Floor Statements

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

On May 21, Bishop Curry will celebrate 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 will lift up to Almighty God 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 in the ways of God and has tirelessly worked to enlighten our community on the path to spiritual wisdom, social responsibility and good government based on the laws of God and the dictates of conscience.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work he is doing in constantly guiding not only the members of New Birth Baptist Church, but also the entire family of the ``The Cathedral of Faith International.'' He has truly exemplified the model of Christ as the Good Shepherd, and has led his flock, sharing with them the words of God's wisdom and the good news emanating from the gospel.

His motto--``From Vision to Victory''--has impacted the lives of countless people, for 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 his congregation 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, it is an honor to come before the House once again. I would definitely like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing me to have this hour, this 30-something hour, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and also Mr. Steny Hoyer, our whip, and our chairman Mr. James Clyburn and also Mr. Larson, John Larson, our vice chair of our caucus.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor every day that we are in session, almost every day, to share not only with the Members how we should work in a bipartisan way leading on behalf of this country, but also to share with the American people how important that its elected representation here in Washington, DC, need it be Democrats, Republicans, Independents, that we come together under one flag and we salute one flag to make sure that we fight on behalf of what they need, not what the special interests may need here in Washington, DC.

I can't help but segue out of that opening into this historic day in American history. This historic day, and it wouldn't be anything that I would say that we should put forth a House Resolution to designate it as some sort of special holiday, but I think the Members need to be made aware of what happened 5 years ago on this day that might have put into motion, I believe had a lot to put into motion of what the American people are feeling now, not only on the east coast or in the Midwest or on the west coast or north or south, but what they are feeling of the sound of the ring at the gas pump when they are pumping gas into their tank, the feeling that they have when they can no longer carry cash because all of the cash is being spent on fueling their tanks to be able to give their children a ride to school or be able to help a sick loved one to a doctor's appointment, or a small business person trying to figure out how he or she is going to go up on the cost of their service or the product that they provide to a given company because of these gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory; and so that is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, the 30- something Working Group, we have gone back to looking for the facts of how do we get to where we are now, where did we fall short as a Congress on behalf of the American people. Now, when I say fall short, I want to make sure that the Members don't get confused.

I think here on the Democratic side of the aisle that we have done a very good job, if not an outstanding job, of trying to represent the people that wake up every day and want to provide, want to put forth their best role, their best foot in this great democracy of ours. I think on the majority side that it has been well documented that there has been access into energy policy here in this country in government- funded buildings where special interest was top shelf. That is a heavy charge, but let me just back it up here.

2001 on this day, not yesterday, not tomorrow, but on this day, Vice President Dick Cheney and his energy task force had a secret meeting bringing together big oil companies, energy lobbyists, CEOs, and other special interests to craft the administration's energy agenda, an agenda to deliver Big Oil big dividends. This is well documented within the media, this is well documented as it relates to testimony in some committees before Congress. Big five oil companies, $32.8 billion in the first quarter profits this year, free drilling rights on public lands, $9 billion in subsidies; $20 billion over 5 years, and waived royalty fees, another gift that was given out of this energy policy.

Big Oil comes through for the GOP. Big Oil gave 84 percent of their campaign contributions to Republicans in the last 24 months. Bush- Cheney got more than $2.46 million in 2004 as it relates to campaign contributions. More than $70 million to the Bush and Republican Congress since 2000.

Democrats want to take this country in a new direction, and I think it is important that we point out some of the things that have taken place.

Now, some may say, Well, Congressman, I mean, that is good, you pointed that out. But, Mr. Speaker, I must go down memory lane to remind the Members and also the American people that this meeting was well denied by many: What are you talking about, a secret meeting? What do you mean? We do everything in the sunshine here in Washington, DC. We have transparency. We believe that we are here on behalf of the American people.

Well, let me just say that, and I want to point to an article that I pointed out last week, and I think it is important because we come to Washington every week for the business of the people and I think it is important that we point this out. This is a Washington Post article that is dated November 16, 2005. As a matter of fact, it was on the front page: White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's

energy task force in 2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

We should have a problem with that. The document obtained, this week, November of 2005 by the Washington Post, shows that officials from ExxonMobil Corporation, Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and BP of America, Inc., met in the White House complex with Cheney's aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts of which are still being debated.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we bring that to the attention of the Members and remind them as we Members come to the floor, especially on the majority side, and start talking about, well, you know, I don't know how we got here. I don't know why these oil prices are the way they are. And I am going to show that chart there in a minute, but like it is some sort of, like it is someone there like a puppet, like pulling the strings and, I don't know how the puppet is moving.

Well, let me just remind the Members with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that when we tried to come forth with an energy policy last year that would be meaningful for all Americans, not just some, and definitely not the folks that were invited to the White House. Now, I don't know and I don't know this as a fact, but I would have a pretty strong, I guess you can, like some people say, you could take this to the bank that everyday Americans were not called to the White House and asked how energy policy should be put forth in this country, because all of these subsidies were being placed on the table for these big oil companies.

And when it was reported, I remember very vividly, Mr. Speaker, that some folks said, well, it is in innovation, that is the reason why we are meeting with them. They are the professionals. Well, why while they were giving their advice, they were cutting their deal. And I think it is important for us to again say what this means to the American people.

Gas prices across America doubled. Big Oil profits quadrupled. I have already gone over that, but Big Oil has profited in a way that no other time in the history of this Republic, and I think it is important that people understand that we, those of us that are on this side of the aisle, Democrats, we believe in investing in the Midwest and not the Middle East. It is far too expensive, and I think we have figured that out and I think the Republican majority hopefully will get the message.

The bottom line is, like the commercial, Mr. Speaker, got milk? The bottom line, have you gotten enough? Have you gotten enough of the back-room deals? Have you gotten enough of the secret meetings that are later revealed? Because there are some people of good will that will share this with the American people. I mean, on this side of the aisle we have called for and I am going to talk about an amendment that we put forth that was voted down on party lines that made a lot of sense; but I guess because Democratic Members put forth that amendment on behalf of the American people, I guess it wasn't good enough, because we weren't invited to the meeting.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the only way we can have bipartisanship here in Washington, DC, like I have mentioned before in other floor speeches, is that the leadership has to allow bipartisanship. You can't come from a minority position or the minority here in this House, as the Democrats, and say, well, we want to work in a bipartisan way. That is a statement. The action is the leadership, the Republican leadership of this House and this Congress say, well, we want to work in a bipartisan way and we will; we will let the minority Members know, the Democratic Members know when we will come together in a conference committee. We will sit down with Democrats to craft legislation, energy policy, prescription drug policy, health care policy. You name it. Social Security policy. We will come together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we put forth the will of the American people. But that was not allowed.

We are calling for on this side, we ran our amendments in committee and here on this floor, relief for consumers and farmers and small businesses, investigate and punish price gouging by big oil companies. Investigate and punish price gouging by big oil companies. Stop billions in tax breaks and subsidies and handouts that are ongoing to big oil companies. Keeping Americans, Americans home-owned and home- grown out of poverty of paying so much for energy prices. Increase production and use of American biofuels. Increase cars and trucks that run on ethanol. Make ethanol and biodiesel more available at the pump. Increase energy independence and create good-paying jobs in rural America, research and development to create cutting-edge technologies and biofuels.

Now, I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, because some folks may say, well, you know, Congressman, that is great, that is some great points there, but it is here on the innovation agenda. This is like the quick read on our promise to the American people on innovation. And we have a number of folks that have endorsed this innovation agenda and that are Democrat and Republicans, not only in the area of education and broad- band technology but also as it relates to energy independence in 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an if we do get in the majority, when I say the Democrats get in the majority, that is when we get in the majority what will happen. That is a promise. That is not something like a campaign slogan and saying that, well, you know, we filled our, you know, we will represent you well. No, that is the plan. And the Members can go on housedemocrats.gov if they want to get information on the innovation agenda. It is just that simple. Just like that. It is just that simple.

The energy plan is right here. Ready, set, go, Mr. Speaker. Ready for bipartisanship or a Democratic majority. I think it is going to take a Democratic majority to get us to where we need to be to be able to put forth the kind of leadership that is needed in energy level.

Again, Mr. Speaker, not talking fiction but fact. I hold in my hand here a report that was done by the minority staff and the Government Reform Committee talking about the Bush administration energy policy and the 5-year review of what it is going to cost Americans in the long run. We know this, Mr. Speaker, because we have tried to offer and head off what is happening right now. And I think it is important that the Members understand. That report is out there in case Members want to take a leadership role on the Republican side and say maybe we need to start working with the Democratic side on some of these issues.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to point out that as we look at these record-breaking prices at the gas pump, that we look at the subsidies and cut out the talk about is there price gouging or not. I think the American people are going through a major head-scratching session throughout this country of saying I am paying through the nose; they are saying there is a gas shortage; but meanwhile, these big oil companies, even though they show up on the Today show trying to explain to Americans why the prices are what they are, they are getting another membership at the golf club. Forget, let alone buying golf clubs, they can buy these country clubs now because it is record-breaking profits, and it is very, very unfortunate that that is the case.

I want to say that last fall, Mr. Speaker, we had an appropriations amendment on the floor that we put forth that would have increased the opportunities for another look at the innovation, make sure that it falls on the side of the American people, that we do not use environmentally sensitive land to be able to carry out the will of big oil companies who just want to continue to do what they have been doing over the years but, hopefully, ahead in the area of biofuels, more emission vehicles and also innovation. We have talked about the innovation, and I think it is important we brought that to the attention of the American people.

I also have to, Mr. Speaker, share with you today, I have given the Web site out. I just want to make sure because I want to make sure the Members are able to follow me. Let us talk a little bit about border security, and I think I am now going to talk a little

about it because a lot has been said, very little has been done. I think it is important to look at the facts of what is actually taking place here, and I do have some facts here, and I also have a solution, something that folks like to talk about but they do not like to enact.

We talk about immigration and border security, the President gave a speech last night and said that we need to protect the southwest border, we need to protect America. My goodness, if we do not do it, we do not know what is going to happen. We have got to keep the terrorists out.

Well, last I checked, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of terrorists and well-known terrorists, even a recent documented case in Washington State of a terrorist coming through the Washington-Canada border and all along the northern border and some other places here in the United States. So to say that it is all in the southwest United States, that that is the issue and we need to deal with it, I think that there are some other underlying issues that are there. And I just want to share with you that when you look at a leadership that has been in place, Mr. Speaker, for oh, well, I know 6 years with a Republican President in the White House, Republican-controlled House, the double-digit years, and now look up and say we have a problem where we have to send the National Guard--the National Guard to the border?

Well, I guess it would be easy if Democrats were in control anytime during that time, because you can point at the Democrats and say that is the reason why we have to send the National Guard, because it has been mismanagement of the government and we have not adhered to the number of recommendations and reports that have been coming out over the years saying that we have to increase the number of border patrol agents and because of the lack of oversight and the lack of follow- through and executing any of that; we have found wasteful spending from the Department of Homeland Security, need it be secure borders or whatever the initiatives were dealing with cameras and sensors and all. We were so busy giving out these contracts to the special interests that no one bothered to hold the light of accountability over these contracts, and so we find ourselves in these quick fix, make money for folks, that can influence this process over what should happen in a functional government.

Let me get that Gingrich poster if I can. I want to bring Mr. Gingrich, not Mr. Gingrich, Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Speaker, who delivered the Republican majority to the Republicans, and this is what he is saying. He is saying, ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.'' They, Mr. Speaker. When you have a former Speaker of the House that said ``they'' that means he is separating himself. ``They'' means that they are no longer the people I knew when I was there. ``They,'' they is like a group of people that the relationship may not be what it was, but I do not know what they are doing. They are over there. They are not on our side.

I guess that is what the Speaker is saying, and so I think it is important for us to look at the reason why this Republican Congress, Mr. Speaker, is being seen as they, even by individuals that were in the leadership of bringing about and delivering the majority.

Border. There are 1,000 fewer border patrol agents than were promised in the 9/11 Act. There was a lot of discussion around the 9/11 Act that passed off this floor, but there are 1,000 fewer than what was promised to the American people. The Republican-controlled Congress has broken the promise it made in funding additional border patrol agents, immigration enforcement officers and detention beds, especially in the 2004 Congress when it enacted the Intelligence Reform Act, or better known as the 9/11 Act, which mandated an additional 2,000 border patrol agents being hired over each of the 5 years.

But the President's subsequent budgets have failed to include adequate resources to implement the act. Indeed, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget called for only 210 additional border agents.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had to read that part, and I am going to stop right there for a moment, because sometimes when they have the newscast on these cable stations, they run the breaking news at the bottom. I wish I had one of those ticker tape little areas under the President last night to read out in the fiscal year 2006 budget; that is, 2006 budget only called for 210 additional border patrol agents. That is the facts. That is not something from the Democratic Caucus. That is not something that I was walking down the street and just said, hey, I am going to say to the President. No, you can look in his budget, you can look it up on line, you can look in the White House Web sites archives, if they have not taken it off just based on I said something about it.

Now the President is ringing the bell saying, let us send 11,000 National Guard troops down to the southwest border even if there are documented cases of what is going on on the northern border.

The Republican Congress has not done much better. In the fiscal year 2006, they only funded an additional 1,000 agents, only 1,000, even though the 9/11 Act called for 2,000 agents per year. I am going to read off, Mr. Speaker, a little later on the amendment that we put forth here on this floor that was voted down by Republicans and voted for by Democrats.

The act also mandated an additional 8,000 detention beds, but only in the fiscal year 2006 the Congress funded only 1,800 additional detention beds. Again, I must add, one may go on prime-time television, say another thing, but the facts state different. We call it the Potomac Two-Step.

The President and the Republicans continue to underfund the border patrol. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget does not fully fund the authorized level of border patrol, while the Democratic budget substitute does.

The fiscal year 2007 House homeland security appropriation bill that was marked up in subcommittee last Thursday falls 800 border patrol agents short and 3,130 detention beds and 500 immigration enforcement agents short of the authorized levels that was passed off of this floor just a few years ago.

Again, I mean, I am so glad that God has given me breath to come to this floor to share this with the Members and the American people, because if we look at the prime-time address or some sort of press conference, we will never get down to what is actually happening here in Washington, DC. I can tell you, on this side of the aisle, we have had enough of this kind of talk and lack of action.

Now, let me just pull out here that this border security, Mr. Speaker, is a nonpartisan issue and should not be a Democrat-Republican issue. It should not be, well, that Independent in the House has a proposal, that Independent. It should not be former Members of the House, Speaker of the House, calling Republican majority ``they,'' as though they are not working in a way that they should work on behalf of the American people. Not my words, but Speaker Gingrich's words.

I can tell you that it is important that we move in the direction of making sure that we do not cater to certain major conservative voices, telling the President let us send 11,000 National Guard troops. Let me break that down for the Members in case some of the Members probably do not understand what that means.

I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Last I checked, we had an issue as relates to end strength. We do not have the necessary personnel to even take on the obligations that we have now. We have men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and other very dangerous places, in the Horn of Africa, at this time. And when we talk about the National Guard, that means someone in your neighborhood will be called up for, what, for 2 weeks to go to the southwest border. For 2 weeks, they are going to be trained, mobilized, fed and dropped on the southwest border, for 2 weeks at a time.

I am going to tell you what that means for Members like me, Mr. Speaker, and there are 20-some odd Members from Florida, 25, 26, 27, and counting the two Senators. But this means for Florida that our Florida National Guard, hurricane season is starting in 3 weeks, have to have in their mind that they are going to the southwest border to protect only the southwest border and not really carry out a

mission of homeland security against terrorism. That means that those individuals that have been deployed and pulled away from their families from some area of 12 months to 14 months at a time, in Iraq now, has to come back home, kiss the kids, hug the wife, and then head off for 2 weeks over to the southwest border.

Now, this is something that has been going on for some time now and something that we have been calling for to be changed.

In addition, I hold in my hand here, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission report, at least the cover of it, a report card, the final report of the 9/11 Commission, dated December 5 of 2006. And this report card basically, and I will come down before the week is out to bring my copy of the 9/11 report to the floor, and I can read into the record verbally several pages of that report of things that should be taking place now or should have been taking place, and it has not.

The 9/11 report basically called for exactly what we passed here on this floor: 2,000 additional border patrol agents annually, okay; almost coming to the tune of 12,000 additional border patrol agents; of making sure that we are able to deal with attrition, we are able to make sure that we have professionals that are on the border. Being a border patrol agent is not just something you can hop up and just try to do tomorrow. Making sure that we move from a G-11 status to a G-13, which means that there is higher pay, paying these men and women for being the professionals that they are and making sure they have the kind of force that they should have.

Border patrol is not something that should be enforced or carried out when the poll says that we are not doing anything. It is something that is to protect the United States of America and it should not be a knee jerk.

Everything cannot be: Well, what if this? Well, we will send the military. What if we? We will send the military. We have a volunteer force. They signed up to stand up and do what they have to do on behalf of this country. My hat is off to them. They allow the veterans who, Mr. Speaker, serve in this Chamber, and also we represent throughout this great country of ours, they fought to allow us to salute one flag. And that is something I don't take lightly.

But when you have a Republican-controlled Congress that doesn't believe in bipartisanship, in working together, I think it is important to be able to point out some of these issues that are of great importance.

When you start looking at guidelines for government sharing of personal information, that is a ``D.'' Wow. That is in the news today. That is their report from 2005. When you start looking at checking bags and cargo screening, that is also a ``D.'' I wonder how they came up with that? That has been in the news recently. When we start looking at the issue of critical infrastructure assessment, that is also a ``D.'' When you start looking at the issues of how do we deal with FBI security workforce, that is a ``C.'' When you start looking at the guidelines for intelligence oversight reform, that is a ``D.'' When you start looking at unclassified top-line intelligence budgets, that is an ``F.'' When you start looking at the issues of moving in the direction of securing our borders, also very low marks.

I think it is important that we point this out, and this will be on our Web site for your perusal, the Members, if they want to take a look at it. I think it is important to talk about the issue at hand, of what the President has shared with us last night, and to talk about it being willing to endorse something. And we will put a copy of that amendment that we put forth on the homeland security piece and what it called for on the Web site as well.

Well, in December of 2005, Democrats had a motion to recommit on H.R. 4437. In that amendment we called for an increase of border patrol numbers, border patrol officers by 3,000 additional agents, totaling 12,000 in total, and to expand the new training facility to be able to handle the capacity of training those officers.

We called for increased border patrol agents and inspectors, pay agents, from G-11 to G-13 that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that would put these agents on par with other law enforcement agencies so that we don't end up being the training ground for other law enforcement agencies that then take the dollars we have put into training, recruiting, and all of those things that goes into bringing those individuals on; that they are not taken away by other law enforcement agencies.

Immigration and customs enforcement, which are ICE officers, 2,000 additional agents and 250 additional detention officers.

This is a plan, Mr. Speaker. This is not something where you just jump up on television and say we are going to send 11,000 National Guard troops. That is not a plan. That is a Band-Aid. And I want those comments of what Republicans are saying about that plan.

We have here where we also call for 100 additional U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys. One hundred additional U.S. attorneys to be able to handle the cases. We don't want them sitting in detention centers taking up all that bedspace. That is 400 in total to be able to deal with the prosecution of individuals that come into the country illegally, and also those smugglers.

We are also calling for immigration judges, 75 additional immigration judges. We called for Coast Guard, 2,500 additional enforcement personnel, or 10,000 in total.

It is also important to be able to deal with the investigations of fraudulent schemes and documents, so we called for 1,000 investigators that would be able to investigate those fraudulent documents so that we can have, guess what, competence.

We are finding in the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, the reason why these procurement officers are going through so much trouble and not being able to have oversight over these contracts is that we haven't put the individuals there to oversee the contracts. So the contractors, those that come in, government contractors know they can come in and take advantage of the government and there are several months before we figure out what is going on, or before the Department figures out what is going on.

The amendment also calls for a thousand entry inspectors and K-9 enforcement teams, 375, that would take the place of many personnel individuals. These K-9s have been an effective tool in the effort against terrorism in U.S. enforcement throughout this country and along the borders.

I think it is important to look at a plan, not a Band-Aid. Now, speaking of a plan and a Band-Aid, let's talk for a minute about these 11,000 troops. An L.A. Times article today. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he agreed with the President on the need for a border overhaul and immigration policies, but he criticized the plan of the National Guard on the border. Border State Governors were not consulted about the proposal in advance, and there are many outstanding questions about the impact of the President's proposal on Californians, he said in a statement. It remains unclear what impact only 6,000 National Guard troops will have on securing the border, says Schwarzenegger. I am concerned that asking the National Guard troops to guard our Nation's borders is a Band-Aid solution and not the permanent solution we need.

I just wanted to say that Governor Schwarzenegger, being a Governor in a State, a large State, where usually the National Guard reports to the Governor of that State, until they are federalized I mean, I would be concerned if no one at least had a conference call and said, hey, we are thinking about doing this; Governors, what do you feel about that? Okay, let's just take that out. Let us just talk about the way they do things here in Washington, DC. Let us just talk about Republican Governors, and say, what do you think about this; and how do you feel about how your National Guard can play a role in this? Well, that is from Governor Schwarzenegger.

Here is a Member of Congress, Congressman Jones of North Carolina. This is his quote. ``If Bush had done this 2 years ago, we could have seen a real solution that might have improved the environment for the debate about what we should do now.''

That is from that same article, and we will have this on our Web site a little later on today for the Members that would like to have that information.

We put forth that amendment, Mr. Speaker, going back to the amendment

which was voted down on partisan lines, I guess because Democrats had an idea and a solution, not just a Band-Aid.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, for us to take a step back and to make sure that the American people know that we should all be on their side. And I do believe my colleagues in some areas are on their side, but there are too many people listening to the special interests here in Washington, DC.

We have a plan. We put our energy plan on the table. It is on Housedemocrats.gov. It is there. It wouldn't just be on the Web site, it would be implemented if the Republican majority would work in a bipartisan way with Democrats in putting forth these plans. Maybe we wouldn't be paying more at the pumps if the Democrat proposals and amendments that were on this floor at the time we were dealing with energy policy on price gouging, there wouldn't be a question whether there was price gouging or not because there would be enough U.S. attorneys to be able to deal with it. The oil companies would know there would be a $3 million fine, plus prison time, jail time.

It is criminal to spend $56 to fill up the tank of an F10 Ford truck. It is criminal to have folks running around here putting $10 at a time in their tank and only getting three gallons, if that, in some cases to make it back and forth from work. And I think it is important that people understand what is happening.

I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, to the American people and the Members, and I just want to mainly talk to the Members, that we have time. We have time for a revelation, a paradigm shift for the majority to say we are willing to work with Democrats in a real way. But guess what? History doesn't speak to that. Recent history and the history of 5 or 6 years doesn't speak to that.

I am very concerned that people are paying for a one-sided policy, a Republican majority policy, a White House policy, a rubber-stamp policy, Mr. Speaker, of saying, Mr. President, whatever you want, we are willing to fund it. We are willing to give tax breaks to billionaires that we cannot afford; we are willing to give tax-free giveaways to the oil companies, which has never happened in the history of the country; we are willing to turn our heads and ignore real price- gouging policy and laws because somebody from the oil companies may end up going to jail.

Well, let me tell you what is happening. Gas prices are so high now that I know, I mean, I know for a fact that crime will go up because of gas prices. People are going to do what they have to do to fill their tanks or to put some gas in it. And I am not encouraging that. I used to be a State trooper. I want those individuals to be dealt with. But I wonder why we would put the country in the posture it is in now to benefit the few oil companies that are out there?

We can talk about the rubber stamp a little further, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that not only when we talk about oil, we talk about immigration. As I said, when I talked about the incompetence of one-sided policymaking without working in a bipartisan way, I just want to say that it seems like the Republican majority here in the House are afraid of foreign people but not afraid of foreign money.

When I talk about foreign money, Mr. Speaker, I have to get this chart here. I bring this chart out again. I have talked about this chart so much until I see it sometimes when I close my eyes, because I cannot help but point out again to the Members on the Republican side, the majority that is setting forth the policy and that has put this in motion and has been a part of history-making in the wrong way.

There are 42 presidents, Mr. Speaker. This is a fact. This is the U.S. Department of Treasury. This is not a 30-something report or the Kendrick Meek report. In 224 years, $1.01 trillion has been borrowed from foreign nations. These are the Presidents and these are their pictures. Four years, 2001 to 2005, the President, along with the Republican Congress, pictured down here, have borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign nations.

Well, who are these nations? Well, we have put together, the 30- something Working Group, we wanted to break this down so that the Members will know what they have done. Republican Members would know what they have done, because we have called for pay as you go, and we will talk about that, not just borrowing as we go from foreign nations, putting this country in an economic posture it has never been in in the history of the Republic. I am not talking about in the last 2 years or 20 years or last 100 years, but in the history of the Republic.

So what the majority Republican Congress has done has enabled America from being how it was prior to the arrival of the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

Japan owns $682.8 billion of the American apple pie, where they have bought our debt, Mr. Speaker. These are not my numbers, these are the U.S. Department of Treasury numbers. China, $249.8 billion of U.S. debt.

China didn't make us do it. It is the policies coming out of the White House rubber-stamped by the Republican majority. If we worked in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority can be able to say, well, you know, both parties made this mistake. Oh, no. History reflects and the present reflects the reality of that statement, or the lack of reality of it. The U.K., $223.2 billion of U.S. debt that they bought. The Caribbean nations, $115.3 billion of U.S. debt that they have bought, not because American people said, hey, let's just go out on a credit card and spend money. It is because the Republican majority said, let's go out on a foreign credit card and spend the money and do things that we can't afford to do like $11 million in National Guard troops that will be activated that we will pick up the bill for because of a lack of policies in taking on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I can't say that enough.

Taiwan, $71.3 billion Taiwan owns of our debt. OPEC nations. OPEC nations covering Florida and Georgia, $67.8 billion. OPEC nations have a lot to do with the oil situation right now that are providing most of our crude.

Germany, $65.7 billion they have bought of the U.S. debt. Korea, $66.5 billion; Canada, $53.8 billion of U.S. debt.

Now, I can talk and speak boldly on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. There is only one party here in this House that has balanced the U.S. budget, period. Not one, not one with an echo in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, Republican that is presently serving or served when the budget was balanced can say that they took their voting card out and they voted to balance the budget where the surplus is as far as the eye can see, until the President was elected and the Republican Congress was emboldened with a rubber stamp. Now, deficits as far as the eye can see. Record-breaking borrowing.

How do you borrow in 4 years $1.05 trillion? How does that happen? Mismanagement and tax giveaways and special deals to special interests, that is how that happens. Somebody said, okay, well, Congressman, if this was a two-way conversation, well what about that thing we call the war? What about the thing we call 9/11? Well, what was World War II? What was World War I? What was the Great Depression? There were many other challenges that the United States of America has had over the history of 224 years prior to the Bush administration coming into power and the Republican Congress being handed a rubber stamp. So I don't think the Members would be able to explain this chart or explain the facts of incompetence or explain the fact that they have had a rubber stamp in their hand ever since President Bush has taken to the White House and the Republican majority has had their way of saying, Mr. President, whatever you want, we will do it. And that is how we got to $1.05 trillion in 4 years. That is how that has happened.

I think it is important that, again, when we talk about issues and we point out the problem, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The solution will follow, or the attempt for a solution.

We talked about pay as we go. Some policymakers call it PAYGO, but I just want to make sure everyone understands what we are talking about in Washington because a lot of times we use acronyms and we lose people. We lose people that elected us to come up

here and represent them. So we use these acronyms sometimes not only to cut down a speech or what have you, but to also carry out that dance that happens up here that is called the Potomac 2-Step. If we use enough acronyms, it will lose the people and they won't know exactly what is going on up here. But we on the Democratic side believe in spelling this thing out for everyone.

Congressman John Spratt from South Carolina, one of the most honorable Members of this House and ranking member on the Budget Committee, put forth a substitute amendment on House Concurrent Resolution 95 in the 2006 budget resolution that instituted pay as you go.

Now, what does that mean? Now let's just make sure that we break this down just in case a Member of the House or Senate or a staff member or just, you know, everyday-Joe or -Sue doesn't understand when we say pay as you go. That means what many of us do every day. If we are going to buy something, we have got to know how we are going to pay for it. If we are going out and we want to buy, I don't know, a radio, and you go out and you buy that radio and the radio costs $100, well then you step back. You can be at one of our favorite American department stores and you say, well, if I am going to buy that radio, where am I going to get the money? Do I have $100 in my pocket? That is the first question that you ask yourself. Then you say, well, maybe I can't afford it. Or do I want to put it on this credit card?

Well, what the Republican Congress has done is that they have been taking out the credit card and they have just been charging everything, not only charging everything, charging it to foreign nations, the power of people that have, not people, but countries that have bought our debt not based on what everyday Americans have done as it relates to irresponsible spending and a lack of planning; it is because what the Republican Congress has done. These are our leaders that have been elected to lead.

Now, maybe I know this country will be better off financially if there was a bipartisan approach towards fiscal responsibility, but it has not been. And the Republican Congress has put forth, has endorsed and rubber-stamped everything the administration handed down.

So Congressman Spratt, along with the Democrats, said, let's institute pay as you go. If you put it in the budget and it is going to be something that you want to spend money on, you better say how you are going to pay for it in real money, not funny money, not borrowing from foreign nations and weakening the economic opportunities on behalf of this country. That is what that amendment did. And guess what? Here's the vote right here. It failed. Not one Republican, 228 Republicans vote against it. It is roll call vote 87, March 17 of 2005.

Well, if that one vote, I mean, you look at these two opportunities here, Mr. Speaker. They are the only opportunities that the Republican majority allowed us to even bring something to the floor. We had to work hard to get that to the floor.

If the Democrats were in control of this House, which I hope the American people will allow Democrats to be in control of this House, A, we will work in a bipartisan way; B, we will institute pay-as-you-go policies, and we will cut out countries buying our debt and owning a part of the American apple pie.

Mr. Spratt, again substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393 of the 2005 budget resolution. Again, 224 Republicans voted, zero voted for pay-as-you-go policies. Roll call vote 91. March 25 of 2004.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point those two things out because I want to make sure that people know that we are taking every opportunity on this side of the aisle to put this country back on track of fiscal responsibility. I can't tell you how many times that I have shared that with the Members, and I can't tell you how many times the Members have come to this floor with the rubber stamp in their hand. And I am going to tell you, I am going to show you what that rubber stamp looks like in reality, because I want to make sure that the Members that are checking this debate out see exactly what we are talking about.

This rubber stamp comes in the form of a voting card. This is my not only ID but voting card. And the President wants to give tax breaks that we can't afford to billionaires. Done. Let me vote for it. The President said that we should give unprecedented tax breaks to big oil companies in the time they are making record profits. Done. Let me vote for it. That is fine. Whatever the President wants, so shall he spell it out, we will rubber-stamp it and endorse it. Should we deal with issues as it relates to no plan for a war in Iraq? President said we should. Done. That is what the Republican Congress is saying.

And so here on the Democratic side, we are saying, hey, you know something, and this thing that we call a democracy, Mr. Speaker, we talk about a three-tier government. We talk about a legislative branch. We don't have to talk about it. It is in the U.S. Constitution. We have an executive branch, and we have a judiciary. If the American people want to do away with the Republican rubber-stamp Congress, you know what to do. You want to see this rubber stamp thrown out the back door, then you know what to do. If you want Members to come with their voting card to vote on behalf of the American people and not the special interests and what the White House has said that should be done, you know what to do.

Because the thing about it, Mr. Speaker, and the only thing that I feel good about these days is that November is coming soon and that the American people are so fed up that maybe, just maybe, and I think we are beyond maybe right now with the scare tactics that will be coming from special interests because they know their day is coming. Their day is coming with the American people, and we will have tax breaks, real tax breaks for the middle class; we will have an energy policy that we will say will be energy independent in 10 years. They know that will happen. They will also know that we will have a true prescription drug and a true health care policy that small businesses and large businesses will be able to provide health care for their employees, and that will be done. They know that we will also move with a pay-as-you- go policy and not a borrow-and-spend policy from foreign nations that will also happen. And so I think that it is important that everyone understand that we are here on their behalf.

As I say, as I get ready to close, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is imperative that the Members understand that this is fact and not fiction. If it was fiction, I could not walk around this Chamber and this House of Representatives and this Capitol and speak to Members on a day-in-and-day-out basis. It is not personal. It is just business. And it is the business of the American people.

Let me get the chart here so that I can make sure that Members can get more information.

Housedemocrats.gov/30-something. You can get all the charts that we have shared with you here today and the reports. That is housedemocrats.gov/30-something. We encourage e-mails and anything that Members want to share with us.

Mr. Speaker, what is very unfortunate is the fact that on the eve, or last night, at 12 midnight the clock ran out on seniors here in the United States of America as it relates to the prescription drug plan. On that night, when there should have been great celebration by the Republican majority, what was going on? Going back to the movie ``Wag the Dog.'' No, let's talk about immigration on the deadline of the sign-up time for prescription drugs.

So that goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, that it is something their trying to change the debate of the deadline and seniors being confused and now seniors being penalized the next day after. And so I just want to make sure that the Members know that there are some people that are paying attention to what is going on, and they are called the American people. And you do have time to change, and you do have time to bring about this paradigm shift, but history doesn't speak to it.

And so, Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing me to come to the floor with another 30- something hour. We look forward to being back on the floor tomorrow if we have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor once again being before the House. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have the time on the floor here, Nancy Pelosi; and Mr. Steny Hoyer, who is our Democratic whip; Mr. James Clyburn; Mr. John Larson, Mr. James Clyburn, the chairman of our caucus; Mr. Larson, who is our vice chair. Once again to come to the floor to share not only Democratic ideas but American ideas, to help push this country forward. Also, to point out some of the issues that are being thrown upon the American people by the Republican majority and their lack of working with the Democratic side of the aisle to bring about good policies for our country.

Tonight I am joined by my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Tim Ryan, who is a great American. That is just not by my standards but by the people in his district and many people throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be able to identify or point out the fact that once again this week the Republican majority tried to pass an unjust budget on the backs of the American people. Well, due to the fact that we, those of us on this side of the aisle and hopefully a couple of the Republicans on the majority side is saying no, saying no to the fact that we are here every day at the highest level that we can be without Members being absent from the floor to make sure that we vote en bloc against this Republican budget, that we will set America back versus moving it forward.

I think also there are some Members on the majority side that understand by casting a positive vote for this unjust budget that was supposed to have been passed by April 15, they know that if they vote in the affirmative for that budget that they may very well be making a career decision. The American people are watching this process daily and they have been made aware of what is going on here under the Capitol dome due to the fact of the lack of governance on their behalf. I encourage the American people to continue to pay attention.

Tonight, Mr. Ryan and I will attempt to share with the American people and with Members of Congress, mainly Members of Congress, of their responsibility to have the backing of the American people and not the special interests. This budget that the Republican Congress passed long ago to bring to the floor out of committee, if it was so great, it would have been passed by now. It is very, very important that we share this with the Members, if we had the opportunity or were given the opportunity to have some positive input into this budget, that maybe, just maybe, we would have passed the budget and we wouldn't have appropriation bills moving through the process without a budget.

Right now, appropriation bills are being heard in committee and will be heard in committee for the next 3 weeks, but without a passed budget. I think it is important that Members and the American people pay very close attention to how the Republican-controlled 109th Congress, be it House, Senate or White House, continues, even under the light of a 22 percent approval rating by the American people, and, in the White House, a 31 percent approval rating by the American people based on the White House and 22 percent here in Congress. Still, Republican leaders are trying to shove this budget down the throats of the American people.

I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Why not?

When we start talking about what Republicans are saying, prominent Republicans, the chart that you had up with Newt Gingrich saying they are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that can't function, number one, Mr. Speaker, he is saying ``they.'' ``They'' means he is separating himself and he no longer knows the Republican Congress that he gave birth to and that he was the Speaker of. I guess all along the game plan was when we get really in the majority, let's get some years down the road that people forget about the Contract with America, and we will start catering to the special interests. What is so unfortunate here is that the fiscal irresponsibility that has taken place in this Chamber, in the committee rooms down the hall, Mr. Speaker, across the hall, in the White House, has taken this country in a direction that it has never been in in the history of the Republic.

I am not talking about in the 108th Congress or the 107th Congress or the 93rd Congress. I am saying in the history of the Republic, this Republican Congress and the President have taken us down the road.

Now, I just want to say this to my colleagues, those that are Republicans and the one Independent that we do have here. This is not a local, Democratic club. This is the U.S. Congress. And we are here to share fact and not fiction, because we believe that the American people should be leveled with. And we also believe that they deserve a government that is going to represent them, not represent the individuals on K Street.

Let me explain K Street. Mr. Ryan mentioned K Street fairy tales of what is actually happening. The Republican majority embraced a program called the K Street Project. And in this K Street Project, it was a system of individuals on K Street contributing to Republican campaigns. And it was a pay-to-play philosophy. And I still feel that it is a pay- to-play philosophy, because they are getting what they want. The oil companies are getting what they want out of this Congress, not the American people. Other special interest groups are getting what they want out of this Congress and not the American people. If the American people were getting what they wanted out of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, Congress would not be rated and viewed by the American people with a 22 percent approval rating.

Members come to the floor and talk about the President of these United States at a 31 or 30 percent approval rating. We are here, we vote here every day; and the Republican Congress, this Congress that is led by Republicans are at a 22 percent approval rating. So that means that there is a super-majority of the Americans that are not agreeing with this majority. But, still, Members, the Republican majority is still going down the line of fiscal irresponsibility. They are irresponsible. Irresponsible.

Now, let me just say this. Some may say that is a heavy charge there, Mr. Ryan. Well, it is nothing like the printed word. This is not my stationery; this is the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Let me put up my Treasury Secretary's picture here, Mr. Snow, who I think is a decent man. He is just doing his job. He is the accountant for the United States of America. He lets us know pretty much when we are headed down a dark path. And at the end of the tunnel it is actually a train and it is not sunlight.

Here is a letter that he wrote December 29 of 2005. Now, let us think, on the 29th, Mr. Ryan, I was back in my district in Miami with family and friends. Actually, that was a couple of days, maybe 4 days, it was 4 days after Christmas, the birth of Jesus Christ, a very religious time for many religions. As a matter of fact, Kwanzaa is being celebrated during this time.

But Secretary Snow found himself in his office on this day. And he wrote a letter to the majority whip in the U.S. Senate saying that, in essence, he is saying that this letter is to inform you that we must raise the statutory debt limit, or we will be unable to continue to finance government operations.

Okay. When you get a letter on the 29th, the end of the year, saying hello, excuse me, I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to run the company. You have to raise the debt limit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the Members understand what I am saying. Raising the debt limit means that you have not done a good job of being stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

That is not the only letter, Mr. Ryan. Just in case we didn't hear the Secretary, he turns around on February 16. Mr. Spratt wants to know what's going on, who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I got this letter that you wrote on the 29th. I mean, we were on recess and all, and you were here in Washington writing this letter. Tell me more.

He goes on. On December 29 I wrote to Congress regarding the need to increase the statutory debt limit. Because the debt limit has not been raised, I must inform the Congress, pursuant to 5 U.S. Code, that, in my determination, that by the reason the public debt limit is not raised, I will be unable to fully invest in the government security investment fund that is called the G fund of the Federal Employee Retirement System in a special interest-bearing account.

Now, let me just say this. Again, a letter by Secretary Snow, appointed by the President of the United States, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, wrote a letter saying we are in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I wish that was the only letter, but it is not. Here's another letter on the 6th of March. Again, I am notifying you, and he gives his reason why he is notifying, that I have determined that the debt insurance suspension period will be on March 6 and last until March 26. During this debt insurance suspension period, the Treasury Department will suspend additional investment of the amount credited to what we call the G fund again. But he is saying that we are not in fiscal good standing at this point. He is saying that he is going to have to suspend.

Mr. Ryan, he is saying that he will suspend it on March 6 of 2006, and he wrote the letter on March 6, 2006.

So the Secretary, Mr. Speaker, waited till the last day to inform the Congress, you know, I have already written you two letters. You are embarrassed to raise the debt limit because it will let the American people know that you are not governing.

Now, if we worked in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, maybe, just maybe I wouldn't be able to come to the floor and say that this is a product from the Republican majority, but it is.

Bipartisanship can only be allowed if the leadership allows it. The Republican leadership has shut out the Democratic voices in this Congress and shut out the one Independent voice we have here in this Congress. So now, for Members that come to the floor and start saying, well the Democrats this, that and the other, we are not in the majority. We cannot bring a bill to the floor. We cannot stop this Republican majority and this out-of-control spending.

One other point, Mr. Ryan. I will take Secretary Snow down for now. Again, Mr. Speaker, you all have seen this chart before. 224 years of 42 Presidents, prior to President Bush, borrowed from foreign countries $1.01 trillion. That is 224 years. That is a long time; 224 years? That is at least four or five generations, if not more of my family personally. Was only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. The President, and the Republican Congress that we have a picture here of, in 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, and this chart will be updated, from 2001 to 2005, have borrowed from foreign nations $1.055 trillion. They have beat out 224 years of history, Great Depression, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, you

name it, bad economic times, good economic times, they have beat out natural disasters. They have beat out 42 Presidents, Democrat and Republican, Mr. Ryan, $1.01 trillion, 42 Presidents. That is all they could muster up. But we give this Republican Congress and President Bush the gavel, $1.05 trillion in 4 years, just 4 years. How does that shake out? Well, who is investing in America now? Who is owning a part of the American apple pie? Who will continue to own, if this Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, is passed, who will get even more of the American apple pie?

Thank you for yielding back, Mr. Ryan. Let me just point out real quickly: we will start out with the big one here. People look at Japan; they look at the United States. They say how could a country that size invest in the United States of America $682.8 billion, Japan? American apple pie. They have a big piece of it. China, Red China, Mr. Ryan. Communist China, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Speaker: 249.8 billion of the American apple pie. I know that makes our World War II veterans feel pretty comfortable right about now. And I am saying that in a way that I know that they are highly upset at the point that Japan can come back and own so much of the American apple pie, and not because of their doing but because of the irresponsible spending on the Republican majority side. I am just calling it what it is, Mr. Speaker, because like some folks say, it is what it is, Mr. Ryan.

The U.K., $223.2 billion of the American apple pie. Caribbean nations. Many of us go to vacation. I represent a lot of folks from the Caribbean. But guess what, they own $115.3 billion of the American apple pie, buying our debt. Our debt. Historic debt that we have given them in the last 4 years. And I am going to explain that a little further, Mr. Ryan, because I think people need to understand that prior to this Republican Congress and President Bush being elected, there were surpluses. That means that folks were projecting, not a deficit, but money left over for things that we need to tackle. Yes, we need a middle-class tax cut. Yes, we need to shore up Social Security. Yes, we need to have a health care plan so that businesses don't have to ask people to be on Medicaid to pay for their health care on the backs of the American people.

No, this Republican Congress and the President opted to give it to millionaires. I don't know how many times I can say that. Millionaires. It is not what I am saying. You can pick up the paper and find out what is happening up here. Taiwan, $71.3 billion of the American apple pie that has been sold away because of irresponsible policies. Canada, $53.8 billion. Korea, again, my veterans, $66.5 billion.

Meanwhile, under the Republican budget, Mr. Ryan, veterans are going to be paying a higher copayment, thank you, a la the Republican majority, that is saying that we are for you. Germany, $65.7 billion. Again, our veterans. OPEC nations. This is very interesting, Mr. Ryan, and it is actually covering my State of Florida and Georgia and South Carolina. OPEC nations. Who are they? I mean, these are the nations that are in charge of all the oil. Iraq is in that, owning some of our debt. Iraq. We are spending all kinds of money in Iraq, but guess what? They have enough time to own some of our debt. Iran. Iran. Oh, my goodness. Is this the country, Mr. Ryan, that we are concerned about, that Israel is concerned about and many of our friends in the Middle East that are trying to bring about democracy we are concerned about? You have a number of the United Arab Emirates, again, nations that we are concerned about as relates to Dubai, port deals. There are a number of countries that are here that we are bringing into question.

Let me just, Mr. Speaker, let the Members take a look at this map. Empty without the debt on it. I think it is important that Members understand that Democrats, we are the only party in this House that has actually balanced the budget.

People can talk about it. They can write great studies about it. But until you do it, you don't know what it takes. Obviously, based on those letters from Secretary Snow, and based on the fact that the Republican Congress has taken pride in endorsing everything that the President has said, we want to give millionaires a tax break and give middle class people a $10 tax break or a $50 tax break. Done.

We want to give oil companies, as a matter of fact, I read this last night, I think it is important and I am going to read it again, since I passed by a gas station today and it was $3.07 right here in Washington, DC.

This is a Washington Post article dated November 16 of 2005. The White House documents show that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by environmentalists but denied, as of November, 2005, last week, by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document obtained by the Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil, also from Phillips and Shell Oil Company and BP of America met in the White House complex with Vice President Cheney's aides in developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, parts of which are still debated in Congress.

I rest my case on that. Again, Republican Congress said, energy bill, Mr. President, so shall it be written, so shall it be done, without a question asked.

Do you want to go down to the whole issue of what is happening with our seniors now, prescription drugs? So shall it be written, so shall it be done; propane, from the Republican Congress, we will do it because you told us to do it. All this debt that I have right here, under this stamp. Mr. President, do you want to raise the debt limit, okay, fine, we are right with you. Let us raise the debt limit on the back of Americans.

Meanwhile, I must add, that when we look at raising the debt limit they are cutting student aid to students to be able to be our workforce in the future and to be able to afford a college education. I am glad to announce that this is actually a bill proposed by Democrats here in this House. This is not a Democratic proposal, this is an American proposal.

I believe that Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired. This is legislation that is now filed by Representative Miller here in this House and also from Senator Dick Durbin in the Senate reversing the rate on student loans or student aid. The bill cuts interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for students, with subsidized loans, which can go to students with the most financial need and move it from 8.5 percent to 4.25 percent for parents starting July of this year.

This is legislation that is filed now. Earlier this year, in the Republican budget earlier this year a Republican-led Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student loan program in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. Ryan, I am just going to go to this page, and I am going to yield to you, sir.

Yesterday, reading is fundamental. I blew it up because I thought it was important for me to come to the floor and share with Members because there are

to be some Members come this November that will say I don't know what was going on. Do you think they hoodwinked me on this? Here is a copy of the paper right here if you have it on their desk.

This is the way the cover looks, Republicans Reaches Deal on Tax Cuts. What does that mean, Mr. Ryan? I will tell you what that means. That means that for Americans that make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, the average tax savings will be $2. That means for those that are making $20- to $30,000 a year, that means that their average tax break will be $9; $30,000 to $40,000, $16. $40,000 to $50,000, $46; $50,000 to $75,000 a year, household income, $403; $100,000 to $200,000, $1,388; $200,000 to 500,000, $4,599; $500,000 to $1 million, $5,562; and those that are making more than $1 million will receive $41,977.

Who has whose back? People that I represent, I can tell you right now, very few, I can probably count on both hands and maybe one foot that are making more than $1 million that will celebrate the $41,977 tax break.

Meanwhile, guess what? We have men and women that are at war in Iraq. We have men and women that are in Afghanistan right now, and we have companies trying to figure out how they are going to provide health care for their employees. Meanwhile, we have the Republican Congress here saying everything is fine. What are you talking about?

I yield, Mr. Ryan.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I think it is important for us to identify, you mentioned our real security plan, Democratic homeland security plan, balanced budget plan. We have actually done it. We know how to do it. We have experience there.

Not one Republican vote in passing the Democratic balanced budget plan. Mr. Speaker, that is fact, not fiction.

The energy plan, Mr. Speaker, it is ready to go. The bottom line is we offer these plans and amendments, we offer these plans here on the floor.

Mr. Ryan mentioned something, Mr. Speaker, that I want to just make sure that Members are clear on, crystal clear.

Crystal clear, Mr. Ryan, that we don't just come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, to talk about Republicans, what they are not doing or what they are doing to the American people versus for the American people. We actually fight in the Rules Committee that is on the third floor of this Capitol to beg the committee, I think it is really heavily weighted, I think it is like 14 Republicans on that committee, or 14 or 12 Republicans, versus 7 Democrats. So that means that two or three Republicans can have a cold and they still prevail and are making sure they keep control of this House and what comes to this floor. So much for bipartisanship. The Rules Committee sets the rules, Members, on what comes to the floor and what doesn't come to the floor.

This is what we were able to muster up. Ranking Member John Spratt from South Carolina offered a substitute amendment to pay-as-you-go. Now, this means pay-as-you-go. That means that if you are going to spend, you have to identify where you are going to get the money from. Can I have that chart again.

I am not talking about any of this business of borrowing from Japan, from China, from OPEC nations or any of these countries that are out there. I don't blame these countries, don't get me wrong. I don't blame them for getting a piece of the American apple pie. I just wish more Americans could get a piece of the American apple pie.

John Spratt put forth an amendment on House Concurrent Resolution 95, the 2006 budget resolution. It failed with 165 voting for it, 264 voting against it. All Republicans voted against it. 228 Republicans voted against it. All Democrats voted for it. Again, that is Rollcall No. 87, and that happened on March 17, 2005.

The same Member, ranking member John Spratt from South Carolina, a Democrat, a good Member of this House, substitute amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393, 2005 budget resolution. Republicans voted against this, not one Republican voted for pay-as-you-go, which was the responsible way to get us out of the pockets of these foreign nations. The vote was 224-0 from Republicans. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Speaker, not one Republican.

Mr. Ryan, I will yield to you in a minute. I want to get this chart again. I think it is important. I can't bring this chart up enough, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to make this so.

If a Member can e-mail us or bump into us in the hall or a staffer or someone from the majority budget office or the minority office can come to us and explain to us how we can break this down further. 224 years, $1.01 trillion from foreign nations. Four years, 4 years, Mr. Ryan, $1.05 trillion since President Bush has been President and the Republican Congress has been working with the President, 4 years from 2001 to 2005.

These are not my numbers, Mr. Speaker, this is the U.S. Department of Treasury numbers. These are not my numbers. So this means that the Republican Congress knows this. You know how I know they know it? Because we tell them night after night. You know how I know they know it? Because we were here last night with the same chart. They voted against this PAYGO resolution twice. I can even go further back to show committee votes on partisan lines of voting against it.

So this means only one thing, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Ryan, that the Republican Congress is wearing this stamp with pride, that they are willing to rubber stamp anything that the President of the United States sends into this Chamber. I am saying the Republican Congress on that side of the aisle, because the history and the facts are there. This is fact and not fiction, Mr. Ryan.

I am hoping. Some days I wake up and I say, you know, I wish the situation this country is in, and when I see my children, my 9-year-old and my 11-year-old and look at their burden, they are going to look back, Mr. Speaker, and say there are some people on this floor that fought for their future and the future of America.

White, black, Hispanic, Anglo, American Indian, whatever the situation may be, we are giving them a fixed debt. And if you are a Republican, you have to have a problem with this. If you are a Democrat, you have got to have a problem with this. If you are an independent, you have to have a problem with this. If you are an American, you must have a problem with this, because it is weakening the financial standing of this country.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch here in Congress, we have got folks telling the oil companies, don't worry about it. We have your back. As long as we have the K Street Project going on, as long as you keep what we need to stay in control, we have your back.

Mr. Ryan, I just want to say this, when I give it to you, sir, I want to make sure you have the last word before we close out, but I want to make sure your constituents, that you share with the Members of this House what happened in Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say it here on the floor, because I want to make sure my Republican colleagues when they come down to vote on a PAYGO amendment again, that they think about this.

There was a race in Ohio, Mr. Ryan, and I want you to talk about it, and I want you to tell the Members of the House what happened, what happened with the write-in candidate that got more votes and the number of candidates on the ballot.

So, Mr. Ryan, with that, I want to yield to you, sir, so you can close this out.

Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I know we have a minute left, I just want to say this, that it is important that we thank the Democratic leader and the Democratic leadership for allowing us to be here tonight.

Mr. Ryan, the web site that you gave out, www.housedemocrats.gov/ 30Something, all of the charts you have seen here tonight and throughout the week, the Members can pull that down off of the website, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is set by the legislation passed by the Republican majority. And after that, Americans will be penalized.

Well, that was set forth by the Republican Congress. Many Democrats on this side, the super majority, voted against that measure.

Furthermore, this Government agency has found that even during this 5-month period that seniors were given the wrong information from the White House, the recommendation to go on those websites and call these numbers, the wrong information was given on the plan.

But better yet, they are still held responsible to this date. That is going to happen on Monday. And they will be penalized from this point on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Charlie Powell Albury of Miami, Florida on her installation as the 40th Imperial Commandress

of the Imperial Court, Daughters of Isis, Prince Hall Affiliated.

On Saturday, May 13, 2006 this great leader will be honored at the Signature Grand Ballroom in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida by friends and members of the organization to mark the assumption of her new responsibilities. She came up through the ranks of this 25,000-member charitable organization since she joined it in 1970. It has now grown to 226 Shrine Temples and 200 Courts of the Daughters of Isis, who serve as its women's auxiliary. Various temples and courts abound throughout the continental United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Japan, Korea, Guam, Thailand, Panama and the Bahamas.

The group that Dr. Albury will spearhead is both a charitable and social organization whose members have long been dedicated to fostering civic, economic and educational development. Formally organized on August 24, 1910, the Court's Daughters of Isis stresses the development of leaders while encouraging health awareness among youth and adults and the establishment of a network of services for the disabled and senior citizens. The group also recognizes and celebrates the historic achievements of African-American women who have exerted great influence and served as exemplary models for generations of leaders in communities throughout the world. One of its better-known projects targets teenage mothers, high school and college students, who participate in ongoing activities for educational opportunities and career planning.

While its programs are focused on education and academic scholarships, the Imperial Court also ensures health education and mentoring for the leaders of tomorrow through the donation of book bags and school supplies for adopted schools and future members of the Daughters of Isis. Its many members have become permanent fixtures in volunteering their time and effort during the annual College Fund/ United Negro College Fund Scholarship Campaigns, Health and Medical Research, American Cancer Society, Mental Retardation, the NAACP and other nationwide efforts benefiting various communities. Consistent with its philosophy of stewardship, this organization has supported many underprivileged people throughout the world.

Dr. Albury served for almost 28 years both as an appointed and elected national officer. She is truly a social-service pioneer and leader, for she has buttressed a rejuvenation of the Imperial Court's Daughters of Isis. For her indefatigable work, she has been cited in the Book of Life of the Black Archives Foundation and in the ``Who's Who in the South and Southwest, as well as in the World.'' Accolades from professional, civic, religious and governmental agencies are both numerous, and well-deserved.

With Dr. Charlie Powell Albury's formal inauguration this Saturday, I join her countless admirers, and colleagues and members of her Imperial Court's Daughters of Isis, in celebrating this historic event. I commend her courageous vision and pragmatic approach to helping others, for she and the organization she leads evokes in simple but noble terms our spirit of hope and optimism in the great American spirit.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and also my good friends from the great State of Massachusetts, Mr. Bill Delahunt. I am so glad Mr. Delahunt is here.

We were talking earlier. I had to chuckle there for a minute because Mr. Delahunt always takes the opportunity and the privilege to share with us the printed word, and it is good to have him here. Mr. Ryan will be joining us a little later, Mr. Speaker.

If I could just take a moment here, Mr. Speaker, to let the Members know that the great debate took place here on this floor, a number of amendments were proposed, to make sure that we pass a budget that is just and fair for every American. But I must bring to the Members' attention, because I think Members do not realize what is happening, or if they do realize what is happening, I want to make sure that it is in the Record that they know.

We talk about debt a lot in our 30 Something Working Group, and talking about debt and doing something about debt are two different things.

The Republican majority continues to spend in a record-breaking way that is bankrupting this country and changing the philosophy of this country, which is pay-as-you-go.

Democrats, we are the only party in this House that can say that we balanced the budget. We have actually done it. We have actually had surpluses as far as the eye can see.

Republicans can only talk about, well, we would like to cut it in half and we would like to cut it back a quarter or what have you; but I just want to make sure that folks understand that there was an article written on Tuesday of this week entitled, Another Possible Bump to the Debt Ceiling, $2.7 trillion budget plan pending before the House would raise the Federal debt ceiling by nearly 10 trillion less than 2 months after the Congress last raised the Federal debt borrowing limit. The provision is buried on page 121 of a 151-page blueprint. It serves as the backdrop for congressional action this week.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, and I usually have my letters here from the Secretary of the Treasury, but I think it is important that the American people and the Members of this House understand that what they are doing to this country, record-breaking debt.

I just want to make sure before we start off, and then I am going to be kind of quiet here tonight because I know that we have a lot to share. It is almost too much to share, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to share this with the Members one more time.

We are talking about who are we borrowing from. We are borrowing from Japan at $682.8 billion; China, $249.8 billion; the UK, $223.2 billion; the Caribbean, $115.3 billion; Taiwan, $71.3 billion; OPEC nations, including Saudi Arabia and a number of nations that we have issues with, $67.8 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion; Korea, $66.5 billion; Canada, $53.8 billion and climbing.

If we do not stop this Republican majority from continuing to raise this debt ceiling and burying it within the Federal budget on what they believe their Members have to vote for, and this budget vote has been postponed and postponed and postponed, not because, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority did not have time to deal with it; they just did not want to do to their constituents what the majority wants them to do.

As long as we are here and we have breath in our bodies, we are going to share with the Members of this House that we will not allow this to be a ``back room with the lights off in the middle of the night'' proposition for the American people that they do not have any choices in, but the special interests do.

I just in closing, again, history making, this is not the Kendrick Meek report, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Bill Delahunt or Tim Ryan report. This is facts, not fiction. The U.S. Department of the Treasury backs this up: $1.01 trillion borrowed in 224 years, since 1776 to the year 2000, versus $1.05 trillion that was borrowed from 2001 to 2005 and counting from the President and the Republican majority Congress.

We are saying that we want to pay as we go. We are saying that we want to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. And we are saying that we are not going to allow the Republican majority to be able to have these countries look at America in a different way than they were prior to this administration and prior to this Republican Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

He says more, right?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but take this rubber stamp out. How did we get to where we are right now? It is not because of good policy making. It was not good policy making. It was because the Republican Congress, Mr. Speaker, has said, Mr. President, whatever you want, regardless of how bad it may make our fiscal situation in this country, we are willing to endorse it.

Today, in the Washington Post, folks want to talk about, if they think Mr. Delahunt just came up with these numbers, go on to Washingtonpost.com and they are right here, as it relates to what you will get if this budget passes the way the Republican administration wants it to pass.

And I think it is important that people realize that it is not the people that you send here to Washington, D.C., to represent you; it is the White House. Still, the Republican Congress is saying, even at low approval ratings, Mr. President, we are with you all the way. Whatever you want, we are willing to rubber-stamp it and we are willing to follow your lead, even if it is in the wrong direction, even if gas prices are higher now, even if we are borrowing record breaking, we are making history in borrowing $1.05 trillion and counting from foreign nations, that is okay.

Even if it comes down to us defending a special oil deal, and then we had it turn around on you, but even at the beginning, allowing it to happen, we are with you all the way. Mr. President, whatever you say, we are going to rubber-stamp it.

So I think it is important, when you think of this Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, and I think when a number of our Members look in the mirror, especially on the other side of the aisle, a rubber stamp has to be somewhere in the background because that is what has happened, and that is what has got us in the situation that we are in now, and the American people see it, crystal clear.

This is not a Democratic issue. I am going to yield to you in one second.

This is not a Democratic issue. You can't blame the Democrats on what the present situation is.

Mr. Speaker, I always say that bipartisanship is based on the leadership of the institution. The leadership of the institution has not allowed bipartisanship in policy-making, in the financial situation, or even making sure that we just work in harmony here on the major issues.

That has not happened, and that is the reason why, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the American people are hanging the failures of fiscal responsibility around the neck of the Republican majority and the White House, because they are in the same boat and they are rubber-stamping one another as they carry this country into further debt.

I yield.

Number 7?

The Saudi king.

Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it takes $53 to fill up an F-10 pickup truck. I mean, we have folks that are doing this on the credit card, Mr. Speaker, and guess what, after a couple of months of that, $50-some-odd, some folks' average balance that they have is $1,200 on a credit card. Soon they are not going to be able to do that, and they are going to be in the same situation this country is in, in debt.

Mr. Delahunt, that is the reason why we know it made number 6 on this chart. We want to make sure that we know it went to number 5. I want to make sure we believe in third-party validators here.

I just pulled this out of my notebook here because I want to make sure while we are talking about this, Mr. Speaker, Washington Post, November 16, 2005, page 1, White House documents showed that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Energy Task Force 2001, something long suspected by environmentalists but denied recently as of November, 2005.

Last week, industry officials testified before Congress. The document obtained this week by the Washington Post shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corporation, Conoco, before the merger with Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and BP of America met in a White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law, and parts which are still being debated.

I just have something to share, but I am willing to yield to my colleagues. Mr. Delahunt, I know that you had, you had your glasses out, I know that you wanted to share something with us.

Also, Mr. Ryan, I want to share with the Members, Mr. Speaker, that all of the charts tonight will be on that Web site, on the 30 Something front page.

Also, I would like to share with the Members that Ranking Member George Miller and also U.S. Senator Dick Durbin put forth a proposal to reverse the raid on student loans. Earlier this year, as you know, $12 billion was cut out of the Federal student loan program in order to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

This proposal will roll that back and cut in half interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. And it has to be done sooner rather than later. If not, it will be a financial burden after July 1 for so many kids that want to go to college. They will actually qualify, but kids will be priced out and not be able to make it to college.

Of course, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Democrats were in control, but we hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to change that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who joined us here tonight on the floor and thank the Democratic leadership for the hour.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to announce that last Friday a bipartisan coalition of 20 State senators, all 14 Democrats and 6 Republicans State senators, came together to protect the people of the State of Florida as it relates to smaller class sizes.

The people of Florida in 2002 voted and approved class size limits in Florida to make sure that the State pays for smaller class sizes and not local districts. Floridians said three things: Public education is a high priority, classrooms packed with students are unacceptable, and that Floridians want tax dollars to provide a quality education for all of Florida's children. But some State officials tried to undercut that decision made by the voters for Florida's children.

Today, I want to enter the names of those senators and those State representatives that put forth their vote to make sure that we protect those that are in public education now in the State of Florida and those that are yet unborn. They should be commended and their names placed into the Congressional Record for future generations.

State Senators Nancy Argenziano, Dave Aronberg, Larcenia

Bullard, Walter Campbell, Jr., M. Mandy Dawson, Paula

Dockery, Rodolfo Garcia, Jr., Steven Geller, Anthony Hill,

Dennis Jones, Ron Klein, Alfred Lawson, Jr., Evelyn Lynn,

Gwen Margolis, Les Miller, Nan Rich, Gary Siplin, Rod Smith,

Alex Villalobos, and Frederica Wilson.

State Representatives Bruce Atone, Loranne Ausley, Dorothy

Bendross-Mindingall, Kim Berfield, Mary Brandenburg, Phillip

Brutus, Susan Bucher, Edward Buller, Faye Culp, Joyce Cusack,

Terry L. Fields, Anne M. Gannon, Dan Gelber, Audrey Gibson,

Kenneth Gottlieb, Ron Greenstein, Bob Henriquez, Wilbert

Holloway, Ed Homan, and Arthenia Joyner.

State Representatives Charles Justice, Will Kendrick,

Marcello Llorente, Richard Machek, Matthew Meadows, Frank

Peterman, Juan-Carlos Planas, Ari Porth, John Quinones,

Curtis Richardson, Julio Robiana, Yolly Roberson, Timothy

Ryan, Franklin Sands, John Seiler, Irving Slosberg,

Christopher Smith, Eleanor Sobel,

Dwight Stansel, Priscilla Taylor, and Shelley Vana.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to address the House; and, as you know, we are here once again with our 30-Something Working Group.

I am so glad to be joined here tonight by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Bill Delahunt, who is part of the something of the 30- Somethings. I will be joining him soon come September. Also, Mr. Ryan from the great State of Ohio has joined us tonight; and others will be joining us as we work on the issues that the American people really care about.

As you know, here in the 30-Something Working Group, Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor to not only share with the Members but also with the American people on what is going on here under the Capitol dome and also what is not going on. I think the whole reason why we come to the floor is to be able to share not only what Democrats are doing here under the dome. Sometimes we are able, when we are lucky, Mr. Speaker, to get some Members on the Republican side of the aisle to come and work on some of the issues that we are working on, issues that we care about not as Democrats but as Members of Congress, what we should be doing to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely.

This is happening time after time again as we look at this whole issue of price gouging, as we look at oil prices. On the Democratic side of the aisle, not 2 months ago, not 3 months ago, not even 4 months ago, but last year the Democrats on this floor, and prior to last year, have had amendment after amendment shot down by the Republican majority who have been hand in hand with the oil companies that have been standing with them and making sure that they had a bill, an energy bill, that they felt comfortable with, from the beginning to the end, to the well-documented strategy meetings in the White House with the Vice President. And this is not what I am saying. This is what the news reports have said, and this is what the White House has admitted to and oil companies have admitted to, that they had an opportunity to sit down and outline the energy policy in this country that would benefit them.

When we had legislation on the floor that we will be pointing out here tonight, third-party validators out of the

Congressional Record that talked about it time after time, when we had real price gouging legislation on this floor, not because our bills were able to make it to the floor but in the forms of amendment, the Republicans shot it down on partisan votes time after time. I am talking about criminal penalties for oil companies when they gouge Americans, fines up to $3 million when they are caught gouging Americans. But the Republican majority shot it down on a partisan vote.

But before I yield to Mr. Delahunt, I just want to say once again I would like to thank our Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour once again on the floor like we do almost every night or every night, sometimes twice a night, when we have the opportunity to come to the floor, Mr. Speaker: our democratic leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi; also our whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer; Mr. Jim Clyburn, who is our chairman; and Mr. Larson, who is our vice chairman; and all the Democratic ranking members and other folks that work every day, Mr. Delahunt, and you know, offering amendments in committees. Like Mr. Ryan and I just left our Armed Services Committee, offering amendments that would not only help our men and women in uniform but the American people in general.

I will be happy to yield to Mr. Delahunt at this time.

Mr. Delahunt, you know what they have done? Anything the President said he wanted, they rubber-stamped it. Anything that the oil industry said that they wanted, they rubber-stamped it. Any problem where the American people says, why is the card stacked against me policy-wise, whether it be health care, whether it be prescriptions, what have you, they have rubber-stamped it.

If you watched The Today Show just this morning, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, Matt Lauer had the CEO of ExxonMobil on. Let me give credit to the CEO of ExxonMobil, because the other oil companies would not comment.

One of the questions was, do you feel that the Republican majority in the Congress have turn-coated on you now? Have they switched on you now? Now they are running politically scared. Now they are willing to take windfall profits away from you. Now they are willing to go forth on price gouging legislation. Do you think they turned on you?

The ExxonMobil CEO never answered the question. But it is very obvious, like you said, they are in charge. It is almost like the old saying, ``the buck stops here.'' The Republican majority doesn't want to admit to that now.

Now they are writing letters saying, maybe we need to do this and maybe we need to do that. But these are the same individuals, our colleagues on the majority side of the aisle, that put all of this in motion. Now they are trying to act like they had nothing to do with it. ``Oh, my God, the oil prices are horrendous. We need to do something about it.''

They were a part of making it happen.

Mr. Ryan, since we are talking about The Today Show, we don't want to even get into what happened with Tim Russert effort this past weekend about the oil prices and individuals admitting the reasons why they are where they are.

I would say this: If we were in charge, if we were in charge, Mr. Speaker, there would be a line outside of this door of Republican Members of Congress coming to the floor saying what the Democrats are not doing.

Now, on oil and gas, we tried to correct this situation long ago. The question of price gouging, or can we investigate oil companies or not, would not even be on the table, because we would have price gouging legislation on the books that are criminal, that are criminal, and have $3 million fines.

Right now, individuals investing in oil companies, they are getting paid. They are getting their money. Meanwhile, the headlines in the Today, this was actually Wednesday, today, May 3, here is this lady thinking about how much she can pump in. I guarantee you she cannot even fill her tank up, because the gas prices are so high.

So I am going to go through what I said last week. If you are a Republican and you are the head of the Republican club, or whatever it may be in your local community, you have to have a problem with this. If you are a Republican, you have to have a problem with the record- breaking borrowing we are taking out from foreign countries. You have to have a problem with the hand-in-hand relationship this administration and Republican Congress has had with big oil. You have to have a major problem with it. Independents, I know that you are just done with this Republican majority.

Mr. Ryan, Mr. Delahunt, I did jot down a couple of notes here before we came to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to share a little bit with the Members of the facts, not fiction.

I am not a Member with a conspiracy theory, but I am here to say that we know that Republicans, I am going to point out where they, Mr. Delahunt, have blocked Democratic efforts to deal with the price gouging situation. Now they are running for political cover and scrambling to join Democrats. That is actually an article in the Washington Post from May of 2006. The Democratic ideas about energy independence, conservation and efficiency that benefits all of Americans, they are now trying to pick up those ideas and trying to run with them. But it is not a good faith effort, because the oil industry will not allow them to do so. We know about the Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force/working group with big oil to write the Bush- Cheney and Republican Congress energy plan.

That was in the Washington Post, Mr. Speaker, in case the Members want to get a copy of it, 11-16-05.

Bush-Cheney and the Republican colleagues gave their backing to big oil, $20 million in royalty fees for drilling. That is the New York Times, 2-14-06. Also the New York Times, 3-29-06. You can get these articles if you want to read up on them.

Last year, $9.5 billion in subsidies in last year's energy bill went to the oil companies. $9.5 billion. $16 billion first quarter profits for the top three oil companies. That is the Washington Post, 4-28-06.

Record CEO salary pack packages. Look this up if you want to. This is not the Kendrick Meek report. This is what is being reported on ABC News, 4-14-06.

Big oil companies have given to Bush-Cheney and Republicans more than $20 million in campaign contributions. Congressional Daily a.m., that is 4-28-06. I will be happy to share this, and this will be on the Web site later.

More than $70 million to Bush and his Republican colleagues since 2000. Republican Daily, a.m., that is the local magazine here that is printed here in the Capitol, 4-28-06.

Eighty-four percent of big oil and gas campaign contributions went to Republicans in the last 24 months, Congressional Daily a.m., 4-28-06.

This is not put out by the Democratic Party or the DNC or any of these groups. These are news organizations that are just reporting on what is going on here in the Capitol.

Bush-Cheney got more than $2.6 million in '04 from the oil companies, Congressional Daily a.m. 4-28-06.

The cost of corruption to the American people, when you talk about this kind of influence that is going on here, this unprecedented giveaway to the big oil companies, $3 per gallon, the oil price doubled since 2001. Almost $75 per barrel of oil, up from $44 a year ago. That was reported on 5-3-06.

I think it is also important, I just want to point out, when folks talk about, okay, you are reporting news that we might have already read, Republicans voted against the tough penalties we talked about and price gouging, $100 million on corporations, as well as up to $1 million in fines or 10 years in prison or both for individuals. That was CQ vote 500, H.R. 3402, 9-28-05. Republicans rejected that.

They rejected another one where we came back with even tougher penalties, up to $3 million with the same penalties, vote 517, H.R. 3893, and that was 10-7-05. It goes on with other votes they rejected. Another one on 10-7-05. We tried it time after time again, Mr. Speaker. The Republican majority has blocked these measures that we have tried to put forth.

There is no question, Mr. Delahunt, if we were in the majority, we wouldn't be on the floor talking about what was blocked.

We will be on the floor talking about what we passed. Maybe just maybe, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that question of price gouging, the question of preying on the backs of the American people who are just trying to drive their kids to school, trying to go to work, trying to be a part of the American dream, small businesses are scratching their heads saying, do we have to go up on a per-unit cost in the hardware store because of the fuel prices?

Maybe just maybe it would not be a discussion if this special interest did not have the Republican majority blocking for them and legislating on their behalf. So when we see those letters that are written by the Republican majority in the House or the Senate to the President saying, well, maybe we need to do this, and maybe we need to do that.

People that do not have power write those kind of letters, not the individuals that are in power. I am going back to your point, Mr. Delahunt, because you are saying if you are in charge, I am not talking about if you just picked up power last year. I am talking about double digit years, a majority in this House, a Republican President that has been in office since 2000. Now it is 2006.

Because I guarantee you, if this was 2002, Mr. Delahunt, they would be talking about, well, this is Bill Clinton's fault. But they cannot say it with a straight face. So I am going back to your original point, Mr. Delahunt. And I know you have a couple of articles to share with us tonight. I am really looking forward to those articles because I think it is important that we continue to bring out the third party validators.

I think that is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, that the 30 Something Working Group, we get the nod from people here in this Capitol, be it Republican, Democrats or Independents who work here. They are saying, we appreciate, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, what you all do on the floor, of sharing with folks of what is happening here in this Capitol building.

Because I can tell you that at no other time in the history of this country did we have the kind of over spending, the borrowing, the reach of the private sector into this great country, this democracy of ours, and having the kind of influence that they have and having this lady here, who is just trying to make her way out of nowhere, putting gas in her tank.

She is probably squeezing the pump saying, I cannot go over $30 because I am already outside of my budget. Meanwhile, there are folks running around here with suits being driven in black limos with $4 million pension plans, $150,000 a day in a pension plan. And then we got folks out in Mr. Ryan's district that are being laid off that do not even know if they are going to have a pension when it is all over.

Mr. Ryan.

I am going to yield to Mr. Delahunt, but first, well, that kills the whole thing.

When you are doing a back-room deal, you do not come out under the lights. You do not share how we should mold policy in front of the public. You do a back-room deal.

That is what this country is suffering from right now, a back-room deal, and the American people are paying for it.

We have a couple of minutes left.

If Mr. Delahunt would take Mr. Ryan's responsibility, and give the Web site to the Members, please.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Delahunt. Your contributions tonight have been well-noted, and I want to tell you that it is a pleasure being here on the floor with you and Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz once again.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to let not only the Members of the House but definitely the Democratic leadership echo the message that has been given out here tonight. We are ready to lead, we are ready to work in a bipartisan way in putting this country back on the track, heading in the right direction, making sure that our children have a great future, making sure that small businesses are able provide jobs and making sure that families can afford health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues and with my constituents in solemn recognition of Yom Hashoah, a special day on which we mourn the millions of Jews who perished at the hands of Nazi Germany and remember the horrific tragedy of the Holocaust.

This day commemorates the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, in April of 1943, and the selfless bravery of hundreds of everyday men and women who fought courageously against a troop of thousands of Nazi soldiers. This day fomented the resistance movement in ghettos throughout Europe, and it is the inspiration for the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance each year in the United States.

This day has special significance for Jews, the main target of Nazi atrocities. I have many constituents who are Holocaust survivors, and many more who lost friends, relatives and loved ones. We mourn their loss, and honor their memory and the memory of the 6 million Jews whose lives were so cruelly, wantonly and prematurely ended. We will never forget them, and what happened to them.

At the same time, we must recognize that the same forces that brought about the Holocaust continue to exist in the world today. We have seen it in Kosovo and Rwanda, we continue to see it in Darfur. Let us therefore honor the innocent victims by recommitting ourselves to fighting ignorance, bigotry, hatred and, perhaps most important, ``inaction by people of good will.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced H. Res. 777, which would establish a month as Haitian-American Heritage Month.

I think it is important to recognize the many influences of the Haitian people to the history and culture of the United States.

Since our Revolutionary War, Haitians have allied themselves with the United States, sharing our common values of democratic governance and self-determination. While their country was still bound by servitude, Haitian freemen fought alongside U.S. troops at the Siege of Savannah in 1779, even as their own fate remained uncertain at home.

It was eight years after the end of our revolution that Haitians rose up to fight for their own independence from France--a struggle for freedom that was to play a key role in U.S. history.

In an effort to subjugate the Haitian people and suppress Haiti's revolution, France assembled in Haiti the largest expeditionary force it had ever sent to the Americas, composed of its very finest troops. However, by 1803, France had lost most of these troops and expended countless resources. As a result, instead of fortifying and exploiting its position in Louisiana, France was forced to sell it to the United States. In what became known as the Louisiana Purchase, this territory now comprises 22.3 percent of the United States.

Haiti's independence, which was officially declared in 1804, made it the first black republic in the world; the second democracy in our hemisphere; and the only country born of a successful slave revolt.

Haitians and their descendents have been instrumental in numerous American achievements in the sciences, in the arts, in our culture and in our commerce.

During the month of May, these contributions and accomplishments will be commemorated in Miami, Florida as part of community-wide, Haitian- American heritage celebrations. These events correspond with numerous Haitian holidays that are observed throughout the month of May.

In light of these events, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of H. Res. 777 as an appropriate way for our government to recognize and celebrate the contributions of Haiti to our nation.

H. Res. 777

Whereas freemen from the French colony of Saint Domingue,

now the Republic of Haiti, fought alongside the United States

Continental Army at the Siege of Savannah in 1779;

Whereas Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, a Haitian, built the

first permanent settlement of what later became the city of

Chicago, Illinois, in 1779;

Whereas the significant loss of life and financial burden

of the failed efforts to quell Haiti's revolution prompted

France to sell Louisiana to the United States in 1803,

territory that now comprises 22.3 percent of the United

States;

Whereas, on January 1, 1804, Haiti declared its

independence from France to become the world's first Black

republic and the second democracy after the United States;

Whereas Major Joseph Savary, a Haitian, was the first Black

Major in the United States Army, and led the Second Battalion

of Freemen of Color at the Battle of New Orleans, January 8,

1815, under then-General Andrew Jackson, who became the first

Governor of the Territory of Florida in 1821;

Whereas, in 1889, Frederic Douglas, the period's foremost

spokesman on human rights and prominent leader of the anti-

slavery movement in the United States, became the first

United States Minister and Consul-General to Haiti;

Whereas the longest occupancy of a foreign state by

American troops was in Haiti, circa 1915-1934;

Whereas an estimated 1,200,000 persons of Haitian descent

now live throughout the United States;

Whereas Haitians and their descendants have contributed

greatly to the arts and sciences, including John James

Audubon, the acclaimed naturalist and wildlife artist who

inspired the American conservation society that bears his

namesake, and W.E.B. DuBois, the Haitian-American author and

political activist, who became one of the most prominent,

intellectual leaders of African-American society during the

twentieth century;

Whereas the close proximity of Haiti to American shores, in

conjunction with our common bond of mutual values and

commitment to democracy, ensures lasting comity of nations

and continued trade and diplomatic relations;

Whereas Haiti--the only republic to rise from a successful

slave rebellion--inspires pride, solidarity, and self-

reliance;

Whereas the last Sunday of May is commemorated in Haiti as

Mother's Day;

Whereas the 18th of May is Flag Day, the most celebrated

holiday in Haiti, and is observed by people of Haitian

descent throughout the world;

Whereas in Miami, Florida, home to the largest Haitian-

American population in the United States, there are numerous

cultural events and celebrations planned during the month of

May to honor Haitian heritage; and

Whereas May is an appropriate month to establish a Haitian-

American Heritage Month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of

Representatives that--

(1) ``Haitian-American Heritage Month'' be established; and

(2) the people of the United States should observe the

month with appropriate ceremonies, celebrations, and

activities.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come to the floor once again. As you know, night after night, and even earlier tonight, Madam Speaker, during the first hour, we had members of the 30-something Working Group on the floor talking about plans that we have on the minority side here in the House of Representatives and assisting not only Americans, but also those that are in the industry of providing energy to this country, who are also Americans and some of them are foreign companies, to be able to provide cleaner burning fuel and also alternatives that Americans will be able to hopefully enjoy for years to come. Energy independence is something that we have embraced for a very long time.

And the debate this week has been about energy, the debate this week has been about ethics, the debate this week has been about a budget vote that we are all waiting to take. But it seems that on the majority side, Mr. Speaker, that the votes are just not there to pass the budget, the Republican-led budget, which I must say that a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have issues with, apparently.

In the 30-something Working Group, we want to thank Leader Pelosi for allowing us to have this hour once again, the second hour of tonight on the Democratic side, and also Mr. Steny Hoyer and Mr. James Clyburn, who is our chairman, and Mr. Larson, who is our vice chairman, and all of the members that go to committee meetings and fight on behalf of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I believe that we are all on one team until it comes down to what the special interests want and what the American people want. I think that is where the divide comes in. As we start looking at what is happening and the conference calls that I have had and the constituent meetings that I had when I was back in my district during our work break, of just outrage about what is happening in this country as it relates to gas prices, I think that it is very important that we pay more attention than what we have paid to energy and alternative fuels here in this Congress.

One may say, well, we have already passed an energy bill; where were you? Well, there was an energy bill, yes. It was an energy bill that was passed, but for whom? For the special interests, or for the American people?

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence is overwhelming, the fact that right after Hurricane Katrina, and even before, Democratic amendments were voted down here to do exactly what some Members on the majority side, the Republican side, have said that we need to do now, making sure that we put forth penalties to companies that price-gouge the American people. And I am talking about serious penalties, criminal penalties and fines up to $3 million.

We have ExxonMobil executives and oil executives making $150,000 a day in a pension; a day, not a year, not a week, not a month; in a pension with record profits and investors in these corporations that are making money hand over fist, and we have constituents in our districts and Americans throughout this country who cannot even afford to put a quarter of a tank in their car because it is outside of their budget. They cannot afford to take their kids to school. Even when they have a carpool, they cannot afford that.

In rural America there are stories throughout the papers today that are saying, yes, we carpool, but when you are in rural America and you have to drive to the nearest school, that is now a $30- or $40-a-day proposition.

So we look at alternative fuels and we look at penalties that will not allow these oil companies to be able to get away with what they are getting away with.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important for us to understand that the President comes out and he says, well, things are going to be the way they are, and prices are going to be high, and it is what it is, but what we are going to do is relax environmental standards to bring the price of gasoline down.

It is almost like a firefighter saying, I know the house is on fire, and it is hard for me even to come up with a metaphor, Mr. Speaker, to describe what the President has done and what the Congress has allowed him to do. The house is on fire. We are going to put a little water here, but not totally put it out, even though we could have prevented that by putting smoke alarms in and other things in to bring attention to all of us as it relates to making sure we keep the house from burning.

I think it is also important for us to pay attention to the fact that the 30-something Working Group and also on the Democratic side, we have put forth proposals in the past that could have avoided this spike in prices right now. There was a press conference today, and a reporter asked me, well, Congressman, are you representing to us that the Democrats, that you all have a plan that will take gas prices down right now, right now, like tomorrow?

No. But if amendments were adopted that were offered here on this floor that Republicans voted down to provide criminal penalties for executives and price gouging, $3 million fines for individuals that knowingly price-gouged Americans to make sure they can have a return for those individuals that are investors, the Federal prosecutor would be in the middle of this.

The situation we are in now is that these oil companies are saying, well, what is the penalty, and who is going to enforce it? The Federal Trade Commission is saying, well, you know, we are not sure if we have jurisdiction.

Now we have the leaders on the Republican side in the House and Senate saying, well, Mr. President, writing him a letter, maybe you want to have these folks look into it, and maybe we need to take back the tax cuts we just gave the oil companies, over the objection of many of us here in this House.

Then you have some Members say that, well, we did it because they needed money more for more exploration. Well, some of that may be true, but when you have oil companies that are beating some countries in revenue and beating all companies on the face of the Earth in profits, and still saying, well, I know you have all this money, and it is heavy, and you can't carry it around, but can I give you some of the taxpayers' money? Maybe, just maybe, you will go out and find oil or go out and drill in some environmentally sensitive place to be able to push up profits.

What it is going to be very disappointing this time, Mr. Speaker and Members, is the fact that we know that when companies present their quarterly reports, it will be another record-breaking quarter for oil companies.

Now, don't get me wrong. Profits are good. It is not a bad word. But I do take issue with the fact that if individuals are making profits, and it is on

the backs of everyday Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even those that cannot vote yet, and individuals are making record profits on the backs of them with the help of their government, I think that is the reason why the latest polling indicates that individuals are ready for a change.

Just so Members don't feel this is a Kendrick Meek report or just something the 30-something Group came up with, September 28, 2005, a motion by Congressman Stupak from Michigan giving the Federal Trade Commission and also the Justice Department authority to investigate and prosecute oil companies for price gouging. Republicans, 226 voted against it; 195 Democrats voted for it. That is roll call vote number 500, H.R. 3402. That actually happened here on this floor. That is not fiction, that is fact.

October 7, 2005, amendment by the same Member, Democratic Member, allowing the Federal Trade Commission to enforce and ban price gouging and set tough criminal and civil penalties, up to $100 million, on oil companies, and allow the President to declare an energy emergency when he needs to. Republicans killed the amendment; not Democrats, not Independents, but the Republican majority killed that amendment, 222 to 199, roll call vote number 517, H.R. 3893.

Time after time after time, Mr. Speaker, the majority has proven when it is time to go on this board and vote on behalf of the American people, that it is whatever the industry wants, they get.

I am so glad to say, Mr. Speaker and Members, that on this side of the aisle, Democrats have said on behalf of the American people, not just on behalf of the Democratic Party and not just on behalf of someone that served here long ago in the majority here long ago when the Democrats were in charge, but on behalf of the American people, that we have come to the floor and we are here to talk about the record. We are here to talk about what we would do if we were in the majority.

Those two votes that I just named a year ago would be law today if Democrats were in the majority of this House. If Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, without any hesitation this legislation would be in place, and we would challenge the President. When he makes decisions, and the Republican Congress rubber- stamps those decisions, rubber-stamps those decisions by saying, Mr. President, whatever you want, so shall it be written, so shall it be done, has gotten us in the situation where we are now.

The same amendments that I just pointed out would have provided relief also to consumers facing skyrocketing home heating costs by expanding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that would have been paid for, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is very, very important for the Members to understand, would have been paid for not with dollars borrowed, and, Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little bit about that, too, not with dollars borrowed, but a pay-as-you-go philosophy.

Even when we are dealing with enforcement of energy companies, where there is evidence and also a very strong concern by the American people of how in the world individuals can be paying $3 and change a gallon, and saying it is an issue with production and flow and all of these different examples and explanations and excuses to the American people that no one can really put their hands around, their arms around, and look in the paper and find these companies are making money like countries, these oil companies are making record profits.

Now, pay-as-you-go. I am going to read that again. It dealt with providing consumers facing skyrocketing home heating costs to expand the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program through the fines from price-gouging companies; not we are going to pass a piece of legislation and just borrow the money.

Mr. Speaker, just to talk about borrowing the money, I want to talk about responsible governance, and I also want to talk about what has happened.

You want to talk about borrowing the money? Some folks say the Democratic plan, they don't necessarily have ways to pay for things. Well, in every piece of legislation that we are putting forth, a supermajority of the legislation that we are putting forth, we are using the pay-as-you-go philosophy. Why do we do it? Because it is the right thing to do on behalf of this country.

I can't help, Mr. Speaker and Members, but think about the fact that there is someone right now, a he or she or someone's mother or father or son or uncle, grandchild, nephew or niece, that are not celebrating what we are celebrating right now. They have been asked on behalf of their country to go to war. They have sand in their teeth, and they probably haven't been able to take a shower like most Americans have been able to take a shower in the last couple of days or this morning or last night or whatever the case may be, so that I would have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come to the floor in this great democracy of ours to talk about what we would do if given the opportunity to lead and to share with the Members and the American people what is happening here in this Capitol.

I will tell you, this chart alone is self-explanatory. Never before in the history of the Republic, I am going to say that again, never before in the history of the Republic, has this country been in the fiscal shape or disrepair that it is right now.

Some folks may say we have our challenges. Yes, we have our challenges, but guess what? There were Congresses before this, the 109th and the 108th and 107th, and Congresses going back 100 years, that have had challenges, too. It is something we called the Great Depression. Another challenge was World War I and World War II. Another challenge was Vietnam and Korea. You name it. Another challenge was times that we had fuel crises. Other challenges have been natural disasters. I know Americans and the membership are very familiar with that.

But when you look at history making, borrowing from foreign nations, $1.05 trillion, $1.05 trillion borrowed in 4 years by the Republican majority and the President, I guarantee you the President could not do it by himself, in 4 years he accumulated more than 42 Presidents and a number of Congresses before them that could only borrow $1.01 trillion. You want to talk about fiscal responsibility? You want to talk about who is spending or who is borrowing the money?

I just want to bring this chart up. Here in the 30-something Working Group we try to break this thing down to the lowest denominator. I want my 8-year-old son, I want my 11-year-old daughter to get it, because it is all about them, and it is all about right now.

We used to, Mr. Ryan, say the future generation, this, that and the other. This generation, we all owe $26,000 and change because of this ever-growing debt. But this is something that I think Members should pay very close attention to. We have divided the debt that this country and this Congress has put on the backs of the American people. We went from surpluses to this.

Japan. Japan, $682.8 billion of our debt. Let me just break that down for you. I am going to take this. This is actually my debit card, but we will say it is a credit card for right now. What the Congress has done, and what the Members on the majority side have done, and what the White House has done with the rubber-stamp Republican Congress, what they have done is said we can have tax breaks that we cannot afford. Swipe the card. We can have a war without a plan and without an exit strategy. Swipe the card. We can spend money, because we weren't prepared for a response to natural disaster in this country without any accountability, without any restraints and no-bid contracts. Swipe the card. We got it.

Oh, no problem. If we want to have government waste on all levels with very little enforcement, and want to give tax breaks to oil companies in the time they are making record profits, and we want to give the top 1 percent tax cuts that they are not even asking for, that is fine. Swipe the card.

By swiping that card, we have now given Japan the power. Japan said, fine, we will buy your debt. Guess what? They are buying a piece of the American pie, $682.8 billion.

China. Red China. Some folks had some concerns. We just had a state visit from the Chinese President. But guess what? He came here knowing

that he owns a piece of the American apple pie at $249.8 billion of our debt.

Did Japan or China come over here and make us overspend? Did they put the credit card in our hand and say, let me force you, Congress and President? Okay, we will buy it. No, they didn't do it.

It is the irresponsible spending and borrowing that the Republican majority has that has put this country in this posture. The United Kingdom, $223.2 billion. This is the truth. This is not fiction.

The Caribbean. Many of you know I am from south Florida. Many of you come through our airport going through. The Caribbean, $115.3 billion of the American apple pie. Taiwan, $71.3 billion of the American apple pie, buying our debt.

OPEC nations. Well, Madam Speaker, let us just talk for a moment about OPEC nations. Who are they? Well, Iran. I think we are pretty familiar with Iran right now. Iraq. We are definitely familiar with Iraq. Saudi Arabia. Oh, definitely heard of that. The United Arab Emirates, UAE, owns a part of this OPEC debt. And I think it is important for people to understand that. And guess what? We are paying through the nose for gas. 67.8 billion.

Germany, $65.7 billion of our debt. Korea, $66.5 billion of our debt. Canada, just north of us, $53.8 billion of our debt.

Now, I am holding this map up empty, Mr. Ryan, and the reason I am holding this map up is because this is the way it looked before President Bush became President, because it was a surplus. This is the way the map looked, Madam Speaker, before the Republican majority became the rubber-stamp Congress.

Mr. Ryan, you know I would be a little concerned, just a little, if the validation by the American people, Madam Speaker, was not so strong. I mean, the American people are saying, Congress, what are you doing? Let me just back up. The Republican Congress, what are you doing? It is almost like the Republican majority got elected, started a football game, and at halftime switched jerseys.

I mean, some of the folks who are running down here on the floor having press conferences, you know, fiscal conservatives, fiscal responsibility, we believe it is your money. Well, Mr. Ryan, what you are talking about, what we just talked about here is exactly what is happening here.

Mr. Ryan, you could not say it better.

But, Madam Speaker, let me just back up, because I want to say this before I talk about why the Republican majority should be alarmed. It is almost unfair, and I said it last night on the floor.

Being in the minority, if someone would have told me at the beginning of the 109th Congress, at the beginning of the 108th Congress, that the cards would be laid out on the table the way they are laid out now, I would say that, wow, that is a lot of work to have the American people understand what is going on here in the Capitol. But guess what? They are getting it. And they got it.

Well, Contract on America, because that is what it turned out to be. And that we would have Republican and Democratic States suing. And I am talking about Republican and Democratic Governors suing the Federal Government because Leave No Child Left Behind is so underfunded, and that we would have individuals running around here saying, what do you mean we do not have a plan? What do you mean you do not want to talk about how we should take the training wheels off the Iraqi Government and share with them that we cannot be there forever?

Can I give you a third-party validator right now?

Madam Speaker, this man has to look familiar to the Republican majority. He has to. Newt Gingrich was the man that came to the floor night after night and talked about what the Republicans would do if they were able to

take control of the House. He talked about all of the things that, you know, he was talking about that just good government. All right.

Now what is Newt Gingrich saying? They, talking about the Republican majority, are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.

Madam Speaker, they. Not, my Republican colleagues; not, my good friends in Congress. They. Here is a major Republican that served as Speaker, the first Speaker in a number of years to serve, Madam Speaker, as the Speaker of this House, calling his former colleagues and the people that he worked with, and his office is right down the hall, they.

Because if Newt Gingrich is saying that this Republican Congress cannot function, cannot run the country like it is supposed to be run, cannot oversee the finances, cannot make sure that Americans have health care and small businesses are able to provide health care, cannot give guidance and oversight to the Department of Defense and Secretary Rumsfeld, cannot make sure that we let oil companies know that we are here to represent the American people and not their special interests, not their profits, and not their CEOs that will retire to a pension making $150,000 a day, not because they are that great, it is because we have taken the taxpayers' money and we have given it to them.

And now we have Republican leaders saying, well, maybe we need to take the tax cuts back you just gave them. And then you read something else. No, we should not take that tax cuts back because, guess what, the oil companies have representation in the Republican majority, period.

As I said last night, a black man with a conspiracy theory. But, Mr. Ryan, I believe, and I know, and it is documented that the Vice President and others sat down with these oil companies and put this in motion long ago.

So Members walking around here were having press conferences talking down this. I do not know what happened. I do not. I did not see it coming. What do you mean you cannot enforce prices? It is just insane, Mr. Ryan, for us to be the country that we are, and for the Federal Trade Commission to say, well, you know, we think we have power, we do not have the teeth that we need to really find out what is going on with those oil companies.

But I will tell you this. I believe that these oil companies have been a part of writing this legislation in the way to where that is hard to prosecute them, and it is hard to get to the bottom line of who is doing what. And guess what? When there are no penalties, it is almost like having a house full of kids saying there is no time out, there is no discipline whatsoever, do as you may. And everything in the house will be broken, and every picture will be ripped off the wall. That is what these oil companies are doing.

Now, I do not fault them. I fault the Republican majority. And like I said last night, Mr. Ryan, I am not going to ask them to lead anymore. If they want to work in a bipartisan way, we are ready to go. We have been ready to go. And if the American people see fit for us to be the majority party in the 110th Congress, Madam Speaker, and they will see an opportunity, we will be able to work in a bipartisan way.

There will be a number of Republicans, that I do know. Some of my friends, Mr. Ryan, and we do know them, a very small number on the other side of the aisle see things the way we see it and the way the American people see it. I know the reason why the poll numbers are what they are right now.

The President is not running again, but the Congress and this House, every 2 years we go before the voters. Like I said last night, Mr. Ryan, Madam Speaker, I do not care if it is a local Republican committee chairman, he or she has to have a problem with the borrowing that has been going on in this Republican majority Congress.

He or she must have a problem with the fact that no one can answer the questions on intelligence and the outing of CIA agents. He or she must have a problem if there are Republican committee persons at the local level and on the State level, with the fact that the K street Project, Madam Speaker, was allowed to operate under this dome by individuals that wore congressional pins that say, yes, we do have a K Street Project; and, yes, if you are not on this list, you don't get access to this government.

Guess what? That was okay. We talked about it, Mr. Ryan. The good thing is, it is almost like showing up somewhere at the scene of an accident and saying, time and time again, we went to the police department, we went to the city hall and said we needed a stop light here. Now, look at this fatality.

I used to be a State trooper. I can see it all the time. Report after report. We didn't get the traffic light out there in time and people died because of it.

Well, guess what? The people were beat down by this Republican majority as it relates to good government, because, not what I am seeing and not what you are seeing, Mr. Ryan, here is what Members on the Republican side of this House have said: Yes, we have a K Street Project.

Then we have a gentleman who admitted you don't have to call the jury, you do not even have to assign a courtroom. I am guilty, I did it. That is what this Republican lobbyist said. Not only did I do it, but I am going to help you go after some Members of Congress that were part of it. I am going to help you identify other lobbyists that were a part of this great operation, the K Street Project.

Then the Republican majority, after he said what he said, and the Federal prosecutors, Madam Speaker, did what they did, said we denounce, no longer, K Street Project. We don't know what you are talking about. We will no longer condone it, the K Street Project.

Well, Mr. Ryan, it sounds like when the President says, well, I don't know quite what we can do about gas prices, but I do know that Americans are addicted to oil, come on. The President and the Vice President were part of putting this thing into motion. The Republican Congress rubber-stamped, Mr. Ryan, everything that this administration said they wanted.

Mr. President, you want tax cuts that you cannot afford so that we can put ourselves in debt and allow foreign countries to own more of America. Fine. Mr. President, the intelligence on Iraq is kind of shaky, but we have to do what you want, and anyone who goes against you or says anything against you is unpatriotic, and we will have Congressional hearings to humiliate those individuals.

Mr. President, pay-as-you-go. I know the Democrats are there talking about maybe we need to pay as we go right now, since we are in so much debt. You want to continue to borrow and spend? We got your back, Mr. President, because we are the Republican Congress, and we are going to allow you to continue to drive this country in the way that special interests want to drive it. Because you know something? When all the resources are gone, and when all the opportunities are gone, and when it is American taxpayers that are in debt, where will the special interests be? That is the question.

Will they help bail this country out of the debt that this Republican Congress has delivered to them? No. That is the reason why, Madam Speaker, that Members, if they are in their offices, or they are walking around this building, and if they are at home right now, they need to sit up in bed and say, you know something, I need to go to work tomorrow with a new attitude. I need to make sure that I fight on behalf of my constituents. I need to have the same kind of drive that I had the night that I was elected, doing all of those things I said I would do. All of those things, all of those plans, everything I talked about in the campaign, about representing whatever district they may be running from, in my case, the 17th Congressional District. They call that being born again, Mr. Ryan, and a Baptist term, being born again to public service.

I am excited by the fact that the American people, they are not getting it, they got it. They got it. Then we will continue to get it, because time after time, Mr. Ryan, this Republican Congress has proven that they are, their allegiance, and I do not want to generalize because there are a few that I know of and you know of, Madam Speaker, that walk up to Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Delahunt, and say you all are doing a

good job, keep doing what you are doing. Because if you all are not pointing out what this Republican majority is doing, these are Republicans, then they will continue to do it, Mr. Ryan, and that is the word that they use.

And buy duct tape.

Mr. Ryan, it is not personal, it is just business. That is the bottom line.

Madam Speaker, I would kind of, when I walk through the halls of Congress, walk along the walls if I felt that we were coming to the floor, saying things that just were not true. But the sad part, Madam Speaker and Members, that everything that we are sharing with you is a fact, not fiction. It is sad. Like I was saying to Mr. Ryan, if I was a political consultant, I would say, wow, do you mean to tell me not only do we have to work with the fact that Americans do not have health care, small businesses cannot afford to buy health care, we owe foreign countries money that we have never owed them before in the history of the country?

We don't have a plan in Iraq as it relates to a leave-alone coalition in Iraq? We have troops dying every day. Do you mean States that are red States and blue States are suing us at the same time for the underfunding and the mandates that we put on them of Leave No Child Left Behind Act? You mean White House individuals are outing CIA agents that might, some of this outing might have gone as high as the highest office of the land maybe?

Do you mean to tell me that individuals, contractors, have no-bid contracts in war and in natural disasters, without accountability, and American taxpayer dollars are being spent without anyone having any real concern on the Republican side?

You mean to tell me that anything that the President of the United States says that he wants, that the Republican Congress would give it to him; even if it is bad policy, even if it put this country into a record-breaking deficit in a period of 4 years? You mean to tell me, and without naming at least eight other things, Mr. Ryan, that I have all of that to work with, to share with the

American people? I will start with independence. I will start with the Republicans, and I will also share it with some Democrats that may have some concerns.

I tell you this, Mr. Ryan, Democrats will, not maybe, not if we get an opportunity to do so, not we will say it now but we won't do it later, we will, Madam Speaker, work from day 1 taking control of this House.

And someone may say, you know, why is this thing about being in the majority so important? Well, I can tell you the reason why, and I want to make sure everyone understands. It is important because Democratic Members that are putting forth amendments in committees that are being voted down on a partisan vote, like my committee today and homeland security, dealing with this port security, bipartisan bill we are working on of 100 percent container check, Mr. Ryan, versus whatever we can come up with in a year using a ``steady'' kind of philosophy to try to get to some sort of container scan phase-in thing. Now, I am going to tell you, a partisan vote down the line. A 100 percent container check lost, Madam Speaker and Members, by two votes.

If Democrats are in control of this House, for those individuals who are objecting to a 100 percent container check, and I want to be sure we are clear on this, some businesses may say, well, you know, it may slow down the process of trade. It will back up supplies. We are not ready for that.

You know something? We will never get there, because we have allowed the special interests to stand in front of the will of the 9/11 Commission. The Republican majority has allowed special interests to dictate how this Congress will legislate. That is stomach-turning that we would allow individuals, based on their salary, based on their suit, whether it is a Brooks Brothers or a Saint John's, to walk into the office of a Member of Congress and say, this is the amendment language we want.

And individuals go to committee ho-hum and read right off that piece of paper, Madam Speaker. I am talking about what I know. And the American people around here are counting on us to protect them.

Now, I am going to tell you something, Mr. Ryan, and I am going to say it just as clear as my name is Kendrick Meek. We get a container that ends up blowing up in one of these major ports or while it is in transit going to where it needs to go to, I guarantee you Republicans will be running: Where is that amendment for the 100 percent container check? We need to do that. Madam Speaker, file this. Madam Clerk, can we do it?

You know something? I bet they will be looking out in the hall looking for the special interests who were telling them they couldn't do it, and they will be nowhere to be found. I didn't see the special interests standing around on 9/11 at the end of those buildings saying, what can we do to dig these people out and give them their lives back? I am not blaming it on them, but I am just saying that kind of attitude gets us in the position that we can't do something. And we're the country that says we can. We are leading this country.

Mr. Ryan, the million-dollar tax break came on behalf of, and I am just going to grab China here, this is the million- dollar tax break right here.

Oh, Japan. I'm sorry, I didn't even look. It was red, so I just assumed.

Let me just say this, Mr. Ryan. Japan. Little Japan. This is what gave that $10 million person their tax break.

Not money we had in surplus. Not money that was there and we had it to spend. This was based on a credit card.

The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Ryan, talking about the right direction, I spoke to the fact that we are calling for energy independence from the Middle East in 10 years by developing emerging technologies that work to be able to provide energy for our country, energy alternatives; also to make sure that we make a substantial investment in research and development that is critical in creating cutting-edge technologies that will allow us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives that capitalize on America's vast renewable natural resources.

This is what we are talking about, Madam Speaker. We are willing to make the investment as relates to innovation.

Mr. Ryan, you have the Web site, sir.

Mr. Ryan, you are talking fact, not fiction. Anyone who wants to talk about balancing the U.S. budget, the Democrats are the only party in the House, Madam Speaker, that have a right to say that we have done it. We have actually done it.

You have a lot of folks saying, well, we are going to try to cut it in half, and maybe we will get it to a quarter or whatever on the Republican side, the Republican majority with all the power, control of the House, control of the Senate, and control of the Presidency. It should be a smooth-sailing process.

If someone wants to call Democrats names and point fingers, call the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives a name. Call him a liberal. Call him someone who is irresponsible, if you want to name- call. And I challenge Members to come down here and talk about what is good about owing foreign countries money, not because they did something to us, but because this Congress gave the whole country a self-inflicting wound of debt. They have been saying we are going to spend your money irresponsibly, and then we are going to allow these other countries to own a piece of the American apple pie.

Mr. Ryan, you did an excellent closing. I want to thank you, sir, for coming down to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this second hour.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. The 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor to share with the American people some of the issues that are going on here in the Capitol dome, and hopefully bring about solutions that they can all feel good about, and hopefully we can work in a bipartisan way.

We want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour on the floor: The Democratic Leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi; and Mr. Hoyer, our Democratic whip; and also our Democratic caucus chair Mr. Clyburn; and also the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus Mr. Larson.

We have been on break for about 2 weeks. It seems like the American people have taken a deep breath to really take a step back and look at the way this government is being operated. It is almost self- explanatory.

I am so glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz from the State of Florida is here. We served together as public policymakers for more than a decade, and I think it is important that we look at this time in the history of our country, at how our government is functioning at this particular time, and we point out how it can be different. I think it is important that we continue to hammer on that.

With that, I would like to welcome my good friend here tonight as we are going to hold down this 30-something special hour. We know that Mr. Ryan is not going to be with us tonight, and I do not believe Mr. Delahunt is going to be with us tonight.

Madam Speaker, I just want to share with the gentlewoman that it is sad because we have had an opportunity to come to this floor and talk about the issues that are facing this country and that will face this country based on the legislation that the Republican majority has pushed through that the Bush White House wanted, that the majority in the Senate wanted that happened to be Republican. We talked about these things. We stood out as Democrats on the floor to try to come up with alternative fuels. We tried to get questions answered as it relates to the war in Iraq.

Now we have eight, nine, and if we continue to count, it will be in double digits, not just individuals within the military, but we are talking about generals, flag officers saying on behalf of their country we have to make a change.

Tonight, Madam Speaker, just like when we last year and the year before that talked about the K Street Project, which was a project, and I am so glad we are joined by Mr. Delahunt. I take back my words. I did not think you were going to be with us tonight. As usual, you came through.

We talked about the K Street Project and special influence here in this House of Representatives. We talked about how certain lobbyists could not go into certain offices of Members of the majority. This came out of the mouths of Members if they were not a part of this activity. And then later after a lobbyist admitted, and, hey, you do not even have to call a jury, we do not have to call a trial. He admits, I admit I am wrong, I was a part of this operation here in Washington, DC. It was encouraged by Members of Congress. Then all of a sudden the majority comes out and says, we denounce this. It is wrong. It will no longer be tolerated on Capitol Hill.

It sounds like what we are hearing now. We are hearing the President respond to, Mr. President, can you talk about the oil prices?

The President says, America is addicted to oil.

We have to chuckle about it because it is so in the face of the American people.

I know, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that the American people see this and say wait a minute, they must have a typo on this. It is like $3.06 last I saw. But this is on average. I just want to make sure because, Madam Speaker, I think it is important. I am glad you are spelling this out, and I am glad you have this chart because we want to make sure the Republican majority knows exactly what their policies have brought on the American people, Democrat and Republican. I'm sorry, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

Well, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I just have been quiet for about maybe 8 or 10 minutes, which is not common when we are having this kind of discussion.

Madam Speaker, like I said before we went on break, it is not even fair. I mean, you would think that someone would wake up 1 day, especially the minority party would wake up, and say, wow, if we had a tool box that dealt with a war that is not being managed appropriately; an energy crisis within the country; containers as it relates to coming into this country going unchecked; families that are not able to provide health care, and neither are small businesses able to provide health care; States that are suing the Federal Government, Leave No Child Behind legislation, Democratic and Republican Governors are suing the Federal Government because of a lack of funding to the Federal Government's own initiative; that environmentally we have a number of issues going on on top of a natural disaster where the response and recovery were not managed well; CIA leaks at the White House; Members of this body in question of ethical violations and a culture of corruption and cronyism under the Capitol Dome. And better yet, Madam Speaker, the reason why we do not have a Democratic Member serving as Speaker or serving as the majority leader is the fact that we are in the minority. But the only good thing about that whole thing that I pointed out, because as an American it turns my stomach that that is even the environment in the United States of America as we speak, partisanship has nothing to do with my being an American and my responsibility as a Member of Congress.

So, Mr. Delahunt and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, maybe for the next 4 minutes let us just talk about if Democrats were in control of this House and hopefully in control of the Senate to be able to say no to the administration when they want to put the country in this posture. Democrats, Independents, Republicans, what have you are all concerned about what is going on. The polling has indicated that.

Now, I just want to take out this document that we have held up several times, our innovation agenda. Wow, here is a plan. The Democrats' energy plan. Here is a plan. I want to say this to my Republican colleagues because they have the audacity to come down to the floor saying, They do not have any solutions; so how can they criticize our inability to carry out the energy policy?

Well, here is the solution right here. It has been on our Web site, and I encourage everyone to go to www.housedemocrats.gov and pull up the innovation agenda. We did not just put it on there before we came to the floor. It has been there for months. Months. They are talking about it. We want to do it.

Energy independence in 10 years. Energy independence in 10 years, to change the investment from counting on the Middle East and counting on the Midwest. Ethanol, making sure that we promote petroleum-based ideas of rapidly expanding the production of synthetic bio-based fuels. It is right there. It is just an investment.

But what is stopping the Republican majority from taking our plan, as I am going to point out here as we talk about price gouging, and running with it? Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz just had the chart up with all the oil companies. It has to be the relationship with the oil companies. The American people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, are paying through the nose as we speak. Some folks are putting a quarter of gas in their tank because they cannot afford it. These are the constituents, unfortunately, of individuals of power and influence in Washington, D.C. I did not get a vote from any of these companies. Maybe the folks that work for the companies say maybe I want to vote on behalf of education and good representation in Washington, but they did not say, hey, you know, these are my constituents, and I am going to stand in the way and make sure that they have what they need.

Let me just talk fact, not fiction here, because I think it is important. Oil companies, record profits. Record profits. Folks want to talk about Wal-Mart? Goodness gracious, these oil companies make Wal- Mart look like a five and dime store.

Let me just say this, Mr. Delahunt. Folks want to go knocking companies and start talking about who is making what, and folks are upset about it. And there are some folks out there. But the bottom line is, like you said, ``profits'' is not a bad word, and we believe in profits. It is the American way, and capitalism rules. And I am the first one in line when it comes down to that, and I am not faulting those oil companies. I am not mad at Exxon Mobil or any of those oil companies that are out there. I am upset with the Members that are allowing them to get away with literally a crime of ripping dollars out of everyday working Americans' pockets and then the majority leadership in both Chambers having the audacity to send a letter over to the White House, saying, ``We would like for you to investigate this issue of price gouging,'' when they set the playing field for it to happen.

They set the playing field for it to happen.

You can have 20, if you want it.

Can I reclaim my time from the 20 seconds?

But that was good information. Talking about the program a little further, we have a Stupak bill, which is a Democratic bill here in this House, that is going to give relief to consumers, small businesses and farmers and provide relief from skyrocketing heating home costs that they are taking on right now. It is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and basically it comes from the fines which I am going to go into now, Mr. Delahunt, of what the Republican majority blocked, Madam Speaker. And guess what? That is not what Kendrick Meek is saying, that is not what Bill Delahunt was saying or Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said in the past or even Mr. Ryan in his absence has said in the past. This is the Congressional Record.

Republicans voted against imposing tough criminal penalties on price gouging companies and also tough civil fines up to $3 million in price gouging as it relates to protecting consumers. This is CQ vote number 500, H.R. 3402, taken September 28, 2005. The motion was rejected on a 195 to 226 vote. Republicans voted against this overwhelmingly, Democrats voted for it. 194 Democrats voted for it and I believe 226 Republicans voted against it.

Another vote, CQ vote, this is all stuff Members can look up, vote number 517, H.R. 3893, taken October 7, 2005. Again, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against this measure from being placed into legislation on price gouging, 199 to 222. The majority prevailed again.

I think it is important for us to understand, Madam Speaker, that time after time again, and I know we have another example, Republicans killed the amendment. Which one did I not share? Those are the two that were there. But they are continuing to kill these amendments.

So, Madam Speaker, it is kind of mind-boggling when we look up, open the local hometown paper, whatever it may be, it could be the one in Florida where I represent or it can be right here in the Beltway, to read that Republican leaders are thinking about going after folks as it relates to price gouging.

Now, I am just going to give the Republican majority a little. They will say okay, that is not true. We did do something.

What they did was nothing. I am not a black man with a conspiracy theory, but I am here to tell you that I am concerned, especially when I see headlines, the Washington Post, November 16, 2005, that says ``Document says oil chief met with the Vice President of the United States on his task force.'' So how in the world can folks sit down with the very people that are making record profits? This was put in motion long ago, and now folks are acting like they don't know what is going on.

You know why they are acting like they don't know what is going on? Because the American people are pulling their car and saying you know something, Mr. Congressman, madam Congresswoman, you said you were there to protect me. You are not doing a good job, because I can't even put gas in my tank to take my children to school, I can't even make it to work. We are trying to car pool. Even that is becoming a little difficult. And you have folks, they don't have enough money. Some of these pumps in some communities won't even allow them to pump all of the gas they need to pump to fill their tank.

Hello? We have also gas stations here in Washington, D.C. that are out of gas, and South Florida. Maybe those small businesses, independent businesses within these oil companies, can't even afford the gas.

And we are going to find out. You know what is going to happen again? We are going to find in this time, and let me just say, Johnny Carson used to have the envelope he would put to his head.

He would say something like ``high prices, backroom deals.'' He would open the envelope and later we would see oh, wow, and they made record profits while this was going on.

I am going to go ahead and crystal-ball this thing, because that is what is going to happen, and folks are going to say, well, we really need to do something about it.

If I was in the Republican majority right now, that is very hypothetical, I must add, I would be concerned. If I am home in the bed right now, Madam Speaker, and I was a Member of the majority, I would sit up in my bed and say, you know, maybe, just maybe, we need to go see the wizard, get some courage, get some leadership, and say, you know something, enough is enough, because I am going to be in the minority, not because of the fact that folks did such a great job as it relates to raising money, because you know we cannot raise more money than the other side, not the fact that, you know, our ties are better or our dresses, you

know, the dresses that the female Members on this side wear are better.

But I think it is important, Madam Speaker, that we look at the facts. It is not fair. It is not fair to the American people, and it is not even fair if I was on the Republican majority side, we tell the Republican majority, come out and defend the selling of America. All of these countries here are owning a part of America. I do not care if you are a diehard Republican, and that you are the chair of the local Republican committee, you have to have a problem with this.

You tell your Members, explain this to me. Why are we selling America away? Why are we giving tax breaks we cannot afford? We are we allowing the oil companies to do this? Why? Why? Why? Do not tell me to vote Republican because we are Republicans and that we always did it, and that my mama did it, and that my grandmother did it, and that my great- great-grandmother did it. We cannot do it because of that. We have to do it because we salute one flag. People have died for us to have this opportunity.

I am so happy that we come to this floor, Madam Speaker, every day, because history will reflect that there were Members in this body in the minority fighting with what they had, with a nub, fighting night after night, day after day, filing amendments, failing on this floor, arm-twisting happening on the other side, and we prevailed because I am going to tell you, the American people are sick and tired of it, and change is going to happen, and it is going to happen for the better.

The real issue here is the fact that, Madam Speaker, I am done with trying to beg the majority to lead. I am just done. I mean, there is nothing more that we can say. They have had their opportunity. They have their opportunity now. They are still not moving as a majority. We have said what we would do as Democrats.

The bottom line is Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about the rubber stamp. It is now so big, Mr. President, whatever we can do, whatever you need us to do, we are with you. Just, that is it. Done. What else do you want us to do? And that is just where it is. And we are going to make this as obvious as possible.

Say it is not so, Mr. Delahunt.

Wait. Wait. Did I hear you? Did I hear you correctly? Did you say a hundred and what a day?

Well, thank you. With Mr. Ryan's absence here tonight, I keep saying that because I want him to read the Congressional Record and let him know that I did note that he was not here.

Housedemocrats.gov/30something. Members can go on there.

With that, Madam Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly at (midnight), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday April 26, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Patient Assistance Day. Today, millions of Americans lack health insurance and cannot access medicines that they need to treat their illnesses. While the government looks for practical ways to help the 45 million uninsured citizens, there are private-sector programs in place that are helping millions of Americans.

One such program is the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA), a national clearinghouse that links uninsured and underinsured people to patient assistance programs that offer drugs for free or nearly free. America's pharmaceutical research companies, along with 1,300 community and patient organizations, launched the PPA in April 2005. Since then, the PPA has helped more than 1.8 million patients, but millions more stand to benefit.

As the PPA commemorates its 1-year anniversary on April 5, 2006, it will celebrate the first annual Patient Assistance Day, which will include educational activities throughout the country designed to raise awareness of and help educate the public about patient assistance programs.

This private-sector program has been successful in helping uninsured Americans get the medicines they need. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the work of the Partnership for Prescription Assistance and observing April 5th as Patient Assistance Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Haitian Evangelical Baptist Church of Miami on the occasion of the blessing of its new Sanctuary.

On Sunday, April 9, 2006, the Reverend David Eugene will lead the members of his congregation to celebrate this milestone of the Church, which sits in the heart of my District's North Dade community.

Founded in August 1980, this Church has unselfishly committed its ministry of bringing the message of salvation to newly-arrived Haitian immigrants. Part of its stewardship is an ongoing teaching component and counseling service that helps meet the needs of immigrant families as they strive to adapt to a new culture. It has also defined its outreach effort as to bring the ``whole gospel to the whole man,'' striving to empower the members of its congregation with their spiritual, emotional, mental and relational well-being, and to draw closer to other communities. Consistent with this philosophy of ministry, this Church has embarked on and supported many community projects to improve the quality of life of underprivileged Haitian children in the Miami-Dade community, and in Haiti as well.

Since its establishment 26 years ago, the prime focus of Church members has been the construction of a sanctuary where people of all races and cultural backgrounds can come together to worship. On its appointed hour at 3:30 p.m. on Sunday, this cherished dream will come to fruition when members of this Congregation will join their voices to those of many prominent members and supporters of this community to inaugurate this long-awaited sanctuary and give thanks to all those who have labored long and hard to ensure that this day would come.

Reverend Eugene has spearheaded not only a spiritual rejuvenation of the members of his Church, but he has also made magnificent strides in ensuring that their commitment to the mandate of the Gospel is defined by its outreach efforts to provide free and reduced-price daycare services to the children in the community, along with an after-school program for low-income families, dropout prevention, computer literacy and acculturation classes, voters' education and registration. It has also established free student tutorials, substance-abuse prevention counseling, along with counseling for dysfunctional families, parenting skills, and regular seminars on cultural diversity.

I am confident that this Church will continue to serve as an unerring instrument for good by evoking in us the centrality of God in our daily lives, conscious of the fact that mandate of our faith must define our charity, understanding and compassion for those who could least fend for themselves.

With the consecration of its Sanctuary on its 26th year of establishment, the Haitian Evangelical Baptist Church of Miami symbolizes a magnificent legacy for the perseverance and resilience of our Haitian community. I join Reverend Eugene and his congregation in celebrating this historic event. My genuine pride in sharing their friendship is only exceeded by my heartfelt gratitude and admiration for all that they have done to help the people of our community.