Floor Statements

That is absolutely right, and we are here because it is imperative that we move this country in a new direction. Americans are begging us to take us off the course we are on now.

It is such a privilege to be here with you. We have been good friends for more than a dozen years now. It is just a privilege to share a community with you, to share constituents who really have been clamoring not just in south Florida where we live but all across the country. You and I travel the country talking to Americans in so many places, and it does not matter. What I found and I know you have, too, it does not matter what walk of life they come from. It does not matter whether they are wealthy or middle class or lower income. No one that I have spoken to says, Debbie, yes, yes, you know, let us keep it right the way we are going, you know, just keep going in the same direction because everything is great. It is almost laughable to say that.

The minimum wage is a perfect thing to highlight in terms of the example that we need to throw out there to show where our priorities would be if we were in control, and we know we are not, versus where the Republicans' priorities are. We try to use third party validators so it is not just the Kendrick Meek, Tim Ryan, Bill Delahunt, Debbie Wasserman Schultz show. We want to make sure we use legitimate references to demonstrate and back up the things we say.

Many time what we talk about here can seem like inside baseball. The terminology we use can seem a little esoteric so we try to boil it down for folks.

Let us take the minimum wage. You talked about the minimum wage historically and what it means in terms of real dollars today. Let us talk about the minimum wage and the fact that it has not been raised in 9 years, what that impact is on the average family in terms of the difference of what things cost in the last 9 years.

So, if you take a look at this chart, this is what real economic change under President Bush has been like. While we have not increased the minimum wage since 1997, as you referred to a few minutes ago, there are plenty of things that have increased in cost.

Over on the left-hand part of the chart, the minimum wage has not increased at all, yet whole milk has increased 24 percent since 1997. Bread, 25 percent. A 4-year public college education has increased 77 percent. Health insurance has increased 97 percent, and that is if you can even get it because there are 46 million Americans that do not have health insurance and millions of small business employers who have dropped their insurance coverage for their employees because it has reached the point of unaffordability, with upwards of 15 percent increases every single year.

Let us look at the price of regular gas. It has gone up, while the minimum wage has not, 136 percent. And so what does that mean? Sometimes people cannot get their mind around percentages and what those mean.

So let us take a look at what Americans are paying for in terms of gas prices. The Americans now are paying 100 percent more for gas than when President Bush first took office, and he

has the nerve to stand in this chamber and to give speeches across this country talking about how he thinks that America is addicted to foreign oil and we need to get a handle on how we are going to expand alternative energy resources. Really? With what funding? Where is the initiative? Where is the proposal? Where is the legislation? Because all of it just gets rubber stamped here. When we propose any of those things as a solution as a Democrats, what do Republicans do? They vote ``no.'' No, no, Mr. President; yes, Mr. President. Just the bobblehead Republicans do whatever is asked of them, and it is certainly not to expand the opportunity to invest in the Midwest in terms of our energy resources versus the Mideast.

So, if you look at the price of a gallon of gas, when President Bush began his term, January 20, 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.45 and today, it is $3.01.

Now, what I attribute that to, and what I attribute the seeming indifference on the part of the Republicans and their leadership here towards this problem, it has got to be because there is no other explanation that they are not filling their own gas tank. It has really got to be that they are not the ones that are actually putting the gas in their car themselves because, if they were, they would realize that now, instead of pennies, remember when we were younger and our parents would fill the gas tank and the fastest number that scrolled on the gas tank itself was a penny? Well, now, it is dimes because that is how much prices have increased in terms of gas.

The only thing I can think of, Mr. Speaker, that I can attribute the indifference of Republicans towards the energy crisis and the gas prices that Americans are facing is that they have not filled their cars with gas since gas pumps looked like this.

This is a gas pump or at least an example of a gas pump and what one looked like in the 1950s, and perhaps it is just that it was so long ago that they filled their gas tanks themselves. I am not sure who is filling their gas tanks. Maybe they all have drivers. They really only focus on the needs of the wealthy. So perhaps people are driving them around. That really, for me, is the only explanation.

I really fail to understand why they continue to allow oil companies the ability to not pay royalties to the Federal Government in exchange for utilizing our oil reserves, the ability and the right to drill into the ocean floor and draw up oil that is on land owned by the Federal Government. They are supposed to pay subsidies and royalties. We have passed legislation on at least two occasions since I have been here, and I am only a freshman, that have essentially forgiven those royalties and given mutli-millions of dollars back to the oil companies and into the pockets of the CEOs and the wealthiest few people. It is absolutely mindboggling to me.

We, as Democrats, have the priorities of the American people straight. We understand that we need to move the country in a new direction, Mr. Speaker. We need to make sure that we expand access to health care. We want to make sure that we actually invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly, within 10 years, become independent of foreign oil resources and invest in the Midwest instead of in the Middle East.

We want to make sure that we can get a handle on this deficit. You and I have young children, and right now, if we stay the course and continue in the direction that this President and this Republican leadership has taken us in, our children and our children's children will be saddled with the deficit and the Nation's debt that this President has mired us in, all by himself, and by his Republican rubber stamp colleagues that we work in this chamber with.

If something is not done, our children, I fear for the world that they grow up in, not just in terms of foreign policy but in terms of domestic policy.

What is going to happen to our kids when they grow up in a world where we are underfunding education, where they do not have access to health insurance, where gas prices are so out of control and there is no mass transit for them to use as an alternative so that they can get to work? What are they going to do in a world where the deficit is continuing to skyrocket and we are going further and further in debt to other countries? What are they going to do?

Hopefully, we are going to be able to get this country back on track after the November elections.

I yield to my friend.

That is right.

No, I am a Brownie Troop leader.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. Because with everything that we have laid out here over the last 20 or so minutes, what is clear is that we are moving in the wrong direction. The priorities of the Republican leadership here are completely out of step with the priorities of the American people. So, instead, what the Republicans here have attempted to do is to shift the focus and attention away from what is really going on and engaging in the politics of distraction.

Now this that I have in my hand is about to become a scarcity. It is a social studies textbook, an American history textbook, which, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that in our high schools will soon be obsolete. We won't have any reason to use these any more, particularly the section on how a bill becomes a law. Because last week we actually brought a bill to the floor that was defeated in the Judiciary Committee, a bill that related to court stripping, stripping the courts of the right to review cases related to the Pledge of Allegiance and whether under God was constitutional or not.

Now that question can be debated all day, and there are varying degrees of opinions on that subject. But we teach our children in public schools the concept of how a bill becomes a law, as created by our Founding Fathers, this system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. And because the Republicans are moving this country in the wrong direction and don't share the priorities of the American people, they have had to deflect attention away from what is really going on here and focus on things like the Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, and flag burning.

Today in Judiciary we literally spent, Mr. Meek, 6\1/2\ hours on one bill and one amendment related to the separation of church and state. Now, Mr. Meek, when you go home, do your constituents, does the father of four who leaves for work in the morning, when you see him on the street, does he stop you and say, Kendrick, I really want you to go to the Congress and focus on the Pledge of Allegiance? Or do you think it is more likely, and in your experience, do they tell you, you know, I just wasn't sure how I was going to fill my gas tank today?

Or how about the parents of kids who are fighting over in Iraq? Do you think they are really worried about whether we amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Is that at the top of those parents' list, or is it more likely that at the top of their list that their baby comes home to them?

What is going on here?

Absolutely, I would be happy to yield.

We had over a thousand.

Mr. Meek, from what I have seen here, that is impossible for these people.

Four months, Mr. Meek. Less than 4 months. This may be the last evening that we spend as the 30-something Working Group until we come back from the August recess. The 30-something Working Group has an opportunity each night to talk about the direction we want to move this country on behalf of Democrats and the next generation.

All of the charts and information that we have talked about tonight are available on our Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. We appreciate the privilege that the leader gives us each night to talk about the priorities of the Democratic caucus and the American people, and it is a privilege to be here with you once again.

Thank you so much to my good friend, Mr. Delahunt, and I am glad to be here with my three good friends from the 30-something Working Group.

You know, the answer to the question that is on everybody's mind, which is why do they keep moving us in this direction? Well, if you actually shine a light or a magnifying glass on what is really going on here, then it would be clear that their priorities are all wrong. So instead, what they do is they engage in the politics of distraction, like they did all during last week.

If you recall last week, let us take a walk down memory lane here, did we focus on the priorities of the American people, like gas prices and health care and the true direction that we should be going in in the war in Iraq? Were those at the top of the Republican agenda last week?

We talked about trying to override, unsuccessfully, a veto on stem cell research. We did that and the Pledge of Allegiance bill, and we did gay marriage. We engaged in the politics of distraction, because the only way that the Republican leadership here can take the focus off of all the horrendously bad things that they are doing on the priorities of the American people is by focusing on that.

I had a social studies text book with me last week, I am not sure if we still have it, but last week I really wanted to bring a social studies textbook to the floor because essentially there is no point in using it any more in our public high schools. At the end of the day, the Republican leadership here has thrown out the concept of how a bill becomes a law.

That Pledge of Allegiance bill we brought here last week? I sit on the House Judiciary Committee. That bill was defeated in committee, and yet we still saw it on this floor. When we teach high school civics, we teach that a bill has to go through the committee process, it has to garner a majority of the committee members to move on then to either the next committee or to the next point of reference in the legislative process.

Exactly. Let us focus on what the bill itself actually did, which also throws out the whole system of checks and balances and who is responsible for what according to the way the Founding Fathers set it up.

That bill actually said, like you said, Mr. Ryan, that specifically because the Republican leadership here does not agree with a specific court decision, they decided to pass a bill stripping the courts of the ability to decide that question. Now, whether or not you agree that ``under God'' as part of the Pledge of Allegiance is or is not constitutional, that is not relevant. We certainly shouldn't be passing legislation here that was defeated in committee; that couldn't even garner enough support on the Republican side to pass out of committee, and they stack the committees in their favor, to strip the courts of the ability to decide a question that the Republicans don't agree with.

But, you know, the rubber stamps, the rubber stamps in this body just went ahead and approved it anyway. Break it out, Mr. Meek.

Will the gentleman from Ohio yield?

Thank you very much. Because the Prime Minister of Iraq is here in Washington, today met with the President, and the whole notion of stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge that they are wrong and refusal to change course is so evident in the decision-making that goes on with this administration as far as the direction that we are going in Iraq.

June 13, when the President went on that surprise visit to Iraq and praised up and down the Prime Minister's plan for ending the bloody violence in Baghdad, came back and said, The Prime Minister of Iraq has a plan and I am supportive of it.

Well, today they finally acknowledged that it is not working and it is not effective and not that, yes, we are going to change course. It is ``changing the plan is under consideration.''

Well, because we have had a shift in focus, in terms of the media's attention, to the crisis in the Middle East as it relates to Hezbollah, its attacks on Israel, it has deflected attention away from the fact that the actual number of deaths and bombings have increased in Iraq in the last month.

And instead, Mr. Ryan, we are focusing on the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage. And what it really comes down to, do you think that the mom whose baby is in Iraq fighting on behalf of our country is worrying about whether one of her children is going to be able to say ``under God'' in the pledge at school, or is she more worried that her baby over in Iraq is going to come back to her? What do you think is a higher priority for her?

Thank you. How about this? I mean, let us go beyond just the mom or dad of a young man or woman fighting in Iraq. How about the father of four who leaves for work every day, and do you think he is worrying about whether someone who is gay is going to be able to get married or not, or is my Member of Congress voting to amend the Constitution to deal with that, or do you think that it is more likely that he is pissed that he is having to pay $3.01 a gallon to fill up his tank and it is going to cost him like $55 and he is wondering whether he is going to be able to get to work in the morning?

Where on the list of priorities, Mr. Delahunt, do you think that is for the

Joe and Jane average constituents that we represent?

Of course.

Mr. Delahunt, do you know how many troops we have in Afghanistan versus how many we have in Iraq?

Twenty-two thousand in Afghanistan versus 130,000 in Iraq.

There is just no accountability. There are just words. There is no action to back up the words.

You know, if you listen to the Republicans on immigration, as Mr. Meek referenced, you would think that they were the hardest line, the hardest core, that border security was the highest priority to them. But if you closely examine the facts, you don't have to even closely examine the facts, you just scratch the surface a little bit. Take a look at what the real record of this hard line Republican congressional leadership is when it comes to border security. Let's show the American people who is for immigration reform and who is just kidding.

These are third-party validators here. Here is border security by the numbers. We took a look and found that as it relates to the average number of new Border Patrol agents that are added each year, because the Republicans talk a good game about how many Border Patrol agents they want to add, well, under the Clinton administration, from 1993 to 2000, the average number per year added was 642. You take a look how many were added, Border Patrol agents per year, under the Bush administration from 2001 to 2005, it was 411.

That is not just a couple, that is not a handful, that is a big difference. 642 minus 411, I am not a mathematician, whatever it is, someone subtract it for me.

A 231 difference. That is a big difference. Maybe that is an anomaly. Maybe that is just isolated.

No, keep going. Let's look at another indicator of who is for border security and who is just kidding. The INS fines for immigration enforcement, making sure that we actually crack down on illegal immigrants: 1999, 417. The actual

statistic is in 1999 the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it initiated fines against three companies. Who was President in 1999? President Clinton. A Democrat was President. Who was President in 2004? President Bush.

We are talking about going after the firms, the businesses, that aggressively hire illegal immigrants. But maybe that was an isolated incident. Maybe it was just those two indicators that were off the charts, different than the policy that the Republicans talk about.

Keep going. Let's look at the Bush administration's record on pursuing immigration fraud cases. In 1995, under President Clinton's administration, 6,455 immigration fraud cases were prosecuted. In 2003, under President Bush, 1,389 cases were prosecuted.

At the end of the day, I think the American people will want to examine the facts, and not just listen to the words.

I would be glad to.

In fact, what is really interesting about these comments from Speaker Gingrich was that he was sitting on a panel of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, with former Speaker Foley, the Democratic Speaker who Gingrich succeeded, and they were literally trading head nods back and forth from what one another was saying. And one of the things that Speaker Gingrich commented on was as follows:

``Congress has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current system is. When facing crises at home and abroad,'' he said, ``it's important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with this reality, and not sitting around waiting for presidential leadership.'' And he said so much more than that. Mr. Delahunt, I would yield to you. And he went on, on the same day and in the same panel discussion.

Mr. Delahunt, before you yield to Mr. Ryan, he actually went on and I have the rest of his comments from that point. He actually went on and suggested that Congress rediscover its power to supervise the administration. And he said, ``The failure to do effective aggressive oversight disserves the country and disserves the President.''

I mean, disserves the country and disserves the President. We are not talking about the namby pamby liberals that the Republican leadership always refers to. We are talking about the former Speaker of this House and the leader of the Republican Revolution. This is damning criticism. Damning criticism. Mr. Ryan.

It is Charles Barkley.

I am so glad that you highlighted that because the fiscal irresponsibility is startling, and so often it is difficult for us to quantify or physically represent what the impact is of the fiscally irresponsible decisions that are going on here, and we are not just making this stuff up ourselves.

Mr. Meek is absolutely right. The three of us were State legislators. We worked every day to balance our State budgets. States cannot operate in the red like the Federal Government can. The Federal Government can deficit spend. That is not possible at the State level. So, when we pass down a tax cut, it means that there is less revenue available at the State level in the programs that they are counting on those Federal dollars to fund, and so they have the devolution of the tax cuts.

Look, it is so often the Republicans talk about how they make these references to tax-and-spend liberals. Well, not only as you have talked about are they borrow-and-spend Republicans, but they also have refused to acknowledge that tax cuts are another form of spending. I mean, they are adopting irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest few. It would be one thing if they were passing tax cuts on to middle class working families. They are passing tax cuts that add to the deficit for the wealthiest few.

Let us just go over some opinions and some reality that is being offered out there as far as what third party validators have to say about their irresponsible spending.

Here is a USA Today editorial from February 21, 2006, of this year. The title of it is, ``Who's spending big now? The party of small government,'' and USA Today said, ``Tax cuts, they say, force hard decisions and restrain reckless spending. The last time we looked, though, Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. They are the spenders. In fact, since they took control in 2001, they have increased spending by an average of nearly 7.5 percent a year, more than double the rate in the last 5 years of Clinton-era budgets.''

Now, what kind of an impact are we talking about on real people? The tax cut reconciliation package that we passed out of this Chamber a couple of months ago, let us see who that helps because one would think that the purpose of a tax cut is to just give tax dollars back to the average person.

Does the tax cut bill do that? Well, let us take a look at the evidence because the average amount that an American would get back, based on income from the 2006 tax cut bill passed by the Republicans, looks like this. If you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, you get enough back from that tax cut bill to buy a Slurpee. If you make between $40,000 and let us say $50,000 a year, you get enough back just about, because it is continuing to increase, to buy a gallon of gas, not a tank, mind you, a gallon of gas, which is about three bucks. And if you make more than $1 million, you did okay in the tax cut bill. You get enough to buy a Hummer.

There is a slight discrepancy here. It is really pretty startling. Now, when we are talking about the billions, with a B, that the tax cut bill cost, again, it is hard to illustrate for folks what the kind of numbers and immensity, enormity of what we deal with here every day really means. So how much is a billion just so people can wrap their minds around it?

Well, a billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age. To quantify it further, a billion seconds ago, it was 1975 and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam. A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D., and the Chinese had first invented paper. But under the Republicans, $1 billion ago was only 3 hours and 32 minutes at the rate that the government spends money under this Republican leadership.

That is just to help people understand what is really going on here, who is for fiscal responsibility and who is just a lot of talk.

And who has a record of it.

And just so we can segue into how we would do it differently, what we would do is we would go back to the days of PAYGO rules. We would make sure that we have some fiscal discipline that we impose on ourselves, just like the State legislatures that we came from, just like they do, which is that we are not going to deficit spend. Just like families who struggle every day to not spend more money than they take in; to not put all their wants and desires on a credit card and live on credit card debt. We need to operate this budget like families feel compelled to operate their family budgets. We are simply not doing that.

What we would do, and we have offered amendments time and again, Mr. Ryan, through Mr. Spratt, our lead Democrat on the House Budget Committee. He has offered amendment after amendment that has been rejected unanimously by the Republicans again and again opposing reestablishing PAYGO.

PAYGO is tough. It forces some difficult choices. But it would make sure that we could really cut the deficit and go back to the surpluses that we had under the Clinton administration. I mean, that is the direction that we need to move in. If we continue down this path, if we continue in the direction that the Republicans have taken us, we will continue to spiral downward and pass the deficit and the debt onto future generations.

Really, we only have a couple of minutes, and what I didn't get to mention at the end of our last hour was what Speaker Gingrich had said. So if you would just before we end yield back to me, I kind of want to throw that out there for everyone's final thoughts. Be happy to yield.

Well, just to throw this out, I want to end by telling you what Speaker Gingrich said at the end of that panel. He said, ``While waiting for voter backlash to clean up Congress, he had some pithy advice for lawmakers, who in the current wave of scandal and personal enrichment on Capitol Hill have confused the public interest with their personal interest, said the former Speaker, my answer to them is: Go home.''

Good advice.

Madam Speaker, the first duty of the government is to protect its citizens, and I stand by Israel's right to defend herself against Hezbollah's aggression.

This bipartisan resolution sends a powerful message that the United States Congress and the American people support our friend Israel at this critical hour. Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked. I call on the Governments of Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, who have influence over the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers, to secure their immediate and unconditional release.

Hezbollah must be disarmed to prevent a similar conflict in the future. A simple cease-fire will not accomplish this goal.

Any nation that refuses to act against terrorist networks simply stands as a willing accomplice. The actions of Hezbollah and the complicity of Syria and Iran demonstrate that former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was right when she said, ``Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.''

I strongly support this resolution and stand by Israel in her pursuit of peace and security.

As an American mother, I wish that mothers around the world, Iranian, Syrian, and mothers universally, spend the time that I have spent talking to my twin 7-year-olds and will teach my almost 3-year-old girl, when she is old enough to understand, that we are all equal. We are all equal under the eyes of God.

My 7-year-old daughter is here with me this week, and she asked me about what we are debating here tonight. She asked me, ``Mommy, why don't some people like us?'' And that question broke my heart, Madam Speaker, because the only answer I could give her was because we are Jewish and because we have different beliefs.

Please let us not have another generation of our children grow up knowing hatred. Israel and her children need the world to stand with her in support of her right to defend herself and in support of peace.

Mr. Speaker, you know it would be nice if the American people supported this administration. It would be nice if the administration had a policy that the American people could support, or that in spite of the incredible lack of support for the American people, it would be nice if the administration actually showed that that mattered to them, instead of continuing down the path of ``staying the course'' and doing exactly as they think is right and to heck with what anyone else in America thinks.

I mean, of course we care about our place in the world, and about the vision that we are viewed through, the lens we are viewed through. But I do not understand why the administration and why this President and this Republican leadership, our colleagues, do not seem to care or understand how the American people are viewing them.

I mean, there are a number of issues I know you have gone over tonight, the minimum wage is one of them. I have been witnessing the hearings that have been taking place around the country on border security and the argument over whether border security or an earned path to citizenship is more important.

And what I think has been extremely humorous is that the Republicans on the other side, the Members on the other side of the aisle, in the other body, adhering to the rules, Mr. Speaker, have taken to calling the McCain-Hagel, I think there is another Republican that is part of that legislation. It is two or three Republicans that are heading it up. And Martinez, our own Senator from Florida.

But McCain, and Hagel and Martinez are heading up that legislation. Yet now they seem to be calling it, or attempting to call it the Reid- Kennedy bill or the Reid-Kennedy bill, neither of whom are sponsors of that legislation.

So what they are trying to do is lead the American people, and if they say it enough times so that they believe it, that it is the Democrats that are taking the initiative on this immigration policy when it is clearly Republicans.

Not only am I aware of that, Mr. Delahunt, thank you for leading me right into that lovely chart that we have here, that graphically depicts the differences between border security and immigration under a Democratic administration versus border security under this Republican Bush administration.

Let us peruse the numbers. The Republicans have been talking a good game about how important border security truly is to them, especially our colleagues here in the House. They have been beating that drum over and over again.

Well, I am quite aware of that, they have been well within control of this institution for 12 years.

For 6 years.

So this was entirely theirs.

Entirely within their control to crack down on border security, to hire more Border Patrol agents, enforcement actions against employers who hire illegal immigrants illegally.

So let's take a look at the numbers. We use third party validators. By the way, it is a pleasure to join you here once again, my 30 Something colleagues. I apologize for not doing that initially when I began, just jumping in.

But let us look at the average number of new border patrol agents added per year under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2000, versus the Bush administration between 2001 and 2005. Under President Clinton, 642 per year border patrol agents were added per year. And under President Bush they have added an average of 411.

Now there is some real commitment to border security. How about we look at the INS, which is now CIS. But the INS fines for immigration enforcement, that is fines against employers who hired illegal immigrants illegally and have gotten caught.

Okay. Under the Democratic administration in 1999, President Clinton was in office, there were 417 cases where INS fined employers for hiring, for getting caught hiring illegal immigrants. Guess how many there were in 2004, a year in which President Bush was in office?

Yes. That is when you started to hear the drum beginning to beat, and beat very loudly.

I would be glad to. We went from 417 immigration enforcement actions against employers under President Clinton to 3. Three under President Bush in 2004.

If I tried to count to 417, the hour would end, and we wouldn't be able to say anything else. So I will move on to the next one.

How about when we are talking about immigration fraud cases? If the Republicans are so committed to border security and making sure that we crack down on illegal immigrants and prevent the people who don't belong here and who are coming here the wrong way, then you would think that there would be many, many more cases under the Republicans than the Democrats. But in 1995, a year in which we had a Democratic President, there were 6,455 cases pursued against immigration fraud.

Then you fast-forward to 2003 under the Bush administration, the Republican administration, a year in which supposedly you had an entirely Republican-controlled government, and the ability for them to actually pursue more than 6,455 cases. They pursued 1,389, a 78 percent drop.

I did, actually. I think we also have a graphic depiction of that. But really what this comes down to, Mr. Delahunt, is a clear indication of who is for immigration enforcement and border security, and who is just kidding; who is in favor of putting action behind the words, and who just speaks the words.

There is one more statistic that was more difficult to graphically depict, so I will go through this last one, which is also important, because the Bush administration has touted that in its first 5 years, it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop in any 5-year period under the Clinton administration.

So, you know, this is all just a lot of puffery, a whole lot of chest-pounding, which they seem to be really, really good at. But when you scratch below the surface, just a little bit, there is no depth, there is nothing there.

And, clearly, the former House Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, the warrior, arguably the architect of the so-called Republican revolution, he has had a few things to say, as we talked about our 30-something hours on this. As recently as July 14th, which was 4 days ago, this was him commenting on the broken system in Washington.

He said, Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current system is.

When facing crises at home and abroad, he said, it is important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with this reality and not sitting around and waiting for Presidential leadership.

Clearly when it comes to border security and immigration, there hasn't been a whole lot of Presidential leadership, not when it comes to action. He has been real good at talking.

That is what has been truly unbelievable. This leadership, our Republican colleagues, have just been totally willing to cede power, just give up the legislative authority that we have, and say, Mr. President, you take it, we are out.

So Mr. Gingrich had something else to say just the other day. He said the correct answer is for the American people to just start firing people.

I don't think he was talking about anything other than this fall during the elections, because they are not, they are clearly, they clearly do not have their priorities straight. They clearly only speak words and don't back them up with action. They clearly only bob their heads up and down like the bobble-head Republicans that they have been and rubber-stamp everything that the President asks them to do.

There it is right there. There is the big old Republican rubber stamp which each of them has essentially wrapped their arms around and agreed to adhere to.

So, instead of changing course and moving us in a new direction, the Republicans want to continue to go in the direction that we are continuing, that Americans are so frustrated with.

This very week they are going to focus on the politics of distraction because, as we shine a light on what is really going on, then the American people would become even more frustrated than they already are.

Mr. Speaker, all of our charts in the 30 Something Working Group and the things we discussed tonight will be up on our Web site. People can log on to www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. We encourage the Members to take a look at all the things we have got up there, and I yield back to Mr. Meek to close us out.

Mr. Chairman, today, when walking through the Capitol, I saw President Roosevelt's words inscribed on a wall. They stopped me in my tracks. He said, ``We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.''

These words should guide us in this debate. They were deemed so important that they are literally a part of the structure of our Nation's Capitol.

The Voting Rights Act is the most important and successful civil rights law in our Nation's history. From poll taxes to literacy tests, States historically disenfranchised voters based on their race, their gender and educational background.

While America exports democracy around the globe, we must not deny it here at home. Sadly, many Americans have lost faith in our electoral system. From the 2000 election in my home State of Florida, or Ohio in 2004, many Americans feel like some in their government don't want their vote to count. We must renew the Voting Rights Act to restore that lost faith.

Some say the preclearance provisions are no longer needed, and they are wrong. Since 1982, the Department of Justice has made more than 1,000 objections to discriminatory changes in State and local voting laws. If the gentleman from Georgia's amendment is adopted, these 1,000 objections would never be considered. This amendment deserves to be defeated. All the amendments need to be defeated, and the Voting Rights Act should be adopted in full.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act because millions of Americans had been intentionally denied their equal right to vote.

Some of my Republican friends also want to take away language assistance at the polls, and they speak the emotional rhetoric of anti- immigrant jingoism.

But this bill isn't about illegal immigration--it is about Americans participating in their democracy.

The overwhelming majority of those who receive language assistance at the polls are native-born, tax-paying American citizens.

In 2004, there were 15 initiatives on Florida's ballot. This issue is not only about distinguishing Candidate A from Candidate B. The VRA ensures that citizens also understand these confusing ballot initiatives.

In my district voters receive assistance in Spanish, Creole, and Seminole dialects.

Instead of erecting more barriers to voting, we should identify ways to increase civic participation and make people more confident in their Government and their leaders.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill with no amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the King amendment is a vote in favor of discrimination against language minorities. This point was driven home by a Federal court in Osceola County, Florida, just a few weeks ago.

Osceola County was purposefully denying voter registration and assistance opportunities to Spanish language voters, including a large Puerto Rican population. The Department of Justice sued and secured a consent decree requiring the county to comply with Federal law. In July 2002, Osceola County became covered by section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the county continued to neglect its duties under Federal law. The Federal court found just 2 weeks ago that there is considerable evidence to suggest that the county's institution and maintenance of an at-large voting system was motivated by a desire to dilute the vote of an emerging Hispanic population.

Now, we are not talking about something that happened 40 years ago. This is just a few weeks ago now, in 2006.

Eliminating section 203 will encourage jurisdictions to disenfranchise emerging language minorities, which will be compounded by depriving these taxpaying U.S. citizens of the assistance they need.

Really, do you think that people who speak flawless English, who can't understand balloting initiatives that are complex, if they have a hard time, then what do you think someone who has English as a second language can do? Not very much without the assistance of section 203.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to get out the bloodhound.

My understanding, Mr. Delahunt, is it was Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez, Senator McCain. So how this became the Reid-Kennedy bill----

No.

Mr. Speaker, I interrupt only because I want you to read the quote from the Republican majority leader about where he is and his conference is on the minimum wage increase.

I have another one. The Bush administration also has a worse record than the Clinton administration on pursuing immigration fraud cases. In 1995, during the Clinton administration, 6,455 immigration fraud cases were completed. In 2003, guess how many? One thousand three hundred eighty-nine, 78 percent fewer immigration fraud cases completed.

And then if you take the statistics that they brag about, the Bush administration brags that in its first 5 years it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop from any 5- year period that you can demonstrate during the Clinton administration.

So that is what I mean when I say they just put up the statistics that make them look good and leave out all the other relevant information.

We have got to have a chart.

That makes me want to pull out another third- party validator, because this week we got to experience the exciting midyear opportunity to hear the President with his Republican leadership surrounding him to cheerlead the supposed success they have on the economy.

Now, it would be one thing if we were standing up here as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek and Bill Delahunt and saying, well, that is a lot of baloney. Anyone in America looking at this economy and looking at this deficit would say, what is there to celebrate about?

But it is not just us. This morning editorial page in USA Today had this to say about the midyear review of the economy that the administration just trotted out.

They say, ``Forgive us if we don't break out the party hats. It is hard to get excited about an abysmally large deficit in the range of $300 billion that is somewhat less gargantuan than earlier predicted. Even accepting the administration's assurances that it does not purposefully overestimate the numbers in a Wall Street-like game of beating expectations, this habitual midyear crowing masks the seriousness of the Nation's bleak fiscal outlook.''

Well, if that doesn't say it, all right there in a nutshell, I don't know what does.

And what they were doing this week is saying, Wow, the deficit wasn't $423 billion, it was only $300 billion.

Now, what is clear, and what USA Today is not letting the President get away with, is that they began by inflating the number that they said the deficit would be at, so that when what happened occurred, when they knew it would be much lower than that, it would look like an accomplishment.

Well, if they are excited about a $300 billion deficit, then I really want to know what their definition of fiscal responsibility is, because that apparently for years has been the cornerstone of the Republican Party's platform, that they are fiscally responsible. A $300 billion deficit is fiscally responsible. And then on top of that they are passing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us? And this is how those tax cuts break out for folks?

I mean, we just passed a tax reconciliation bill just a few weeks ago that, if you look at how it benefits people by their income, this is what it really boils down to: That tax cut bill, which virtually all the Republicans voted for, if you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, which is around minimum wage, the one that they haven't raised since 1997, you get about enough back to buy a Slurpee. If you make between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, somewhat more than minimum wage, you get enough back in that tax cut bill offered by the Republicans to buy a gallon of gas.

Maybe. Because depending on how high the price goes, you actually might not get all that back.

But then let us look at the folks who make more than $1 million, you get enough money to buy a Hummer.

Now, I don't know about you, but I really think, if we are going to pass tax cut legislation at all, if we are going to give tax dollars back to the people, first and foremost, let's eliminate the deficit. Do you keep passing--I mean, tax cuts are spending, Mr. Meek. It is not free. We don't just print more money.

I just took my 7-year-old son to the Mint yesterday, and I watched them print the money. But the tour guide didn't tell us, ``You know, when we run out, we just print more.'' It doesn't work that way. They obviously didn't go to Econ 101; otherwise, they wouldn't think it was responsible to do what they have been doing.

Mr. Ryan, you have people in America who, the agony and the angst in the pit of their stomach that they have over their credit card debt and the things that they actually need, like the ability to fill up their gas tank, I mean, the churning that we know is going on inside of mothers and fathers across this country over how much debt they have versus what they have coming in.

I guess that churning isn't going on on the Republican side. There doesn't appear to be any angst, there is no hand-wringing, there is no worrying about it. Where is the outrage? It is nonexistent. They just keep spending and spending and spending. The deficit keeps ballooning, and then they say, Yeah, the deficit isn't $423 billion, it is $300 billion.

Well, it is just, it is too shocking for words. And then they have the nerve, Mr. Meek, to call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility. It is a joke.

And it is a privilege to join you and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Delahunt each night that we take the House floor and talk about the new direction that we as Democrats would take this country. Because what most people have seen in America recently is essentially the Republican leadership's efforts to engage in the politics of distraction, because they have to distract the American people from what is really going on here because the reality that is going on here is too painful to closely examine.

I mean, they certainly can't hold up their wild success to the American people for examination and celebration because they haven't had any wild success. We are looking here at a record deficit, as you discussed, Mr. Meek. We are looking at record gas prices. We are looking at record numbers of Americans who are without health insurance. We are looking at record increases in the cost of health insurance, small business owners who are unable to continue to support their employees and provide them with health insurance benefits. And we are looking at a woeful inability on the part of the Republican administration and this leadership of this House to protect the homeland and focus on domestic homeland security.

That is why they instead have focused on things like the Pledge of Allegiance and whether students are saying ``under God'' in school when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and they are focusing on amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning or amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Now, each of us might have our own individual opinion on those matters, but when you go to Youngstown, Mr. Ryan, when you go to Miami, and when I go home to Broward County, I just don't hear, and I would bet you my last dollar that the vast majority of our Republican colleagues don't hear one, two, three, four, or five on the list any of those items. More likely, you have the father of four who leaves his house in the morning not worried about whether his son is going to be able to say ``under God: In the Pledge of Allegiance that day, but whether or not he is going to be able to afford the $55 it is going to cost him, at least, or around, to fill up his gas tank.

And how about the mom whose son or daughter is fighting on our Nation's behalf in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think she is worried about whether Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? Because that is certainly a notion of patriotism. Or is she more likely praying every single day that her baby is going to come home to her? I would say it is more likely the latter. And those are the kinds of issues that people are addressing with us when we go home.

But could you imagine, they actually rolled out an agenda that those items were at the top of the list. Because what they have to do is they have to try to distract the American people from their pitiful failure here, from their inability to get a handle on the deficit, from their inability to do anything about alternative energy exploration and reducing gas prices, about their inability to expand health care to more people, and their inability to develop any sort of plan to eventually get us out of this endless war in Iraq, and their inability to deal with domestic homeland security, border security, while protecting our American people here at home.

They are real focused on protecting everybody else in the world and making sure that everybody else in the world's quality of life is in good shape. What about the folks here? No, instead they just want to spend a lot of time on the issues that are really none of their business, that are really just decisions that families make inside their own homes among family members.

So as Mr. Meek was saying, what we would

do if we were in the majority, and hopefully the American people will give us that opportunity in November, we would make sure right at the get-go as Leader Pelosi, who will be Speaker Pelosi when we win back the majority, as she talks about, one of the first things that we will do the first week, raise the minimum wage. It hasn't happened since 1997, going on 9 years now. That is just pitiful. You have got people in America, 7 million people in America making $5.15 an hour. That is just an outrage. And we have got to make sure, that is the kind of issue that people need the Congress to deal with.

I mean, in our home State we have had to address it inside the State of Florida. Because the Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 9 years, we have got to make sure as we take the country in a new direction, as Democrats would do, we would focus on fixing the ridiculous prescription drug plan that they passed for Medicare beneficiaries. We would make sure that the doughnut hole that provides this humongous gap that senior citizens are falling through after they reach I think about $2,500 in coverage for prescription drugs, they fall through that doughnut hole, and they literally have to spend several thousand dollars out of their own pocket before the part D prescription drug benefit picks back up.

It also prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. We would make that change, and we would require the Federal Government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Literally, the difference between prohibition and requiring it, and just like they do in the VA right now, and save millions and millions of dollars. I mean, who was this bill for?

If you want to make sure that there is a part D prescription drug benefit that benefits senior citizens, then people will vote for us. If they want to make sure that there is one that benefits the pharmaceutical industry, then people will vote for them.

And when people ask what the Democratic agenda is, that is it right there. That is what we would do.

And Republicans can't get away with saying all the things that we would do would cost money and build the deficit, because we would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule, the PAYGO rules, to ensure that we don't spend more money than we take in, which is how when President Clinton was in office we had a surplus and not a deficit.

A personal reaction?

Remember the error that was made by the Department of Health and Human Services in the Medicare and You handbook they sent out to all the Medicare beneficiaries? And when they recognized the error in information about the prescription drug program and advising people who were dual-eligible what kind and how comprehensive their benefits were going to be and how much they were going to have to pay for them, they refused to send out a correction. The only way they were going to make the real answers available was via the Internet or if people called and asked.

Now, how is that a commitment to clarity, to making sure people can truly access the benefits that they are entitled to and that they do not pay more than they are supposed to?

Really, what it boils down to is exactly what you are saying, it is that they are completely out of touch.

And I just want to pull up this illustration. We have our third-party validators here that really help us demonstrate what we are talking about on the floor each night, Mr. Speaker. It is not information we are making up. It is not the Debbie Wasserman Schultz encyclopedia or the Tim Ryan dictionary. These are facts we are laying out in front of the American people so that they can decide whether they want to continue down the path the Republican leadership has taken them on or whether they want to go in a new direction.

It is clear that the Republicans have made these decisions because they are out of touch. I mean, let us just look at the real economic changes under this administration, under President Bush and the Republican leadership, as opposed to the bogus one that they rolled out today with their economic midyear review.

You can make numbers, as they have done, look as rosy as you would like, but this is the real deal. Let us be clear, the Majority Leader, Mr. Boehner, specifically said on June 20: ``I have been in this business for 25 years, and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.'' And he said that on June 20 of 2006.

So let us take a walk down memory lane here. If you actually are in touch with what everyday Americans are dealing with, then you will know that, of course, since 1997, there has been no minimum wage increase. But if you look at the price of milk, the price of milk has gone up 24 percent. And if you actually shop in the supermarket, like I do, then you will know that the price of milk has steadily increased when you are trying to buy a gallon of it.

How about the price of bread? That has gone up 25 percent. We are talking about staples that people actually pay for with their minimum wage increase, if they get one. Or don't get one.

Let us take a look at the cost of a 4-year public college education. The cost of that has gone up 77 percent since 1997.

Look at the cost of health insurance. That has gone up 97 percent. But no minimum wage increase in 9 years.

How about the price of regular gas? That has gone up, as every working family knows, 136 percent. And while I am at it, I might as well pull out my little toy prop here, because I think it is illustrative.

I think part of the problem is, it is clear by that chart that most Republicans obviously aren't dealing with these issues every day. They are not buying their own bread. They couldn't be; otherwise they would know that it has increased as much as it has. They are not buying their own gallons of milk. Maybe they have their household staff buy these things for them, or maybe they do it on the Internet. Or I am not sure what is going on.

But when it comes to the price of a gallon of gas, this is an old- fashioned gas tank, or gas pump. I have just concluded that it is obvious that the Republicans have not done anything about gas prices, Mr. Ryan, because most of them clearly have not used their own gas pump to fill their own gas tanks since they looked like this. Because otherwise they would be more committed to, instead of doing the bidding of the oil industry by passing legislation that puts money, more and more millions and billions in their pockets, they would make sure we invested, truly invested in expanding our

alternative energy resources, so that we could reduce the cost of a gallon of gas, and so that we could make sure that the Congress would focus on the issues that people in America really care about.

But it is clear to me that they haven't used one of these for a really long time, and that is the reason they are so out of touch.

Unless, of course, it involves their personal life.

Because they care more about the special interests than they do about the people they represent. It is as simple as that. It is the only logical explanation.

Let's break it down further, Mr. Meek. If that was not enough evidence, let's take a look at a Congressional Research Service report, which is an objective body which provides information to the Congress, both parties, totally objective entity, provided a memo to Senator Wyden last week, and that memo outlined the profits and revenue return for the oil companies from 1999 to now. And it demonstrated that the annual revenue return for eight oil companies increased from 2.88 percent in 1999 to 7.1 percent in 2005 while the return on shareholder equity went from 4.64 percent to almost 30 percent. Cash reserves for those same companies shot up from $9.5 million in 1999 to $57.8 million last year, and the capital investment that they made went from $32.8 million to $68.8 million in the same period.

The bottom line is that when they say they are investing their revenue that they are generating into alternative oil exploration, it is baloney. It is absolutely not true. What they are doing is they are keeping their profits. They are holding onto their profits, and we are giving them the money by forgiving them royalty payments for the land that we are letting them drill for oil on.

So who is for the American people and who is just kidding?

Do you know what my husband and I noticed the other day when we were filling up our tank? That the dimes, you know how when we were little kids and the pennies are what scrolled really fast when you were filling up your gas tank. Now it is the dimes that scroll as fast as the pennies used to. I mean, that is how much things have changed. So dimes, you know, 10 dimes, that is a dollar. Bye-bye, every 10 dimes, another dollar gone.

And we have got to start moving energy policy, health care policy, the deficit in a new direction, which is what we would do with our innovation agenda. We would make sure that we commit to reaching energy independence through our midwestern, as opposed to the middle eastern dependence, through our ability to generate ethanol and invest in the research that would help us truly utilize ethanol as an energy resource.

I just think, at the end of the day, we need to stress that in November, when we have the opportunity to take the majority of this institution, we will move the country in a new direction.

We will make sure that we make a commitment to reducing the deficit and reduce it. We will expand access to health care. We will actually invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly reduce gas prices. And we will make sure that the American people know that their Representatives are here for them and not for the special interests.

Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida.

There are times in life when we must make difficult choices. The Bilirakis, Wasserman Schultz and others amendment will add 125 miles of protection and require the legislature to affirmatively vote to allow drilling closer than that distance. It adds protection to the Outer Continental Shelf coastline that we do not now enjoy.

The choice in front of us on this amendment is do we squeeze our eyes shut tight, cross our fingers and pray that we will never have drilling off of our coastline or do we act now and ensure that we do not? I believe in controlling our own destiny. I want to know that there is 125 miles of protection that we do not now have off the eastern coastline.

For those Members that are opposed to this bill, as I am, you can vote in good conscience for this amendment and ensure a significant amount of protection in the event that the bill passes. If this amendment does not pass and the bill does, then we are left with the possibility of having oil rigs within 50 miles of our coastline. That is an unacceptable option.

We should act now to ensure that we have at least 125 miles of protection off the eastern coast in the Outer Continental Shelf.

I urge the adoption of the Bilirakis-Wasserman Schultz amendment.

There are times in life when we must make choices, some of them are easy and some of them are not. I firmly believe that as Members of Congress we have an obligation to protect people and the environment who have only our votes standing between them and devastating consequences.

I am an opponent of oil drilling. I have never voted for drilling in my 14 years as a public servant. But as public servants we must use both our heart and our head when deciding what is best at any given moment in time. The underlying legislation would be harmful to our environment. Drilling 50 miles off our coast, which is possible under the Pombo legislation is irresponsible. We should be investing in alternative energy resources and truly breaking ourselves of the addiction to oil referenced in President Bush's State of the Union speech. But, we won't have that chance today and sadly, unless the tide turns in this body, I fear that we won't ever have that chance.

I represent the cities of Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood and Miami Beach, from the ocean to the Everglades. Florida's coastline must be protected. Our economy depends on our number one industry--tourism, which brings in 86 million tourists annually, supports one million jobs and generates $56 billion. There is a lot at stake for Florida.

That is why there are times in life when we must make difficult choices. The Bilirakis, Wasserman Schultz and others amendment will add 125 miles of protection and require the legislature to affirmatively vote to allow drilling closer than that distance. It adds protection to the Outer Continental Shelf coastline that we do not now enjoy. The choice in front of us on this amendment is do we squeeze our eyes shut tight, cross our fingers and pray that we'll never have drilling off of our coastline or do we act now and ensure that we don't? I believe in controlling our own destiny. I want to know that there is 125 miles of protection that we do not now have off the eastern coastline. For those Members that are opposed to this bill, as I am, you can vote in good conscience for this amendment and ensure a significant amount of protection in the event that the bill passes. If this amendment does not pass and the bill does, then we are left with the possibility of having oil rigs within 50 miles of our coastline. That is an unacceptable option. We should act now to ensure at least 125 miles of protection off the eastern coastline.

At the end of the day, we are representatives of our communities and our States, but we are ultimately United States Representatives, charged with thinking about our whole country. In that role, we have an obligation to ensure that the legislative products we send out of this institution, with or without our votes contain the best content we can develop. That requires the courage to compromise. Henry Clay said it best,

``All legislation . . . is founded upon the principle of

mutual concession--Let him who elevates himself above

humanity, above its

weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say,

if he pleases, ``I never will compromise''; but let no one

who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain

compromise.''

The coastline of the Unites States of America must have the maximum protection we can attain for her. The Bilirakis-Wasserman Schultz amendment does that. Is it perfection? No, but if we live for perfection, we risk failure. The failure to protect our environment as much as we can is not an option. This amendment provides that protection for in this legislation. Without it, our environment faces grave danger.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, on a lighter note, it has been said that there is no ``I'' in ``teamwork.'' Indeed, a successful team beats with one heart. So, I rise today to congratulate the entire Miami Heat organization, Micky Arison, head coach Pat Riley, the Heat players and the entire Miami community for beating with one heart and winning the 2006 National Basketball Association championship.

The Heat became only the third team in NBA history to win the final series after being down two to nothing. For four games in a row, they were too hot to handle.

I know that I speak for Heat fans throughout south Florida and across the country when I say that the Heat could not have made us more proud last night. The entire Heat organization overcame a great deal of individual and collective adversity throughout the season. Yet despite doubters, they proved to have the hearts of champions.

The Heat victory was a true tapestry, comprised of the youthful talent of Finals Most Valuable Player Dwayne Wade and the veteran leadership of Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O'Neal and Gary Payton. This team truly is 15 strong.

Congratulations to the Heat fans in south Florida, who have patiently waited 18 years for a championship parade on Biscayne Boulevard. There are no fans more deserving.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My good friend Mr. Meek really illustrates the point that we have been trying to drive home for all the time that I have been here now, and for several years before my arrival with the beginnings of the 30- something Working Group, and that is that with the illustration that you just had up there, that literally we have racked up as much debt under this President than all the Presidents combined, all 42 before this President.

That really is illustrative of the point we have been making; that America is truly going in the wrong direction, and that in order to right the ship, to start us on the path that Americans want us to be going down, we need to make sure that we elect Democrats in the fall that will no longer support the rubber-stamping that goes on in this institution on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Meek, I think what we try to do during our 30-something hour is show people what some of these more macroconcepts mean in terms of their daily lives. The economy, which the Republicans talk about so often, and actually, I guess, what it is, Mr. Ryan, is that they think that if they say it enough times, it will become true.

I have heard so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, oh, the economy is great, the President said it, it is gangbusters, we are in the best shape we could possibly be in. Well, how is that possible if you have health care, gas, housing, and college costs that are all skyrocketing through the roof? I mean, the median family income has dropped every year of the Bush administration. The typical family is paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance, college tuition has gone up about 40 percent in real terms, gas prices have doubled to nearly $3 a gallon, housing is the least affordable it has been in 14 years, and real wages have been flat since 2001. And we have a chart that illustrates that graphically, but that is the economy that our constituents are living in.

Now, maybe our Republican colleagues are living in some kind of alternative bizarro world. Is there an alternative universe that I am not aware of that perhaps some of them are living? Because this is what reality is: College tuition, up 40 percent under the Bush administration; gas prices up 47 percent; health care costs up 55 percent; and median household income down by 4 percent.

That is good? I don't know. I bet if we looked up ``good'' in the dictionary it wouldn't reflect any of this reality. Just have a hunch that Webster wouldn't define ``good'' this way. It wouldn't look like that.

So I want, and I know we all want, to move this country in a new direction, and we have an agenda that would do that; that would deal with the health care crisis that we are in with 46 million Americans without health insurance, people who have to go to the emergency room for their primary health care. We would make sure that we increase the minimum wage, which hasn't been done since 1997. I mean, that is just unbelievable.

We are going to take up the estate tax tomorrow, and as much of a deal as our Republican colleagues have made out of this, it benefits about 5,000 people in the country. I mean, 5,000 people. And they are making this such a high priority. It is going to cost over $200 billion, and this is what they think is a priority, as opposed to dealing with health care, gas prices, college costs, and housing costs.

Yet another example is when they passed their tax reconciliation bill, their tax cut bill earlier this year. Just to give people an idea of what kind of benefit we truly doled out to most folks, if you made between $10,000 and $20,000, you would get enough back from the tax cut bill we passed earlier this year, enough back to buy a Slurpee.

There are a whole lot of things that are a priority in my life and the lives of my constituents that I want to make sure that I can buy, my constituents want to be able to buy, and a Slurpee is not really mentioned in the letters written to me in my office.

Now let's go down to the people making between $40,000 to $50,000 a year. That is a working family. They would get back enough to buy a gallon of gas. I think that probably most people would think if we are going to pass a tax cut measure, if we are going to really provide revenue and give folks back their hard earned tax dollars, it should be more than the value of a gallon of gas.

But if you are fortunate enough to make more than $1 million, you get back the equivalent of a Hummer. Now that is something that most people could probably write home about. But how many people in America make more than $1 million.

And tomorrow we are going to do more.

I would just like to go back to energy prices and gas prices. Just to zero in on one of the things that is the most galling about the direction that the Republican Congress has taken us in, gas prices are up.

I am one of those minivan moms. I have little kids and when I go home, I am going to dance class and soccer games and shuttling them all over my district. It is a lot of driving. With three kids, you have to have a large enough vehicle to fit the car seats and the stuff and the athletic equipment and the dance bags, and so minivans are an essential piece of life when you are a mom or dad with little kids. It costs like $55 to fill up the gas tank of a minivan.

I have reached the conclusion that the only explanation for the continued direction that our Republican colleagues have taken us in when it comes to gas prices and refusing to deal with the energy crisis and refusing to adequately fund, if fund at all, alternative energy sources is because they obviously haven't filled their own tanks of gas since gas pumps looked like this.

This is a replica of a gas pump from the 1950s or thereabouts. I truly believe they must not pump their own gas, or the last time they did, pumps looked like this or they would be feeling the pain. You cannot stand there for as long as you stand there for squeezing the pump and watching the tally click by, $10, $20, $30, $40, $50. You can't do that, even if you can afford it, without it being somewhat painful.

Think about it, think about the mom or dad who is just barely making ends meet. They are barely making ends meet before gas went over $3 a gallon. When is enough enough? Where is the outrage? Where is the legislation? Where is the oversight? Why aren't they calling the CEOs of the oil companies and asking is it possible that they are not in collusion, that they are not conspiring to set prices the same. It is mind boggling. I don't understand why they don't care. That is clearly the message that is sent here.

What we would do, we would make sure that we could, within 10 years, be independent of foreign oil by pursuing alternative energy research like ethanol. Brazil has done it. This is our innovation agenda. For anyone on the other side of the aisle who wants to continue to perpetuate the myth that Democrats have no agenda, here is a big piece of it in several colors, not just black and white.

This innovation agenda includes a number of things, not the least of which is our ability to truly end our addiction to foreign oil which the President talked about in his State of the Union, and only talked about and did nothing to change it. Our innovation agenda would help us get there. It would also make sure that we give people universal access to broadband in 5 years. It also does a number of other things to take us in a new direction.

I know I have focused specifically in on one part of the problem, but because that is something that people deal with every single day or every couple of days when their gas light goes on and their tank runs empty, and I know you both agree with me that it is something that we need to put the magnifying glass on.

You are calm today.

I just wore the colors.

You know, you are just absolutely right, because what we are talking about is the direction that we would take this country in if we were given an opportunity, that we would expand access to health care and make sure the 46 million people who don't have it now, that far more, if not all of them, would have it; that we would truly invest in exploring alternative energy resources so that oil was not our only option; that we would make sure, and we committed.

We had a town hall meeting with 30-somethings with Leader Pelosi and Ranking Member Miller, had a town hall meeting just the other day where we talked about that on the first day that we take the majority back in this House of Representatives and Leader Pelosi becomes Speaker Pelosi, we would halve the interest rate on federally subsidized loans, literally saving potential college kids thousands and thousands of dollars.

But you know what? The attitude of the administration and the Republican leadership, Mr. Meek, you said you are sick and tired. I think people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And I think that Americans have reached that point.

And it never ceases to amaze me what their leaders, what the Republican leaders actually say. I mean, that they say out loud; never mind the thoughts they harbor, because you know we will obviously never, we can only guess what those are. But what they say is unbelievable.

A few days ago we sadly marked the death, we were talking about the war in Iraq and how they have no plan; that this is an interminable war that has no end in sight, no plan, no ability to phase ourselves out. The other day we marked the death of the 2,500th soldier, American soldier. And White House spokesman Tony Snow said this about that milestone. He said, ``It is a number, and every time there is one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something.''

Yeah. They want no more kids to die. They want no more of our American men and women to die needlessly without any possibility in the near future of knowing that they are coming home.

A number? Sure. There are plenty of numbers that we could throw out there, the numbers that people care about beyond just 2,500 of our soldiers being lost. For example, 18,490 American troops were wounded in Iraq. And we have third-party validation for all of these. About 40,000 Iraqis have been killed, beyond the American troops. $8.8 billion. Here are some more numbers: $8.8 billion is the amount of Iraqi reconstruction funds the military has failed to account for, according to the Department of Defense's inspector general; 68 journalists killed in Iraq; 2.2 million Active Duty soldiers and veterans at risk of identity theft. Actually that is more. Now with the theft of the computer it is 26.5 million; 382 days since Vice President Cheney claimed the insurgency was in its last throes. Ask the parents of the two American soldiers that were kidnapped and killed by insurgents the other day if they think that the insurgency is in its last throes; 1,140 days since President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq; 37 million people living in poverty in the United States; 13 million children living in poverty in the United States; $8,375,365,051,008.48. That is the amount of the deficit, yet tomorrow we are going to consider an estate tax that benefits 5,000 people; 45.8 million Americans without health insurance, just to be exact; $16,000, which is the median debt of graduates of public colleges; $20,000 is the median debt of graduates of private colleges, yet after July 1, the interest rates for a college loan will be hiked up significantly, thanks to the Republicans' leadership here; $36 billion Exxon/Mobil's profits last year, more than any other corporation in history. Those are the numbers that the Republicans should find important.

Thank you so much, Mr. Spratt and Ms. Brown. We are so glad to have you here with the 30-Something Working Group.

We will adopt you as a member.

And we would like to remind the Members, Mr. Speaker, that all of the charts and documents that we have talked about tonight are on our Web site, housedemocrats.gov/30something.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to wait on that little celebration until our good friend from Florida joins us and we can do the happy dance together on the Heat's amazing victory last night, and I am sure the Speaker enjoyed that fantastic victory last night as well. So we will regale you with the success of the Heat when the gentleman from Florida joins us.

We have begun a proud tradition in south Florida, and we are looking forward to equaling over time the amazing success of the Boston Celtics. Having already experienced the joy of a national championship by the University of Florida Fighting Gators basketball team, basketball is alive and well in Florida. As you can see, we have some pretty good players down our way.

But I want to jump off because Mr. Ryan did refer to the billions in debt, and you went through very eloquently, and I don't think people in America have a real idea, that is why I love that chart of the percentage of debt that each of those countries has of the United States.

And when you graphically depict it across the entire country, it really, really drives the point home. But what I found, and I have a shorter tenure in

Congress than you and Mr. Meek and Mr. Delahunt do, going from the State legislature where we were dealing with millions more often than billions with a ``b,'' people would tell me it is hard to get their mind around what a billion is. It is such a big number; it is hard to grasp.

So I came up, along with my staff's help, with this chart to graphically illustrate what a billion is. When we are talking about billions in debt and the interest payments are in the billions and they dwarf other priorities like homeland security and funding for our veterans and education, how much is a billion?

A billion hours ago, for example, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age. A billion seconds ago it was 1975, and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam.

A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D. and the Chinese had first invented paper.

If you take the definitions that the Republicans use when it comes to a billion, a billion dollars ago under the Republican leadership was only 3 hours and 32 minutes ago at the rate our government is currently spending money.

So a billion used to be a really significant number that if you translate it into time was a very long time ago. But translated into time under Republican leadership, it was just a few hours ago.

You are absolutely right, and a little more reality to translate what we are talking about here into everyday economics, if you look at the 2006 tax reconciliation bill and compare it to benefit by income for the benefit that was given or the equivalent of the benefit to the amount of income that an American taxpayer brings in, for example under the 2006 tax cut legislation that passed out of this House overwhelmingly with Republican votes, an average American taxpayer that makes between $10,000 and $20,000 a year would get back enough to buy a Slurpee. But if you make between $40,000 and $50,000, you will get from the 2006 Republican tax cut bill about as much money to buy a gallon of gas.

Now, if we are talking real benefits here, the real benefits and who got the most out of the Republican tax cut bill this year, the reality is if you made more than $1 million, you get the equivalent of a Hummer.

I don't know, if I am talking to the folks in my district, and I know the folks in Youngstown, Ohio, and the people on the Cape and in the Boston area, they probably are not that interested in getting enough money back to buy a Slurpee. Something tells me, and at least when I go home, and I have a district that includes a lot of areas that have people of means, and I can tell you when I go to community events and bring my kids to the soccer game and drive my kids around in our minivan, the people in the wealthiest parts of my district are coming up and saying keep the money because the needs we have in America are overwhelming. They are saying, you know what, I don't need the Slurpee, I can buy my own Hummer. If you are making more than a million dollars, you can buy your own Hummer.

We don't. We have an $8 trillion deficit.

Yet the rank and file Republicans and the Republican leadership continue to try to profess that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. It is hilarious. It really is.

In the legislature in Florida, we used to talk about statements like that not being able to pass the straight-face test. It doesn't pass the straight-face test. How do they say it without smirking? How do they say it without crossing their fingers and putting their fingers behind their back? We should check behind the backs of all of the Members when they are speaking on the floor here about how fiscally responsible they are because I am sure they are all like this. They can't cross themselves enough. It is really over the top.

I was taught to tell the truth by my parents. I'm incredulous how some of these Members get away with claiming fiscal responsibility.

Look at this. To illustrate what you are talking about here, you have got interest rates that are bad enough in terms of interest people have to pay in order to get on top of their college loans.

But college tuition itself has gone up. This is under the President, since President Bush has taken office. College tuition itself has gone up 40 percent.

Then you take a look at gas prices which have gone up 47 percent. You take a look at health care costs, gone up 55 percent. This is the reality for Americans today. But median household income has dropped by 4 percent. I mean, dropped. So how are Americans supposed to make up this difference? What are they supposed to do when it comes to the income that they are bringing in and the everyday costs that are a part of their life? This is, like, for a mom who has got a bunch of kids, and she is trying to figure out how many of them she is going to be able to actually feed, which one do you let go? Which one is not important? Higher education? Putting gas in your car? How are you going to get to work? How are you going to get to the grocery store? How are you going to help your family day to day?

How about health care? What happens, we all know, because everyone's heard the story. I have constituents who don't even think about this stuff every day who can tell me, you know, most of the people that they know who don't have health insurance have to wait `til they are so sick that they have to take their family member or themselves to the emergency room so that they can get primary health care. I mean, which one do you eliminate? Which one is not important if your income is plummeting?

Now, let's take a couple of other things that have happened under the Bush administration. You have got the typical family paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance. You have housing that is the least affordable that it has been in 14 years. I mean, just to give you an example, in the community that I live in, I represent south Florida, the average price of a house in the two counties that I represent is over $300,000. That is not affordable. I mean, that just puts home ownership completely out of bounds for, never mind the average person, even somebody making a decent living.

But this is the 30-something Working Group, Mr. Delahunt. We identify, we are not, well, some of us are not, that far from having been through exactly the situation.

Of course.

Mr. Delahunt, let me just tell you. When my husband and I got married, we got married in 1991. And I was 24 and my husband was 26. Within several months of getting married, we were able to buy our first home. We both had health insurance. We were not worried about how to put gas in our car, and neither one of us had college tuition debt.

Fast forward to 15 years later, because I just celebrated my 15th wedding anniversary, and someone starting out just like we did can't afford a house in the community that I live in and represent. Literally they are driving their car around and have to pay more than $50 every single time. We couldn't have afforded that on the incomes that we made. We could back in 1991, but not, back in 1991 we could afford gas prices because they were in the $1 range, a little over a dollar. How are they supposed to do it? It is unfathomable.

What plan have you heard of from the other side of the aisle, from our good friends on the other side? Where is their economic plan? Where is their plan to fix it? What bills have they passed that reduce the deficit, that help Americans struggling to pay for gas, that help them pay for higher education? I mean, is it all you are on your own? It is all about you, and we are from the Government, and we are not here to help.

We have a plan. We have a new direction for America which is laid out right there. I hear a lot of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle accusing us of not having a plan. We have got one. Where is theirs? Because if we keep going in this direction, we are headed for more deficit and more of our citizens twisting in the wind.

We are paying for funerals for people who didn't die as a result of the hurricane.

Mr. Delahunt, you are absolutely right. The contrast here is that when it comes to actually improving the economy and beginning to go in a new direction, the Republicans have no plan at all. More of the same. More deficits, more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, more people who are going to go uninsured, more of the same; as opposed to the Democrats' new direction for America, Mr. Ryan, that you have on the easel next to you.

And I think it would be useful to take, Mr. Speaker, the Members through what the Democrats' plan is if we take the majority back of this institution and the things that we would implement if we were able to actually implement an agenda.

And, Mr. Ryan, don't forget. We have a plan that would allow small businesses to pool their resources and pool their risk that, if we were allowed to implement it, and if we were in the majority in this institution, we would pass legislation that would do that without totally eliminating the benefits that are part of these health insurance packages.

In the Republicans' legislation that they crammed through the Congress with a rubber-stamp vote that they typically do, their solution was to pass bare-bones insurance legislation that basically provides coverage for almost nothing. And you would basically dumb down any insurance policy. Some people might say, well, some insurance is better than none. But when you have the second leading cause of death for women in this country, being breast cancer, and in most States mammograms are a mandated insurance benefit, their plan would allow the elimination of that required coverage. If you implement it and their plan became law, we would ensure that fewer women would be able to get mammograms, and the incidences of breast cancer would go up.

Sure. What former House Speaker, leader of

the Republican revolution on this Republican Congress said, he cited a series of blunders. You referred to our Republican colleagues' incompetence a minute ago, Mr. Delahunt. Well, former Speaker Gingrich ``cited a series of blunders under Republican rule from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,'' which we have been talking about this evening, ``to mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He . . . said the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq.''

And our good friend Mr. Tanner, whom you just talked about, and the audit he wants to accomplish once we are in the majority, he analogized that legislation to a mechanic looking under the hood because that is really what is necessary here. I think I would want to make sure I had some Purell with me after we looked under the hood when the Republicans are put aside and maybe have a mask just so that I wouldn't become infected by some of the mismanagement and gross incompetence that has clearly occurred here under Republican rule.

I mean, a deficit of more than $8 trillion, a debt that is more in the time that President Bush has been in office than all previous 42 Presidents combined, a war in Iraq that has created a cesspool in a country that was in bad shape to start with, but that literally the situation that they are in now in Iraq with the terrorism on the rise that exists there was created by this President and the Republicans' war.

If the gentleman from Ohio would yield, because the contrast to what is going on in the cesspool that has been created by the Republican leadership in Iraq is that if we were in the majority in this Congress, we would implement the real security agenda. We would focus on making sure that there was a plan in Iraq so that we can train the Iraqi troops to take care of the business at hand in Iraq on their own and begin to phase out our involvement there.

Yet there is no plan to do that. There is no timetable. There isn't anything coming from this President that would say when a percentage of Iraqi troops are prepared, that we are going to pull out X percentage of Americans troops. We have to make sure we start focusing on the terrorism here at home.

What happens instead, in the debate we had the other day, where it should have been a debate, like you said, it was not a debate, but in the basic filibuster, single-subject filibuster in which we were afforded no opportunity to present or talk about our alternative, instead you had bobblehead after bobblehead on the other side of the aisle just come up to the podium and shake their head up and down and say exactly what the administration wanted them to say. Then they put their votes up on the board and did exactly what was expected of them, vote to rubber-stamp the exact same stay-the-course policy that Americans clearly have indicated they do not want to continue. I don't know what hometown these people are going home to.

So that way we can get back to talking about what Americans' priorities are here; making sure their kids can afford college, making sure when they are sick they can go to the doctor, but right now they can't because 46 million Americans don't have health insurance; making sure that gas prices aren't over $3 a gallon, with record profits going to the oil industry, and this Congress, led by the Republicans, passing legislation twice last summer with every single Republican voting yes and them holding the vote open at

least 40 minutes to make sure that they could twist enough arms to give away subsidies to an oil industry that is already making more money than they know what to do with.

I mean, if you were watching Meet the Press on Sunday and you saw the three CEOs of the oil industry just completely not getting that they need to be part of this solution, and no one in this Congress, that is leading this Congress, except for us, who are making every attempt, no one asking the oil industry to step up and invest their revenue from their profits into alternative energy resources. It is just absolutely unbelievable.

Exxon-Mobil invested $10 million, and made $30 billion; $10 million in alternative energy last year. That is what they talked about on Meet the Press on Sunday.

I mean, give me a break. Where is the commitment? Where are the priorities?

$400 million.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., for morning hour debate.

Thank you to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Meek.

We are proud to wear the colors today, Mr. Speaker, and we have got the beads on. And because we could not be with the Heat in south Florida during their triumphant victory last night and the other night, we decided to stir up some spirit here and send some good karma home to them. And I can tell you that I have a little gastronomic wager with our good friend Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas. I am looking forward to enjoying some lunch, courtesy of her and her staff after the Heat grabbed the championship. And hopefully, we will be able to be down there with them on Sunday and take home some of the spirit that we have been able to generate up here.

Thanks to your good leadership and firing up the Heat troops up here. I have worn these beads all over the place the last couple of days and yesterday in the mall, walking with my husband and my kids, got stopped by a tourist up here saying, ``Go Heat.'' So we can feel it all the way up here.

Thank you, Mr. Meek. It is a pleasure again to be here with you and spend some time talking about the priorities of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I know when you were in the Chamber this afternoon you talked about what you would like the American people and the Republican Caucus, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would like the American people to believe. And I know it sounds good to continue to say that the Democrats do not have an agenda. Well, sadly for you, Mr. Speaker and our Republican colleagues, that is not true. Fortunately, for the American people we do have an agenda. We have had one for quite a long time. It is right here.

Many times it is easier to graphically depict things as opposed to just using words, and we can take you through, as Mr. Meek just did, our agenda so that, Mr. Speaker, when you are finding yourself standing in front of a chair behind the podium on this floor, you can keep this in mind when you would like to say that we don't have an agenda because that is absolutely inaccurate. The Democrats' New Direction for America, as Mr. Meek said, pledges that we will make health care more affordable, unlike the rising health care costs that continue to skyrocket out of control in this country led by the Republicans for the last 14 years that they have controlled this Congress.

We will make a commitment to lowering gas prices and spend--yes, spend--the American taxpayers' dollars on exploring alternative energy sources instead of just having things like President Bush putting words in the State of the Union where he said out loud, America has an addiction to foreign oil and then proceeded to do nothing about it. No meaningful policy on the part of the Republicans in this body. No meaningful change in the energy policy. No reduction in gas prices.

I want to digress from this chart for a minute. First of all, let's just demonstrate the difference between what a new direction for America would be versus the same old Republican policies that have failed the American people and don't work.

Under Republicans for the last 14 years, Mr. Speaker, you have college tuition that has increased 40 percent. You have gas prices that have increased 47 percent. You have health care costs that have increased 55 percent. And median household income, Mr. Speaker, that has decreased by 4 percent. If that is the direction that Republicans would like the country to continue to go, then, you are right, the American voters in November should vote for the Republicans and continue more of the same. But if they want a new direction, if they want to make sure that we can have a leadership in this Congress and in this country that is committed to making sure that college and higher education is more affordable, not less, if they want to make sure that we can expand access to health care and instead of adding more people to the rolls that do not have health care and that go uninsured and that have to wait till their family members are so sick that they have to take them to the emergency room before they can get them some health care treatment, then they should continue to vote for more of the same and elect Republicans. If they want to make sure that they can move this country in the direction that most Americans would like to go in, then they will choose Democrats in the fall and we will make a commitment to expanding alternative energy sources, expanding our commitment to making sure that we don't have a continued addiction to foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, I find personally that sometimes graphic depictions, sometimes three-dimensional demonstrations are really incredibly helpful.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this is a gas pump. Apparently our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them don't appear to have seen one of these since they looked like this. The gas pumps from what I understand looked like this, oh, in about the 1950s. It appears as though many of our Republican colleagues haven't put gas in their own car since they looked like this, because if they had then they would realize that in most places in this country, gas is now more than $3 a gallon, that it costs a mom or a dad that drives their kids around in a minivan or in an SUV more than $50 to fill up their tank, and I feel quite certain that if our Republican colleagues were actually pumping their own gas, were actually having to observe the counter on the gas pump that shows, Mr. Speaker, just so you know, those gas pumps actually show you how much you are spending per gallon while you are pumping the gas into your car, maybe we could just pass this around on the floor and our colleagues could see what a gas pump looks like so that they could remember the pain that Americans go through when they have to spend that much on a gallon of gas. Then maybe we would have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle not continue to vote like the rubber stamps that my colleague Mr. Meek always talks about. Maybe they would get some courage. Maybe they would realize that they shouldn't be voting for an energy policy that actually gives money away to the oil industry, to an oil industry that has made record profits, Mr. Meek, more money than any corporation in American history in the last quarter of last year. It is just unbelievable.

I am hopeful that by my three-dimensional depiction, by my bringing an actual model of a gas pump to the floor, Mr. Speaker, then maybe some of our colleagues will keep in mind the actual difficulty that most Americans are going through when they actually have to fill up their gas tank by using one of these. I just wanted to provide a public service to some of my colleagues.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

You are absolutely right. No apology necessary. It is really important that we have this time on the floor, and that is why we appreciate Leader Pelosi giving us this opportunity to make some substantive arguments that actually demonstrate how we are going in the wrong direction and also to lay out the Democrats' plan for taking us in a new one.

What has really boggled my mind since I arrived in the Congress, at the beginning of last year, is that our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have no qualms about just ceding their decisionmaking authority here to the executive branch. Why show up for work? Why run for Congress? This is not an easy job. This is a job that requires a lot of responsibility, it requires thoughtful decisionmaking, it requires time away from our family and all of which, at least each of us on our side, and I know many of our Republican colleagues feel this way, that this is an awesome responsibility that we are given when we are elected to the United States Congress.

The Founding Fathers did not separate the United States Government into three branches in order for the Congress to just be a rubber stamp of the executive. They feared tyranny. They feared an executive that was too strong, and they wanted to make sure that there was a system of checks and balances, so that when questions that come from the executive come before the Congress, that we aren't just a rubber stamp, that we aren't here just to say, yes, Mr. President, absolutely, can I get your hat, can I hold your coat, Mr. President.

Our role here is to ask questions, to exercise oversight, to put forth initiatives and to actually represent our constituents, like you said, in the people's House. That is why I was very surprised, but pleasantly, to see the former leader of this Chamber under the Republican revolution, Mr. Gingrich, the former House Speaker, when he cited in the Knight Ridder newspapers, third-party validator that we like to bring out on this House floor, so that that way people understand it is not just what Kendrick Meek says or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Tim Ryan or Bill Delahunt. Mr. Gingrich cited a series of blunders under the Republican rule from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He said the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq.

You know, we just had 10 hours of debate yesterday, which if you listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, according to them, what President Bush is doing, everything is wonderful. Everything is coming up roses.

Now, I think we could all acknowledge in this entire Chamber that we are, although I certainly am never pleased about any one individual's demise, because, obviously, we value life, but there were not too many Americans shedding tears about Mr. al Zarqawi's demise and the American contribution to it. The world, such as when we removed Saddam Hussein, is a more peaceful place without him being in it.

But you cannot, based on one individual's demise, in the cesspool that has been created by this President's policies in Iraq, you cannot say, now, you know, everything is great, this is the beginning of the end, this is the turning point.

Listening to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In the last 10 hours, one would think that this bombing of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was the be-all and end-all, and that is the thing that Americans were looking for to end this. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why 42 people were killed in Iraq today, 42.

I mean, it is not like much has changed on the ground in that country. Our real security agenda that would take this country in a new direction, if we were able to win the majority back in November, Americans would see the direction that Democrats would take this country.

We would make a commitment to our troops. We would make sure that we had a real commitment to our troops, that we changed the military into a 21st-century one of military strength, and we would honor them. We would rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can make sure we can handle the diverse needs and the diverse activity that we have going on across the globe.

What happened to Afghanistan, Mr. Meek? I mean, when we first were attacked after 9/11, and we went into Afghanistan, and the Americans were united in that effort, we actually removed the Taliban. We were able to bring that country into the 21st century, restoring quality for women, and making sure that we had a democracy, democratic seedlings planted there.

Now, you fast forward to 2006, because we virtually pulled out of Afghanistan, save for about 17,000 troops that are still left on the ground. Now you have the rise of the Taliban again. You have Afghani women who are saying that they have been subjected to the same inequality and the same requirements of wearing the burqa and not being able to get an education.

We have abandoned Afghanistan; and, instead, we have added our resources in our effort to making Iraq more of a cesspool than it already was. If we are able to implement our real security agenda, we will make sure that our troops are well equipped, that we are funding the appropriate activity and making sure that we actually go after Osama bin Laden. We will make sure that the war on terror is waged both here in the United States and across the globe and that we strike a balance, so that Americans don't have to worry about being attacked in the United States.

We will make sure that we make a commitment to moving the country in a new direction militarily instead of continuing to fund an endless war in Iraq, that no matter what has been said in a 10-hour debate that occurred on this floor, still has no end in sight, still has more than 2,500 troops dead, and we know more to come every day.

Mr. Meek, you are a member of the Homeland Security Committee and Armed Services Committee, so you are certainly more expert in this area than I am. But I literally heard in the last day and a half a policy of denial on the part of our Republican colleagues. It would be nice if they put both hands on the ground and yanked their heads out of it so that we could all come together and have a real debate, a real debate.

Yes, bring out that rubber stamp, because that is exactly what happened on this vote this morning. If we were allowed to have a real debate, if we were allowed to put forward our alternative, if we were allowed to file amendments, I would have been willing to consider to be able to vote for something and would have been appreciative for the opportunity to vote for something other than what the majority tried to cram down.

They certainly did cram it down their colleagues' throats. We refused to allow it to be crammed down ours. You know what, I don't check my brain at the door of the Chamber when I walk in the door. I represent my constituents.

You know, not everyone will agree with me back home in the 20th district of Florida. That is okay, because I wasn't elected to be a rubber stamp. I was elected to be a Representative, a United States Representative, someone who stands up for what I believe in and stands up for what my constituents believes in. I was not elected to rubber- stamp anyone's policy, not Nancy Pelosi's, not Mr. Boehner's, not the President. I was elected as an individual.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they do check their brains at the door. They bring in that big old rubber stamp, and they just pound it on whatever is put in front of them by the Republican leadership and say, yes, Mr. Leader, yes, Mr. President, I am glad to do your bidding and the heck with the checks and balances of the Constitution and our role here as a Member of the United States Congress.

At the end of the day, why be here, why run, why make the sacrifice, why leave your family behind? We only need one of their Members. We only need Mr. Boehner or Mr. Hastert here. They are the only ones that bother showing up to work because these other guys on the other side of the aisle, they just do what they are told to do anyway. Really, they could go spend quite a bit of other time doing something useful and certainly could make sure that the country could begin to see what is really going on in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your leadership so much and really the opportunity to be here with you almost every night. I am going to have to catch back up to the two of you guys, and I have some family in town this week. I look forward to continuing to talk about the new direction that the Democratic Caucus will take this country when we are given the opportunity in November.

I look forward to continuing this debate and this discussion on our commitment to making sure that we do not privatize Social Security and that we enact responsible legislation that truly shores it and does not use scare tactics against our seniors, implying that there is some sort of crisis that does not exist when Social Security will remain solvent for at least the next 47 years; that we make sure we enact a truly effective energy policy, invest in alternative energy resources and make sure that we actually generate the ability to become insulated from foreign oil, instead of giving away the store to the big oil company; that we make sure that we really expand access to health care, that we reduce the number of uninsured Americans and that when a child is sick, when an American is sick, that they can afford to go to the doctor and that cost is not the obstacle to basic health care.

Those are the things that we remain committed to. That is an agenda that we have put forward and that we look forward to talking about as the months progress through to the November election. I look forward to sharing the podium with you and talking about that for the next several months.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the inaugural Jewish American Heritage Month, which was celebrated across the country throughout the month of May. With the history of racial intolerance our country has witnessed, I believe we must remain steadfast in providing future generations opportunities to learn about the varied faiths and cultures that make this country so great.

I am especially pleased that my colleague Congressman Joe Baca hosted a Special Order condemning hate crimes and racial intolerance. We must fight intolerance and stop the spread of hate-inspired acts and images, and I thank Congressman Baca for leading this important discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen how the national observance of Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month have brought, through education, greater awareness of the African American and Hispanic communities' contributions to our country. This past May, the many accomplishments of American Jews were recognized by the proclamation of Jewish American Heritage Month, issued by President Bush.

When the Jewish community in Miami approached me with the idea to help designate a month to honor the contributions of American Jews, I realized the potential impact of this endeavor. It is my hope that Jewish American Heritage Month will make a difference in the fight against anti-Semitism.

To those who would teach hate to their children, it might surprise them to learn that a Jewish man, Haym Salomon, was one of the largest financiers of the American Revolutionary War. To those who would paint graffiti on Jewish buildings, they should know that they have benefited from advances in medicine, trends in popular culture, and technological inventions, all developed by many famous and not-so-famous American Jews.

Fortunately, we have leaders in government, the business community, law enforcement, and education who work to eliminate hateful words and actions and encourage acceptance and sensitivity to diversity.

I am grateful to my colleagues who recognized the benefits that Jewish American Heritage Month would bring to the country, and I thank them for their unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your support and commitment. Throughout the process, you were an instrumental and invaluable advocate.

Leader Pelosi, Whip Hoyer, and Congressman Waxman, thank you for your leadership and guidance.

And I'd especially like to thank Chairman Henry Hyde--who was the lead Republican cosponsor of the House resolution.

Chairman Hyde helped immensely with spreading awareness of this resolution to our colleagues and the White House. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank Senator Arlen Specter who introduced and worked to pass identical legislation in the Senate. And once again, I would like to thank my colleagues, who unanimously passed the resolution.

The amount of support for this initiative has been nothing short of inspirational:

As the inaugural Jewish American Heritage Month comes to an end, national prominence of American Jewish heritage continues in communities across the country. In fact, many Jewish communities began their observances even prior to May.

At the end of April, the Jewish Museum of Florida held a press conference with several community leaders to announce the Proclamation's release.

At the beginning of May, the American Jewish Committee incorporated a celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month into their 100th Anniversary celebration here in Washington.

On May 11th, the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia honored Senator Specter and celebrated the establishment of Jewish American Heritage Month at their annual gala dinner. On May 23rd, the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington hosted a breakfast reception in the Capitol where several Members including Representatives Hyde, Rangel, Cardin, Berkley, and Lewis. And just last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg recognized the conclusion of the inaugural Jewish American Heritage Month at a Jewish Heritage New York event at Gracie Mansion.

Like so many of the ideas that generate in this body, the creation of Jewish American Heritage Month all started with one community that wanted to make a difference.

I would like to thank two talented and dedicated women who helped lead this effort in Miami: Marcia Zerivitz of the Jewish Museum of Florida and Judy Gilbert-Gould of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington and its Lillian & Albert Small Jewish Museum, who brought the celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month to the Capitol Building.

I respectfully request that the remarks made by their Executive Director Laura Apelbaum and their President Peggy Pearlstein be placed into the Congressional Record.

May 23, 2006 Jewish Historical Society of Greater

Washington event honoring the presidential proclamation of

May as American Jewish Heritage Month.

Laura Apelbaum, Executive Director:

Good Morning. I am Laura Apelbaum, the Executive Director

of the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington and

its Lillian & Albert Small Jewish Museum. On behalf of our

board of directors and members, I want to welcome you today

to this very special event.

I think we all can appreciate that as Jews living in

America we are called upon to have a little bit of knowledge

about a lot of history--ancient history, biblical history,

Talmudic history, and Holocaust history to name just a few.

Lesser known in our community and less well understood are

the rich stories of American Jewish history--the stories

beyond our own personal history that tie us to the Jewish

community and to the national American story.

In 1795, shortly after the site of the nation's capital was

selected, the first Jew arrived in the new federal district

of Washington. Fittingly, he was a real estate developer who

built office townhouses for new federal government offices of

the Department of War and State. Over the next two centuries,

he was followed by tens of thousands of Jews, all of whom

have become part of our community's history. Their lives and

deeds tell a unique story of both a hometown and a capital

city.

The story of Washington's Jewish community is in many ways

similar to that in other communities across the country. Many

of Washington's early Jews, my great grandfather among them,

arrived in port cities and to avoid the sweatshops of New

York and Chicago made their way to DC to open small Mom & Pop

shops-- groceries, furniture stores, tailors, jewelers. The

presence of the federal government had a profound effect.

Their clientele included Presidents, Supreme Court Justices

and Congressmen. The few who served in the federal government

for the century preceding the New Deal gave way to a wave of

young intellectuals who arrived to serve a burgeoning federal

government in the 1930s and '40s.

By the 1950s many of the small shops had grown into large

downtown department stores, Hecht's, Landsburgh's and Kann's

or other stores that spread with the community to the

suburbs. Along the way the Jewish community organized

synagogues and Jewish communal organizations.

Continued growth and prosperity in the post WWII era and

into the ``modern'' era have created a community that spans

three jurisdictions--DC and the Maryland and Northern

Virginia suburbs and includes more than 215,000 members. We

are now the sixth largest Jewish community in the country.

The Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington is the

nation's central archives for this special community. Our

collections are open to community members and researchers.

Our programs, publications, and exhibits recount our unique

communal history--at once local and national.

We first learned of the effort to create a special month to

call attention to Jewish American heritage from a colleague,

Marcia Zerivitz, the dynamic director of the Jewish Museum of

Florida. It seemed to us entirely appropriate to mark the

creation of this special month by honoring the many

representatives and Senators--our friends and neighbors--that

introduced the Congressional Resolution that led to President

Bush recently proclaiming May 2006 as Jewish American History

month.

Presentation--Society President Peggy Pearlstein: Ms.

Wasserman Schultz, Chairman Hyde, Chairman Specter, special

guests and friends:

In 1654, 23 Jews fled Recife, Brazil, and landed in New

Amsterdam (now lower Manhattan) in search of political and

religious freedom. These men, women, and children were the

first of millions of Jews to seek refuge in America--the

vanguard of today's American Jewish community--now the

largest in the world.

One hundred and thirty years ago on June 9, 1876, a small

yet committed Jewish congregation gathered to see their

dreams of building their own shul come to fruition. In the

presence of President Ulysses S. Grant, they dedicated a

small but beautiful synagogue building that stands just at

the foot of Capitol Hill at 3rd and G Streets, NW.

That building has been a witness to the history of the

Jewish community, our city and our nation. It stands as a

testament to the endurance of our community and to the

commitment we have to preserving and caring for our past as

we face the future.

Our Jewish Historical Society is committed to restoring

this special building and to educating our community

especially its youngest members about immigrant history, city

history, and the continuing story of Jewish life in and

around our capital city.

To commemorate the 130th anniversary of our local treasure,

we have begun a major restoration initiative to ensure the

buildings' existence for many years to come. The building

stands as a reminder of where we came from and its legacy, an

important part of where we are going.

You can learn more about our community at a comprehensive

exhibit now on display at the National Building Museum

through July 4th. This exhibit, Jewish Washington: Scrapbook

of An American Community, recounts the role that Washington

area Jews have played in American Jewish life and in the

nation's history.

This past year, Representative Wasserman Schultz and

members of her district coordinated a nationwide effort to

support passage of a resolution calling for a Jewish American

Heritage month. They were joined in their efforts by

Representative Hyde and Senator Specter resulting in

unanimous approval, in both houses of Congress for the

resolution. In April, President Bush signed the proclamation

declaring the inauguration of Jewish American Heritage Month

in May.

We have gathered to celebrate this Presidential

Proclamation and to honor the three members of Congress who

introduced the resolution supporting that proclamation:

It is my pleasure to present each of them with a very

special gift.

This is a tzedakah box that is a miniature of the historic

1876 synagogue which our organization stewards. It was the

first permanent home to Adas Israel Congregation. I hope that

it will remind you of our appreciation for your role in

commemorating Jewish American Heritage.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 20th District of

Florida.

Congressman Henry Hyde, 6th District of Illinois.

Senator Arlen Specter, State of Pennsylvania.

We also would like to take this opportunity to present a

tzedakah box to President Bush and ask Jay Zeidman to accept

on the president's behalf.

I want to thank everyone for attending what we hope will

become an annual event.