultimately scooped up so many of those hardworking taxpayers. And you know we listened to the garbage rhetoric that is so tired on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman jumped in. It is like either they have a tape recorder that is stuck on rewind, or maybe we are trapped in ``Groundhog Day'' and we don't know it, or maybe they are just tired.

We used to be in meetings, and I have sat in many meetings where I have had colleagues and supporters express frustration because they marvel at our Republican friends' ability to come up with these pithy, cute, packaged messages and that ours aren't as cute and pithy and succinct.

Well, do you know what? That is because we don't have purely simplistic solutions to complex problems. The American people saw right through the pithy, cute, succinct, tired slogans that the Republicans have been throwing at them year after year and don't believe them anymore. They reached the point where they won't just take what they say when they repeat it over and over again at face value.

Mr. Speaker, they also talked about earmark reform. They were railing on and on about earmark reform.

Who brought earmark reform to Congress? We did. Who brought about the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq, hopelessly mired in a chaotic conflict in another country? If you rewind back to pre-November 7, what was their cute, pithy, succinct little saying? Stay the course. We can't pull out. We can't cut and run.

Who is scrambling to make sure they can protect their own political hides now and be supportive of making sure that we can withdraw, but in a responsible fashion? Well, it is they that spend plenty of time talking about that. We are the ones that are bringing about the beginning of the end of this war by putting those votes up on that board and bringing those bills to this floor that they refused to yield on.

Mr. Speaker, when we bring an energy package the week before we leave for the July 4 recess that really begins to make sure that we end our addiction to foreign oil, they will know it was the Democrats. When we make sure we bring about an end to this war in Iraq, they will know it was the Democrats. And they will say repeatedly, ``they'' being the smart American citizens, American voters, they will say to our good friends on the other side of the aisle exactly what they said to them on November 7, after listening over and over to the same tired slogans, ``Talk to the hand. We don't want to hear it anymore. We see through your garbage. And we are voting to make sure we can move this country in a new direction.''

You stand here and scratch your head and wonder how it is they could allow it to get to this point. There is no logical, rational explanation. The only thing I could come up with is, A, they think we are dealing with Monopoly money here and it is not real money and it is not real debt; or, B, it is not really my personal debt, so it doesn't affect my personal bottom line, so it doesn't matter; or, C, which is the worst, they just didn't care.

It just didn't matter. Their rhetoric was of the utmost importance to them. Making sure they could continue to pass tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the debt be damned, the deficit be damned, none of that mattered to them, as long as they could keep their contributors happy.

Mr. Murphy, to add insult to injury, the administration, now that they are not in power here, the administration is using its ability through their agencies to try to cram new formulas down the throats of our hospitals so their reimbursement rate is dramatically impacted, dramatically cut, so that they aren't able to serve the people who need the most help.

So not only are our seniors getting nailed by not being able to make sure that they have truly the lowest possible prices that they can pay, that we could negotiate on their behalf for prescription drugs, but our hospitals are facing major cuts at the hands of the administration without any input from elected officials, just bureaucrats in the Bush White House's administration.

They actually have one proposed formula change that would presume that hospitals are just going to game the system, so they are cutting money out of their budgets, just because. Pretty much just because they think they are going to play with their numbers. Because they are going to make that assumption, they are going to take the money away, rather than prove that they do that and then take the money away.

That is accountability? That is like what is that game that you play on the street, Three Card Monte. They are playing Three Card Monte with people's health care. I don't know. Maybe it is because most of the people who run this country in the Bush administration can afford to pay their own medical bills, so maybe it is just they have hired too many people who don't understand what it is like to try to pay the bills every month. Really, it is just beyond baffling.

It is people who need to be able tomorrow pay for their gas in their car and who are running businesses who need to pay for the vehicles their employees are operating so they can make sure they can serve their customers so they can stay in business and pay their employees. Those are the people they are not thinking about.

I had a press conference a couple of weeks ago with Congressman Klein who also replaced a Member in a district that had not been represented by a Democrat for 26 years. We were out there with some of our small business owners who talked about the impact of gas prices on their bottom line.

I have a constituent in Southwest Ranches who runs a repair business. He literally last year employed 24 people, Mr. Ryan, and now employs 14. He directly attributes this to the fact that he can't afford the gas that he needs to be able to run his trucks around to the businesses that want to hire him to do the repair work. That is just unbelievable.

Could I ask you a question, Mr. Ryan? We are both on the Appropriations Committee and the committee is working very hard in a bipartisan way, I might add, to produce a product that we can really have the American people be proud of.

Is the President talking about signing this bill into law?

Vetoing this bill. Isn't this the same President that talked, again more words, no action, talked about the need for America to end our addiction to foreign oil in his State of the Union that we sat right in this Chamber and heard him say?

You know, Mr. Murphy, what you and Mr. Ryan just outlined is what Speaker Pelosi always talks about when we are in our Caucus meetings and when I have heard her talk about the direction that she is helping us lead this country, and that is the budget, and by extension the appropriations bills, are an expression of our values.

Mr. Ryan, you talked about our colleague on the other side, and I was in the Chamber when you stood up and talked about that. It really is an expression of our values and a stark contrast in the difference between ours and theirs. Their values were expressed in the energy bills that they passed in the 109th Congress, which gave away $14 billion in subsidies to the oil industry, which when we came into the majority we included in our first 100-hour agenda. The first six bills we passed, one of those was repealing those $14 billion in subsidies so we could responsibly use that money to expand alternative energy research. We earmarked that money appropriately and are holding it so that we can make sure we spend it on really ending our addiction to foreign oil.

So if you look at the Homeland Security bill, the Military Construction bill, the Energy and Water bill, all of the appropriations bills that we are going through right now, they are an expression of our values. They show these stark and clear differences between the way we choose to take this country, in the direction we choose to take this country, versus the direction that they had us on, which was careening into oblivion.

No, but you do have to be listening. It is very easy to stand as a Member of Congress in front of a group of people, have a town hall meeting, be in a room sitting on your couch in your office, and you are there but you are not listening.

These are bills, because it is plural, that truly think about what the needs are of the average person, the person that we have been talking about for this whole hour that has a paycheck come in and has to figure out how they are going to pay all the bills with the money that comes in.

The help that we need to give them to do is to make sure not that we put money in their pocket, because like you said, Mr. Ryan, government can't do everything. Government is here to provide assistance when it is needed, when the person doesn't have the ability to deal with the issue on their own.

Like the cost of a student loan, like making sure that they earn a minimal amount of money so they can pay their bills and making sure that the government ensures that the domestic homeland security needs are taken care of, that we have an appropriate number of Border Patrol which has been woefully and inadequately funded under the Bush administration.

They spend a whole lot of time beating on their chest and saying how important it is that we have a strong Border Patrol. The Bush administration did not fund as many or even ask for as many Border Patrol agents as the Clinton administration did. It is just rampant hypocrisy. That is all I have seen in the 2\1/2\ years that I have been here. It is blah, blah, blah. All they do is talk, and it is hollow and empty behind the words.

They have the wrong kind of transparency on their side of the aisle, and folks see through it. That is why they are counting on us to make sure that we take care of these things.

Mr. Ryan, you try to come up with what you can compare this to as far as the situation we are in and who we are dealing with here. It is like we are in the 21st century and we are negotiating with the Cro Magnon man, people who are stuck in the Paleozoic era. How do you even begin a conversation?

If it is not their values, maybe it is that they are literally--maybe the tape recorder is broken. Maybe they are stuck in the age of dinosaurs. You can watch TV and see there are commercials on with Cro Magnon man. Maybe they have infiltrated the United States Congress.

I know, I know, I am going to offend the cavemen. But we work with a lot of them. People who think like cavemen. That is not a constituency I have to worry about too much right now. Really, that is what we have to deal with.

Can you imagine sitting around the negotiating table with a caveman. How easy would be it to move the caveman off their view. Not very easy. We need the American people to help continue to communicate with our colleagues and tug them into the 21st century where we are dwelling.

They brought it on themselves. They have only themselves to blame.

We need some more bipartisanship. And the Six in 06 agenda, the Medicare legislation to ensure that we can negotiate for lower drug prices, the repeal of the $14 billion in subsidies, the passage of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the minimum wage, those bills had an average of 65 Republican votes. We are glad to have the rank and file Members who clearly were stymied and strangled by their leadership in the majority who are willing to do the right thing and come along with us.

I wish we could see more of that bipartisanship and wide open eyes on the war in Iraq because we still have a bunch of lemmings who continue to just be willing to walk off the plank and not ask any questions and continue the same mantra. It is really startling.

The bills that we put out on this floor to establish a timeline and to establish benchmarks and to ensure that we can begin to turn this conflict over to the Iraq government, maybe we got two Republican votes on those bills. And one we got one Republican vote on it.

You know, over the weekend, because we have been waiting, and they all say wait until September. There are 14 who went to the White House and said to the President, you have until September. We are going to hang with you, but in September we better see some results or else.

Over the weekend, in my papers we saw commentary from General Petraeus who said, you know, it is not looking like we are going to be able to do any significant draw down or any draw down of troops in September. In fact, we may need to be in Iraq for 10 years. Ten years.

Mr. Speaker, my children will be adults in 10 years. My oldest kids are 8. That means we will have spent virtually because what we are going on, 6 years in Iraq now, that means we will have spent my children's entire life in Iraq. Can you imagine. Their entire childhood twisted and mired in another country's conflict that we created for no good reason or at least for a reason that wasn't accurate with an administration who can't admit when they are wrong. There is no bipartisanship there, and let's just make that clear.

When, God forbid, when we are still twisted in this war in Iraq next year, we will do our best that we vote to bring those troops home and establish those benchmarks and some accountability. But if we don't have the votes to override a veto with our Republican colleagues, we will still be there next year, and that is what is going to decide the 2008 election.

It is not that I hope that happens because I don't. I want to make sure that the troops come home and are reunited with their family, but we will have a Democratic President at that point because the American people are done. Stick a fork in them, done.

Two things I just wanted to add on that. For veterans, it means the largest single increase in the 77-year history for veterans health care in the Veterans Administration. What that means is that the people that I serve and that you serve that are veterans who are waiting 7 and 8 months to get their health care taken care of at their local VA hospitals, they're going to get taken care of. Actions to match words, just like the gentleman from Connecticut said.

Same here.

Would it be none?

That would be none

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

Thank you, Mr. Altmire.

And I am going to maybe abbreviate my view on what happened last week and just call it what it is: hypocrisy.

Where were our good friend on the other side of the aisle when they controlled this process for 12 years? And I am not going to spend a lot of time on the process because that is all they have because if they allow the debate to turn to the substance of the legislation, the substance of the appropriations bills that we are moving forward and will pass off this floor, with the vast majority of them supporting it because they have to, because when they admit that the substance of the legislation that we are putting forward in the Homeland Security bill, in the military construction bill, in the other bills that will be coming forward to this floor, they have to admit that not only are they good bills but they go much further and do a much better job of providing for the needs of this country than they ever did.

On the floor last week, I took an opportunity to spend a few minutes debating the process with them. One of the things that I had an opportunity to engage in debate on was where was their outrage on the other side when they controlled this process? Where were the reformers, leaping to their feet, urging and pounding on their leadership to adopt transparency and to adopt a process in which they could have the maximum amount of input into earmark reform?

The answer is it was nonexistent because they didn't care about it. It didn't matter to them. They were very happy fat and happy to take all the earmarks they could get, bring them home, tied up with their lobbyists and their friends and their culture of corruption, all twisted up and intertwined, and that is what their process was like. And our process is clear and transparent and participatory and inclusive, and they can't stand it. So what they have to do is they have to try to muck up the perception of what we are doing here because if they acknowledge what is really going on, not only have we adopted a more inclusive, more transparent process when it comes to earmark reform, but the substance of our legislation they have to support because they know that we are going much further than they did.

I want to go beyond process, though, to President Bush's veto threat of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. He actually has threatened to veto this bill, which is just absolutely astonishing. And one of the things that I

have heard him articulate, Mr. Meek and Mr. Altmire, is that if the Congress proposes to spend $1 over what he proposed in his administration's budget that he would veto any of that legislation. And that includes the Homeland Security bill, which provides for the homeland security needs for our border protection, for our first responders, for the 9/11 Commission recommendations that we passed in the first bill out of this Chamber during our 100-hour push for the Six in 06 agenda, and the President is actually proposing to veto a bill that would ensure that we spend more money on protecting our homeland domestically.

You know, you can argue process and earmarks and reform and all that. But at the end of the day, that is the stark contrast that people of this country have to choose from. When they go to the polls next November and when they evaluate how they think a Democratic Congress is doing versus how a Republican Congress did, at the end of the day, we are passing a Homeland Security appropriations bill that will really provide for the domestic homeland security needs, as opposed to continuing to twist us up and mire us in the war in Iraq with an endless, open-ended commitment that never proposes to get us out of there.

On top of that, we have a President who has been critical of a military construction bill that will provide for the largest single increase in veterans' health care in history. I mean this is how backwards their priorities are. Under the Republican control, their goal was to help lobbyists, was to make sure that they brought home as many earmarks that were pushed by lobbyists as they could. And, instead, what we are doing here is we have transparency, where people will know, anyone can know, who is sponsoring an earmark, where any Member can offer an amendment to strike an earmark, where any Member can offer to sponsor an earmark. Members will be able to participate in the conference process, which you would think that that would be a normal thing, but it wasn't normal under the Republicans because you couldn't even participate as the minority in the conference process.

But at the end of the day, all of that has been a deliberate distraction because they can't argue with the content of our appropriations bills because they are much stronger and go much further and do more for the country than they did. They don't win that debate. They don't win a head-to-head, toe-to-toe debate on the substance, so they have to try to distract people with the process. And that is what I am hopeful that we can get into in this 30-Something hour and future special order hours that we participate in, because what we need to make sure we focus on is the substance of our legislation, because they would like nothing better than to twist us up in debate on process.

Mr. Meek.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

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

If the gentleman will yield, I am so pleased. We are all pleased that we have been joined by Mr. Altmire and the 40 other Democratic freshmen in his class who are majority makers who came to Congress to help us move this country in a new direction and make it possible to move this country in a new direction.

The stark contrast you are talking about, where you have tired old, same old, do business as shall Republicans standing with the Republican standing with the President, supporting his veto, his suggestion that he would veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Now, I sit on the Appropriation Committee so I know what is in that bill and had an opportunity to comment on it and participate in it, and I am proud to have supported it.

But I would like Mr. Altmire, given that he is part of the new direction Democrats and our freshmen class who brought us to this point, to outline for us, let's talk just exactly what the

President is talking about vetoing. Let's outline that for folks.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman outlining what the President has been threatening to veto.

I want to take it a step beyond the Homeland Security appropriations bill and outline a few of the other bills all related to homeland security that the President has also threatened to veto. Tonight what we aim to show, fact versus fiction, is basically who is for homeland security and who is just kidding, who is just talk, who is just a lot of hot air, versus who is supportive of putting forward substance.

The only thing I can think of in terms of a reason that you have these veto threats and suddenly the President discovers ink in his pen, never having threatened a veto in his first 6 years, instead of an ``R'' next to the idea there is a ``D'' next to the idea. Now this is from a person who has talked a really nice story about being bipartisan and working with the Democratic Congress. This is how he has been proposing to work with the Democratic Congress: proposing to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill which has a lot of very important issues that went unaddressed by the Republican Congress.

Also, threatening to veto the 9/11 Commission recommendations which was his own 9/11 Commission. We just passed that bill in our Six in 06 agenda with a vote of 299-128. And that would fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

The Homeland Security authorization bill which is the statutory provisions in Homeland Security that go with the appropriations bill, he has threatened to veto that. That authorizes $40 billion for the activities of the Department of Homeland Security and includes strong accountability measures which were nonexistent under the Republican majority.

He has threatened to veto the rail and transit security bill, H.R. 1401, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop plans to protect rail and mass transit and authorizes $6 billion over 4 years in grants to protect those systems. We don't have a system in place to protect rail and mass transit.

In south Florida, we don't have a really strong mass transit system. You do in the major populations across the country. How many times have you been on a train and been checked or gone through security? There are no security measures around our rail system. We proposed legislation to do that, and the President is threatening to veto that.

The Dubai Ports bill, maybe people have forgotten about the proposal that the administration was completely supportive of and allowed to sail through their FISA process that would

have allowed essentially a state foreign-owned company to own port terminals in America. I mean, that just sailed through the administration's process. They basically ignored Federal law and allowed it to happen. We passed a law to tighten that. That passed 423- 0. No threat to veto there. We weren't going to allow that situation to continue. We need to ensure foreign countries do not own our port terminals and further undermining our security in America.

Now we have passed the military construction appropriations bill that would ensure that we have the largest single increase in veterans health care in American history, in addition to the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act which responds to the Walter Reed scandal, also ignored by the Republicans. That passed 426-0, but it took Democrats to pass that legislation.

Really what this is about is who is for homeland security and who is just talk; who is for homeland security and who is just kidding. At the end of the day, actions are what speak louder than words. It is what you learned in kindergarten: Follow what people do, don't just listen to them talk, talk, talk. We have to show the American people what the Democrats are trying to accomplish that Republicans and this President is trying to block.

And you can e-mail us as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important legacy of Virginia Graeme Baker, a 7-year-old child who was the unfortunate victim of entrapment by a residential spa drain.

On June 15, 2002, Graeme attended a pool party with her entire family, her mother Nancy and her four sisters. Everyone was having a great time swimming, when all of the sudden, one of Nancy's daughters came running to tell her that Graeme was in the spa. Nancy ran to the edge of the spa, and all she saw was dark and bubbling water.

Her daughter, frantically crying and pointing into the tub, insisted that Graeme was there. Nancy jumped into the spa and saw Graeme with her eyes pinched closed, her hair and limbs moving with the current of water from all the jets on the side. Graeme was entrapped by the powerful suction of the drain spa and could not free herself.

Nancy pulled and pulled with all her strength to help her daughter. It eventually took the strength of two adults to free Graeme from the spa. It was sadly too late; Graeme passed away in the hospital later that afternoon.

I can only imagine the immeasurable grief that her mother and Graeme's entire family went through. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the fifth anniversary of Graeme's death, and I want to take this moment to acknowledge the enormous loss suffered by the Baker family.

Following Graeme's death, Nancy and her father-in-law, former Secretary of State James Baker, became and still are tireless advocates for children and children's safety. When I met Nancy, I was immediately taken by her tragic story of the loss of her daughter.

I was most affected by Nancy's incredible desire to ensure that what happened to Graeme did not happen to any other child. Nancy has channeled all of her energies into raising the issue of pool and spa drain entrapment, a hidden hazard responsible for hundreds of injuries and numerous deaths, to a national audience. Her passion is an inspiration to me, and I am proud to sponsor the Pool and Spa Safety Act, H.R. 1721, in memory of Graeme Baker.

I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, the lead Republican sponsor of this bill, Chairman Bobby Rush and Chairman John Dingell for their support of this badly needed legislation.

The progress made on the Pool and Spa Safety Act would not be possible without the hard work of the entire Baker family. I hope my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, join me in honoring Virginia Graeme Baker, a remarkable little girl, and her mother Nancy whose dedication and tenacity is truly making the world a safer place for all of our children.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his leadership on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and I applaud him and members of the subcommittee who helped craft this bill.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill is a top priority for the country, and it should be a top priority for every Member of this body.

Now, let's be clear. This bill protects the American people on Wall Street and on Main Street, on your street and on my street. We owe it to the American people to provide the highest levels of safety and security possible, and this bill does just that. The legislation will help protect our homes, families and communities from those who would do us harm.

This bill protects our borders. It fully funds the Customs and Border Protection Agency and adds 3,000 new Border Patrol agents to secure our borders.

This bill funds our first responders and provides them with the critical equipment that they need. It ensures that our own local police departments have access to the information and intelligence they need to perform a meaningful role in counterterrorism.

This bill restores the President's cuts to firefighters to ensure that those who protect our homes, our small businesses, our schools and our communities have the resources that they now lack to keep us safe.

The bill restores critical interoperability funding that will allow local police, firefighters and emergency responders to communicate during a crisis.

This bill protects our airports and our airplanes with baggage screening funding, and it protects our ships and seaports with funding for maritime security.

Mr. Chairman, I have my 8-year-old daughter with me this week, and as we observe the antics from my friends across the aisle, I'm reminded of a game that my daughter often plays with her friends called Consequences. Probably each of us has played that game at one time or another, but not when the stakes are as high as they are in this Chamber.

Basically what happens is, each child writes down on cards an event and a consequence of that event. The cards are shuffled and read out loud in a muddled sequence, with one event leading to consequences that then make no sense at all. This is not child's play, and Members of the people's House play the game of Consequences at their peril.

By obstructing this critical bill, they have elevated the politics of pork over the security of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans should stop playing the political game of consequences and join Democrats in focusing on getting things done and protecting our homeland, because the real consequences of holding up this bill are serious. That is what the election on November 7, 2006, was about.

I was elected in the 109th Congress, and I didn't see any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leaping to their feet to demand that their name be published next to the appropriations request that they submitted. I didn't see anybody leaping to their feet on the other side of the aisle insisting on reform. Where were the reformers on the other side of the aisle in the 109th, in the 108th, in the 107th, in the 106th? Where were they?

Now, suddenly, they're leaping to their feet, saying to the American people that they know what the election on November 7 was about. Why didn't they do any of this or insist on any of this before now? Because they didn't believe in it.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, if you had one, it was not evident. It was absent because one of the main reasons that the people insisted upon putting Democrats in the majority and moving this country in a new direction is because there was an absence of reform here, an absence of oversight, an abdication of the Congress' responsibilities.

And that's why Democrats are in charge. That's why we are making sure that we actually reform the process, put transparency into the appropriations process, own up to the earmarks that we sponsor and make sure that people know what we're asking for when we want to bring home funding to our districts, not do it in the shadows as was the practice up until the 110th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor Norman Rosenshein, Commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America for his tireless efforts and dedication on behalf of America's veterans. Jewish War Veterans of the USA, is the oldest active veterans association in the United States, founded by civil war veterans in 1896. Today, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA is dedicated to those programs that support the needs of our veterans' community; combat anti-Semitism and bigotry; support American youth through scouting, scholarships and anti-drug programs; and assist oppressed Jews worldwide.

Mr. Rosenshein served in the U.S. Army on active duty from December 8, 1964 until December 7, 1966. He joined the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America in January 1970. Since 1970, he has been an active member of David Blick Post 63 of Elizabeth, NJ. During that time Mr. Rosenshein has held all of the post offices until finally in August of 2006 when he was elected National Commander.

In addition to the Jewish War Veterans, Mr. Rosenshein is active in his congregation, having served as their Vice President. Because of his expertise, Mr. Rosenshein was appointed to the New Jersey Healthcare System Veterans Stakeholder Advisory Group in 1995 and presently serves on their committees. I applaud Mr. Rosenshein's whole hearted commitment to the Jewish War Veterans. He has proved himself a tenacious advocate and his continuous contribution for their welfare and wellbeing is truly commendable.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June 11, 2007, at 12:30 p.m., for morning-hour debate.

You have just known me longer.

Thank you, Mr. Meek. It is a pleasure to be here. We have been trying to get the three of us back together again. It is a good problem to have. We have a lot more on our plate now that the Democrats are in the majority. The other good part of our problem is that we have expanded the active members of the 30-Something Working Group, with the Speaker that is in the chair this evening and a number of other Members, Mr. Altmire, and we are really happy about that.

But I am glad the three of us were able to come back together this evening to continue our effort to speak to both our generation and to the American people, the rest of the American people, about our concerns and the Democratic new direction that we have been successful in moving in since November 7th when we were victorious in the election and when the American people indicated to this Congress that they wanted to move in a new direction.

We struggled through the last number of years. Gradually, and unfortunately a cloud hung over this institution and this Capitol, a culture of corruption had developed, Mr. Ryan, and we just could not allow it to continue any longer. The American people were fed up with it, and that is why tomorrow we are going to be considering lobbying reform and ethics reform, so that we can inspire the confidence of the American people once again in their leaders, both as individuals, because traditionally they have said to pollsters that they support their Member of Congress, they like their Member of Congress, but they can't stand the institution.

That is a sad state of affairs. We need to make sure that our institution, the one we are proud to serve in, is one that the American people can be proud of as well. There has been too much corruption here, unfortunately led by individuals formerly in the leadership in this institution on the other side of the aisle for far too long, and we need to take some significant steps to clean it up, which is why we are going to be considering this legislation on the floor tomorrow.

We also talked about during the campaign and leading up to, and now since Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, took office, that we are going to implement the priorities that were important to the American people, including the minimum wage. We passed our ``Six in 06'' agenda in the first 100 hours that we were in the majority. The minimum wage was part of that. The implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations was a part of that. Making sure that we could repeal the $14 billion in subsidies that we gave away to the oil industry under the Republican leadership, that was a part of that package, and a number of other provisions.

Our priorities since taking control of the House of Representatives have been a reflection of the priorities of the American people.

We have been interacting with this President, which in my experience the only thing I can analogize it to, Mr. Ryan, is like trying to move an iceberg. This is a person who occupies the White House now that seems to have no respect for the system of checks and balances, no respect for the fact that the Founding Fathers created three branches of government that were considered coequal, and that he was not elected king of this country. The Founding Fathers very definitely intended for us not to have a monarchy, not to establish a monarchy, and he doesn't get to just decide what is going to happen, particularly when it comes to war and executing the powers of the Presidency. He does have to have input from us.

I can tell you from my perspective, I think from your perspective, Mr. Meek, and Mr. Ryan as well, that this is the beginning of the end. The actions we have taken, insisting upon him not having a blank check and ending the blank check and the open-ended commitments that have been there, it is the beginning of the end.

Thank you. What we are doing, you are absolutely right, Mr. Ryan, is creating an incubator for al Qaeda. That is exactly what has occurred. In fact, if you recall, we heard a few years ago a lot of back and forth from the President about whether he did or didn't say that the reason that we actually went into Iraq was because of the connection, supposed connection, between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Then I know Tony Snow, the White House Communications Director, has said no, we never did say there was any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Now, yesterday and this morning at the Coast Guard Academy graduation, now, finally, how many years into it, he can hang his hat on there being a connection between al Qaeda and our involvement in Iraq.

Why? Because he created that situation there. Because we created an incubator and a hotbed that is an environment for that. Of course, if you have a culture like that, and I mean the culture in which bacteria will grow, just like a petri dish, if you create a petri dish like that and culture it, of course you are going to see the bacteria grow. If you create an environment in which bacteria can grow, it is going to explode like wildfire.

No wonder. It boggles my mind why he believes that what he is saying is not transparent to the American people. It certainly is transparent and evident in the polling numbers, because he has literally an approval rating in terms of the way he has handled this war that is below 30 percent now.

You would think that politically we would delight in that as Democrats. But it actually makes me sad, because how can a President be effective on any other issues when he clearly won't even be able to get the American people to listen to what he is saying because they are so soured on the direction that he has taken this country? That makes it very difficult for us to even reach out in a bipartisan way and attempt to work with him, because he has no credibility at all. He has his own party Members who are finding it very difficult to do anything in terms of their agenda domestically, and we don't see any outreach. He has created an impossible situation, Mr. Meek.

That is what it is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Meek.

I have to tell you, I have thought recently when people come up to me, you would think that there are people that would say, Debbie, Kendrick, Tim, what does it really matter? We have been spending billions of dollars for the last 5 years. We are over there in Iraq. Yeah, the American people are opposed to this, and we are in a pretty bad situation over there, and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight, but how does this affect my life? At the end of the day I am eating, my children are eating, they are going to school. Iraq is far away, and it is not impacting me whether we continue the war in Iraq or don't continue the war in Iraq.

Gradually day by day, the percentage of people that don't feel that way, that get it, that understand what the impact is, not just on the perception of America in the world, but what the domestic day-to-day impact is, is growing.

Besides the President's popularity ratings, which are in the toilet, we have a situation here where people are realizing, for example, that our National Guard is unable to be 100 percent ready to take care of us and do the job that we actually created the National Guard to do.

Mr. Meek, next Friday is June 1, the official start of hurricane season, even though we have had activity a few weeks in advance of the beginning of hurricane season. And yesterday NOAA came out with their prediction on how busy this storm season is likely to be, and their prediction is 10 to 14 named storms, and a good chunk to be in the category 3, 4 or 5 category.

We have a National Guard that has equipment that is still over in Iraq, and when it does come back, it comes back in such terrible shape, it isn't going to be ready to take care of Americans who are in need after the aftermath of a natural disaster. That is a direct result of our inability to extricate ourselves from Iraq, our inability to hold the Iraqi Government accountable, to establish benchmarks, to make

sure that there is some progress made, and that they don't have an open-ended commitment and a blank check even after the Iraqi Parliament, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, have indicated that they don't want us there anymore.

There was a resolution that came out of the Iraq Parliament that indicated they didn't want us there. There is an incredible frustration among the Iraqi people about our being there. There is a worldwide concern about our presence there; and, most importantly, the American people want us to bring the troops home so that we can refocus the attention that we are paying in Iraq on training those troops to stand up on their own and for the Iraqi Government to function on their own.

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

Like happens to you sometimes, my blood is starting to boil because all that it takes, I'm sitting here listening to this back and forth that we're going through here and example after example about the reasons for the American people's outrage, for our outrage, for our persistence in trying to move this iceberg and get some progress and end the blank check and establish some accountability.

You know, it's very simple. All the President has to do is be a diplomat himself and agree to come to the table and compromise and negotiate and end the my-way-or-the-highway politics. He is not king. Yes, he was elected President, but he was elected to one branch of the government, which, the way our government is set up, is designed to work coequally with this branch of government.

He has disdained the legislative branch, and this is the representative body of the United States of America. The people who elect us elect us to be their voice. They elect one person, an executive, and they elect 435 of us so we can have a collective diversity of opinion and that the result in terms of the outcome of policy is a combination of that diversity. And he has no respect for it, and that's why his numbers are where they are. That's why the support for this President, the bottom has dropped out of it.

And that's why over the next several months we will push this iceberg with all our might, and I can feel it, that their ability to continue unabated with the disdain and disregard that this administration has shown for the American people and our opinion, it will come to an end and it's going to come to an end in a fashion that we will help bring about the change that the American people ask for. And that is the only way that this is going to happen, if we continue to fight, we continue to push hard, we make sure that we go out to our communities like we will all do next week.

I know I'm having a town hall meeting next Wednesday in my district to talk specifically about the war in Iraq and how people feel about it, get their feedback, talk about the other issues that are important to them, because people are tired. They're tired of the war. They're sick of the deaths. They're sick of the death toll, and they want us to be able to talk about how we're going to expand health care.

We have the SCHIP program that we need to reauthorize later this year. We

have 9 million kids that we need to find the money to cover. We have to make sure we can reduce the cost of health care for small businesses. We have a deficit that has ballooned out of control, that we're trying to get a handle on, no thanks to our friends on the other side of the aisle.

We have a lot to do, a long to-do list, and it would be great if the President would just recognize that we all need to work together and end his disrespect for the American people and for the democratic process because it's gone on for far too long. And we have a lot at stake here.

And I just have reached my level of frustration. I know my constituents have, and that's why I'm proud of our caucus because we have hung together. We have stuck together and pushed and pushed and pushed each other so that we can get behind a policy that not all of us are 100 percent behind. Everybody didn't get their way with the legislation that we put forward with benchmarks and timelines. But you know what? That's what this representative body that we were elected to is all about. It's about compromise and it's about standing up for the people who don't have a voice. They elected us to be their voice and I have been very proud to be a Member of this institution, really proud of our Democratic leadership.

And I'm just hopeful that we can get beyond this war and start talking about things like the $3.22 a gallon that our constituents are paying, on average, for their gas as we approach the summer season as well.

I think you are right. I think also, as the summer begins and then wears on and we have an opportunity in the summertime to go home and spend some time in our districts and interact with our constituents, that the issues that pile up, at we're going to have a difficult time dealing with, because we are still mired in this hopeless war in Iraq, are going to continue to fray the patience of the American people, and I think our friends on the other side of the aisle will hear from their constituents.

I keep wanting to move a little bit and talk about gas prices, and I'm chomping at the bit to do that because you've heard me talk about this before. I'm one of those minivan moms. I drive my kids around in my minivan to soccer games and to school. And last summer when we were frustrated with the rise in gas prices, I remember exploding on the floor here talking about how it cost over $55 to fill up my gas tank. And then, of course, conveniently, right before the election, the prices came down again. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that an election was imminent, and I'm sure the oil industry didn't do anything deliberate to ensure that that would happen.

But amazingly it is now May and those gas prices have not just crept but leapt back up, and I want to just share with you the timeline that has existed since this administration took over in the executive branch.

We are now paying more than double for gas than when President Bush first took office. This chart will illustrate that the average price per gallon on January 22, 2001, at the beginning of the Bush administration, was $1.47, and then as of May 21, 2007, just a couple days ago, the average price per gallon today is $3.22.

Now, what that means is that amounts to real money. When you're talking about it costing 20 or so dollars to fill up your tank or $25 to fill up your tank, that's a manageable amount of money.

But when you get to $50, $50, Mr. Murphy, is an amount that I think about. I mean, when I am faced with paying a bill that's $50, that's real money to me. To me, that gives me pause. I have to make a decision, normally, about other things unrelated to things that I absolutely have to have like gas, about whether or not I am going to actually spend $50. Do I have the money? What else will I not be able to buy if I spend $50 on this item?

Gas is not like that. Gas is something that's not optional. You have to drive your kids to school. You have to make sure you can get your car to the grocery store. If you don't go to the grocery store because you don't have gas, your family doesn't eat. If your kid is sick and you can't fill the gas tank, then you can't take them to the doctor, and they get sicker. How are you going to get them to the emergency room if they get so sick that you need that kind of health care? Those are real problems that Americans face when gas prices reach that point.

What we are doing in the Democratic Caucus and as we continue to fight to move this country in a new direction is we are working on an energy package that we will bring to the floor by July 4, an energy independence package that will ensure that we can crack down on price gouging, like the legislation that we passed off this floor yesterday, that we can really start to respond to the oil cartel and make sure that they are pursued for the antitrust violations that they engage in, and that we really invest in alternative energy.

The President's remarks during the State of the Union last year were just words. When he referenced his desire to see America end our addiction to foreign oil, nice words, but no action to speak of. Nothing that I can see in any policy is reflective of the words that we heard in this Chamber during that State of the Union. We, on the other hand, are going to make a difference.

Mr. Murphy.

We are wrapping up in a few minutes, but I have got this gas tank replica here, which is pretty ancient-looking. It's actually decrepit itself. I bring it with me to the floor because it is the only explanation that I can find as to why our good friends on the other side of the aisle and this President seem totally unresponsive in trying to address this problem and work with us.

My only explanation is that perhaps they don't pump their own gas, or perhaps the last time they actually filled their own tank, and saw that ticker, and realized how much it cost to fill up a tank is when gas pumps look like this. That's my only explanation, given this is the 30- something Working Group. Maybe it has been since the 1950s that they filled their own tank, unlike the people that we represent, who are trying, struggling to fill their tank every day.

We are going to continue to back up our words with action. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 30-something Working Group under the leadership of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

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