Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say, that as world leaders meet in New York this week to determine next steps on the Darfur crisis, we here in the U.S. Congress must commit to finding ways to break the current deadlock and lead new international action to stop the ongoing genocide.

We need to begin an all-out diplomatic offensive on Darfur in order to prepare the way for a peacekeeping force that can ensure protection for the people of Darfur.

The Coalition for International Justice estimated that 450,000 people in Darfur have died since the deadly genocide began some three years ago.

International attention to the Darfur conflict largely began with reports by the advocacy organizations, Amnesty International, in July 2003, and the International Crisis Group in December 2003.

Since then, countless organizations have put in untold hours trying to stop the carnage and human suffering. Groups like: International Committee of the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, World Vision, SAVE DARFUR--an alliance of more than 100 faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations, including: Amnesty International USA, International Crisis Group, American Jewish World Service, NAACP, American Society for Muslim Advancement, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Church World Service.

In all, dozens upon dozens of groups and organizations have prioritized stopping the killing in Darfur before there is no one left to be killed. It is high time that we, the U.S. Congress, join our name to that list.

We've done it before.

When the U.S. Congress decided in 1986 that South Africa's ways of Apartheid could no longer be ignored, the 99th Congress jumped in and passed of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act was won over a presidential veto. The bill imposed sweeping economic sanctions against South Africa, divesting capital from the government, and authorized several measures to assist the victims of apartheid.

Virtually every member of Congress felt pressure from their home districts to do something about apartheid and cities and colleges in their districts were divesting, and the bi-partisan vote led the way ending an oppressive regime.

We are at the point with Darfur.

I continue to hope and pray that the Bush Administration makes this a top priority in New York this week, and to pressure Sudan and its allies, particularly Russia and China, to accept the will of the international community for an international force to protect civilians in Darfur.

In the meantime, I hope that we all gather in support of Congresswoman Lee's Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, DADA, of 2006. Divestment worked to end Apartheid and it can work in this instance.

We can make a difference. We can save lives. We can stop the genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I recently took two actions regarding the genocide in Darfur that I wanted to bring to your attention.

At the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, the president of Sudan claimed that the genocide in Darfur is a myth propagated by Jewish organizations raising money for Israel.

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir remarked that those ``who made the publicity, who mobilized the people, invariably, are Jewish organizations.''

This statement is unconscionable and demands a vigorous response. Such Anti-Semitic remarks have no place in our world, let alone at the U.N. General Assembly.

Furthermore, the mass killings, rapes and displacement of innocent civilians in Darfur are tragically well documented. The United States Holocaust Museum has issued a Genocide Emergency for Darfur.

Today I signed a letter with several other Members of Congress demanding that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan retract his baseless remarks. The letter calls on the Sudanese government to abide by the Darfur Peace Agreement and the will of the U.N. Security Council.

A copy of this letter is reprinted below for your information.

In addition, I am an original co-sponsor of the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2006.

This legislation will ban federal contracts going to corporations doing business in Sudan that directly or indirectly support the genocide.

Countless organizations have dedicated untold hours to stopping the carnage and human suffering in Darfur.

These organizations include the American Jewish World Service, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross and the

I thank you, Mr. Ryan.

I can tell you, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, when I pulled in here close to the Chamber, I was off campus, and I saw your car there and I knew everything was going to be well represented here on the floor. And I am glad that you brought issue and put life in the lungs of what is actually happening here. When you talk about minimum wage, I can tell you right now, as it relates to the middle-class squeeze on families, especially as it relates to lower incomes and higher costs, these are rising health care costs up here. And here are the falling incomes of those individuals as they continue to make less and less and they are having to spend more and more.

And I think it is also important, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, to point out the fact that we want to take this country in a new direction. That is what we are talking about.

You want to talk about salary increases, Mr. Speaker. For Members of Congress, we are saying here on the Democratic side of the aisle we are not going to vote for another pay increase for Members of Congress until the American people get an increase.

And we do know, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, that we had some legislation on the floor because we were hammering away at the Republicans on this side, majority, okay, on the other side of the aisle about an increase for American workers. What did they do? The Potomac two-step, put together all kind of stuff that was unpassable in the Senate, and then brought it to the floor knowing full well that it wasn't a well-intentioned minimum wage increase. We want to take it to $7.25 an hour. They know full well, and I am saying ``they'' because that is what Newt Gingrich is calling the Republican majority. That is not me, Mr. Speaker. That is what Mr. Gingrich said when he said ``they.''

It is important for us to say that we are willing to stand up on behalf of the American people, all American people, Republican, Democrat, Independent, those who are not voting yet, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, and to make sure that they receive an increase. And what happens with salaried workers, let's just say there are people in our districts that are not individuals that are making the minimum wage, they are making a little more than the minimum wage. And if they make $8, $10 an hour, when the minimum wage goes up, then there is going to be a renegotiation of their salary. And these CEOs, I mean, I am not disliking CEOs. Mr. Ryan and I always say that profits are good, we think it is a good word, it is not a bad word. But when you have CEOs that are making more than 500 employees in a company and you are having individuals who are not able to cover their health care costs, Mr. Speaker, I think that is something we bring into balance.

And this Democratic caucus, when in the majority, if allowed to be in the majority by the American people, have already said one of the first business actions that we would take is increasing the minimum wage, amongst other things.

Thank you so very much, Mrs. Tubbs Jones. And I can tell you, it is always good, Mr. Ryan, having a member of the Ways and Means Committee here to be able to share some higher thoughts on legislation here that we are talking about.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, I think it is very, very important that we shed light on what has actually happened here in this Chamber and what has not happened. There are a lot of pieces of legislation that are coming to the floor as we close out this 109th Congress, as we start right before the elections, before we go on what we call a lame duck session after the elections. Members of Congress, many are on jets and driving, or planes, trains, or what have you, going back to their districts. We decided to be here, the 30-something Working Group. We have another hour after the Republican hour to come back here to be able to share the information not only with the Members but also with the American people and make sure that they know that we are here on their behalf as Americans first.

I think the facts are overwhelming here, but I just want to make sure, because whenever you identify a problem, you have to have a solution coming shortly thereafter or right before. So I am going to take the opportunity in addressing the Members and talking about the solution, and then identifying the obvious problem. Not a problem that we have identified within the Democratic caucus, but the U.S. Department of the Treasury has identified, the Inspector General, the Department of Homeland Security has identified, and that the Government Office on Accountability have also identified as major issues that are facing our country that we haven't faced in the history of the Republic.

I am saying since we have been a country, we haven't been in the posture that we are in right now, and I think it is important that we present those facts.

We are saying on this side of the aisle we want to take America in a new direction. That new direction consists of six points. It goes beyond, but mainly six points. First, the protection of Social Security is so very, very important. I am from Florida, and Social Security is a major issue in Florida and throughout this country. As we look at disability benefits for American workers when they are injured on the job, to be able to have Social Security which they paid into, they can receive their full benefits. When you have retirees, one thing they can count on, and they probably can't count on a pension from a company that they have been working for or at for some 25 or 30 years, but they can count on Social Security because it is backed by the U.S. Government.

And also survivor benefits. As we look at survivor benefits for folks that were working, and if they pass on, their children have an opportunity to educate themselves. There are some Members of Congress here who are presently serving who have taken advantage of survivor benefits that have made our country stronger in preparing these bright, young minds to be able to lead our country in the future.

I am really sad to report that it continues to be under attack by the Republican majority and the Bush administration. I am concerned about that. But we have made a commitment for 2006, taking America in a new direction, that we will protect Social Security, as we have protected it from attempts by the Republican majority and the President, who burned all kind of jet fuel to try to ram a privatization plan down the throats of the American people. I think it is important that Members go on HouseDemocrats.gov and get our plan as it relates to securing Social Security.

Looking at affordable health care, I think it is important that we look not only at prescription drugs, but also make sure that there is a major focus on health care. And there are health care professionals, I had a major health care insurance company come into my office just this week and say something has to happen.

From the small business to the Fords and the GMs of the world, health care is crippling this country. We have a war in Iraq, but we have a war here as relates to health care in the United

States. We are dedicated to making sure that we have affordable health care for children and seniors, and making sure that we use our buying power to secure lower prices for our seniors as it relates to part B.

We talk about energy independence, investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East. We are talking about E85 and alternative fuels and using coal. We are the Saudi Arabia here in the United States in regards to coal. We have enough coal to supply the whole world as it relates to energy, and we can use it for our own benefits to secure America, and that is homeland security in making us stronger.

We have already put out our innovation agenda, Mr. Speaker, and also energizing America, making us energy independent. Members can also view that on HouseDemocrats.gov. That is making sure that the next generation is ready to take over. And for this generation, broadband for all Americans, making sure that all Americans have access to the superhighway, and making sure that they have broadband opportunities.

Making sure that we reverse the tax increase that the Republican majority has put as it relates to student loan opportunities. There is legislation filed in this 109th Congress that would reverse that and cut it in half; and make sure that we give tax credits to students, and also parents who are trying to educate their children. That is something that is very, very important. The Republican majority has brought a great increase in the cost of college. We have said that we are dedicated, and we have the will and desire to make that happen. That is part of our six-point plan.

We have talked about the minimum wage. That is so very, very important. We have Members on the majority side that want to belittle that idea. But when you haven't increased the minimum wage since 1997, and say it is okay for you to give Members of Congress pay increases as far as the eye can see since 1997, $3,100, $4,600, $3,800, $4,900, and on and on and on, continued pay increases for Members of Congress.

And don't get me wrong, it is difficult for Members who have decided to serve their country and have a home in their district and try to have some sort of a place to live here in Washington, D.C. Yes, I am not knocking cost-of-living increases for Members of Congress, but I must say that I am very, very concerned with the fact that those individuals that punch in and punch out every day, 15-minute break in the morning and afternoon, 30 minutes for lunch, we put them at an unfair disadvantage when we allow ourselves to receive pay increases.

The Republican majority has done that. We have said on this side not another pay increase for the Members of Congress until the American people get a pay increase. That is something that we are standing very close to and making sure that we deal with it.

When we talk about homeland security, homeland security, there is a lot of discussion about homeland security. We have said that we are going to implement not any ideas that someone in some office here in Congress just says, oh, I think that is a great idea, we will do it if we get in the majority. No. Well-thought-out, well-fleshed-out ideas as relates to homeland security that the 9/11 Commission has called for, and making sure that we implement the 10 unimplemented recommendations by the bipartisan Commission that went through this Congress and that the President spoke to, the National Security Director testified in front of, former and present Members of Congress, members from our intelligence organizations spoke before it, 9/11 families spoke before, and survivors of 9/11. They all took an opportunity to testify in front of this committee, and there are a number of issues that are unfinished business as it relates to that.

Some of the higher points, and I won't go over all of the 10 points right now, but one simple one, air cargo. What is going on with that? I mean, we are running around at the airport giving up hand sanitizer, shaving cream; taking off your jacket, belts and shoes before you get on the plane. Meanwhile, cargo goes in the bottom of the plane, no problem whatsoever.

It took the Brits to disclose a liquid explosive attempt on a plane that was headed to the United States of America before the Department of Homeland Security started saying maybe we ought to deal with that because that was one of the 9/11 recommendations.

We are saying that we don't want to be reactionary. We want to be proactive. We want to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and that is something that we are dedicated to doing if we have an opportunity to do it.

Some may say, Congressman, why aren't you doing it? We are not doing it because we don't have the chairmanship of the committees or the ability to bring a bill here to the floor after going through the Rules Committee, to bring these pieces of legislation and ideas to the floor.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, and I will to go beyond the six points here to say that we have the will and desire to work in a bipartisan way. I feel personally that there are some Members on the Republican side that understand the importance of implementing the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

I don't want to go off on a philosophy that nothing major is happening in the United States so we must be doing something right. I would be on the side of recommendations by a bipartisan commission led by a Republican former governor who continues to give low marks to this legislative branch because we have not carried out the things that we needed to carry out.

Mr. Ryan, before I yield back to you, I want to mention as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Oversight and Management, there was a company that was awarded the SBInet contract that put surveillance cameras along the border. Something that I am not proud of is the fact that there are two other similar programs prior to this program that has been renamed for the third time that spent $426 million of the taxpayers' money. Towers were built in some areas, cameras did not work in other areas, it was not monitored the way it was supposed to be monitored, yet we awarded a $2.5 billion contract to a company.

We have the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security who is going to be coming before our subcommittee after the election in November, I must add, and he will report that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have the capacity to be able to take on such contract, or monitor the contract, in a way to make sure that we don't have cost overruns and making sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent inappropriately.

The 9/11 Commission, one of the 10 points was that we add 2,000 border protection officers yearly. The President sent his budget to this Congress and only asked for 215 border officers. You want to talk about Article I, section 1 oversight, making sure that we ask the tough questions? We are not doing it. The Republican majority doesn't want to do it. We are saying that we have the will and the desire to do. So let's make that we do it, and we are up front and straight with the American people.

Mr. Ryan, as we start to look at not only the new direction we want to take American in, as the Democratic Caucus and as a Congress, we want to make sure that we identify where we are falling short.

Mr. Speaker, all of this is very achievable if individuals were just to legislate and have oversight and work in a bipartisan way. Legislation is brought to the floor in the closing days of this 109th Congress to split the Congress as it relates to philosophy.

There was a bill up last week that talked about building a double- link chain fence along 200 miles or so of the border with no funding. That is like me saying, Mr. Ryan, I would like to build a monument out on the Washington Mall to celebrate the great victories that this country has had, whether they be educationally or whatever the case may be, over the history of our country, but I am not going to appropriate any money for it. But we are going to take it to the floor, and we will pass it anyway. Just on that, on the basis of the fact that there is no funding, it is like an empty suit. It is like a suit hanging up in the closet and no one in it.

It is important that we come straight with the American people. If we are serious about protecting our borders, let's do it for real. Let's not pass a bill without appropriations. Let's not bring a bill to the floor talking about giving authorization to local law enforcement

agencies to interrogate undocumented individuals in our country without any funding, because what the Federal Government is going to do is hand that responsibility to local sheriffs and city police officers and send the recommendation for the 250 Border Patrol officers to the House when they know we need 2,000. Let's stop handing it down to local governments and saying it is your responsibility. Let's man up, woman up and leader up and do what we have to do on behalf of the American people. We are saying if we are in the majority, we will do it.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour, the 30-something Working Group. We come to the floor for the second time tonight to share the new direction for America.

There is great reason to promote a new direction for America, especially as it relates to our actions near the U.S. House of Representatives.

I don't want to take any great deal of responsibility for what is said or what is done in the White House, because I am a Member of Congress, and Article I, section 1 authorizes us to take legislative action. Also within our rules and the spirit of our rules is to have a level of oversight and also investigative powers here in the House.

There are a number of things that are taking place in our country that have been pushed forth or have been rubber-stamped by this House out of the administration that should not be, and we want to make sure as we start talking about our new direction for America, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, that if we are in control we look forward to working in a bipartisan way, making sure that Republicans who do want to be a part of this new direction can definitely participate in that process if it is within the spirit of making sure that we have real security here, here in the United States as it relates to implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Also, making sure that we have better pay for jobs that American workers carry out day in and day out. The minimum wage has not been increased through this Congress and through the White House since 1997. It is very unfortunate that we do have some Members on the other side of the aisle that are willing to vote for pay increases to Members of Congress, including Senators, but not pay increases or a minimum wage increase for the American people, which we have said on this side of the aisle that one of the first actions of the Congress, of the Democratic Congress, would be to make sure that we move the minimum wage to $7.25.

Making sure that we deal with the cost of the increased college tuition that has been brought about through this rubber-stamp Republican majority. We are willing to reverse that and make sure that we give tax deductions to those that want to educate themselves and those family members who want to assist in that process, making sure that we expand Pell Grants. A lot of promises were made right up here at this podium just below your podium there, Mr. Speaker, the President made as it relates to the expansion of Pell Grants, and that has not happened. It has decreased in many ways.

Energy independence. It is important that we do this. Just today I was watching the evening news talk about how some billionaires in other parts of the world and here have invested in an initiative of the Clinton Foundation as it relates to making us energy independent. Some $10 billion of the president and CEO of Virgin Airlines has put in over the next 4 or 5 years to make sure we can look for alternative fuels. These are private citizens that are now stepping up to try to look for alternative fuels because they have seen what it has done to the United States of America.

Since the Congress does not want to rein in big oil companies and wants to have a special relationship with big oil companies where they receive more subsidies than they will ever receive in the history of the Republic, and also higher profits and the highest profits that they have ever experienced in the history of the world, leave alone the United States of America, and still there is no legislation that is really promoting alternative fuels through this House.

We are dedicated and committed to making sure that not only the research, but making sure the access for E85, using coal and other alternative fuel initiatives, to make sure that we invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. And what is happening right now, the Republican Congress is voting to invest in the Middle East versus the Midwest.

Making sure that health care is affordable for every American. I think that is very, very important. Some people may say, well, Congressman, you are talking about individuals. We are not talking about individuals. We are talking about small business having an opportunity to provide health care for their employees. We are talking about companies as big as Ford having a plan to lay off or a plan to have early retirement for many of their employees, mainly because of health care costs, of what it is costing big companies here in the U.S. and small companies as they go to provide opportunities for their workers.

And looking at the issue of balancing the budget, I think that is very, very important as relates to bringing this out-of-control spending and borrowing Congress. The Republican majority has borrowed more money from foreign nations in 4 years than in the history of this country. No other time, 224 years prior to this Republican administration that we have now and the rubber-stamp Republican majority that we have here in the House, no other time in the history of the country, this is not our numbers, these are the numbers of the U.S. Department of Treasury, that we see that kind of activity taking place.

We are the only party, Mr. Speaker, I must add here, in this House that has actually balanced the budget. Other people can talk about it. We have actually done it. If there was a job interview, and the Republican Conference versus Democratic Caucus and individuals talk about balancing the budget, the qualifications are clear that here on this side of the aisle, without one Republican vote, I do not like to say that, but without one Republican vote, that we balanced the budget. It is what it is. It is history, and it could be the future as it relates to this House if allowed to lead this House by the American people.

Also, when we look at the Social Security, we talked about this in our last hour. There are a number of Republicans and also the President has just said if he gets the kind of rubber-stamp Congress he has right now, he is going to continue to celebrate in moving towards the area of privatization, privatizing Social Security. That is not what I am saying. That is what the President has said. So I think it is important for people to understand that.

On this side of the aisle, there was about 1,000 town hall meetings that took place in districts throughout the

country, and we went to other parts of this country to have town hall meetings where other Members would not have town hall meetings on this issue, along with a coalition of a number of groups that were out there that were concerned about Social Security not only for seniors, but also making sure that we have survivor benefits for those that have passed. They had paid into Social Security so that their family members would be able to educate themselves, and those individuals that were on the job and all of the sudden were injured on the job, regardless of what the benefits of the job, Social Security was there to give a little bit towards making their lives somewhat livable.

And through the privatization scheme that Republican majority, rubber stamp, along with the President of the United States, who flew all around the country and tried to sell, and the American people still said no, taking us through that process all over again versus trying to balance the budget and go back to the years when the Democrats were in control. We actually balanced the budget, and we saw surpluses as far as the eye can see and a healthy future for the Social Security Trust Fund. That is not Democratic talk. That is American talk. And guess what? It is action, and it was action.

What we are hearing now is a lot of we want to cut it in half, we think we are going to cut the budget in half, we believe that we are going to do the better job versus the other person. I mean, you can talk about the issues.

You want to talk about border security, Mr. Speaker, Republican majority, we can talk about it. They said the American people are fed up. Well, how did they get fed up? And how do we get to the point that they got up to 80 or 90 percent of some of the things I heard here on this floor today; how did they get there?

I guess some members of the Republican majority come and say, well, it is the Democrats' fault. We are in the minority. We do not have the power to bring legislation to the floor, to be able to have real border security, because if we had the power, Mr. Speaker, when the 9/11 Commission report and recommendations were sent to this House and to this Congress and to this White House, we would have 6,000-plus more border agents right now on the border. We would have a real strategy. Maybe we would save $429 million that was wasted in monitoring the border in cost overruns and scandals that the inspector general, Department of Homeland Security, has identified. I am talking fact, not fiction. Maybe, just maybe, the new plan that has just been released to a U.S. company for $2.5 billion would have the oversight that they have and also have agents that can respond to monitoring our borders. I mean, we are understaffed as it relates to law enforcement on the border.

Meanwhile, the Republican Congress wants to do everything that they have done thus far and passing responsibility and unfunded mandates to the State and also to local parishes and counties and cities to say that, oh, yeah, we will give you the authority to carry out our function. Meanwhile, while the police officer and the first responder, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was once a upon a time in life as a State trooper. Goodness, we had enough to deal with not only enforcing the laws of the State of Florida and local ordinances there, but at the same time now I have got to become a border agent because the Republican Congress decided to shortchange me, but allow these big companies to run away with the lack of oversight.

The headlines of the Department of Homeland Security is not today, Mr. Speaker, about how secure in America. It is about how someone ran off with a contract, how we overspent as it relates to Katrina contracts, how we continue to have overspending and lack of accountability in the war in Iraq.

All of these issues, the cost overruns, I went over to the Department of Defense. There is a lot of stuff over there, but I am saying cost overruns and the lack of oversight as it relates to the Department of Homeland Security, and I am a member of the committee, trying to bring about change, but guess what? I am in the minority. The only thing I can change here is that the Members, I am almost done, Mr. Speaker, in trying to encourage the Republican majority to see the light, like the 9/11 Commission and first responders throughout this country have seen the light and survivors of 9/11 families have seen the light, of saying just do what we have laid out, the work product from the 9/11 Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. The COPS program is something that the Association of Police Chiefs wants; it is what the Association of Sheriffs wants. It is something that local communities, Mr. Speaker, they want it. The cops support community-oriented policing support from the U.S. Congress.

Now, if 20 percent or 10 percent of that funding is in place, it would be shocking, and it is not there. As a matter of fact, in many areas it has been zeroed out. And so this is where people get an opportunity to see its government at work: bike patrols, preventing crime before it happens. I think it is very, very important.

Mr. Ryan, because we believe in third-party validators in the 30- something Working Group, I just wanted to take out the Washington Times, by no stretch of the imagination the liberal paper, because as the Republican majority always talks about, you know, when I was in Florida, they had this caucus called the Freedom Caucus, and they wanted to be conservatives.

But I just wanted to say that I think it is important that we bring third-party validators, not just fiction, but third-party validators. The Washington Times. It is an article, I guess Members can go online, July 9 of 2006. I take this stuff and I read it, and I make sure that we get it to be able to bring out in such a time as this.

Here is an article right here: ``Social Security Battle.'' The President is quoted here saying: ``If I get a Republican Congress,'' okay, ``I am going to rekindle the fight to privatize Social Security.'' He says it right here. I didn't go in the back and print this up. He says it right here. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we identify those issues and that we bring it to the floor and we also share with the American people.

I guarantee you, there is not one Member of the Republican conference that is going home that is having a town hall meeting, because very few took place, as it relates to the privatization of Social Security, since it was so unpopular. I guarantee you, while we all go back to our districts and ask our constituents for their vote and for their vote of confidence, that nowhere in campaign literature that may be printed are we saying, I support the President in privatizing Social Security.

Well, you know why that is not the case, Mr. Speaker? It is because it is so unpopular, because the only people that have a guaranteed benefit in a Social Security privatization plan is Wall Street, over $535-plus billion. I believe the GAO just came out with a report recently. And also I stand here, Mr. Speaker, I mean, we come to the floor to do business. We don't come to the floor to play around and whatever, picking things out of the sky saying that we believe or are using fiction and all. Here is something right here. Members can go on WWW.house.gov/waysandmeans--democrats where you can get this report here of ``Social Security Privatization, A Continuing Threat.'' And it quotes the Governmental Accountability Office and what they found. And here is a copy of the GAO report, just a summary right here, just some points, confirming that the impact of the Bush plan would result in a benefit cut. And I think it is very, very important that people understand that and that you understand that benefits will be cut.

We had some folks here on this floor, Mr. Speaker, it happened in 109th Congress, all of us here in this Chamber right now. And those Members in their offices know full well that people came here to the floor and said, you will not experience a benefit cut.

It is not about the special interests getting what they want, Mr. Speaker. It is about the American people getting what they need and what they deserve. Because special interests is not paying into Social Security, when you look at what the average American has to pay into Social Security. And then we are going to privatize it so that others can benefit off of social security benefits for the American people?

If you drive an F-10 or you drive a flex vehicle, this is your issue. If you are an American worker and you got injured on the job and you are on disability, this is your issue. If you are a retired American or coming close to retirement, even though you may have a pension or a 401(k), this is your issue.

Because this is what the Federal Government has said, that we have your back on Social Security. When all else fails, when Enrons of the world take place and when all these kinds of things take place where people thought that they were going to have something and they don't necessarily have it the way they thought they were going to have it, one thing that they can count on, Mr. Speaker, and that is Social Security. One thing that they can count on.

So when we start talking about privatizing Social Security, there were going to be some very happy special interest folk that for Medicare thought that they were going to be able to bank in on the sweat and sacrifice of American workers and taking that Social Security benefit and put it into some sort of stock exchange scheme, and to say that, oh, we are going to let everyone have their own students. And they really went after young people.

And I want to commend a number of people that need to be: Rock the Vote, and different coalitions that were out there that worked so very, very hard. And the 30-something Working Group, Mr. Speaker, we came to this floor night after night and day after day commending those organizations, as we moved down the line. The AARP and a number of other groups were out there against this.

And, now, for the President, after being defeated by the American people and by the Democratic minority, I must add, here in this House, by defeating the Republican majority that was willing to walk in lock step and rubber-stamping what this Republican President, and regardless if it is a Republican or Democratic President, there is something fundamentally wrong when you have a President that can say yes in the Oval Office. And that the U.S. Congress, forget about Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, forget about what is here.

The President can say, yeah, we can do it. Just like Vice President Cheney and his aides had the conversation with Big Oil executives in the White House who cut a deal on energy in 2001, gave them a head nod there in the White House, and then came to Capitol Hill and got exactly what they wanted that then turned around in record-breaking profits, oil companies. Here it is right here, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, we come to the floor to carry out business on behalf of the American people. We don't come here, somebody hand us a sheet and say you start reading this, this is what we want you to read.

Look at these profits. A meeting happens in the White House. I know I have my article here somewhere, and I will pick up the article on the back end of this chart. It happens in 2001. In 2002, $34 billion in profits for Big Oil companies. 2003, $59 billion. 2004, $84 billion in profits. Record-breaking. 2005, $113 billion in profits, and climbing, Mr. Speaker.

Profits, Mr. Ryan and I always say, is not a dirty word. But let me tell you what makes it disgraceful, dirty and unclean, if I can double describe things here, is the fact that the American people at the same time these profits were taking place were paying through the nose, and still in my opinion paying through the nose, for overpriced fuel and for overpriced gas here in the United States, need it be heating oil, need it be diesel or what have you. And the American public is paying for this because now trucking companies have a fuel surcharge on it, and so not only are you paying at the pump, you are paying at the grocery store and you are paying at the department stores.

Again, third-party validator, and I am going to yield over to Mr. Ryan here in a minute, is the fact that we have the White House documents. Here is a Washington Post story, 2005, November 16, front- page article. This is the kind of stuff you save, Mr. Speaker. You don't like, oh, read it and then put it somewhere off to the side in the recycling bin and let it go. You keep this because you want to remind your colleagues on the other side of the aisle that you know exactly what they are doing to the American people:

``White House documents shows that executives from Big Oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001,'' it goes back to the chart that I just identified here, ``something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry executives testifying before Congress.''

That is okay if the Congress doesn't want to hold their feet to the fire and hold them in contempt, but folks thought they were going to jail. And these are our constituents that are paying through the nose. Meanwhile, we are letting them out the door.

The document obtained by The Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil Corp., also Shell Oil Company, BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts that are still being debated here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rest my case. I don't need to come up with any slick slogans. I don't need to talk to anyone about what will sound good on the floor. I don't need to do that. I can walk through these Halls of Congress with great confidence. I sleep well at night because I know we are here saying we are willing to put this country in a new direction, we are willing to deal with real energy-efficient ways of dealing with fuel and alternative fuels.

Last point, Mr. Ryan. This is what happens when you have a rubber- stamp Congress and special interests that reach right into the legislative process here, or the lack thereof. Here is ExxonMobil. I didn't do this; this is what they have done.

You have the regular, special, super plus. You have got a couple of prices there. Here is the E-85 here. Here is the little sticker that is on the pump: ``Cannot use your Mobil credit card.'' I am even going to say, ``Non-Mobil product.'' Some might say, well, if we just put ``cannot use your Mobil credit card'' and leave that ``non-Mobil product'' off, then someone may say, well, that is a little bit too unfair. But I think it is important as we look at this, if you can walk into a Mobil station and buy a bag of chips or a carton of cigarettes or 10 gallons of milk with your Mobil credit card, which you can do, then why can't you buy E-85, an alternative fuel that is going to help us continue to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East and help us towards energy independence? Mr. Ryan.

Thank you very much, Madam Leader, for coming down. You definitely cement what we have been talking about for 3 years on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, we had it from the top person. If we have an opportunity to lead this House, and we sure hope that we will have that opportunity, you heard it from the person who will drive the agenda and make sure that we are able to do what we have to do.

Leader, I want to thank you for having confidence in those of us who are young Members here in this House to be able to carry the message, to carry the fight to stop Social Security from being privatized. We have an article in the Washington Times that talks about the fact that if the Republican majority is back after the elections, that the President feels that he has the support here in the House to privatize Social Security, and they may very well do it.

I want to thank you for allowing us to come to this floor and share with the Members our plans and alternatives, and make sure that they know full well that we are ready to move in a new direction.

One thing that I mention all the time, and you mentioned in your comments, bipartisanship can only be allowed if the majority allows it. I personally appreciate as a Member who has spent 8 years in the State legislature and has worked in the Florida Senate in a bipartisan way, a lot can be accomplished on then the State and now this country. And I know if we are allowed to lead with that philosophy, America's agenda will move forward.

Like the leader said, the American people are far ahead of us. We are trying to catch up with them. We are saying that we have the will and the desire to do so. Thank you for coming here.

Thank you.

Mr. Ryan, I look forward to continuing, until the clock runs out on this Congress, to continue to come down to the floor to share with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we can't get any higher than where we are right now as it relates to the commitment and the will and the desire to put America in a new direction.

Mr. Ryan, I think with the leader coming down to the House, to this floor a few minutes before 8:00, 8 p.m. eastern standard time after a full day of legislative session, she has pretty much laid it out as relates to the Democratic plan, put this country in a new direction and have real security. Forget about the first 100 days, like a lot of politicians like to talk about; the first 100 hours of a Democratic Congress and all of the things that she identified.

I am willing to yield to Mr. Ryan, and we can close out, and then we can move on from this point. I don't think that we can add any more this evening to what the leader has already said.

A lot of times we can talk about what the leadership said they would do, but when you have the leader of our caucus, the leader of the House Democrats, hopefully the future Speaker of this House of Representatives, she has said on the Congressional Record, not for the first time, second time, third time or fourth time, but tonight of what we would do if given the opportunity.

Mr. Ryan, let me say this: Since we are getting into the debate of who can be appointed or what have you, I could be a millionaire, but I am not. Let me just say this, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, either. But let me just say this. As we continue on with the 30-somethings coming to a close, as we wait on our Republican colleague to come get his or her next hour, I just want to say that it is very, very important because this is very serious business. Sometimes here in the 30-something Working Group we spend a number of hours, I must say, Mr. Speaker, a number of hours not only studying before we come to the floor, of sharpening our tools and talking about what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, talk about the history of what we have done in the past, and talking about the legislation that is filed in this Congress.

You heard Leader Pelosi. She said we have a minimum wage increase for the American workers at $7.25 already filed. It is not some saying, well, if we could or we are dreaming of a piece of legislation. It is already there. So when we talk about the first 100 hours to the Republican majority and to the American people, this is not something that we have to say, well, wait one second, wait one minute, we have to draw up some plans. They are already there. They are already there because the American people have said that they want it, overwhelmingly.

And at the same time we talk about real security and securing America. It is not something where we are going to come up with some plan or some gimmick. It is already there. Taking the recommendations, you heard the leader, in the first 100 hours, the Democratic majority, the 10 uninitiated 9/11 recommendations that are vital to securing this country will be implemented.

Like I said, as the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee here in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the schemes that have been brought about, that we are going to monitor the border and what have you. The American people want something more than monitoring. They want to secure the border, whether it be south or north. They want to secure it, not just monitor it.

So let's just say, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that this new $2.5 billion initiative to monitor the border actually works. And the reality, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the President, years after the 9/11 Commission report has been sent to the Congress and went to Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com and folks have copies of it, two or three copies of it, read it three times, still sends his budget to the Hill calling for 250 Border Patrol agents. If the Democratic amendments were adopted, Mr. Speaker, we would have over 6,000 new Border Patrol agents at 2,000 Border Patrol a year, as the 9/11 Commission called for. It was not that we went to the Democratic caucus and said, hey, let's just come up with a number of what we think should happen. We took the bipartisan recommendation from the 9/11 Commission.

So like I said, the leader has already laid the foundation. The leader has come to the floor here in the p.m., a little bit before 8 p.m. eastern standard time, to deliver the message on behalf of the Democrats in this House that have the will and the desire to lead and said what we would do in the first 100 hours.

So now that I know that our Republican colleague is here now, Mr. Ryan, I know that you were going to give the information out.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour. We would also like to share with not only the Members but the American people that it was an honor to address the House this evening, sir.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is always a pleasure to join you in doing the 30-Something hour, and since us ``somethings'' are carrying the hour tonight, since we do not have the 30s here, I understand they are en route, but I want to thank you for your dedication to be able to deliver a positive message here in the Congress.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Delahunt, when I came and shared with you the positive message, I mean, when I said the positive message, I wanted to make sure that people understand there are people here in the Congress willing to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we do the things that we need to do to make sure that the American troops that are on the ground not only in Afghanistan, but in the war in Iraq, that there are Members of Congress who are willing to come to the floor and give voice to those individuals who are there.

I have to, Mr. Delahunt.

Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. I think it is important to the point, sir, that the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor to share the truth and to share the reality of what is happening here in Congress and what is not happening here in Congress. And I think it is very, very important, very important that we bring the facts to the floor.

As you know, General Abizaid, who is over Central Command and the lead commander in Iraq, said earlier this year that after Iraqi elections, Mr. Speaker, that we would see a downtick in U.S. troops in Iraq, in the war in Iraq.

Because of a lack of a coalition, Mr. Speaker, Iraqis are no longer in the driver's seat as it relates to being able to stand up on behalf of their country. And so because we don't have a coalition, and the second largest coalition in Iraq, Mr. Delahunt, is U.S. contractors paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

And I have another example, because I believe there is a war in Iraq, but there is also misunderstanding and deception here as it relates to border security, Mr. Delahunt. This is fact, not fiction. And I just want to take 3 minutes to just talk about fact, not fiction, because I know that Mr. Ryan is here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is here, and we need to be able to lay these facts out.

Just today was a story leaked, and tomorrow the Boeing Company will receive what we call the SBInet that will do surveillance on the border between the U.S. and Mexico and also between the U.S. and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we had two other initiatives prior to this one as it relates to surveillance of our borders that spent $426 million, Mr. Speaker, and it was cost overruns and did not meet the contractual agreement that they made with the Department of Homeland Security. Now, this is a $2.5 billion initiative that Boeing will have.

Let's put Boeing aside, because I am not here to talk about Boeing. I am here to talk about the lack of capacity of the Department of Homeland Security and the lack of effort as it relates to the Congress to make sure that we protect our borders.

The 9/11 Commission that I spoke of in detail last week, Mr. Speaker, said that we need 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year; 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year. You thought the President heard that message? Maybe not. You want to talk tough on border security and homeland security, or you just want to talk common sense on border security and homeland security?

The President sent his budget to this Congress because he felt that he could do it, because this Congress, A, doesn't have the will and the desire as it relates to the Republican majority to make sure that we have enough border agents on the border. Now, we can burn

all kinds of Federal jet fuel in the Republican leadership going down to the border talking about, ``Oh, I am here to make sure that we protect our borders, and we want to make sure that things go the way they are supposed to go.'' But the bottom line is, and I think this is important for every Member of Congress to understand, the fact is that 215 border agents were requested by this administration.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Speaker, we call for 2,000 border agents in line with the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report. Now, $2.5 billion, the Department of Homeland Security and even before they were created legacy agencies that are now in the Department of Homeland Security oversaw the two initiatives prior to this new one, changing the name, but not the oversight.

Now, I am the ranking member on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Integration. We have three hearings, Mr. Speaker, and we had those hearings because the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security said that the money was squandered, 426 million of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars. They had cameras that didn't work. They had cameras in areas where Border Patrol agents could not even respond to watching individuals cross the border because they didn't have enough agents.

On 9/11, combining three shifts of 24-hour shifts on 9/11, there were 250 agents on the border between Canada and the United States of America, 250. Now, we are not talking about all at once, we are talking about three shifts. So I think it is important.

If we are going to talk about what the facts are, and that is what I enjoy about our working group that we have here is that we come to the floor with the facts. We have the will and desire because we have amendment after amendment that shows that here on this side of the aisle that we called for the 2,000 border agents since the 9/11 report was released, that was a book in Barnes and Noble and on Amazon.com and a number, and I encourage Americans to take a look at that, because this Republican majority is not following that. Come to the floor, tough talk, but not backing it up.

And the great frustration of so many Americans as it relates to not only responding, yes, we can go out and link ourselves up and sing ``God Bless America'' out here on the steps of the Capitol, but the real commitment to protecting and having real security that we call for in our plan, HouseDemocrats.gov, anyone can get it, any Members of Congress can get it, of real security is making sure that we scan our containers for nuclear weapons, to make sure that we check air cargo before it goes in. We have passengers and Americans basically taking off everything to get on a plane, but meanwhile the cargo goes in the bottom of the plane unchecked.

The frustration that Mr. Delahunt has is the fact that people come down to the floor saying one thing, and it is actually another. It is like me saying, ``Look over there,'' when the action is over here, or the lack thereof.

So I think it is important that we outline these issues. Not the Democratic Caucus, not Mr. Ryan, not Ms. Wasserman Schultz, not Mr. Delahunt that comes here with this report. We are talking about the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security that says the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have the management capacity to oversee a contract even smaller than the $2.5 billion contract. So nowadays before the election, Mr. Ryan, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that we have monitors, and that we are going to monitor the movement on the border. How about the apprehension of individuals who are crossing the border? How about having border agents who are able and detention centers that are able to handle the capacity of those individuals who are coming over?

And then we had an amendment on the floor, a bill on the floor, recently saying that we are going to build a double-link fence. I voted against it because it was a joke. We are going to build a double-link fence of 200 miles or so on the border that individuals are crossing; but, better yet, it doesn't appropriate any money to build the fence. You want to talk about the Potomac two-step in the worst way. That is just like me going to my kids and saying, ``Hey, guess what? We are getting ready to go to Walt Disney World, but meanwhile we don't have the gas money to get there.''

I mean, you know, we are making fun of this, but what I am saying is that this is for real. And so we have Members coming to the floor who are representing to not only, Mr. Speaker, you, other Members of the House that we are actually doing something on the majority side, and we are not doing anything but saying we are going to go right, but then going left. I am talking about the Republican majority that is doing that.

So if we are going to be real, if we are going to have real security, Mr. Speaker, that we talk so much about here on this floor on this side of the aisle, if we get the majority of this House, we have the will and the desire to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

You want to respect those families, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that you talked so eloquently about just a couple of days ago here on this floor when you took the opportunity to walk the Members through what they haven't done and what they should do? We want to respect the memory of those individuals, we want to respect those first responders who put their lives on the line, climbed up that building; some lost their lives; some are still living with the aftermath of their heroism. If we want to respect them, then let's do what they said do. And if you are a Republican, Independent, or Democrat, you have to have a problem with the fact that these Members are coming to the floor representing one thing and doing another.

So they can burn all kinds of Federal jet fuel and taxpayers' expense all they want to, Mr. Delahunt. And your frustration as it relates to Afghanistan when we had them on the run and now we have commanders, need it be NATO commanders or need it be U.S. commanders, saying we need help. General Abizaid, he had a press conference 48 hours ago, says, no, troop levels won't be coming down; we are going to still have 140,000 troops in the war in Iraq.

We have 147,000 troops right now in the war in Iraq, and we will probably end up having 147,000 troops that are on their fourth and fifth deployments.

Yesterday in Iraq, we lost four marines, leave alone the countless number of Iraqi individuals that are not even wearing a uniform, just trying to make a living, that have lost their lives. We have a policy here in the U.S. Congress of saying, because the President said stay the course, and we have a rubber-stamp majority that is not even exercising Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

The lack of oversight and the lack of legislative authority, and this is what we get. We get individuals coming to the floor making statements that they know full well are not true on the reality of the appropriation and the reality of the direction of the policy of this country. Follow the President. So shall it be written, so shall it be done. That is not the democracy that the American people woke up early one Tuesday morning to vote for representation here in this House.

Mr. Ryan, as I yield to you, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Green Party, Reform Party, they voted for representation and we are saying that we have the will and the desire to provide that representation.

He is yielding to me. Mr. Ryan, it is better when someone else talks about your great contribution.

Mr. Speaker, even you participated in this fund- raiser. This is very important. This was a fund-raiser to raise money for the police officers who lost their lives here protecting the Capitol, to make sure that their children have an opportunity to go to college and be all that they can be.

Mr. Ryan got caught up into the moment last night. He played quarterback. Made a couple of plays, running the ball, bad knee and all, and ended up hurting his knee. Tonight he comes with not only the will and the desire, but the dedication. He is standing here on one leg with crutches. He is here to deliver the message on behalf of the 30- somethings. We commend your dedication for watching out for not only the American people but those at the U.S. Capitol. We appreciate your sacrifice for being here tonight, standing on a bad leg and trying to recover at the same time.

Will the gentleman yield?

If the gentleman will yield, I am going to have to leave before the hour is over, and I have to take Mr. Ryan since he laid it out in the field last night. But let me say this very quickly. The facts are what the facts are. Some individuals say it is what it is. And the bottom line is we have a rubber-stamp Republican majority.

I do not spend a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about what the White House should have done and what they did do or whatever the case may be because I am a Member of Congress; so by my being elected in the 17th Congressional District, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, right next to your district, by the people of South Florida, they federalized me to come to the Congress to do what? Carry out Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That means the legislative body has oversight and is the investigative body. We are not doing any of those.

Let me just take a moment. Today we had a number of visitors to the Capitol. The American Cancer Society came to the Capitol. A number of survivors came to the Capitol. They have a walk that is going on right now outside on the Mall near the reflection pool of the Capitol.

I want to commend them for their efforts for coming here to Washington, D.C. I want to also say they have a Wall of Hope out there for those individuals that are survivors and those individuals that have passed on. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz had a joint press conference on breast cancer today. I think it is important that we lift those individuals up because I know that there are Americans who could not make it.

My sister is a breast cancer survivor. I went out with Mr. Ryan this evening to sign the wall for Florida, and I put

my sister's name in. She couldn't be here. I called her and told her that I put her name on the wall. I had an opportunity to sign it.

I know that we in the Congress, all of us, are a part of making sure that we have enough research to be able to look and find ways that either we can prevent cancer from happening, or find medicines and procedures that can take away the issue of cancer. I know there is a commitment by 2015 to eradicate all cancer here in the U.S. So that is very, very important.

I just wanted to lay that out because I know we wanted to all commend them. We have serious issues that we are talking about, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have got to lay out the commitment of those who did come up here.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is important that we take this in a very serious manner. Even though it is Eastern Standard Time, it is approximately 11:20 p.m., and we have worked a full legislative day. We have a full legislative day tomorrow. And we are here to give voice to those that are counting on not only Members of Congress, but Members of Congress that have the will and desire to move us in a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that for those Members who want to join this side of the aisle in making sure that veterans, those who have allowed us to salute one flag, to be able to get the kind of health care that they deserve from this government, to allow those small businesses that want to provide affordable health care for their workers, all of the way up to the Fords and the GMs of the world who would like to provide health care, because we haven't addressed those issues here in this Congress. The corporate community and also the business community are suffering because of it, as well as the workers. Forty million Americans are trying to figure out how they are going to provide health care to not only children but for individuals who punch in and punch out every day.

These are issues that we are willing to address and that we have had here as it relates to legislation in this Congress. I think it is important that we focus on bringing balance to this process, not just coming to the floor, having discussions. I can see if we were just here talking about what the majority is not doing. We are not only identifying what they are not doing, but at the same time we are saying on HouseDemocrats.gov that we have plans for security. We have plans for making sure that we invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. We have plans as it relates to a real strategy for the war in Iraq versus just a slogan that says stay the course.

We have a plan to make sure that we educate our children, an innovation agenda that has been out for a very long time. It is nothing new, nothing that we revealed in days before the election, some under 50 days before the next election.

The American people, and I am not talking about just the Democratic American people, I am saying Independents, the Reform Party, all have an opportunity to make a decision on behalf of the future of our country.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and the 30- something Working Group, as you know we were here earlier with Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Ryan, and for those others of the 30-something Working Group that were not able to make it to the floor, making sure that college is affordable for the next generation, making sure that we are not worrying about competing with the school down the street but competing with a school on another continent, we want to make sure that we do everything that we are supposed to do here in this Congress in giving every American a level playing field, if not an advantage over other countries, and making sure that they have what they need.

We have fought the obvious battle here in making sure that our troops have body armor, making sure that those families that had to buy body armor for their loved ones, husbands, wives, uncles, daughters, making sure that we fought for those issues.

I would give credit to some Members on the other side of the aisle who did stand up against the majority. But unfortunately, we have overwhelming support for a rubber-stamp majority, those individuals who are willing to follow the Republican leadership and not standing up on behalf of the American people.

I think it is important that we give voice to those individuals. I am glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the minimum wage and she focused on domestic issues. We have a war in Iraq, but we have a huge challenge here in the United States of America. We have a huge challenge. We have blue and red States that are suing the Federal Government for lack of funding on Leave No Child Behind, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation that we felt we could move forth in a bipartisan way, not only in this Chamber but also in the Senate.

But it takes a majority to bring about true bipartisanship. We have shown that we have been able to do it. We have shown on this side of the aisle that we can balance the budget and secure the future of not only Social Security but also secure the future of our country, not having other countries having their hand in the pocket of the American taxpayer.

Earlier Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the whole issue of border security. It was an hour that the majority had, not the last hour, the hour before that, talking about how we are securing America and we are strong, this, that, and the other, and coming to the floor and sharing words without third-party validators. Who are the third-party validators? Our third-party validators are the American people who are saying that they are concerned about what is happening in this country because we don't have the kind of balance that our democracy calls for.

Who is going to hold in check an administration that is willing to do anything to make sure that, you know, let's say the poll numbers, or to use 9/11, something that is not dealing with honoring those families and those first responders, but to talk about a false agenda as far as securing America. We can do a better job.

Have the majority done some things? Yes, they have done some things. I am a level-minded person, and there are some things that have been done. But have we secured America in the way we should? As it relates to our agenda and securing America, we have put that up front. Not just as it relates to uniforms and badges, but also from a fiscal standpoint, we are saying we don't want America's back broken because of the record-gaining debt of this administration and the Republican Congress.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am going to tell you right now, this poster here is very interesting because this poster is the longest-living poster that we have in the 30-Something Working Group arsenal of posters, to be able to break this down so everybody can understand.

We don't want to confuse Members or the American people by using big words and acronyms and just kind of talking inside a Washington game. We want to make sure that people understand. We want to make sure that people understand that here as it relates to our efforts on the Democratic side of the aisle, that it is not about the Democratic National Committee. That it is not about, because I am a Democrat, I am right. It is not about okay, I am going to speak to only the Democratic Members of the House, because that is not what this democracy is set up to do.

This democracy, Article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, says as a legislative body, we have oversight and investigative powers. We are supposed to hold this government accountable.

The House is the only body you have to be elected to. The Senate, you can be appointed as a Senator. If a Senator was to say I have to retire, health reasons or whatever the case may be, or somebody is picked for Vice President, a Governor in that given State can appoint an American citizen to carry out that Senator's term. That has happened. That has happened in this Congress.

When we look at the House of Representatives, we are the true body of the democracy. We have to be elected. If any Member of the House has to leave, they have to hold a special election to fill a seat. Let me say, it takes the House and the executive branch to do what has happened. $1.05 trillion has been borrowed in 4 years between 2001-2005. President Bush, he is our Commander in Chief and he is our President, period, dot, but he cannot do it by himself. The Republican Congress allowed him to do it in raising the debt ceiling. We had those letters out here, and we still have those letters from the Secretary of the Treasury saying we have to raise the debt ceiling.

What does that mean? That means we haven't been responsible, the Republican majority, in administering the dollars that the American people have given in trust to this Congress and this House to do on their behalf. Spending is out of control, borrowing is out of control. Borrowing is out of control. $1.05 trillion. In 224 years, and here I am in the 109th Congress, a second generation Member of the House, okay, and this has never happened in the history of the Republic. This is not something that happened maybe 20 years ago, even 100 years ago. In 224 years, 42 Presidents have not been able to accomplish what the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress has been able to accomplish in allowing foreign nations to buy our debt, to have their hands in the pockets of the American people, and counting.

This chart, as far as I am concerned, when we get back here after November, we are probably going to have some new numbers. That $1.05 trillion is higher. This chart is falling apart, goodness gracious, because this chart has been the wake-up call.

We decided to come up with this chart to paint the picture, regardless of what the Members on the other side who come to the floor say about fiscal responsibility. The Government Accountability Office released a report that there are agencies that are coming to the Hill that can't explain where millions of dollars have gone.

And we are supposed to have oversight. We have the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that says if anyone in the Pentagon says anything else about redeployment of troops or a different strategy than what I believe, ``I believe,'' or that the administration has embraced, then they are fired. Ms.

Wasserman Schultz, not even a hearing, not even a Member from the Republican side outraged to the point where they are going to their party leaders saying we have got to call the Secretary of Defense in and find out what he is talking about, because this thing is supposed to be, using your own words, Mr. Speaker, using their words, saying if we hear from the military commanders on the ground what they need, we are going to give it to them.

So when you have this lack of oversight, no matter what your party affiliation is, no matter what your motivation may be to vote or not vote in November, you have to have issue with individuals that are saying, ``Either it's my way or the highway.'' That is okay if you had a household somewhere and you are the big paycheck guy or gal or whatever the case may be and you are paying the bill. But when you are paying the bills with U.S. taxpayer dollars, we have to bring issue to that. And because of that relationship that this Republican majority has with the executive branch of this government, of our government, I must add, it is problematic when you have folks that are not willing to ask the question.

When we walk through these doors into this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and the lights are up in this Chamber, and it says the board is open, what we call the voting board is open, and we take our voting card out, and we come in here to vote, we are voting on behalf of 600- or 700,000 Americans that have elected us to come here to represent them, not what the special interests say that we should do here in this House. There are some very obvious issues that should be resolved, that need to be resolved, but will not be resolved as long as we have a rubber-stamp Congress in place.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I sleep well knowing that we spend every moment that we can here on this floor until the clock runs out by the rules of this House to allow us to come here and give voice to those Americans that deserve better. We are saying that we are willing to put this country in a new direction, not just saying it in fiction. It is on the Internet. It is on housedemocrats.gov. We have press conferences. We file amendments in committee. And the only reason why those amendments and that legislation does not have breath in the lungs of the legislation that we file, the reason why it doesn't have a heartbeat, is the fact that we are in the minority.

Now, the only way that can change, Mr. Speaker, is that we need a majority of this House to bring accountability back to this government to make sure that we have balance, to make sure we have fiscal responsibility, to make sure that we stand up on behalf of children who can't even vote, and to make sure that we give voice and to make sure that we give direction and to make sure that we have the backs of our men and women that have sand in their teeth right now in the war in Iraq, and to make sure that those individuals that are in Afghanistan that are standing on behalf of the hope and the prayer and hopefully the willing desire of this Congress, to make sure that we have their back, to make sure that we have a true coalition, to make sure that other countries can look at this country and know when that whatever the President's says, it does not necessarily mean that that is the final word.

Yes, we support our President. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to allow this Congress and this legislative branch to function in a way that it is supposed to function. And right now that is not the case because individuals are willing to rubber-stamp exactly to the word, to the comma, to the period to what the President calls for. And it is on domestic policy, and it is also on foreign policy. And I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we carry out our duty.

No other President in recent times, Mr. Speaker, I must add, has been able to celebrate the kind of rubber stamp that the Bush administration has received. That is not good for America. That is not good for any party affiliation anyone may have, and that is not good for the future of our country. And that is the reason why we are here in that light.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I can tell you that as you start to go down the line of the facts and not fiction of what has happened and what has not happened here in this House, you can't help but think that we only have tomorrow that we will be in session, and we have next week that we will be in session.

There are a number of conference reports out there, bills that have passed both House and Senate that are in limbo that a conference committee has not even been appointed by the leadership of the House on a bipartisan, in a bipartisan way or partisan way to even deal with those issues.

We have an immigration bill that the American people would like to see some action on. No action whatsoever. And I can sit here with great confidence to say that it will not happen. A lot of things have, you know, a lot of talk on the majority side about an immigration bill. A lot of talk about protecting our borders and bringing legislation to the floor, if it even made it through a committee, and I will take out my Sharpie here of a double-lined fence to protect our border and bringing it to the floor for a vote.

And you take out the legislation and you start to do something, what my teachers used to say, reading is fundamental, and you do not see here where the money has been appropriated to even build a double-line fence that we are coming to the floor and being asked to vote on. It is not a joke.

No money. Yes, we are going to build this fence. It is going to be for 200, or if someone sat in the back room somewhere off the chamber and said, do not make it 200, make it a 300-mile fence, let's build a fence all of the way, let's put one in the middle of the Gulf, and we are going to run a fence underwater, folks have to put on masks and SCUBA equipment, put it underwater, yeah, that is the ticket. But no money to be able to pay for the fence.

Better yet, I think that folks find some sort of gratification or, I guess to prove a point, to say we are tough on security. But we are not going to put our money where our mouths are.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Leave No Child Behind. The same thing as it relates to what, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about as it relates to the minimum wage.

The 30-Something Working Group night after night pounds the Republican majority as it relates to the imbalance of accountability on behalf of the American people that are making minimum wage. We have a proposal on this side of the aisle to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, that will take other workers who are not on the minimum wage, that are making $10, $15 or $20 an hour, their wages will go up.

Meanwhile, CEOs are getting everything that they want, making triple- diple time of the worker who is going in there and working every day. Need it be someone that is retired, that is trying to make ends meet, they are going in, they are punching in and punching out every day, 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes in the afternoon and 30 minutes for lunch if they get that.

The CEOs are getting what they want, and guess what? The Members of Congress are getting what they want. These numbers that you see up here are not minimum wage or even salaried workers in the United States of America. The minimum wage worker has not received an increase since 1997. Look at it. Zeros across the board for the American people. But look at Members of Congress. Now, here is the difference between the minority, those of us that are the Democrats and the majority, those that are in the majority, that has the power and the influence and the committee chairpersons that are able to move legislation, and the speakership and the majority leader, and the Senate, and the White House.

What has happened? They all got raises. And the difference between us and them is that we said we will not participate in another pay raise for Members of Congress until the American people receive a pay raise. And that is a fact. And that is a promise. And the other promise that we have made on this side of the aisle is in the majority, within the first 100 hours that the American people will receive an increase in the minimum wage. And that is a fact. That is not fiction. That is fact. That is on the Record. That is in legislation that was filed in the 109th Congress that cannot see the light of day because the majority does not want it to happen.

Now, here is the other issue as it comes down to accountability. There is a big differences from that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle. We have said we are willing to move forth in a bipartisan way and tackle the major issues that are facing this country today and tomorrow. The Republican majority has already shown that they do not have the will nor the desire to follow through on anything that I am talking about at the levels that we are talking about.

We are talking about moving this country in a new direction to make sure that every American can participate, whether they are driving a pickup truck or a flex vehicle here in the United States, making sure that Democrats, Republicans, independents, members of the American people in general, those who cannot even vote will have the opportunity.

We have a proposal on reversing the cost increases that the Republican majority has put on the backs of the American worker and the American family and in educating the next generation of leaders that are here to make sure that they have enough money to attend college, that makes sure that there is no devolution of taxes. And what do I mean?

In the 30-Something Working Group, we do not believe in big slogans and Washington inside talk. We believe in making sure that the American people understand. Devolution of taxes is saying we cut their taxes here, and that we do not put it on the backs of the States, because by their constitution, by State constitutions, they have to balance.

Here in Washington, they just put it on the credit card or they ask a foreign country to pay for the mismanagement of this Republican majority.

So there is a big choice here. The big choice is that do we want to continue to go in the wrong direction, from a fiscal standpoint and a respect standpoint as it relates to our veterans and their services, also as it relates to health care, or do we want to go in a new direction in making sure that we deal with our fiscal issues?

Because on this side of the aisle, we balance the budget. Not one Republican on this side can say that they had anything to do with balancing the budget.

We are almost going to run out of time. But I am just going to say go to www.housedemocrats.gov, or www.house.gov/dems. The Members can go on and see the report on making sure that we keep Social Security as a public program versus privatization. A member actually came to the floor after we finished last week and said that no one in my party ever said anything about privatization of social security.

I kind of wanted to ask the gentleman to yield, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to bring a statement out that the President said less than 10 hours earlier saying that if they get the majority and he is able to get the next Congress, as he has it now, to rubber stamp, you are going to pursue the privatization of Social Security once again.

So we want to make sure the American people know about it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of, Dr. Joseph Patrick Lee, the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida.

Dr. Lee was an institution at Barry University, known throughout the Barry family and to generations of students. He was an extraordinary scholar and an excellent administrator. He served quietly, competently, and well, helping to develop and expand Barry College into the major University it is today. His passing is a huge loss.

Dr. Lee was also an integral part of the South Florida community for over 25 years. He served on the boards of directors of numerous community groups, including president of the Miami Shores Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club of Miami Shores. Dr. Lee's many honors included: the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship; Danforth Foundation National Fellowship; Fulbright Fellowship, Universite de Paris; and National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Fellowship. He was elected Commissioner of Florida's Southern Association of Colleges and Schools from 2000-05, and served on its executive council in 2004.

Born November 30, 1942, in Leitchfield, Kentucky, Dr. Lee came to Barry University from Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, North Carolina, where he held the positions of vice president for academic affairs; academic dean; and associate professor of French. His love of language led him to earn his doctor of

philosophy from Fordham University in New York, with a major in French, minor in Spanish. He earned his bachelor's degree from Brescia College in Owensboro, Kentucky, majoring in French with minors in English, Spanish and history.

Considered a preeminent scholar of Voltaire and an internationally respected scholar and lecturer, Dr. Lee co-authored ``Livre dangereux: Le Dictionnaire philosophique de Voltaire'' in 1994, and published book reviews in 10 journals.

Dr. Lee became Barry University's vice president for academic affairs in 1981. As its chief academic officer, Dr. Lee was an integral part of Barry University growing from a small college of just under 2,000 students to today's institution of more than 9,200. Barry University, Florida's fourth-largest private institution of higher education, provides bachelor's, master's, law, and seven doctoral degree programs across the state. Founded in 1940, the university is sponsored by the Dominican Sisters of Adrian, Michigan. Barry University, named one of the most diverse institutions of higher education in the South by US News and World Magazine for the last seven years, possesses a diverse student population from more than 70 countries characterizing Barry's global community.

Dr. Lee's life mirrored the diversity found at Barry University. His research and travels took him to France, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, and his reputation led him to more than 30 locations throughout the United States and the world as a speaker and guest lecturer. Further, he was a member of more than 15 professional organizations, including the American Association of Teachers of French, American Association of University Administrators, American Comparative Literature Association, American Society for Eighteenth- Century Studies, British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, Modern Language Association, North American Association for the Study of Jean- Jacques Rousseau, and the South Atlantic Modern Language Association. Dr. Lee also was appointed to the editorial board of the ``Complete Works of Voltaire,'' and was national secretary-treasurer for Delta Epsilon Sigma.

Dr. Joseph Lee's achievements were great, as was his commitment to Barry University's community and the broader community of South Florida. I offer my sincere condolences to his family and all who were touched by his greatness.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group has been coming to the floor for 3\1/2\ years with great intensity in the last 2 years because a lot has been happening to America versus for America as it relates to national policy in the area of health care, education, economic development, helping small businesses and large businesses provide health care insurance for their workers.

We can go from as large a company as General Motors having to cut back on their employee workforce and having to make major cutbacks at U.S. companies because of a lack of a policy dealing with health care. You can go all of the way down to the small business that only has 5 or 6 employees that are encouraging their employees to get on Medicaid because they can't afford to give them a package that is affordable for those individuals to provide health care insurance for their families.

Those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we don't come to the floor to say Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you. We come to the floor to give the American people the straight talk and also Members of Congress straight talk about what they are not doing for their constituents and Americans in general.

We are the leader of the free world as it relates to a democracy, but our democracy and economy is suffering because of a lack of oversight, a lack of adhering to Article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution that says we are supposed to be the legislative body.

Mr. Speaker, I must say there are a number of Republican Members that are coming down to the floor because I can tell you, if I was on the majority side, I would be quite nervous right now. When the election is 50-some-odd days away and the American people are looking around and saying, why don't we have the essentials, such as a health care policy?

Why do we have a number of red and blue States suing the Federal Government over lack of funding for Leave No Child Behind?

Why do small businesses have to tell their employees to get on Medicaid, a government program, when they could provide health care insurance for their employees?

Why do we have veterans that are going to see a specialist at a VA hospital and have to wait over 3 weeks, in some instances 2 months, to see that specialist when they have a problem? Those individuals shed blood and watched their friends and colleagues and comrades die. Those individuals come here to the Washington Mall, right down the street from this Capitol, to see the names and sometimes visualize the faces of those individuals who lost their lives. These are individuals that may not have legs or arms. Some are living the memory of what they went through, but yet they have to stand in line.

If I was a part of the Republican majority, I would have an issue as relates to the wrong direction that they have led this country.

I wouldn't say the Republican majority has led the country in the wrong direction. They have followed the President in a rubber stamp atmosphere. They haven't stood up to the President and said Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says we have to legislate, we have to have oversight. So shall it be written, so shall it be done, by the President of the United States, and now we find ourselves in a situation that we have never been in the history of the United States of America. This is not political rhetoric, this is the fact. This is a fact.

Now we have a President that is running around here saying that he wants to privatize Social Security, if he has a Congress that would deliver it, a majority, in the next Congress. Now, I can tell you, the President came in, he had privatization, he had 2 privatization commissions that went out and tried to find information on how they can privatize Social Security.

We spent a lot of time in the first half of the of the 109th Congress last year trying out how we could please the President, the majority, how we could please the President by privatizing Social Security that would cut benefits for survivors, that would cut benefits for retirees and cut benefits for individuals that became disabled at the time of war.

The only winners in the privatization of Social Security would have been Wall Street to the tune of $530 billion. I can speak boldly here today. I don't have to look at notes, because I already know this. Those of us on the 30-Something Working Group had well over 1,000 townhall meetings throughout the country with a coalition of Americans, Democrats and Republicans to push back the President and the rubber stamp Congress and not allowing seniors not to have that security that they signed up for.

So I must say that this is not rhetoric, this is fact.

I just want to mention something, since I am joined here with my friend, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the 30-Something Working Group. We don't have to quote what Democrats have said about this Republican majority. We can quote the past Speaker of this House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. There is not a day that you pick up the paper and he says he doesn't understand what is going on in Congress right now.

This is an individual, that led the quote, unquote, Republican revolution that took place. They were supposed to balance the budget, they were supposed to make sure that they have accountability, they were to make sure that they have maximum oversight. None of that has happened.

If I can just take, about, maybe 4 minutes, and just kind of go down the line, because I know the previous speakers kind of painted this picture that the Democrats are stopping something great from happening.

Well, I just want to break this down for the Members in case we don't understand the majority and minority rule here. We can't bring a bill to the floor, not that we don't have the desire to do so, it is because we are in the minority. The bottom line we are in the minority, especially in this partisan House of Representatives, because only the majority can allow bipartisanship, true bipartisanship. We have already said, if given the opportunity within a little bit over 50 days, that we would work in a bipartisan way starting in January, tackling the major issues.

Now, here are the facts, the only party in this House that has balanced the U.S. budget, the Democratic majority at that time, without one Republican vote. We balanced the budget. We were not borrowing from foreign nations. If someone wants to ask a question, why don't we have a true coalition in the war on Iraq? We don't we have the cooperation that we need to be able to go after Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan where poppy plants, I must say, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is the main funder of the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, we have troops and coalition forces that are saying that we need help, and we cannot respond. The reason why we cannot respond, because we have this war of choice in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives, the second largest coalition there outside of, without looking at notes, without looking at notes, the largest coalition that is there outside of the U.S. forces are, what, U.S. contractors, at the tune of over $300 billion that has already been spent on the war, as far as I can see.

Republicans on the majority side are saying, the super majority of Republicans, because I do believe a few of them have spoken out on the fact that we need a plan in Iraq. The plan is, is what the President has said, stay the course. If I was a CEO of a company, and we overspend, mismanagement, scandals as it relates to U.S. stockholders, I would say to the U.S. taxpayers in our case that have lost money, report after report, attacks are up in Iraq.

We have the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq, look at this right here. It is not a handshake, this is embracing. These two countries were at war. I have been to Iraq.

I have gone in the parade stadium that Saddam Hussein had where the helmets are embedded in the ground there as you march into that parade stadium, stepping on the helmets of Iranian soldiers, that they defeated Iran in past conflicts, and, look. This is the Prime Minister of Iraq that came and spoke at that podium, here, that the U.S. taxpayers paid for, democracy over 224 years, came there and spoke to this U.S. Congress in a joint session.

I was sitting right there. I remember it vividly. He had very disparaging comments to say as it relates to Israel, and he has gone on to Iran. What happened at that meeting, Ms. Wasserman Schultz? He said, we have a bond, we have cooperation, and we are going to work together as it relates to defense for the region.

Here is a man, the President of Iran, that has said, I want to debate the U.S. President. Not only do I want to debate the U.S. President, we are willing to do everything that we have to do, and he has nuclear weapons right now that are in development that are pointed at our allies in the Middle East and could be a threat to the United States of America.

When we started talking about the facts, we have a notebook of facts. As a matter of fact, we have a whole milk carton here of facts. The fact is that the Republican majority can't come when they have full control. It couldn't be better. It could not be better. How can you have the majority in the Senate, a majority in the U.S. House, the presidency of the United States of America, all of the cabinet secretaries are on board, and it is a streamline. It is a streamline of rubber stamping.

The President sits in the Oval Office, and we have evidence that the private sector is welcome to the Oval Office, those individuals, special interests, I wouldn't say private sector, I say special interests that are sitting at the table, that are taking out their pens and writing policy, and they send it to Capitol Hill.

When they send it to Capitol Hill, they are met at the front door. The Republican leadership says, Mr. President, if you say that this is the right thing to do, without a hearing, if a hearing even takes place, because we have had bills that have come through the door of the U.S. Capitol, and have been on the floor by the afternoon, this brings a whole new meaning, Members,

to that old cartoon that says, I am just a bill on Capitol Hill, and it goes through a process.

Guess what, that whole cartoon has to change now, because that is not the case. It talks about the House and the Senate, and it says it goes to the President, the President vetoes it, it comes back to the House and Senate, they want an override, and it becomes law.

But in this new version on Capitol Hill, first of all it starts with the writing of the bill of a special interest here in Washington, D.C. The special interests write the bill and someone over in the White House says, oh, would you, okay. That is fine. This is good. Okay, done. That is not a democracy. It comes here, and it goes through the process, and it starts with a special interest. So we have to rewrite that cartoon.

I look forward to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You said tonight you wanted to talk a little bit about the homeland. You ran out of time last night as to some of the facts.

I also have some other facts over here, but I think it is very, very important, as we start looking at www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something, our whole plan as it relates to moving America in a new direction versus the wrong direction. Like I said at the beginning, I would be very nervous if I was a Member of the majority side. I would be very nervous, and I would run down to the floor and take every minute that I can take, every hour that I can take on the floor, trying to come up with the words of how they explain why things are not what they should be in the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan as it relates to, you know, Osama bin Laden releasing audiotapes and members of his regime, audiotapes constantly, videotapes, why we don't have health care in America, why do we have a number of red and blue States suing the government, lack of Federal education funding, why small businesses can't provide health care, why we have an out-of-control deficit.

Why don't we have bipartisanship here in the U.S. House of Representatives that the American people have asked for? Why do we have veterans that are waiting for weeks, months sometimes, for health care?

Why, in our own words, why aren't we dealing with meaningful legislation in the last 8 days of this Congress?

Actually it was Boston College, and it was with the University of Miami.

We are going to lay this on the table here, so the U.S. taxpayers know what they are paying for and also the Members know what they are paying for.

Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is important for me to just share some information with the Members, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that what Ms. Wasserman Schultz has just gone through is not only factual, it wasn't written by the Democratic minority, it wasn't written by some person over at the Democratic National Committee. This is from the 9/11 Commission, and they just recently released it, a bipartisan commission.

Number two, it is almost not fair, Mr. Speaker, for us to share this information, not only with the Members, but with others, because it is so accurate and it is unfortunate that it is accurate. At no other time in the history of this country have we found ourselves in this posture.

Now, Members can come to the floor and start talking about what we are going to do with other countries. We owe other countries money. We are borrowing from other countries like we have never borrowed before in the history of the Republic, and that is the reason why we feel encouraged to come to the floor night after night, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and put it on printed paper in the Congressional Record. So when historians look at this time and wonder where was the U.S. Congress when all this was happening, I believe that historians are going to look back on this time and say the American people rose up, Democrats, Republicans, independents, those that could not vote that made themselves eligible to vote to stop this from happening.

Now, Ms. Wasserman Schultz mentioned something about military preparedness and the fact that we cannot even respond to other issues that may happen in the world. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and we come to the floor to conduct serious business. This is not some sort of news show where someone asks you a question, some sort of trick question, and you try to respond within 3 minutes. This is the U.S. Congress. This is not a 501(c)(3). I talked about that last night.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a rubber stamp Congress that is willing to rubber stamp anything that the President sends to Capitol Hill. It is very unfortunate that this is the case. And because of that, we have ourselves in this situation.

Under the leadership of the President and the Secretary Rumsfeld, U.S. military readiness has dropped to historic lows. The U.S. Army readiness, in particular, has dropped to levels not seen since 1970 and will continue to be stressed by combat in Iraq which falls most heavily on the Army and Marine Corps. Two-thirds of army operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready, and there is not a single nondeployment of an army brigade combat team in the United States of America that is ready to be deployed.

What is the reference point here? It is not the Democratic National Committee. It is not even the Democratic Caucus. It is the National Security Advisory Group. When? August 1 of 2006. These are individuals that are supposed to be the watchdog of national security. That is with what they are saying.

How did this happen, Mr. Speaker? It didn't happen because the Army and Marines said, Hey, we want to overextend ourselves and we want to put ourselves in a position to where every brigade has been deployed to Iraq. This is the situation that we are in when we go alone.

Now, let us just put Iraq aside just for a second. When you look at the testimony and those retired generals that are now free to say whatever they want to say since they are no longer in the Department of Defense, and, Mr. Speaker, I must say for the record, Secretary Rumsfeld just said recently, the last couple of days, anyone who comes to him about the issue of redeployment within the Department of Defense can go find another job, in so many words. Was there a chairperson of a subcommittee in Armed Services or the Appropriations Committee as it relates to armed services, the Department of Defense? Was there the Chair of the full Committee on Appropriations in the U.S. House? Was there a Chair of the Armed Services Committee that said wait a minute, hold it, I am sorry? Is this the same administration and the same Secretary of Defense that said we take our lead from the commanders in the field and from those experts that wear the uniform that have made a statement such as that? If I was a four-star general, a three-star general, or want to be a three-star general, a two-star general or a brigadier general or a colonel that wants to one day become a colonel, I think I may step back and say, well, one of two things. Either I am going to be quiet in the Department of Defense in this democracy that we call the United States of America or I am going to retire. Guess what. These generals have retired and they are talking, and they are talking about their frustration. These heroes for our country are now taking it upon themselves because they allowed us to this point to salute one flag, and they said they will give up their careers and they will step out of the Department of Defense to be able to let the American people know what is going on.

Look at these generals. Look at them. You would have some Members of Congress who say why are they speaking against the Department of Defense? Why aren't they still in the fight? Well, they are in a fight for democracy and the truth. They are in a fight to make sure that the American people know exactly what is going on. They are in a fight for the very reason why people have fought and died for this country to allow the American people to know better.

Now, let me just mention something very quickly because I want to make

sure that all of the Members know exactly what they need to know as it relates to the national security plan. Real Security, housedemocrats.gov/30something. You can go on there and get the Real Security plan.

Energy independence. Folks talk about Saudi Arabia. We, the Democratic Caucus here in this House, want to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. We want to use our natural resources. We want to use coal. We want to use E-85, which can be made out of corn and what have here in the United States of America. Energizing America. Go on housedemocrats.gov.

You want to talk about innovation? You want to talk about education? You want to talk about domestic issues? You want to even see quotes from CEOs, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, that are trying to find a workforce innovating America? You want broadband access throughout America? We are nowhere close to where the Republican majority and the White House have said we are going to be as it relates to broadband. Right here: Innovation Agenda.

We have six points, Mr. Speaker, in 2006 to make sure that American people know that we have the will and the desire to lead this country in a new direction versus the wrong direction. This is not talk. This is action. There are bills right now filed in the 109th Congress in this second session that will deal with the issue of education, health care, national security, the war in Iraq.

We have a plan for the war in Iraq. What is the Republican majority plan? Stay the course? That is one line. Stay the course. Stay the course what? What is your plan? Where is the coalition? You are in control. It is almost like someone driving a car and you are a passenger in the car. You are trying to grab the wheel, but meanwhile someone is there hitting your arm, saying, ``You can't grab the wheel because we are in charge. We paid for this car. We are moving this car in this direction, and this is what we are going to do.'' And the bottom line is that may be okay in a trip from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia, but it is not okay when you are talking about the United States of America and protecting America.

You want to talk about what we want to do as it relates to homeland security? We want to implement what Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about, the bipartisan commission, the full 9/11 recommendations. What are they? Well, we have got individuals going to the plane, giving up hand sanitizers, guzzling down water, taking off shoes, belts, and what have you, having to leave a picture frame or something there at the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, there at the gate. Meanwhile a container comes in on a truck, a cargo container, goes right in the belly of the plane. It could be packed full of explosives. We will never know.

But it does not satisfy me in any way to come to the floor after a terrorist attack happens to say I told you so. That is not what the point is here. The point is it is protecting America by doing what the 9/11 Commission called for.

What else did they call for? Something very simple. Other countries are doing it. A 100 percent container check on cargo ships that are coming into the ports of the United States of America. Oh, wow, that is something simple. That are then loaded on trucks and that are going out to the United States of America in towns and cities and counties and urban areas throughout America. The terrorists are patient, very patient. 9/11 took a long time to plan. Why should we wait to learn what the terrorists' new plan may be?

There are Members on this floor that are making personal attacks on other Members of Congress. What are those personal attacks? Well, you know, we feel that the Democrats are holding us back and are they for the terrorists or are they for the United States of America? That is silly. I am just going to go ahead and say that is silly. I won't even go so far as saying that the Republican majority is helping the terrorists. I wouldn't say anything like that. But that is what happens, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you are gasping for air. When it is desperation.

Thank you. A Doug Flutie Hail Mary pass when the clock has now hit almost 0:00 and trying to sensationalize a speech or just saying that, well, I will just say this even though it is not true. I know it is not true. And we even have Republican leaders that have made those kinds of statements and have been asked by the press about them and then said, well, I didn't really mean that, but they thought it was important for them to say it here in the Congressional Record in the House of Representatives for several generations to see beyond this one.

So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we talk about the facts. And if I can for just a moment, the fact is this: We borrow from foreign countries like we have never borrowed before. And I think it is important that I pull this chart out.

This Republican Congress and President Bush, and he couldn't do it by himself, borrowed in 4 years $1.05 trillion; versus 42 Presidents, 224 years in the history of this country, have been only able to borrow 1.01. I will say that until the 109th Congress and beyond because in the 110th Congress, if the American people will see fit, we will pull this chart out again and we will talk about our guarantee to knock this number down. Forty-two Presidents, 224 years, World War I, World War II, other conflicts, the Great Depression, you name it, it has been a part of the history of this country. One the President, one Congress, $1.05 trillion, and counting, borrowing from foreign nations.

Mr. Speaker, where did we get these numbers from? Why don't we start with the U.S. Department of Treasury. Who are the countries? Let us look at this: Japan, coming in at a whopping $682.8 billion. China, coming in at $249.8 billion.

We have Members coming to the floor talking about we are going to be the superpower and economic power of the world. Guess what. We owe these people money. How could we go to them with a straight face and say this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to do it because we are the United States of America? First of all, you need to let go of the money that you owe me as a country. You owe us. That is almost like going to your next-door neighbor and borrowing $300 and then coming to them and telling them about what kind of plants they should be planting in front of their house. How can you tell them, Mr. Speaker, when you owe them money? First of all, you can't even get into the conversation about what they should do and how they should do it as a country and working in whatever cooperation it may be. It could be a G-8 summit. It could be an issue dealing with the environment. They are going to say, First of all, before you even get that out, now that you are finished, when are you going to pay back this $682.8 billion you owe me as a country and my people?

So the Republican majority, with the White House, has placed us in a situation that we have never been in before. This is a rubber stamp. The Republican majority knows it. It is on the floor every night. Just like this mike is here, this Republican rubber stamp is here.

Mr. Speaker, one guarantee. When the Democrats take control of this House, we are going to have a ceremony maybe about 150 yards away from the Capitol building so that we can burn this rubber stamp, so that we can then hold up the Constitution, so that we can hold up article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and say we will legislate. We will have oversight. We will not have Katrina contractors running away with U.S. tax dollars. We will not have a farm field full of trailers and meanwhile we have people in Mississippi and Louisiana homeless. This will not happen. We will not wait, as the Federal Government, for 3 to 4 days and watch people suffer on international television and then come back to Washington, DC, saying that we are sending blankets and ice and we just started.

We will be there for the American people. This Constitution here, Article I, section 1, of this Constitution says that we have the legislative powers of this country and it lands here in the Congress, the Congress that consists of

the House and the Senate. But we cannot do it in a rubber-stamp atmosphere. If there is a Republican, Independent, Green Party, Democrat, somebody that is thinking about voting, somebody that is about to turn 18, they have to have a problem, Mr. Speaker, in the way this country is being operated.

Now, I am going to turn this over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz in a minute, but let's talk about dollars and cents, if we can talk a little bit about the whole domestic piece, the priorities.

There are some people that would love for us to talk about the war in Iraq. Well, guess what, there is pain and suffering that is going on right here in the United States of America every day from community to community, need it be a parish or a county, need it be a city or a town, or need it be a suburb, they are going through real issues.

Talk about the minimum wage. Here is a sheet right here, Mr. Speaker. This year alone, nine attempts by the Democratic Caucus to raise the minimum wage in America that has not been raised since 1997. Since 1997, $5.15 an hour. You know, it is very, very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that that is the fact. The Democratic plan that we have been pushing for a very long time is to move it from that number up to $7.25.

But look what happened, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You would think these are minimum wage increases. Oh, no, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Speaker. These are Members of Congress. Oh, yes. We are starting to buy a couple of new suits, a couple of St. Johns.

I am not calling anyone out, I am just saying that is what it is. And the bottom line is that since 1997, the Republican majority has been in control, they have been getting paid, and I mean paid, every year. And I am going to tell you, as a Member of Congress that has to keep a home in Miami and one here in Washington, D.C., it is a strain on Members of Congress.

And you know something, I don't think the American people have a real huge problem with the issue of Members of Congress being able to support their families, this, that, and the other. But when we don't support them, when we don't have their back, then that is the problem.

And I know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are dying to get in on this, but let me just mention this. 1998, $3,100 for Members of Congress, zero for the American people. $4,600 for U.S. Members of Congress, zero for the American people. $3,800, zero for the American people. $4,900, zero for the American people. 2003 on to 2006, you see the numbers. 2006, $3,100, zero for the American people.

Now, let me just make sure I am factual, Mr. Speaker, because that is what we do in the 30-Something Working Group, because this is not about dancing in the end zone. The Republican Congress brought up a bill talking about the minimum wage, and they put together a bill that would not see the light of day in the U.S. Senate, would never see the desk of the President of the United States. But just to say that we passed a bill off the floor, that is what they wanted to do. Well, we called it the Potomac Two-Step.

And the bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker. The American people, they don't want slogans, they don't want talk; they want action. And this Republican Congress has not put forth the action.

Now, to let you know in very blunt terms as I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we are going to go 5 minutes and 5 minutes. I am into almost my fifth minute here, but I am going to turn it over to you.

Let me just say this. Within the first 100 days of a House majority by the Democrats, the minimum wage will be raised, period. Not a lot of talking, not a lot of dancing around. The bill is already filed in this Congress. But, guess what, the Republican majority doesn't have the will or the desire to pass it.

And this is what it means for salaried workers: If the minimum wage moves up to 7.25, then you will see workers that are on salary that are making over the minimum wage, their wages will nine times out of ten go up. Because to be able to get a workforce to what businesses need, they need to pay their workers; that will then help hopefully pay for the cost of health care that they have to pay. Some folks have to make the decision, am I going to have health care or am I going to live? And that is very, very unfortunate. But what has happened in this situation is that the Republican majority has guaranteed that the minimum wage will never be raised, will never deal with the issue of health care because there won't be any dollars to deal with it.

So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to know exactly where we stand. Homeland security, fully implementing the 9/11 recommendations. Border security agents, the President sent to this Capitol Hill 216 in his budget; we ask for 2,000 border agents to be able to protect our borders just like the 9/11 Commission called for. If they were to implement the Democratic amendments that came to this floor that were voted down in a partisan way, the majority took over, we would have 6,000 new border agents working now on the U.S. border.

So when Members come to the floor on the majority side, on the Republican side and start talking about, oh, we are tough because we say we are tough. And the Democrats, they are holding us back. They are in the majority; that is not true.

I will go ahead and say it: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. And the bottom line is that, the fact is that we have come to this floor to bring about real security in this country; and we will in a new Congress if the Democrats are in control.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

I want to thank the 30-Something Working Group for all the hard work. And we will be back next week, Mr. Speaker. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rabbi Solomon Schiff who, after more than 40 years of public service, interfaith cooperation and community achievement will be retiring from his leadership positions with the Greater Miami Jewish Federation.

By any standard, Rabbi Schiff has had a remarkable career. He has served as Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Association of Greater Miami for 42 years and as Director of Chaplaincy for the Greater Miami Jewish Federation.

He has served as Chairman of the Dade County Community Relations Board, as President of the National Association of Jewish Chaplains and as Director of Chaplaincy for Mount Sinai Medical Center.

Throughout his career, Rabbi Schiff has been honored for his dedication and community leadership. He has been awarded the Distinguished Community Leadership Service Award from the National Conference of Community and Justice and the Peacemaker Award from St. Thomas University. Rabbi Schiff received these awards for his efforts to develop an open dialogue between the Christian and Jewish communities in the Miami area. Rabbi Schiff was recognized as the ``2005 Man of the Year'' by the Men's Club of Douglas Gardens and has received a Special Recognition from the Founders of the Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged at Douglas Gardens.

Rabbi Schiff also has made great contributions to the community through his service. He was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 to serve on the ``We Will Rebuild Committee.'' This committee helped restore the areas in South Florida that were severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Lawton Chiles, the late Governor of Florida, appointed Rabbi Schiff to serve on a task force to study the problem of homelessness in Miami. Thanks to that task force, two new homeless assistance centers were created in Miami-Dade County. More recently, Florida Governor Jeb Bush appointed him to the Governor's Faith-Based Advisory Board.

Rabbi Schiff also has served as a guest chaplain for the United States Senate in July of 1999 and for the United States House of Representatives on several occasions.

We pay tribute to him for his service and thank his wife, Shirley, his three grown sons, Elliot, Jeffrey and Steven, and their seven grandchildren for sharing him with a grateful community. Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Schiff has set a high standard of service for us all. I wish him happiness and success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor coming before the House once again, and I must say that I am excited about being here tonight. It is another great day in this great country of ours.

And as you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor to share with the American people, not just Democrats but Republicans, Independents, those that are thinking about voting, those that have been turned off by political processes who are thinking about being engaged in the political process once again.

To those Americans who are not registered to vote, I would encourage them to register to vote. They can still vote in the upcoming November elections because there is a lot being said on the floor, Mr. Speaker, and we talked last night, the 30-something Working Group. We took 2 hours last night talking about the initiatives that we have with our Real Security Plan, talking about the memory and the sacrifice of those that gave their lives on 9/11 and those that are still living with the effects of 9/11, whether it be losing a family member or a first responder or someone that worked in the World Trade Center or was around the plane going down in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon here in Washington, D.C., those that are still living through it.

Today we had a resolution on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that dealt with addressing the memory of those that lost their lives on 9/11 and things that we have to do. The Republican majority found it fit to kind of put in a resolution about some things that they thought that they accomplished as it relates to making America safer. Some of that I join with them on as an American and as a Member of Congress, but a lot of it has not been achieved.

We have the 9/11 Commission Report that came out that said that we have to not only inspect 100 percent of cargo containers that are on ships and 100 percent of those cargo containers that go in the bellies of airplanes that are flying throughout the United States of America, it is still not accomplished today. We still have a dismal amount of Border Patrol officers to protect American borders. Democrats, we have asked for 2,000 Border Patrol officers; the President's budget request to this Congress was only 215 or 216 Border Patrol officers.

Now, the Republican majority can come to the floor night after night, day after day, do 5-minute speeches, 1-minute speeches, or take a special order and talk a good game. But I used to be a football player, Mr. Speaker, I played for Florida A&M Rattlers. I was an outside linebacker. And before the game, you would read all about what the other team is saying and all of the talking and taunting. And then you have folks that tailgate before the game, and the bus would roll in and they would talk about what they are going to do to us, and then the coach would talk about how better the other team is. But it really doesn't count until that whistle blows and that kickoff takes place and that you have an opportunity to get out there and hit somebody. And when you hit somebody and when you run the ball down the field and you end up winning the game, all of that talk was for naught.

But what is unfortunate about this situation, even though I use that analogy, Mr. Speaker, this is not a game, this is for real. This is flesh and blood. This is flesh and blood. And the bottom line is, is that one can come to the floor and talk about, well, you know, Democrats and this, that, and the other, and they are holding us back. What are we holding the Republican majority back from, Mr. Speaker? That is what I want to know. That is the prevailing question here.

The bottom line, the Republicans in this House have been in this control for double digit years. So who is holding them back? Now, let's talk a little bit about control. I want to make sure that every Member understands what control and majority means.

The majority means that any amendment, any bill, any appropriations that you want funded will be funded because you are in the majority. You have more numbers than the Democrats do at this particular time in the House.

Why are the American people saying that they want change? Why are the American people saying that they want to move in a new direction? They want to move in a new direction because they want accountability. They want oversight. They want Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be adhered to. They want to make sure that their vote counts here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Right now, it is just a lot of talk. And I can tell you, as a Member of the House and someone that studies what happens here on this floor and what does not happen here on this

floor, I feel it is my obligation not as a Member of Congress but as an American to be able to come to this floor and say that it is just not happening.

We can talk about the facts, and like we do every night we talk about the facts. We have the vote number, down to the vote number when we start talking about border protection. No one can come on this floor in the Republican majority side and say that we have done an outstanding job as it relates to protecting our borders, period, dot. They cannot because they have not done it, Mr. Speaker, and they know it.

So I guess spending the time of 9/11, the fifth anniversary, coming to the floor, having control of a resolution dealing with the issue on 9/11, you can put anything that you want to put in it because you have the majority. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. And if the Americans want to move in a new direction, they will have an opportunity. And as we start looking at this whole piece on a new direction and real security, you go on HouseDemocrats.gov. I challenge the Republican majority to go on HouseDemocrats.gov, I challenge the Republicans to pick up the Democrats' bill here on this floor that fully implements the 9/11 recommendations. I ask the Republicans to do that, because it was a bipartisan commission that is respected by this whole country, had a Republican chair and a Democratic vice chair, and had former Members of Congress, members of the Intelligence Committee, the National Security Director come before them and the President of these United States come before them, 9/11 survivors come before them, clandestine organizations that we have within the Federal Government come before them. We have a number of individuals that put forth testimony, frontline first responders that came before them, individuals in academia who have been looking at this issue of homeland security come before them, and they put forth this document called the 9/11 Report, which was a book. Americans can go out to Barnes and Noble or what have you and go out and buy it, go on Yahoo and buy it. It was ready and accessible, and a number of Americans picked up and read it. And in that book, in that text and body: Safety for America.

What do we do in a democracy when the Congress put forth in the Commission to find out what we need to do? We try to implement at least 95 percent or 100 percent of it. But as I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, very little of that has been implemented as it relates to real security.

The Brits ended up intercepting a plot as relates to liquid explosives. Just today, Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member of the Oversight Committee on Homeland Security, Management Integration and Oversight, and I must say that that in that committee the Under Secretary said, well, we are now starting to do tests as it relates to liquid explosives, 5 years later, Mr. Speaker. Foot dragging process. And we start talking about the whole issue of how do we get technology involved and how do we get industry involved in helping us resolve threats to the United States, 5 years later.

Do you know why the Department of Homeland Security is foot dragging on this issue? It is the fact that they don't have Members of Congress that are willing to call them out on the carpet and say that we are willing t protect Americans now. We don't want to wait to be a Monday morning quarterback. Mr. Ryan, we don't want to talk about, well, you know, we could have, should have done it, and then we have another commission, it may not be named 9/11, it may be 10/11 that will come forth with a report saying that we found the Department of Homeland Security didn't prioritize the issue on liquid explosives because they felt that there were other threats that are out there.

Well, the bottom line is this: The oversight is not happening, and this Republican Congress has rubber stamped everything that President Bush has handed down and said, so shall it be written, so shall it be done. Let's do it the way you originally wrote it; we are not going to ask any questions, you are the President of the United States. Forget about our legislative responsibilities, forget about oversight, and forget about moving in a new direction.

The bottom line is this. The leader took this podium on this floor here today down in the well and said, if you really want to honor those individuals that have lost their lives on 9/11, if you want to honor those first responders, if you want to honor every American that is fighting abroad as it relates to Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, then implement what the 9/11 Commission called for.

We have got American passengers, we have individuals, law-abiding citizens taking off shoes, giving up hand sanitizer, gulping down water before they get through security screening; meanwhile, containers unchecked, unchecked, there can be 10,000 explosives in the container. We would never know it because we haven't prioritized. We haven't said that we are willing to implement what the 9/11 Commission called for. I don't want to give the 9/11 Commission an opportunity to say, we told the Congress to do it and they didn't do it. I wish they would say we told the Republican majority to do it and they didn't do it.

So, one can get on the floor and say all they have to say, but the facts are this. The fact is that they have not implemented the 9/11 Commission Report. They have not implemented making sure that we go beyond 6 percent of containers that are going throughout the United States of America on 18-wheelers. I used to be a State trooper. They move throughout this country, in the heartland of this country, into the ports of major cities, and they are unchecked. I don't want to be able to say I told you so. I want to see it implemented.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said last night, Mr. Ryan, I am done with asking the Republican majority to do the right thing. They have had double digit years to do it. They don't have the will nor the desire to do it. But they do have the will to come to the floor, Mr. Ryan, and to try to say, well, you know, we are doing all we can and the Democrats are holding us back. How can we hold the Republican majority back from securing America? That is not possible when you are in the minority.

The bottom line is, is that Republicans, Independents, Democrats, those that are thinking about voting, those that have not voted in a number of years will show up at the polls to put this country in a new direction. If you allow this kind of landslide policy making, this K Street Project policy making, pay-to-play, here on this floor, then we are going to find ourselves in a dismal situation.

I don't have to say it. Republicans are saying it, Independents are saying it, the media is saying it as you pick up the paper, as you turn on the news. So, you know, it is not like this is a Democrat-Republican issue. I will go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker, and say that there are some Republicans that see it the way that we see it on this side of the aisle that we need to do better by the American people. But, guess what, they are not in the majority; they are not in the leadership of the American Congress. They are not the individuals that move policy through this process. We have the will and the desire to work in a bipartisan way if given the opportunity to make sure that we honor our member and women that have served in the military, that are now serving right now. There are men and women that have sand in their teeth.

Mr. Ryan and I have been to Iraq, I have been to Afghanistan, I have been in the Middle East talking to these leaders, I have been to Central Command. I have been there in Qatar, and I have talked to these individuals, and they are dedicated and they have the will and the desire to follow up. But when we have a Secretary of Defense that is saying that he is going to fire the next person that starts talking about how do we move out of Iraq and how do we replace the force there to be able to empower the Iraqi people, I have a problem with that. And the only reason why Secretary Rumsfeld is not front and center in front of the Armed Services Committee is the fact that Republicans have control of this House; otherwise, there will be Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that is blood, sweat, and tears that are on that Constitution right now that he will be front and center making a statement like that. The Secretary of Defense of the United States of America said, if one other person comes to him talking

about how are we going to have this transfer of power, how are we going to draw down and redeploy U.S. troops, that they are going to be fired. That is not a democracy, that is kingdom politics, Mr. Speaker. And I will tell you this. The only people that can bring the kind of paradigm shift that we need in America right now is the American people. We can't count on the Republican Congress to do it. They have already shown that they cannot do it.

The attacks on U.S. troops are well above 700 attacks a week and climbing. Al Qaeda is sending more troops, more individuals to Iraq to train to carry out terror throughout the globe. And the bottom line is, the President said some sort of statement yesterday. Well, you know, if we were to redeploy troops or we were to leave Iraq, then they will follow us to the United States.

Well, you know something? We have this big department that is called the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to protect Americans. And I can tell you this, under a Democratic controlled Congress we have already said within the 100 hours that full implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report will be implemented by this House and the Senate. We have already said it and we will do it, just like we balanced the budget without one Republican vote.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are on this side of the aisle. The will and the desire is on this side of the aisle. I am excited. I thank God that He preserved life long enough for me to make it here tonight to be able to share the sentiments on behalf of those that are on the National Security Committee, on behalf of U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now that are saying, ``We need help.'' On behalf of those veterans, individuals who can't even walk straight right now, individuals that are still going through reflection, or memorizing what they went through in past conflicts. Those individuals in the PFWs, those individuals that possess what this country is all about and allowed us to salute one flag. On behalf of them, Mr. Speaker, I come tonight with the truth, to say we stand up for those individuals and for those Americans that prayed up our troops over the years: World War I, World War II. You name it. Korea. You name it. Grenada. You name it. Somalia. You name it. Gulf War I. You name it. We come to the floor on behalf of those individuals, those individuals who are veterans right now that have to wait twice a month for the veterans' assistance center to open, for the VA clinic to open in their rural America area, for those individuals that have to wait 4 months to be able to see an ophthalmologist, who served our country. We come to the floor for them. We come to the floor on behalf of those families that are praying for their loved ones that are in harm's way right now and making sure that we don't allow their sacrifice and their commitment to go to the side because someone came to the floor of the House to say that, Oh, well, yeah, we have al Qaeda and this, that and the other. We have to worry about those Democrats over there.

You don't need to worry about us, Republican majority. You need to worry about the American people and what they think and what they feel. And when they show up on Tuesday, come this November, they will let you know how they feel. They no longer want a rubber-stamp Congress. They want a Congress that is going to legislate and oversight on behalf of the American people, regardless of who they may be.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I am excited about being here tonight. I think I have said that about three times. I think it is important that we continue to come to the floor and give validation to those individuals that need the representation, if they are in our districts or not. They are Americans and they deserve it.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

I have to come in at this point

You are making a great point, but I just have to come in at this point.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is over at the Department of Defense, it is almost like having what they call a 501(c)(3), kind of a community group that goes out and does good on behalf of the community. You go out and you pick board members to be on your board of this 501(c)(3). Let's just say it is the Boys Club or the Girls Club of America. You are the chairman of the board. You are saying, ``I'm going to get everyone that says yes and agrees with me. I don't want anyone to disagree with me.'' We do know for any great organization that you need individuals that are going to question your original thoughts.

What we have now in America, in the Department of Defense and in this government, this Federal Government of ours, is a ``yes'' board of directors. The U.S. Congress, the Republican majority, is a ``yes'' board. They are a rubber-stamp board. They do anything and everything the President of the United States says, does, or whoever his advisers may say we should do.

But what is unfortunate is the fact that we are the superpower of the world and we are the United States of America. This is not the Boys and Girls Club. This is not One-Two-Three 501(c)(3), we want to do good for you. This is national security. This is protecting women and children. This is making sure that our troops that have gone in past conflicts, that their memory is not stepped upon. This is making sure that individuals have health care. This is making sure that small businesses are able to provide health care. This is making sure that we balance the budget. This is not a 501(c)(3). This is the government of the United States of America.

And when you have the Secretary of Defense saying, ``If anyone comes to me that doesn't believe in what I believe in, you can get out of here. If you want to talk about an exit strategy or redeployment of troops in Iraq, you can't be around me. You're fired.'' And all you hear is cricket sounds from the Republican majority. Quiet. No one is saying anything. No one is doing anything. No one called a hearing. No one called the Secretary to the United States Congress to say, ``Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Wait a minute. I heard you give speeches saying that whatever the men and women need and the commanders need on the ground in Iraq, that you're here to hear their call. You want to hear from them.''

The President of these United States, the Commander in Chief, said, ``Whatever our commanders tell us on the ground or over at the Pentagon, we're here to take on their recommendations.''

But, Mr. Speaker, things have gotten so bold now, because no one is here to question kingdom politics here in Washington, D.C. So shall it be written, so shall it be done politics from the White House and from the Pentagon. And so that the Secretary of Defense feels so confident that he can publicly say, anyone who has anything to say about redeployment of troops in the Pentagon, they are gone. That is not a democracy. That is a rubber-stamp democracy.

Mr. Ryan, I don't give the President total credit for all of this. He couldn't do it by himself. You have to have a rubber stamp Congress to give you full power, full power to be able to take the country down the track it has gone down. And the bottom line is that a Republican majority, from the leadership on down to the newly elected member of the Republican conference, has to take credit for giving the President the kind of power that he has right now.

We are fighting wars abroad for ``democracy,'' when here at home we don't celebrate that very democracy that so many people speak of. We have individuals that are on their third and fourth deployment. I am on the Armed Services Committee, so I get the reports. I get the letters from my constituents saying my husband, my wife, my mother, my dad, my niece, my uncle, my next-door neighbor is on his way back to Iraq again. Because we went alone. We didn't go with a true coalition.

So I think it would be hard, if I was a part of the Republican majority, to try to muster up some talking points for the floor right now; to be able to say, well, okay, some of this stuff is not believable, so let's try to attack some members of the Democratic caucus. Let's try to muster up and embellish a ``record'' on possibly being weak on terrorism or being weak on national security. That's where the Republican majority is now. Mr. Speaker, they are gasping for political air right now.

But you know what is so important about this issue and this discussion about national security is that it is supposed to be nonpolitical. And, unfortunately, it is. And that is because the majority hasn't allowed bipartisanship in this House for so many years, and so they can hang it around their neck and say it is our war. It is our failure as it relates to national security and border security. Don't act like it is a crisis right now. You allowed it to happen under your watch. You have been the rubber stamp Congress.

Now, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, let me just tell you what the rubber stamp Congress has accomplished borrowing $1.05 trillion from

foreign nations in 4 years. In more than 224 years of this country's history, with 42 presidents. $1.01 trillion they were able to borrow in 4 years, and this Republican Congress and the President has allowed that to happen.

These are the countries here that own a part of the American apple pie: Japan, China, the U.K., the Caribbean, Taiwan, Germany, and OPEC nations. You know, this whole oil thing that we will talk about in a minute. Korea and Canada. They all have their hands in the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers, not because of the U.S. taxpayers but because of the Republican majority's out-of-control spending.

Oil companies? Oh, wow. At this time in history, when they unearth what happened under this Republican majority and this Presidency, they will see these record breaking profits. There was a meeting in the White House, I have the article to prove it, and I talk about it all time. It was a special meeting that took place in the White House, and the Vice President's aides and all met. And then the policymakers came here to the Congress, to the rubber stamp Congress.

Now, let me set this up here, because we believe in the 30-something Working Group, in third-party validators. Washington Post, Wednesday, November 16, 2005, White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by the White House. Last week, industry officials testified before Congress. Document obtained by the Post on November 2005 shows that officials from Exxon Mobil, Phillips, Shell Oil Companies, and BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney aides to develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law, and parts of which are still being debated in Congress.

That was 2001, Mr. Speaker. Look what happened:

2002, $34 billion, record-breaking profits; 2003, $53 billion; 2004, $84 billion; 2005, $113 billion in profits for oil companies. Meanwhile, average Americans are spending through the nose and trying to make it to work and to drop their kids off.

Look what happened here. This is what happened under the Republican majority and a rubber stamp Congress. So shall it be written and so shall it be done.

E-85, we talk about alternative fuels, flex vehicles. Every magazine I open talks about flex vehicles. Here is the bottom line. The Republican Congress have allowed these oil companies to be able to do anything they want to do when they want to do it. This is an actual pump here at an Exxon-Mobil station. It says you cannot use your Mobil credit card to buy E-85. Meanwhile, we can continue to feed off the Saudi Arabian Middle East, what got us in this thing in the first place policies. You can use your oil card there. You can buy a bag of chips, you can buy a carton cigarettes, but E-85 that is produced in the Midwest versus the Middle East, you cannot use your Mobil credit card for that.

And on retirement packages, and I don't know very much about Lee Raymond, but the bottom line is he is a retired executive from Exxon- Mobil with a $398 million retirement package and a $2 million tax break. This is what happens with a Republican majority.

Again, the Republican majority rubber stamp, don't worry about balancing the budget. Democrats, we tried to balance the budget. We have done it before. We have tried to do it under this Republican majority. Not one Republican vote to balance the budget on rollcall vote 87, March 17, 2005.

Ranking Member Spratt and the Budget Committee put it forth again. Failed. Not one Republican vote on rollcall vote 91 in 2004. Their will and desire is not there. The American people deserve balance.

Minimum wage. Yes, there was some bill that came up before we left for the break to talk about minimum wage, a bill that the Republican majority knew that the Senate would not take up and would never make it to the President's desk. But because we were hammering them on it, they said let's pass this. They added all kinds of stuff. It is called the Potomac two-step.

This chart, the bottom line is these are not minimum wage increases, these are increases for Members of Congress. This is our pay. This is what we make. Oh, look at them. Since 1997 there hasn't been an increase in the minimum wage, and you not a minimum wage worker right now, and I am not talking to the Members of Congress, I am talking to the American people, the bottom line is if the minimum wage goes up, and that means if you are a salaried worker, then your wages will go up. But the bottom line is that it is a fact that the Republican Congress has said not over our dead body. We are going to get our increase, but we are not going to give the American people a minimum wage increase. It goes on and on and on.

I am going to close with this, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the President of Iran. Mr. Delahunt brought this picture out last night. I don't care whichever way you cut, $300 billion of spending, over 2,000 troops, thousands and thousands of American troops injured, here in Washington, D.C. ``stay the course,'' no plan.

The Secretary of Defense says if you talk about or say anything about redeployment of troops or withdrawing from Iraq, you are fired. No question from the Congress, no response from the Congress. The Secretary of Defense is not called to the Hill immediately. The Republican Congress, what are they saying? They are saying nothing, Mr. Speaker. So accountability is not there. They are embracing and guess what, this is a la the U.S. taxpayer through the Republican majority because of a lack of diplomacy and a lack of plan and going to a war of choice versus after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and giving those troops in Afghanistan the support they need.

So Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan, I rest my case. The bottom line is that was not a message for Democrats or Republicans. It was not a message for Independents or the Green Party or other party affiliations. That is a message for Americans. The bottom line is whatever you may feel, if you are a member of the Republican Executive Committee or you have always voted Republican or you always voted Independent, you have to have issues with what the facts are.

I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Ryan, I want to say that Ms. Wasserman Schultz is going to get an opportunity to go through her homeland security piece when we are on the floor again.

I want to encourage members to go on HouseDemocrats.gov and get a copy of the real security plan that we have here. We even have it in Spanish. Also energizing America is on there, and also an innovation agenda that has a lot of CEOs and leaders in the education field. They say they endorse our plan.

With that, we thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this time. It is an honor to address the House once again.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again. As you know, the 30-something Working Group works very hard in making sure that we bring issues that are not only facing the American people on the positive and negative end, but we make sure we encourage the Members of the House to do the right thing.

I must say, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Delahunt had a birthday the last time we were on the floor, a little over a month ago, and I just had a birthday. I am going to be a part of the something side of the 30- something group, and I am excited about that. Ms. Wasserman Schultz will be joining the something side pretty soon, and Mr. Ryan will be the true blue 30.

Let me just say that a lot has happened, Mr. Delahunt, and I am glad that the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, allowed us to have this hour tonight, and also working with Mr. Hoyer, our Democratic whip, and Mr. James Clyburn, our chairman, and Mr. John Larson, the vice chair of our caucus, to come to the floor not only on behalf of Democrats but also on behalf

of the American people. I think it is very, very important in this time, the day after 9/11, 5 years later.

Mr. Delahunt, I had the opportunity to go over to New York City. I flew in on the 10th to be there on 9/11. Of course, I wasn't there 5 years ago, but I wanted to be there on the fifth anniversary, and I can tell you that going there and seeing the ceremony, having an opportunity to see the reflection pool where those families were placing their flowers and notes and what have you there, and seeing, as I was going through Manhattan, that at, I believe, 8:46 and a little after 9 a.m. the firefighters standing in front of their fire stations at attention at the time that tower one and tower two went down, and just talking to some of the New Yorkers that were there at that time, great Americans that were there 5 years ago, and listening to their reflecting on what they were doing at the time the towers went down, it takes me back to when it actually took place, Madam Speaker.

At that time, Madam Speaker, this country was in a position to lead the world in the right direction as it relates to the effort against terrorism, when we had the opportunity to ask Americans to do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do but would understand that in coming together as a country just days after that it was a time of unity. It was a time of bipartisanship.

And I know on the steps yesterday that Members came together. I was in New York, Mr. Delahunt, and I don't know if you had an opportunity to join in the bipartisan effort here, the singing of God Bless America, and just all coming together, but I couldn't help, as a policymaker, Mr. Delahunt, thinking about, as I was asked yesterday by the media what I thought and how I felt. I said, I want it to reflect on the memory of those who lost their lives, those who are survivors of 9/11, whether it be the Pentagon, or Pennsylvania, or New York City, how they feel about the loss of their husband, wife, father, uncle, grandfather, grandmother, or friend. It really wasn't a day for politics. It was a day to reflect on the memory of those individuals.

Now, we are here, the day after, but even the day before, and the year before, and 2 years before the fifth anniversary, 3 years before the fifth anniversary we had a 9/11 Commission that was convened, that Democrats on this floor and over in the Senate pushed for, and some Republicans. Not the Republican leadership, because they didn't feel we needed it at that time. And also the surviving family members, Mr. Delahunt. And you were here.

If I can, Mr. Delahunt, I am on the Homeland Security Committee, as you know, Oversight Integration Management Subcommittee, which I am serving as the ranking member on, and I am also on the Armed Services Committee. And I wonder, these two national security committees, as I was speaking to some of the family members, and I was speaking to New Yorkers yesterday, as we read the stories and watched television about what actually happened 5 years ago, what has happened since? We owe it to Americans to be able to carry out the security plan that was laid out by the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission received the respect of all Americans on a bipartisan basis. If you are a Republican, you have to agree with the 9/11 Commission report. If you are a Democrat, you have to agree. If you are an Independent, if you are an American, you have to agree with the 9/11 Commission report.

But here in Washington, I don't believe we have, and when I say ``we,'' I am not talking about the Democrats in this House because we are solid on this issue. I am talking about the Republican majority. I don't believe the will and the desire is there to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Here is the bottom line: the 9/11 Commission put forth Ds and Fs for homeland security for this administration and the Republican Congress. If Democratic amendments were adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents. Americans are concerned about protecting our borders. There would be 4,000 more detention beds, 270 more immigration enforcement agents along the borders that would exist today, not in fiction or theory, today, if Democratic amendments were adopted.

Only 6 percent of the containers right now, and nuclear weapons can be in these containers in a port. Some may say that is a coastal issue where we have seaports. No, those containers are loaded onto trucks and trains and moved into the heartland of America. They could go off. This is something that has been identified by the 9/11 Commission.

If Democrats had the opportunity to be able to have an amendment on the floor or a bill on the floor or a bill in committee, that would pass by majority, and when I say majority, the Republican majority would allow to pass, America would be safer now because we are calling for full implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, 100 percent container screening prior to the containers going across and throughout America.

I think it is very, very important to let it be known that we owe that to the first responders. We owe that to Americans to protect them. We don't need to wait until a container blows up in a major port to say we should have full screening. If other countries can do it, we can do it with the right will and desire.

I was here earlier and heard majority Members talking about we are for security, we are for tracking down Osama bin Laden. We are for going after the terrorists.

Well, the majority has been in the majority for 12 years. Now all of a sudden the majority has religion saying we are going to track down these terrorists. The Democrats can't do it, but we can do it.

If somebody had a job in your office, Mr. Delahunt, and they said I know you want me to respond to your constituents. I haven't been able to respond to them in the way you want me to. I know you want me to get 10 letters out in a day, but I have only got one letter out over a day the last 12 years. But if you let me stay in your office 2 more years, I guarantee you I will get those 10 letters out.

Now, anyone who is a manager and knows that folks have to be served knows you can't live with that. As a matter of fact, a staffer would never have made it to 12 years in your office if they only put out one constituent response a day. They would have to perform.

Well, what the Republican majority is doing is coming to the floor and saying we can do this. The Democrats can't do it. As a matter of fact, double digits year ago, here is an instance where the Democrats didn't do it. We are ready to do it.

Mr. Delahunt, as I yield to you, I am saying it is almost laughable. If it was not national security, it would be

laughable. I am hoping that the American people, and I hope that the members of the majority caucus don't go to bed thinking that because they were not able to get it right for the last 12 years that year 13 and 14 they are going to get it right. We can't afford to wait. That is the reason why the American people poll after poll after poll are saying we are willing to allow the Democrats to lead this Congress.

Madam Speaker, you are going to hear many Members on the majority side that are going to come here and make statements that they know are not true. They are going to try to find something in 1980 where there was some fumble in government and say see what the Democrats did in 1950-something. They cannot say in the 1990s because they were in control. They can't say in 2000 because they have been in control. They can't say any of those things because all of these fumbles and follies and mistakes occurred on their watch with a lack of oversight.

I am glad we are here to set the record straight.

Yes, I do, Mr. Delahunt.

The President of Iran.

If we can focus on this picture here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you raised a very good question, because when Mr. Ryan and I went to Iraq, we went through the whole Saddam Hussein parade area where they have the podium, usually he would have the gun, and the troops would be marching which, and they will be, you know, whatever, little missile that they may have, will parade on along.

But as you go into that parade route, the helmets of Iranian soldiers that were killed by Iraqi soldiers, are embedded into the ground of that parade route so that they can step on the helmets, which, in the Middle East, is disrespect when you take the bottom of your shoe, and, you know, like, slap it or hit a picture or image of someone. That's the kind of hatred that these two countries have for one another.

Let me also say, which is also important, that Iraq and Iran, it is interesting that Iran, a lot of the insurgents, are coming across from Iraq and Syria and other countries into Iraq. That has never happened before prior to the U.S. invasion. There are a number of other things that are false, but I would go back even further.

I am no longer, as a Member of Congress, concerned about what happens in the White House as it relates to the President's decisions. I am concerned, as what is not happening here in this Chamber, and what is not happening in the other Chamber, as it relates to the oversight in the war on Iraq.

I am very concerned about that because in our Constitution, could someone just bring the Constitution in. I want to hold it up for a moment so we are reminded it is not just a rough draft, it is something that people died for and defended in this country the Constitution calls for three plans of government. When someone tramples a U.S. code or Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that is supposed to stand up on their behalf.

When we have a White House that is willing to do anything they have, and you have a rubber stamp Congress, I missed my rubber stamp during the break, a rubber stamp Congress that is rubber stamping everything this administration does, that is what you get.

You get those kinds of pictures, you get Members of the majority side coming to the floor saying things they know are not true, with all due respect. I don't mean to say this. The American people know the facts are here, they pick up the paper, they watch the news. I just wanted to say that conflict that you pointed out saying how did this happen.

I mean, that is worse than a family feud. This goes back for years and

years and years. Now, I have my Constitution here. The bottom line is, we need to follow this. People need to vote for the Constitution. You need to vote for what we said we wanted in this country, what we stand for and people have died for. We need to make sure that we bring balance back.

The Republican majority, that is ``they.''

We got ``they'' from Mr. Gingrich, because that is what he is calling the Republican majority now, ``they.''

Mr. Ryan, you may want to suspend for a minute. You may want to switch. I do not think that you have what you need to have.

Mr. Ryan, we are showing you a level of respect here today.

Mr. Delahunt, can we yield to Mr. Ryan to give the Web site information.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the Wall Street Journal article previously referred to:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2006]

Bush and Lincoln

(By Newt Gingrich)

Washington.--Five years have passed since the horrific

attack on our American homeland, and, still, there is one

serious, undeniable fact we have yet to confront: We are,

today, not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we

need to be.

In April of 1861, in response to the firing on Fort Sumter,

President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to serve for

90 days. Lincoln had greatly underestimated the challenge of

preserving the Union. No one imagined that what would become

the Civil War would last four years and take the lives

620,000 Americans.

By the summer of 1862, with thousands of Americans already

dead or wounded and the hopes of a quick resolution to the

war all but abandoned, three political factions had emerged.

There were those who thought the war was too hard and would

have accepted defeat by negotiating the end of the United

States by allowing the South to secede. Second were those who

urged staying the course by muddling through with a cautious

military policy and a desire to be ``moderate and

reasonable'' about Southern property rights, including

slavery.

We see these first two factions today. The Kerry-Gore-

Pelosi-Lamont bloc declares the war too hard, the world too

dangerous. They try to find some explainable way to avoid

reality while advocating return to ``normalcy,'' and

promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.

Most government officials constitute the second wing, which

argues the system is doing the best it can and that we have

to ``stay the course''--no matter how unproductive. But,

after being exposed in the failed response to Hurricane

Katrina, it will become increasingly difficult for this wing

to keep explaining the continuing failures of the system.

Just consider the following: Osama bin Laden is still at

large. Afghanistan is still insecure. Iraq is still violent.

North Korea and Iran are still building nuclear weapons and

missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still occurring in the

U.S., Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.

By late summer, 1862, Lincoln agonizingly concluded that a

third faction had the right strategy for victory. This

group's strategy demanded reorganizing everything as needed,

intensifying the war, and bringing the full might of the

industrial North to bear until the war was won.

The first and greatest lesson of the last five years

parallels what Lincoln came to understand. The dangers are

greater, the enemy is more determined, and victory will be

substantially harder than we had expected in the early days

after the initial attack. Despite how painful it would prove

to be, Lincoln chose the road to victory. President Bush

today finds himself in precisely the same dilemma Lincoln

faced 144 years ago. With American survival at stake, he also

must choose. His strategies are not wrong, but they are

failing. And they are failing for three reasons.

(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War

III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and

so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how

big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define

victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy,

resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized.

(3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and

then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed

to achieve those goals.

To be sure, Mr. Bush understands that we cannot ignore our

enemies; they are real. He knows that an enemy who believes

in religiously sanctioned suicide-bombing is an enemy who,

with a nuclear or biological weapon, is a mortal threat to

our survival as a free country. The analysis Mr. Bush offers

the nation--before the Joint Session on Sept. 20, 2001, in

his 2002 State of the Union, in his 2005 Second Inaugural--is

consistently correct. On each occasion, he outlines the

threat, the moral nature of the conflict and the absolute

requirement for victory.

Unfortunately, the great bureaucracies Mr. Bush presides

over (but does not run) have either not read his speeches or

do not believe in his analysis. The result has been a

national security performance gap that we must confront if we

are to succeed in winning this rising World War III.

We have to be honest about how big this problem is and then

design new, bolder and more profound strategies to secure

American national security in a very dangerous 21st century.

Unless we, like Lincoln, think anew, we cannot set the nation

on a course for victory. Here are some initial steps:

First, the president should address a Joint Session of

Congress to explain to the country the urgency of the threat

of losing millions of people in one or more cities if our

enemies find a way to deliver weapons of mass murder to

American soil. He should further communicate the scale of the

anti-American coalition, the clarity of their desire to

destroy America, and the requirement that we defeat them. He

should then make clear to the world that a determined

American people whose very civilization is at stake will

undertake the measures needed to prevail over our enemies.

While desiring the widest possible support, we will not

compromise our self-defense in order to please our critics.

Then he should announce an aggressively honest review of

what has not worked in the first five years of the war. Based

upon the findings he should initiate a sweeping

transformation of the White House's national security

apparatus. The current hopelessly slow and inefficient

interagency system should be replaced by a new metrics-based

and ruthlessly disciplined integrated system of

accountability, with clear timetables and clear

responsibilities.

The president should insist upon creating new aggressive

entrepreneurial national security systems that replace

(rather than reform) the current failing bureaucracies. For

example, the Agency for International Development has been a

disaster in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The president should

issue new regulations where possible and propose new

legislation where necessary. The old systems cannot be

allowed to continue to fail without consequence. Those within

the bureaucracies who cannot follow the president's

directives should be compelled to leave.

Following this initiative, the president should propose a

dramatic and deep overhaul of homeland security grounded in

metrics-based performance to create a system capable of

meeting the seriousness of the threat. The leaders of the new

national security and homeland security organizations should

be asked what they need to win this emerging World War III,

and then the budget should be developed. We need a war

budget, but we currently have an OMB-driven, pseudo-war

budget. The goal of victory, ultimately, will lead to a

dramatically larger budget, which will lead to a serious

national debate. We can win this argument, but we first have

to make it.

Congress should immediately pass the legislation sent by

the president yesterday to meet the requirements of the

Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. More broadly, it should pass

an act that recognizes that we are entering World War III and

serves notice that the U.S. will use all its resources to

defeat our enemies--not accommodate, understand or negotiate

with them, but defeat them.

Because the threat of losing millions of Americans is real,

Congress should hold blunt, no-holds-barred oversight

hearings on what is and is not working. Laws should be

changed to shift from bureaucratic to entrepreneurial

implementation throughout the national security and homeland

security elements of government.

Beyond our shores, we must commit to defeating the enemies

of freedom in Iraq, starting with doubling the size of the

Iraqi military and police forces. We should put Iran, Syria

and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies

of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the

U.S. In southern Lebanon, the U.S. should insist on disarming

Hezbollah, emphasizing it as the first direct defeat of Syria

and Iran--thus restoring American prestige in the region

while undermining the influence of the Syrian and Iranian

dictatorships.

Further, we should make clear our goal of replacing the

repressive dictatorships in North Korea, Iran and Syria,

whose aim is to do great harm to the American people and our

allies. Our first steps should be the kind of sustained

aggressive strategy of replacement which Ronald Reagan

directed brilliantly in Poland, and ultimately led to the

collapse of the Soviet empire.

The result of this effort would be borders that are

controlled, ports that are secure and an enemy that

understands the cost of going up against the full might of

the U.S. No enemy can stand against a determined American

people. But first we must commit to victory. These steps are

the first on a long

and difficult road to victory, but are necessary to win the

future.

And, Mr. Delahunt, as we close here, I believe Ms. Wasserman Schultz is going to claim that next hour so we will continue. Democrats, we call for the redeployment, a number of Members and some Republicans, redeployment of U.S. troops. Due to the fact that Mr. Ryan talked so eloquently about section 1, Article I of the Constitution that says we have legislative powers, but it seems the Republican majority forgets about that. Thus far, the new Pentagon report shows that the situation is worse in Iraq. Every day we go now, the attacks are up to 700 attacks per week, 792 attacks. We also have U.S. troops and taxpayers continuing to pay a high price for the war in Iraq. We are approaching 2,700 U.S. troops dead, 20,000 wounded, and the U.S. taxpayers are paying more than $300 billion on the war in Iraq alone.

That picture next to you, Mr. Delahunt, is very revealing, these two quote/unquote leaders are embracing that the U.S. has questions with.

I think what is important here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is the fact that we know we have a real security plan. Members can log on to housedemocrats.gov and get this plan. It is there, Madam Speaker. Folks can't say that we don't have a plan or that we are not thinking about what we should be doing as it relates to terrorism. That is not the case.

We have two wars going on, one is against the war on terror and one is the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a miserable failure, as we look at it from a governance standpoint of this Congress and the leadership in the White House doing what they need to do.

Our troops and the commanders on the ground are doing the best they can with what they have to work with. But the bottom line is we didn't do diplomatically, and when I say we, the Republican majority and the White House, in making sure we had a true coalition before we went into Iraq. It is a coalition we paid for. The American taxpayer paid for whatever 25 troops that the country sent there, or the second largest force in Iraq, Madam Speaker, that is still there in the war in Iraq are contractors, that the U.S. taxpayers, where you get that $300 billion from, Mr. Delahunt.

So as far as governance, it is not happening from our side. The war that Mr. Gingrich referenced is the war that had the connection with al Qaeda and the Taliban government. That was the response to 9/11.

But we left, and now we have commanders on the ground in Afghanistan saying, we are losing ground now. We need help now.

But guess what, Madam Speaker? War number two, that has nothing to do with the war on terror but now has become a war on terror, or we are trying to connect it, and the President spent almost more time trying to connect the reason why we went into Iran with 9/11. And that is not the case, and I think everybody knows it. The Taliban wasn't in Iraq. They weren't there, Madam Speaker. They have operatives there now as it relates to al-Qaeda. That is after we invaded.

They are training there and becoming stronger.

And they are going back and training. I am going to yield to you, Mr. Delahunt, but I know it is hard because this stuff is so much in the face of the American people, but we want to make sure that we break it down. But let me just make one more point, please. Let me just try to get this out and then I will happily yield, Mr. Delahunt.

The fact that we have two wars going on, and the Democratic leader of the Armed Services Committee that Mr. Ryan and I serve on, Mr. Ike Skelton, he came to the floor, and I have his statement right here. It was a 5-minute speech he gave last week, and I heard him give this speech last week on the two wars. Right here on this floor, Mr. Delahunt, we were standing right over there, I said, Mr. Skelton, can I have a copy of what you shared with the American people and the Members of this House? He gave it to me.

These are the three pages right here. Talks about the two wars, Madam Speaker. It talks about a war on terrorism, which we had Osama bin Laden pinned down, and then we went into this other war in Iraq that took troops away from Afghanistan, that stretched U.S. forces to the point to where they are now. It is kind of hard to keep up with the whole recruiting issue. We are almost giving away a Chevy truck for people to join the military right now. And it is very unfortunate because the U.S. taxpayers are being drained.

Now, when I said that it comes down to the failure, I am talking about the failure of the oversight and governance on this side of the ball, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We must do a better job. Now, how do we do that job?

Mr. Ryan speaks all the time about article one, section one of the U.S. Constitution. It is right here. It says the Congress, not the executive branch, has legislative powers. That means the House and the Senate. We oversee legislation. But that is not happening right now, and so that is the reason why we have the breakdown in government that we have right now, Madam Speaker. This is very simple.

We, the Democrats, are willing to put America in a new direction. Now, let us just talk about this new direction for a minute. It is not rocket science. It is just doing what the Constitution says. It is doing what the American people federalized us to do, is to represent them and not to be a rubber stamp for the White House.

We have borrowed more money than we have ever borrowed from foreign nations in the history of this country: $1.05 trillion in 4 years versus $1.10 trillion in 224 years. That is where it has gotten us.

Oil companies, record-breaking profits as far as the eye can see. The next numbers are going to come in even higher. There was a meeting in the White House in 2002, and look at how the profits have just taken off in the billions for U.S. oil companies. That's a lack of oversight by the Congress allowing the White House to have their way and to make sure that oil companies get what they want.

Here are the countries that own a part, a big part of the American apple pie. Japan comes in at a whopping $682.8 billion, along with other countries. This is what happens when Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is not adhered to. This is not Republican and majority stuff. This is not anything when it comes down to Democrats versus Republicans. This comes down to if you are willing to suit up and put on a tie or a St. John's and you come onto the floor and represent the American people. He is all of our President. Goodness gracious, I am an American. President Bush is my President, period, dot. The election is over. This is not about an election; this is about governance, and it is not happening right now.

One thing that this Republican Congress does well, that is giving themselves pay raises. That is something that they do well. In 1998, a $3,100 pay raise; zero to the American people as it relates to the minimum wage. It goes on and on all of the way to 2006. We have said on the Democratic side it is not going to happen because we are going to stand up on behalf of the American people.

Yes, there was a bill on the floor and we have talked about increasing the minimum wage. There is a lot of trickery in the bill, and it is not going to pass Congress, and it is not going to the President's desk.

I just want to say, I started with Article I, Section 1, which Mr. Ryan talks about all of the time. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. It comes down to if you are willing to be in the majority and say we are willing to legislate on behalf of the American people.

I have gone through a litany of things that have gone wrong because we haven't had balance in the three branches of government working in the way that they should. If you are an Independent or Republican or a Democrat or a Green Party or a young person, 17\1/2\ or going to be 18 by election day or whatever the case may be this November, you have to be concerned about the direction that the country is going into. We are saying on our side of the ball, the Democratic side of the ball, that we have the will and the desire to lead in the direction that we need to be led. We won't let people down, and we won't let it go out so far that it becomes too late.

I just want to say it is outstanding what you pointed out, but I really do like what the Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs do in my local area. I just want you to know that. We have a very strong Rotary in my area, Opelika Rotary, doing a very outstanding job.

Yes, I am. I spoke at their dinner.

I am an honorary Rotarian.

When I get back to my district, I am going to become a member of the Rotary Club, because I do have a pin.

Let me just say very quickly that this whole issue of the homeland security, and what we do and what they haven't done, when I say they, I am saying the Republican majority, as you know I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Last week we had a press conference.

We talked about our Real Security Plan, and we talked about the fact that Republican majority has shown that they are not ready to put forth this plan.

What is this plan? This plan embodies 100 percent of the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission called for. Wow. The government spent a lot of money and put together a bipartisan commission. They have hearings, they go throughout the country, they go to New York, they have hearings here in Washington, D.C., have former Members of Congress, have the National Security Advisor to the President come before them, have the President of these United States come before them, have Members of Congress and other security experts, CIA personnel, you name it, other clandestine organizations within the Federal Government. Some hearings are secure, some hearings are public. They put forth their report and we say, well, let's see. We will do this and we won't do that.

When you talk about national security, you can't skimp on the butter. You can't say, well, I am willing to wasteful spend as it relates to an unorganized response to Hurricane Katrina, or I am willing to send $300-plus billion to Iraq with very little oversight. But when it comes down to the 9/11 Commission report, that is where the proof is in the pudding.

I am pretty sure every Member of Congress sent some sort of press release out talking about 9/11. Some Members went on further to justify the reason why things aren't the way they are supposed to be. Some went further and talked about how secure America is. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the professionals are not saying here in in Washington that we have done our job, we, the Republican majority.

I want to point a few things out. I am going to do the ``Ms. Wasserman Schultz'' here for a minute. Democrats are calling to make sure we go in a new direction as relates to homeland security. That is very simple. What does this new direction call for? This new direction calls for the immediate implementation of all the 9/11 recommendations. That is not partisan, that is security, Mr. Ryan.

What else does it call for? It calls for 100 percent container screening of not only cargo containers that are on ships, but also cargo that is going into the belly of the plane. Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about that in the last hour.

We are taking our shoes off, hand your hand sanitizer over, you better drink that water before you go through the security area. What are you doing? Just before I got on the plane when I went to New York to be there on 9/11, I was getting on, and you know how they check you the secondary check before you go on the plane? ``Oh, you have some chapstick here. You can't have this.'' ``I am sorry. Take it, please.'' Meanwhile, looking out the window, I am looking at the containers going into the back of the plane going into Washington, D.C. I couldn't help but notice that.

What else are we calling for? We want to provide first responders with the training, equipment and technology they need, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, what they asked for, what the 9/11 Commission asked for, what Members of Congress asked for. But, still, bills to implement this are not able to make it to the floor because it is pushed back by the Republican majority.

Let's talk about what Democrats have done to lead on border security. The 9/11 Act called for 2000 new Border Patrol agents. I talked in the last hour about how we would add some 6,000-odd border protection officers in the amendments and attempts we made to try to increase that. We this year in 2006 called for 2,000 more Border Patrol officers, yet the President's budget only called for 210 new officers.

It goes back to what you were saying, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The Republican majority is big on the talk, in the stump speech and having the press conference with security, homeland security, all this kind of stuff. But when it comes down to the printed word, when it comes down to the budget that is handed out from the White House and when it comes down to what this Republican majority does, it is 2,000, from what the 911 commission called for, and what we called for as House Democrats, versus the President's proposal, and you can look it up on line, that only asks for 210 agents.

Democrats fought for the funding on almost five different occasions. Again for the record, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, H.R. 1268, a motion to recommit, and 2,000, vote number 160, and that happened on 5/5/05. Also you look at House bill 2360 was blocked, it was an Obey amendment, vote number 174. That was on 5/17/05. It failed, 223 to 185 on a partisan vote. H.R. 1817, a motion to recommit, 2005, again vote number 188, again failed on partisan lines.

You start talking about on border security and closing the gaps. On nine separate occasions over the last 5 years, Democrats put forth motions here on this floor, because that is the only thing we can do. Being in the minority, we are not able to bring the bills to the floor, because the majority is blocking those bills from getting out of committee. And they are noted right here, and I am not going to go through that at this particular time, but all of this is on line, HouseDemocrats.gov, if anyone wants to go on and get this information.

Also when you start talking about aviation security, Democrats offered a motion to require air cargo to be screened within 3 years. The motion was rejected by Republicans, again 2005, vote number 188, 5/ 18/05.

Democrats have spoken repeatedly on the issue of transit security, making sure that we authorize including a $2.8 billion initiative to improve transit security and a $1 billion initiative to improve rail security. Substitute amendment defeated again.

So when you start look looking at the Record and what the Record says versus what is said here on the floor by the Republican majority and the rubber stamp majority, I wish the rubber stamp Republican majority would stop fighting us and start saying to the President, guess what, we no longer want to rubber stamp everything that you send here. I just wish the Republican majority would just leader up and say hey, Mr. President.

So you start reading the paper, could someone get me a newspaper, please, because I want to just have it as a prop, because as Americans start reading the paper, they are reading about how Republican Members of the House and the Senate, the President flies into town, they get on the plane and leave town. Some even get in their car and go. ``I was on the other side of my district.''

Well, let me tell you something, if the President of the United States is in my district, I think I would know. I think it would be some sort of news flash or some sort of e-mail that would come to me and say, you know, the President is coming in your district today, will be in an elementary school. Maybe you want to be there. He is the leader of the free world. Maybe you want to be there.

The reason why they are taking flights while the President is coming in the reason why they are finding something else to do while the President is in their town is the fact that they don't want to be caught in the same situation with the President of the United States because they have not stood up to the President and said no, you can't put us in a financial situation as far as the eye can see as it relates to deficits and foreign countries running the world.

You can't pick up the paper today not talking about a Republican running from the President of the United

States and don't want to be around when the President is around, or explaining why they are not there. That is some excuse.

I hope I never get to the situation where I have the President of the United States coming into my district and I have to explain that I am somewhere else while the President is there.

And the bottom line is this: People cannot face the music when it comes down to dealing with the policies of this administration, and better yet, you being in the position, there is only 535 of us, being in the position, as I come in for a landing, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to be able to bring about change on behalf of the American people; to say this is not going to happen; to say I know you want to start a war in Iraq, but we still got this business over here with al Qaeda, who had everything to do with 9/11, who trained the individuals that carried out the 9/11 plot.

But, meanwhile, while we are over there looking for Osama bin Laden, and we have him cornered, I got this unfinished business, the President said, over here in Iraq, because I got a problem with this leader over here. We got to take him out.

But what about the after player? What is going to happen once you get to Baghdad? How are you going to bring stability? Who is going to be in the coalition? Calling up a couple of friends? I'll send 25 troops. I'll send 30 troops. You are not allowed to talk about it. Everything is secret.

We have the then sitting Attorney General comes to the U.S. Congress over on the Senate side and tells the Senate, you are either with us or you are with the terrorists.

What kind of mess is that? So when it comes down to Article I, Section 1, and if the American people want the kind of representation they need, I am not talking as a Democrat, even though we were given an hour by the Democratic leader and we are all members of the Democratic Caucus. This is America. I guarantee you if the shoe was on the other foot, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I cannot help but imagine the kind of chaos and protest and finger pointing and them and they and all of the things that will be said. Some of the stuff will have to be stricken from the Record because the Republican side will be carrying on about the Democrats. But they cannot say it. They can't do it. They cannot even kind of paint a picture because they have been in charge of the whole thing since it started. So if the American people want a new direction, if the American people want accountability, if the American people want a House and a Senate that will carry out article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and a lot of blood is on this constitution, but if they want that, then they will vote for a new direction in November.

I am done, ladies and gentlemen, with begging the Republican majority to stand up on behalf of the American people because I am looking at what the oil companies are getting. They are getting theirs. I am looking at what these contractors are getting, either it be Katrina or the war in Iraq. They are getting theirs. I am looking at the issue of health care and all of the people that are running to the bank with all of the dollars and all of the influence and all of the access into this Congress. They are getting theirs. Meanwhile we are sitting around here talking about the minimum wage and we can't even get a doggone bill passed off this floor to be able to provide the American people with a minimum wage. Meanwhile we are giving ourselves a nice fat pay raise every year, $4,100 here, $3,100 there. Oh, we have the money for that. But we don't have the money for the people who are punching in and punching out every day.

Madam Speaker, this has to come to an end and that is the reason why, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that I believe there is a wind of change. It may not be outside the hall of this Chamber, but it is out there in America. It is in towns and it is in big cities and it is in emerging areas and it is in young people and older people that have decided in the past I am not going to participate, but I believe they are going to participate to save this country.

Mr. Ryan, let me say this in closing, because I know the hour is coming to a close. And I guess the only thing that I could possibly say here is that the facts are there. We have the real security plan that is out there. We have a great debate that will take place tomorrow, even though it is already written in stone on what the resolution would say.

On this side, as we look at 9/11, reflection on 9/11, it is remembering those that lost their lives on 9/11. Those first responders, just including in those that lost their lives, but those first responders that survived 9/11, that live with 9/11 whether it be mentally, physically, spiritually, or emotionally, what they have to continually have to go through with family members and Americans and thanking those that participate.

To go into this other area that the Republican majority, even after we have laid out all of this tonight about the 9/11 Commission report is still not fully implemented, we still have containers going into the belly of planes that are not being inspected, we only have 6 percent of containers that are going on the ships are inspected. We don't have interoperability, which you talked about earlier, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It still hasn't happened. U.S. cities don't have it. They didn't have it in New Orleans, and we still have a problem responding to even natural disasters that we know are coming almost double digit days if not 7 or 5 days before it hits. We still have those issues.

But on this side of the aisle, when you say the Democratic minority, we are saying we want to go with the memory of what took place, those individuals that died, those individuals that were hurt, to say we will never come back to this area again. The Republican majority, they want to address that, too, but at the same time want to push in some of this other stuff about how we are all secure and everything is better. That is not what this whole 9/11 resolution should be about. So I know that there will be a great debate on this floor, and I am going to go ahead and apologize to the American people because I know they are going to watch this debate and the are going to say, goodness, can't they be together on this, of all things? People have died on U.S. soil. Better yet, we have some that want to politicize it.

So I am going to tell you right now, I am not going to come down here, Madam Speaker, tomorrow and debate the majority on what I know that some of it is not true. The same thing comes up, this is Ground Hog Day all over again with the Iraq resolution. Every time something happens in Iraq: let's honor our troops and those that are fallen. Let's do it then. Then it comes down to all of this: we commend the President, and it goes on and on with all of these high embellished accomplishments which is not true. I am not going to come down here and debate that. So I am just going to say right now that this Congressman from Florida will not take part in the whole.

Yes, will I vote for the resolution honoring? Yes, I will. But I don't agree with the majority in using that opportunity to push a political agenda to say to the American people, see, the Congress agrees that we have done this, this, and that. That is not the issue.

What happens in the budget, we talk about border security, what the President has called for and what we called for, 215 or 216 new Border Patrol agents; we call for 2,000. That is where the proof is in the pudding. It is not a resolution; it is the action that it has taken and the lack thereof.

So, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it has been a pleasure being with you for 2 hours tonight. I am ready to go home.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of Miami's great spiritual and and community leaders, Bishop Victor T. Curry.

I am joined in honoring Bishop Curry by my colleagues: James R. Langevin of Rhode Island, Ed Case of Hawaii, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Diane E. Watson of California, William Lacy Clay of Missouri, Artur Davis of Alabama, Tim Ryan of Ohio, John Barrow of Georgia, Adam Smith of Washington, Mike Thompson of California, Fortney H. ``Pete'' Stark of California, Joseph Crowley of New York, Mike Ross of Arkansas, Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts, Charles Gonzalez of New York, Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota, John Lewis of Georgia, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, David Scott of Georgia, Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey, Albert R. Wynn of Maryland, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Linda T. Sanchez of California, Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, Rush Holt of New Jersey, David Wu of Oregon, Betty McCollum of Minnesota, Tim Bishop of New York, Bobby Scott of Virginia, Jim Matheson of Utah, Dave Reichert of Washington, John S. Tanner of Tennessee, F. Allen Boyd, Jr. of Florida, Loretta Sanchez of California, Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, John M. Spratt of South Carolina, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, Gwen S. Moore of Wisconsin, Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa, Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona, Donna M. Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Al Green of Texas, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, John T. Salazar of Colorado, Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, Julia Carson of Indiana, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Carolyn C. Kilpatrick of Michigan, C.A. ``Dutch'' Ruppersberger of Maryland, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Gregory W. Meeks of New York, Michael M. Honda of California, Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, James Clyburn of South Carolina, Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Jose Serrano of New York, Edolphus Towns of New York, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Melvin L. Watt of North Carolina, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Chet Edwards of Texas, Sander M. Levin of Michigan, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia, Major R. Owens of New York, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, John D. Dingell of Michigan, Carolyn Maloney of New York, Gene Green of Texas, Maxine Waters of California, Bart Stupak of Michigan, Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois, Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois, John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, Sanford Bishop, Jr. of Georgia, Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, Silvestre Reyes of Texas, Sheila Jackson- Lee of Texas, Corrine Brown of Florida, William Delahunt of Massachusetts, Ruben Hinojosa of Texas, Bill Pascrell, Jr. of New Jersey, and Solomon P. Ortiz of Texas.

On May 21st, Bishop Curry celebrated his 15th pastoral anniversary, and I want to echo the same sentiments of joy and gratitude that the 15,000 members of the New Birth Baptist Church in Miami on this happy occasion.

Bishop Curry's ministerial journey truly represents the best and the noblest of our community. As bishop, senior pastor, and teacher of New Birth Baptist Church, he is leading his congregation and has tirelessly worked to enlighten our community on the path to spiritual wisdom, social responsibility and good government.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work he is doing in guiding not only the members of New Birth Baptist Church, but also the entire family of the ``The Cathedral of Faith International.''

His motto--``From Vision to Victory''--has impacted the lives of countless people, as Bishop Curry has carried forth his message of hope in person, in newspapers, on television, and on radio. He has demonstrated, both by word and by example, his unconditional love for and commitment to our children, the elderly, the poor, the disenfranchised, and those less fortunate among us.

I therefore join with my colleagues, the congregation of the New Birth Baptist Church and our entire community in honoring Bishop Curry on his 15th pastoral anniversary and in wishing him many more in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of our community's most outstanding and experienced church leaders, the Rev. G. Vincent Lewis, Executive Pastor of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. The members and supporters of the congregation celebrated the 30th Anniversary of his pastorate on Sunday, July 23, 2006, in a happy event held at Antioch Missionary Baptist Church of Carol City.

Rev. Lewis represents the vocation of a Good Shepherd who attends to his flock in ways we can never fathom. As Executive Pastor and Chief Ministerial Officer, he exudes the knowledge and pragmatism of a man who is capable of making good things happen in the corporal world while also teaching the ways of God. He has tirelessly worked to enlighten our community on the agenda of spiritual wisdom and good governance impacting our duties and responsibilities to the less fortunate.

Rev. Lewis' timely and persevering leadership at Antioch Missionary Baptist Church of Carol City is genuinely commendable. As a man of God and as a community leader, he has indeed earned our deepest respect and admiration.

We congratulate Reverend Lewis and thank him for his many years of service in the Vineyard of the Lord. He continues to teach us to live by the noble ethic of loving God and by serving our fellow human beings, and our fervent hope is for his continued health and success as be begins his fourth decade of service.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House tonight. The 30-Something Working Group is always prepared to come to the floor not only to share with the Members but the American people about some of the issues that we would love for the entire Congress to work on, Mr. Speaker, if we worked in a bipartisan way.

My friends on the other side of the aisle who just finished talking about Iraq, the beautiful thing about our democracy is that we have the opportunity to voice our opinion in the way we see it.

I think it is also important for us to realize what the reality is not only here in America but in Iraq and the Middle East and what is going on right here in the Midwest, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, or what is not going on as it relates to investing in the Midwest, making sure that we invest in America, using coal for energy, innovation, and also making sure that we can work with our farmers here in the United States so we don't have to depend on Middle East oil and we don't have to send our men and women into harm's way to make sure that we are able to put gas in our tanks here in the United States.

As you know, in our innovation agenda and also energizing America agenda, in our new direction for America, here in this side of the aisle we are for investing in the United States, we are for making sure that we can cut our dependency on Middle East oil so that we don't find ourselves in the middle of these conflicts that we are in right now.

As you know, we have been talking for several weeks about our new direction for America. I am glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz is here again tonight, as she always is, and it is great. It is like old times.

We have been working together for I know 12 years since I have been elected. You have been an elected official for 14 years. I met you when I came into the Florida House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Wasserman Schultz was the chair of the Education Committee when I showed up in Florida legislature, and I know that she is going to have a bright future here in the House of Representatives.

But I can tell you what the good news is. It is that we have the will and the desire on this side of the aisle to stand up on behalf of the American people, making sure we raise the minimum wage for working families and those that go to work every day, punch in and punch out, know what it means to have a 15-minute break in the morning and a 15- minute break in the evening.

For those individuals that are working the midnight shift, we are with those families. We want to make sure

that they are making a livable wage, and when we raise the minimum wage, that means that those individuals that are making over the minimum wage, those that are making $8 or $9 or $10 an hour, those individuals in big corporate America are going to have to look at what they are paying them, Mr. Speaker, if we raise the minimum wage.

That is not what is going to happen, and I think as long as the Republican majority is in place that is not going to happen.

If I can, before I yield to my good friend and colleague and a true good friend, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, our districts are right next to each other in the State of Florida, we work together, like I said, Mr. Speaker, for a period of years, of giving the American people what we have received.

What we received on this floor and what we call, well, we the opportunity to give ourselves raises. We do not have to petition the Congress to receive a raise. The American people want a raise, those hourly workers that are out there. They want a raise, and hopefully, we can talk a little bit about that tonight and a number of issues they are facing.

We are going to talk a little bit about Iraq and the realities of Iraq. Members can come to the floor, God bless them, and give their opinion or their view of what they think is going on in Iraq and in other parts of this world, but I think it is important for us to, just as simple as picking up the paper or watching the news or talking to our constituents, they are saying, Congressman, Congresswoman, my son is going off to war on his fourth or fifth deployment or my daughter is going to off to war on the fourth or fifth deployment and you are saying on the majority side, and from the White House, stay the course, stay the course. To do what? And where is the plan?

But let me just get back to what I was saying about how we give ourselves raises here in this House. The Republican majority has made it abundantly clear that they do not have the will nor the desire to give the American people what they have given themselves, and the good thing, Mr. Speaker, about this side and the reason why I can speak truth to power and that I can come to this floor with a straight face and all of my colleagues, Republican, Democrats and one Independent we have in this House, I can boldly say here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives that veterans have fought for us to salute one flag. Those individuals that are in Arlington Cemetery right now, that all we have is their memory and their commitment to this country, that if we have the audacity to give ourselves raises, Republican majority leading the effort to give raises to Members of Congress and vote ``no'' to allow individuals that are working for $5 and pennies every day, punching in and punching out, with all of the gas prices, all of the issues of the price of milk, the price of bread, the price of college tuition, we are able to do better for our kids and our families because the Republican majority said, hey, that is fine, we can give ourselves raises, but let not us give it to these others folks.

Let me say this to those other folks, the American people. Since 1997 there has not been a Federal increase in the minimum wage. Here are the facts, and that is why we come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, to just give the facts to the Members.

This is a Congressional Research Service report April 18, 2006. Any Member of Congress, Democrat, Republican, Independent, American, that is paying attention to what we are saying right now can go on housedemocrats.gov and get this information.

1998, Members of Congress received $3,100 in a raise; minimum wage workers, zero. 2000, Members of Congress, $4,600 raise that the Republican majority has given Members of Congress; minimum wage workers, zero. 2001, $3,800 for Members of Congress, pay increase, what we call cost of living, that is a nice way to dress it up; minimum wage workers, zero. Members of Congress in 2002, $4,900 increase, just got in 2001 remember a $3,800 raise, $4,900; minimum wage, zero. 2003, $4,700; minimum wage workers, zero. 2004, $3,400; minimum wage workers, zero. 2005, $4,000, Members just received a $3,400 raise; minimum wage workers, zero. 2006, $3,100 in the present year; minimum wage workers, zero.

The Republican leadership has pretty much said over our you know what body we will not give minimum wage workers an increase. Meanwhile, here in the House, there are plans that are already drawn for Members of Congress in 2007, if the American people allow it to happen and not evaluate every Member of Congress, because even if you do not make the minimum wage, you have to have a conscience about, well, we have individuals that are out there. Gas prices have gone up. If you make $8, $12, even $18 an hour, you have to have a conscience about these individuals that have to pay the same price you have to pay for gas, have to pay the same price you have to pay for health care. If you are struggling, imagine what someone that is making $5 and pennies have to go through.

So I think it is important and it is very pivotal that we are here at 11:37 eastern standard time after other Members of Congress have gone back to their homes, either resting with their families, in their office working, what have you, we are here on the floor carrying the water on behalf of the American people.

Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I talk to my constituents, and I talk to the American people that are walking through the halls of Congress. You know, this is the summertime, Mr. Speaker, and, as you know, we have a number of visitors that visit the Capitol of the United States here. We wear these congressional pins. And last night when we left at 12 midnight there were Girl Scouts out front.

You are a Brownie Troop leader, or a Girl Scout leader.

I used to be a Boy Scout Troop leader in Scott Homes some years back in Miami. But those little girls were at the foot of the steps taking pictures of the front of this Capitol of the United States, the Capitol of our great country. And, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I have children, you have children, but this is really not about our children, because they are going to be okay, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz's children have names that end with Wasserman Schultz. They will get into the schools they need to get into. They will get the access they need for education. Doors will open for them that would not open for other children in our districts.

My children's last names end with Meek, and they will be treated differently than other children, need it be Johnson or Hermanowski, or what have you. They will be treated differently than them.

So this is not about our children. This is about the folks that elected us to come here to this U.S. House of Representatives to represent them. This is about making sure that they have a fair chance at life, just like our children.

Members of Congress, a number of them in the House and Senate, our children are going to be okay. They are going to be okay because their last names end with the names of Members of Congress. But what about those individuals that woke up early one Tuesday morning to vote for representation? What about those individuals that walk in here as employees into this Capitol, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to serve the American people? Will they get the same access that we have? Will they have the same access that Members of Congress have as it relates to health care? Will someone open the doors for them?

I will answer that question. No. And I am not saying every person should be treated the same as Members of Congress. But the way things are going now, if you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, and you are thinking of voting in the next election, you have to be concerned.

Mr. Speaker, there are prominent Republicans that are referring to their colleagues as ``they.'' The former Speaker of this House is referring to his Republican colleagues in Congress as ``they,'' because he doesn't want to be associated with them. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. And I am going to break out this chart again. And you know something, I can break this chart out every 5 minutes of the day, every 5 minutes of the day, because it is so revealing and it takes it home as to exactly what we are talking about.

This is why I am here a few minutes before midnight. That is the reason why I think it is important we continue to share with the American people what is going on, and with Members of Congress. I have my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that say, Congressman, that little red, white, and blue chart you break out every day, aren't you tired of it? And my answer is, no. It is the hard reality of what is going on in the republic, as we stand now as a country.

We have other countries that are looking at us in a different way. And, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, everyone looks at the United States of America, and just because the Republican majority says that everything is fine doesn't

necessarily mean that it is. Because here are the hard facts.

The hard facts are these, Mr. Speaker. President Bush and the Republican majority has borrowed $1.05 trillion, $1.05 trillion, from foreign nations. Historic. And my next chart tells you who we are borrowing it from, and they are owning a part of the American apple pie not because they had to pay $56 to fill up their F-10 pickup truck, not because of their indiscretions, but because of the indiscretions of the Republican majority.

We have 224 years of history in this country, with 42 presidents before this President, and they were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. Those are the facts. That is from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It is not the Kendrick Meek report or the Debbie Wasserman Schultz report or the 30-something report because we think it works towards our position and not leveling with the American people.

I can tell you without looking at this chart, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you exactly what is on it because I have read it so many times to so many groups and here on this floor.

Who are we borrowing it from? Who is owning a piece of the American apple pie? Japan, at $682 billion; China, at $249.8 billion; the U.K., at $223.2 billion; the Caribbean, at $115.3 billion; Taiwan, at $71.3 billion; and the OPEC nations, that I can go on and talk about these countries that we have issues with, Iran, Syria, oil-producing Middle Eastern countries that we are borrowing money from that we have issues with. They own a piece of the American pie at $67.8 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion; Korea, $66.5 billion; Canada, $53.8 billion.

These are the countries that are buying our debt. And it is not because of what the American people have done but what the Republican majority has allowed to happen. They have rubber-stamped everything the President of the United States has sent to this floor. And that is not what article one, section one of the U.S. Constitution calls for.

We use the Constitution as guiding principles on behalf of this country. I am not here on behalf of the House Democrats. I am here on behalf of the American people, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz is here on behalf of the American people. There is a reason why prominent Republicans are saying that they are totally lost at what the Republican majority has done, Mr. Speaker, and that is that fact that that the American spirit will rise up out of partisan politics.

I will definitely yield, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I think what is important here, at least when I go to speak to the American people, and even in my own district, and as you know we travel. We defeated the privatization of Social Security, to allow individuals on Wall Street that were looking forward to receiving over $500 billion under the President's plan to privatize Social Security. We had over 500 town hall meetings throughout this country. You had town hall meetings in your district.

A thousand. Okay. I am glad you corrected me, because we want to make sure we give facts, not fiction.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we make an important note here, and I am asking the Members and the American people, Mr. Speaker, to vote principle over politics. You have to vote principle over politics.

I just want to make a point here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This is to the Members, to place on their conscience what the American people may very well think

Let's say I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, and I am a voter, and I am paying more for gas. There is a war going on that my leaders are telling me we are going to stay the course, but no plan, and energy independence and innovation is not a priority.

If we were in the majority, let's just say for instance that we are in the majority and this is not happening. Let's say I am a veteran, and I have to wait in rural America for the clinic that is only open 3 days a month, then I have to think about the principle over politics. Maybe I am going to vote for the other person this time because my family is suffering. Maybe my kids are not getting what they need as it relates to education. Maybe that is not in line with the principle of what we are talking about here.

So I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as you point this out, that Members of Congress and the American people will have to think this time. I told you I have given up on the Republican majority. They have had all the time in the world to do what they have to do.

Look at what we are paying on the debt because of the irresponsible spending of the Republican majority and giving tax cuts to billionaires and millionaires. Look at the debt we are paying because we have borrowed all that debt from foreign countries. Look what we are doing on education. Look how far down it is for every teacher, for every mother or grandmother or grandfather, what have you, who wants to see their generation of children and grandchildren have a better opportunity than what they have had.

Look at what the Federal Government is investing in their education. Look at what is happening in homeland security. Republican Members of Congress on the majority side can burn all kind of jet fuel, at taxpayers' expense, flying down to the border talking about how we are going to get tough on immigration. But look at what they are doing for homeland security and look at veterans.

Hello! We are saluting one flag, and I talked about this earlier, those that have made the ultimate sacrifice, those that are away from their families.

Look at what the Republican majority is investing in their future and what they have promised in terms of providing health care and other benefits. Look at what they are investing versus what we are paying on the debt.

So just because, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as I yield back to you before we close, just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It was good coming back to the floor with you.

As you know, in the 30-something Working Group, we not only come to the floor but we meet every week. We have staff evaluate things for factual purposes, and I am glad that we are coming to level with the American people about what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, before closing out, we would like to honor Tim Frieman, who has worked here in the Democratic cloakroom for 30 years. We appreciate his contributions and all that he has done. We had a great reception, Members, bipartisan, went down here in the Capitol and honored him. We appreciate him and his family for their contributions