Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Lt. Colonel Ryan Yantis of the U.S. Army for his important contributions to service members and civilians alike in his capacity as Director, U.S. Army Public Affairs, Midwest.

While Colonel Yantis has been helpful to me and my staff on countless occasions, his assistance with SPC Rene Douroux merits particular attention and gratitude.

I had the opportunity to meet SPC Rene Douroux on September 13, 2005 when he was in the middle of a 30-day leave from duties in Korea to his next assignment in Ft. Hood, Texas. Unable to go home to New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, SPC Douroux was at an emergency facility set up in Chicago to assist those left homeless by the storm. SPC Douroux was distraught because he was unable to locate family members and had no idea whether his home was still standing. He was hoping to have some additional time to find his family, help settle them, and get his life in order.

Lt. Colonel Yantis responded compassionately, effectively and immediately to SPC Douroux's plight. Not only did Colonel Yantis arrange for SPC Douroux to have more time, but he also arranged for a compassionate reassignment to Ft. Polk, Louisiana. Colonel Yantis helped reduce the trauma facing this young man and his family as they undertake the difficult tasks of rebuilding their lives in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I offer my heartfelt thanks to Lt. Colonel Yantis for his service, and extend my best wishes to him in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and distinguished career of my friend, Mr. Dick Kay, political editor, and host of the news show ``City Desk.'' Mr. Kay will retire in June 2006, with the honor of having been the longest-serving reporter in the history of Chicago's WMAQ-Channel 5 TV.

With 46 years in the business, Dick Kay has unparrelled political experience, knowledge and perspective. He arrived at WMAQ-Channel 5 in 1968, initially working as a writer/producer but soon switching to reporting. He later became their political editor as well as the host of ``City Desk,'' the Sunday morning public service program.

Over the years, Dick Kay has interviewed mayors, Governors, Congressmen, Senators, and countless other public leaders. Viewers have come to rely on his thoughtful yet fearless approach to covering politics and public policy.

Dick Kay's hard work and insightful reporting have been recognized by numerous awards over the years. Among others, Dick has received a Peabody Award--the highest honor in TV broadcasting--as well as 11 Emmys, a National Headliner award, and a Jacob Scher award for investigative reporting. In 2001, he was inducted into the Television Academy's Silver Circle Hall of Fame, which honors those who have made major contributions to Chicago broadcasting for 25 years or more.

In addition to his work as a reporter and editor, Dick was the longtime president of the local unit of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In this capacity, Dick successfully persuaded Illinois legislators to ensure that on-air employees had the freedom to move to competing stations.

I am sure Dick's wife, children and grandchildren will be glad to enjoy more time with him. The rest of us will miss his hard-hitting investigative work, insightful commentary, and engaging Sunday morning discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Dick and his family the best of luck during his retirement and throughout his future endeavors. Political reporting in Chicago will not be the same without Dick Kay, dean of Chicago political reporters.

Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, with Mother's Day coming up, I had come across a document on the Internet that was sent around to a number of women, including some in my office. In honor of all the mothers across America, I would like to read this, if I could.

A woman, renewing her driver's license at the county clerk's office, was asked by the woman recorder to state her occupation.

She hesitated, uncertain how to classify herself. ``What I mean is,'' explained the clerk, ``do you have a job or are you just a . . . ?''

``Of course I have a job,'' snapped the woman.

``I'm a Mom.''

``We don't list `Mom' as an occupation, `housewife' covers it,'' said the recorder emphatically.

I forgot all about her story until one day I found myself in the same situation, this time at our own town hall. The clerk was obviously a career woman, poised, efficient and possessed of a high sounding title like, ``Official Interrogator'' or ``Town Registrar.''

``What is your occupation?'' she probed.

What made me say it? I do not know. The words simply popped out.

``I'm a Research Associate in the field of Child Development and Human Relations.''

The clerk paused, ball-point pen frozen in midair and looked up as though she had not heard right. I repeated the title, slowly emphasizing the most significant words. Then I stared with wonder as my pronouncement was written in bold, black ink on the official questionnaire.

``Might I ask,'' said the clerk with new interest, ``just what you do in your field?''

Coolly, without any trace of fluster in my voice, I heard myself reply, ``I have a continuing program of research, (what mother doesn't) in the laboratory and in the field (normally I would have said indoors and out).

``I'm working for my Master's, (the whole darned family) and already have four credits (all daughters). Of course, the job is one of the most demanding in the humanities, (any mother care to disagree?) and I often work 14 hours a day (24 is more like it). But the job is more challenging than most run-of-the-mill careers and the rewards are more of a satisfaction, rather than just money.''

There was an increasing note of respect in the clerk's voice as she completed the form, stood up and personally ushered me to the door.

As I drove into our driveway, buoyed up by my glamorous new career, I was greeted by my lab assistants, ages 13, 7, and 3. Upstairs I could hear our new experimental model (a 6-month-old baby) in the child development program, testing out a new vocal pattern. I felt I had scored a beat on bureaucracy. And I had gone on the official records as someone more distinguished and indispensable to mankind than ``just another Mom.''

Motherhood. What a glorious career, especially when there's a title on the door.

Does this make grandmothers ``Senior Research Associates in the Field of Child Development and Human Relations,'' and great-grandmothers ``Executive Senior Research Associates''? I think so. I also think it makes aunts ``Associate Research Assistants.''

Please send this on to another mom, grandmother, aunt and any friends you know.

To all those mothers who will be celebrating Mother's Day, who have the most important profession, the most satisfying profession and probably the only title that says in three words what all of us rely on, to those mothers out there, thank you for what you do every day making sure our children have a home, a place of warmth, and a place of great values in honor of all mothers on Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, later this morning, the President will unveil his plan for responding to a flu pandemic. The Homeland Security Department will be playing a key role in the response. That is right, the pandemic flu response will be brought to you by the same people who gave us one heck of a job in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

The other great initiatives were duct tape as a national response to chemical weapons and the Dubai Ports fiasco. According to reports, the President's plan predicts chaos, quote-unquote, with a scenario of nearly 2 million American deaths. Given the Department of Homeland Security's track record, are these really the folks you want in charge of managing our response to a crisis of this magnitude?

The Homeland Security Department had a plan for New Orleans: they just ignored it. And the parts they did follow were so bungled and mismanaged, we are still dealing with the aftermath.

Mr. Speaker, no well-funded plan can go forward without a good general. At a time in which we need Grant, we have got McClellan. Forget the compassionate conservative this President promised; at this point, I would settle for a competent conservative.

Mr. Chairman, last May, nearly a year ago, my colleagues Mr. Meehan, Senator Feingold and I introduced the first lobbying reform legislation in the Congress. It has the support of Public Citizen, Common Cause, and non-partisan scholars like Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann, none of whom support the bill that is on the floor today.

We said then it would take bipartisan cooperation to get real reform. This legislation has chosen politics above progress, business as usual, rather than breaking the gridlock of the special interests.

Today, we are considering the incredible shrinking bill. With each passing day, it has become weaker and smaller. If we were going to vote on it tomorrow, it probably would be a blank page.

The Washington Post calls it a ``watered down sham,'' ``simply a joke,'' ``diluted snake oil,'' and ``an insult to voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint.''

The New York Times called it a ``laughingstock'' and ``an election year con.''

Republican Congressman Hefley, the former chairman of the Ethics Committee representing the Republican Caucus, said, ``In terms of ethic process reform, I don't think we have much of that here. And I think actually we are missing an opportunity here.''

Of the restrictive rule, he said, ``The bottom line for me is why can we not have debate and vote on these issues and a number of others? I believe we need to defeat the rule and then do what my majority leader and the chairman have said: work on a bipartisan basis on a new bill, on new rules that will allow some debate.''

He is upset because this bill does not offer an independent Office of Public Integrity. It does not ban gifts from lobbyists. It does not ban lavish junkets. It does not close the revolving door that allows Members of Congress and the administration to go to K Street and become lobbyists. In fact, there are more former Members who are lobbyists today in K Street than there are in either caucus; 270 former Members now lobby the institution. There is no disclosure of lobbyist contacts with members of the administration or disclosure of grass roots lobbying.

Mr. Chairman, we have an institutional problem; and it requires an institutional solution. Whether it is record gas prices, sky-high medical costs, out-of-reach tuition, the American people are paying a price for the House that Jack and Duke and Tom built; and they cannot afford much more.

When you guys came to Washington in 1994, you said you were going to change Washington; and Washington has changed you. It has become clear in the last 12 years, rather than have a contract with America, you have a contract with K Street.

When the gavel for the Speaker comes down, it is intended to open the people's House, not the auction house. When you look at the prescription drug legislation, you look at the energy legislation, you look at what they contributed, you see the results: $86 million for lobbying by Big Oil and $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Exxon and Mobil. There is $139 million in contributions and lobbying expenses by the pharmaceutical industry and $140 billion in additional profits by the pharmaceutical company. It is as plain as black and white.

What has happened here in Washington is as clear as night and day. You can either see it for what it is or accept it. This legislation does nothing to reform or change the business and the politics that is conducted here and the vicious circle between K Street and the administration and what happens here in the people's House.

This legislation was supposed to break that gridlock of that triangle. Instead, it reinforces and allows business as usual; and it allows the House that Tom and Jack and Duke built to continue.

You came here as revolutionaries. Rather than change Washington, Washington has changed you and all your principles. As Washington always says, you are firm in your opinion, it is your principles you are flexible on.

This time you have missed a historic opportunity to change Washington. What we have seen is the dominance of the special interests on the people's House. This election is about making sure that gavel returns to the American people and it does not open up this auction House but returns to the people's House.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, investigators have recently uncovered a letter from the Republican leadership to special interest lobbyists.

Dear Lobbyists,

How do I love thee?

Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth of thy oil wells, for thou shall have $14.5 billion to drill them.

I love thee to the heights of thy drug profits,

For the Medicare bill gives you $139 billion in profits.

I love thee for thy golf courses, private jets and retirement jobs.

I love thee for thy donations, libations and vacations.

For now we must part, and I call it reform.

But remember, in December, once we get past November,

The travel ban expires, and I'll meet you at the tees.

Yours forever, cause I can't quit you,

The Republican Congress.

Madam Speaker, yesterday President Bush said record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that these companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks. How does the President think that these oil companies got the tax breaks in the first place? A Republican Congress of course.

Energy companies spent $86 million lobbying Congress last year, and in return the Republican Congress gave them $14.5 billion of hard- earned money by the taxpayers. You can't get a return like that on Wall Street. Before the President signed the energy bill of June 6, 2005, energy was $2.09 a gallon. Today it is $3.30 in my district.

The debate about lobbying reform is a debate about a $14.5 billion taxpayer giveaway to Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. But what this Congress is going to vote on tomorrow is not lobbying reform. To quote The Washington Post, it is a sham. To quote The New York Times, it is a laughing stock. You could say the same and use the same adjective to describe the energy bill.

Remember, it all started with the Vice President behind closed doors meeting with energy executives. They weren't exactly playing Scrabble or gin rummy back there. Madam Speaker, the Republican bill isn't reform, it is just another sign that the people's House is still for sale.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is talking about gas prices. This morning President Bush presented the Nation with, he said, a ``plan to lower gas prices.''

A little over a year ago on June 6, 2005, energy was $2.09. I use that date because that was the date that the President of the United States signed his energy bill that he hailed would be a great improvement for energy and energy prices here in America. $2.09. Today in Chicago it stands on average a little over $3 in the Chicago area. Over a little less than a year ago when the President signed his energy bill, the one that this Congress delivered to him, energy was $2.09 a gallon. Today in Chicago gas is $3.32 a gallon.

In the year in which we debated the energy bill, the oil and gas interests spent $86 million lobbying this Congress and got $14.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies. They spent $86 million lobbying the House of the American people, and they got a $14.5 billion gift.

You cannot get that type of return on Wall Street. That was about a 10 percent return. You cannot get a return like that on any other investment where you give $86 million to influence the people's House and get $14.5 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money, and energy is trading at $75 a barrel.

I understand if you want to help the oil and gas companies at $17 a barrel, $25 a barrel to help them drill for energy. At $75 a barrel, I would expect Exxon and Mobil and Chevron and Phillips, all who are making not just good money, historic record prices, would actually be able to go on their own and drill without the taxpayers having to pay for it.

So not only are we paying a record amount of $3.50 a gallon, not only are they making record profits, but at $75 a barrel, the taxpayers are paying them $14.5 billion. So the American consumer pays more at the pump, and they pay more on April 15 because of what this Congress did. Over the last year, in less than 1 year, energy went from $2.09 to $3.30, but that is only one example.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I voted against that; and I vote against giving them $14.5 billion because I do not believe there is a worse example of corporate welfare, only to be followed by the prescription drug bill and the corporate tax bill that was a $5 billion problem. You all handed out $145 billion to corporate interests. Only in Washington do you try to resolve a $5 billion problem that cost you $145 billion, and it still did not resolve the original $5 billion problem.

I bring this all up for one simple point: For the last 5 years, this is supposed to be the people's House, and when that gavel comes down, it is supposed to open the people's House, not the auction house. And from the prescription drug legislation to the energy legislation to the corporate tax bill, you have sold off America's interests. Billions of dollars have been spent lobbying the people's House, and it shows when you go from product to product, from line to line. That is what has happened here.

Now all of a sudden everybody is worried about how we are going to deal with the energy problem. When you had an energy bill, you hailed it as a great victory for the American people. Since that time energy has gone up more than a buck a gallon at the pump.

But that is also an example of what has happened with the corporate tax bill and the pharmaceutical bill. People have used their influence. I do not bemoan what the energy companies have done. I do not bemoan what the pharmaceutical companies have done. I do not bemoan what the HMO industry has done. I do not bemoan what corporate interests have done to influence this Congress. What I bemoan is what the Congress has done for that money and what they have done to the American people's interests. And what is happening here, because now this week I think it is ironic we are all talking about energy, this Congress is going to bring up a lobbying bill. That piece of legislation has become the incredible shrinking legislation. It does nothing. The Washington Post called it ``a watered down sham. Simply a joke.''

USA Today writes, ``Congress still doesn't get it. After more than a year of negative headlines about political corruption and money-soaked alliances with lobbyists, House leaders are weakening their already anemic excuse for reform.''

It doesn't deal with an independent Office of Public Integrity. It does not ban gifts from lobbyists. It does not close the revolving door for Members who leave here. It does not deal with disclosure of lobbyists' solicitation of campaign checks.

The lobbying legislation we are dealing with is exactly the energy legislation we dealt with. The two are the same pieces of legislation. Those who have given and they are giving their checks because all that is left on K Street is checks. There are no checks and balances left in this system.

Mr. Chairman, it is time the American people got a refund because what they are getting out of this Congress they didn't pay for.

In every war, from Lincoln with the land grant colleges, Kennedy during the Cold War, who built literally NASA and put a man on the Moon, to Roosevelt, who thought of during World War II the GI Bill of Rights, every President in the middle of a war has thought about how to bring home the peace and invest in our future. It is only this President with this Congress, in the middle of the war, who cuts education while Americans are trying to get their kids to school, who cuts health care while we face skyrocketing costs in health care, who cuts the police program while cities are facing a shortage of police.

It is only this President in the history of his predecessors who stands on their shoulders and does exactly the opposite with this budget. It cuts back our investments in the future of America in a time of war where every President prior to him thought of America post that war and invested in its future, putting a man on the Moon, a GI Bill of Rights, an Atlantic to Pacific railroad system, at every point in our history.

President Kennedy said that leadership is about priorities. To govern is to choose. The majority has made its choices, and their priorities are clear for all to see. Now it is up to the American people to demand change.

This budget by the Republican majority is a status quo budget that says, if you liked the last 6 years of working harder, making less, costing more for education, costing more for health care, costing more for your retirement, then vote for this budget. It maintains the status quo.

It is time for new priorities. It is time for a change.

Madam Speaker, just when we thought things could not get any worse at the Department of Homeland Security, today we find out that a senior official was arrested for child porn.

Last night Brian Doyle, the deputy press secretary at DHS, was arrested while attempting to seduce a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl. He has been charged with 23 counts related to using his computer to seduce a minor.

How did they catch him? He told the agent posing as a girl that he worked for the Department of Homeland Security, going so far as to give out his office phone number and sending her copies of his ID. He even used his office phone for explicit conversations. Not only that, he is giving out sensitive information.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. This week Frank Figueroa, another senior Department of Homeland Security official, is on trial for exposing himself to a teenage girl at a mall in Tampa.

From the Katrina disaster to now this. It gives a whole new meaning to the word ``incompetence.''

Madam Speaker, for once I am at a loss for words. What is going on at Homeland Security? How many things can go wrong and still nobody is held accountable?

The White House is under fire for spying on average Americans but maybe they should spend time looking into the backgrounds of people they hire in their administration. It is time for new priorities here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, we have seen multiple indictments, Members of Congress resigning under a cloud of scandal, congressional approval at an historic low, and a public demand for reform. You would think that the Republican leadership would want to get these scandals behind them, but it is clear they do not.

What is the first stage of grief? Denial and isolation. So here we are today discussing a bill that doesn't do anything to address the problems of the scandals facing this Congress, this institution, which require an institutional solution to an institutional problem.

Nope, this bill doesn't do anything to stop the pay-to-play policies of the party in power. Nope, it doesn't. Doesn't do anything to shut down the K Street Project, rewarding lobbyists who show party loyalty, or to slow the revolving door. Nope, it doesn't do that.

Many of you will recall our former colleague, Mr. Tauzin, who negotiated a million dollar lobbying job with the pharmaceutical industry at the same time that he was rewriting the Medicare prescription drug bill. This legislation doesn't affect that.

Now, take a hypothetical for a moment. What if a Member just resigned, middle of a term, and was thinking of working for companies and sitting on boards. This legislation doesn't change what would happen. It happened when Mr. Tauzin was out here on the floor. And if you had a hypothetical, the Member resigned, maybe just a hypothetical, 2 months left on his tenure here, this legislation doesn't affect who he meets with, who he talks with, how he negotiates and how he votes while he is negotiating.

Why, to do that, you would have to have a desire for reform, and I wouldn't want to impose on the majority party in any way. All the while, while they are voting on this legislation, they are negotiating jobs and they have no responsibility to report to the public of their conduct. It is just business as usual here in Washington.

And then what are they trying to do; take the legislation regarding the 527s, and my colleagues on the other side voted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform of past years. Well, that reform leveled the playing field for both parties. This legislation does not intend to do that. This legislation intends to do a very partisan thing to the campaign finance laws affecting 527s.

Now, I introduced legislation to affect 501(c)6s. Right now, in the State of Pennsylvania, one of those organizations is actually running ads. I say, you want the same rhetoric, you want 527s to report, well, I suggest 501(c)6s report. That amendment was not allowed. Why? Because it would actually have leveled the playing field. It would have applied to both parties, not one party. So in the name of reform, once again, we have partisan tactics.

Now, all the while, you are going to go home and wonder why the American people have such low esteem for the Congress. It is quite obvious why they have such low esteem: College costs at a record high, 38 percent and going up; health care costs are up 58 percent, $3,600 in 4 years; energy costs are up 70 percent; medium incomes are down. All that Congress hasn't paid attention to.

So as we have scandals swirling around this institution, Members resigning, Members pleading guilty, you once again go whistling past the graveyard on the chance to do real reform and play partisan politics. I do not know what tune you are singing right now, but you will come to know that tune this November.

There must be something in the water here in Washington.

To remind my colleague and my friend from Buffalo, the first vote of this Congress by the majority party was to strip the Ethics Committee that investigates Members of its authority to do that, which is why after 15 months in this Congress, the Ethics Committee has not met until last week.

Since that time, one Member stepped down with a guilty plea, another Member stepped down with a cloud of ethics, and others are under Federal investigation at this point. And why? Because the first vote by the Republican majority was to strip the Ethics Committee of its authority.

The second thing. In fact, the majority party did vote this Congress that when a Member of their party was indicted, they were allowed to hold their party position. You have that vote. You stripped your party of that authority and that moral voice when you cast your vote to allow the majority leader to retain his position when indicted.

Now, maybe there is a rampant disease called short-term memory over there, but two votes in this Congress: one, if you got indicted, in fact, you are allowed to keep your position. You cast those votes on your side. And this Congress, when it opened up, rather than address the scandals, this Congress, under the majority, not with any Democratic support, stripped the bipartisan Ethics Committee from its ability to hold investigations, which is why not a single Member to date, with all these scandals, some reported by others, congressional historians, as the worst scandals in the history of the Congress, still the Ethics Committee has failed to do its job because you have stripped it of its abilities to do its job.

That will be the moral stain on this Congress. Your votes.

My good friend from Buffalo, you may not get health care legislation done this year, you may not get educational reform this year, and for sure, you won't balance the budget. But this Congress will be remembered as the Congress that Jack and Tom built. Because the scandals continue to swirl around this institution.

Until you do serious lobbying reform and close the loopholes, close the revolving door, have real transparency, real enforcement, this Congress, when that gavel comes down, which is intended to open the people's House, not the auction House, and you have allowed it to become an auction house, then this is the House that Jack built.

Mr. Speaker, we live in quite interesting times. Where else could you invest about $1 billion and get $100 billion in return? A Republican Congress, but of course.

As the New York Times recently pointed out, the people's House has turned into the House that Jack built. Here is what the Times says in an op-ed:

These are the men

That fleeced the tribes

That paid the money

That made the bribes

That purchased the Congress

That Jack built.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to read the rest of this poem, written and published last Friday, because it nails right on the head this is the House that Jack built.

Let's look at the $1.2 billion that Jack Abramoff bought. Let's look at the house he built. The energy industry, oil and gas interests, they spent about $87 million. What did they get? $14.5 billion in tax breaks, given and paid for by the United States taxpayers; given access to $65 billion in oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico, costing the taxpayers $7 billion in royalties they should be paying back to the Treasury that they did not get; given $2 billion to the ultra-deepwater drilling fund. They were given that money, all for $87 million in contributions and expenses paid on lobbying. $14 billion in tax breaks, $7 billion in lost revenue for royalties in the Gulf of Mexico, $2 billion in tax subsidies there to the ultra-deepwater drilling fund.

You can't get a return on your investment like that on Wall Street. Where can you get a return like that? The Republican Congress, of course. But that is not limited. In fact, that is prevalent.

Let's take the health care industry. They spent about $173 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Yet the pharmaceutical interests, $139 billion in additional profits over 8 years. The prescription drug bill here, which was supposed to cost $394 billion, ended up costing close to $790 billion to the American people.

Private insurers will make $130 billion in extra profits in Medicare overpayments, HMOs given a $10 billion slush fund, all for $173 million in lobbying expenses and contributions mainly to the Republican Party.

Take business interests, spent $500 million on lobbying. We had a corporate tax bill to fix a $5 billion disagreement with Europe. By the time it was done, it cost $150 billion, not $5 billion, and it never fixed the problem. $150 billion in corporate giveaways to special interests on the corporate tax bill, $139 billion in additional profits for the pharmaceutical interests, $130 billion in additional profits to the HMOs, and in lost revenue to oil and gas companies close to about $22 billion while oil and gas interests are trading and oil is trading at $66 a barrel, all in The House That Jack Built.

This is the operative philosophy of the Republican Congress. They have turned the Capitol upside down to figure out how much change they can take over from the American people and pass it off to the special interests.

When the gavel for the Speaker comes down, it is intended to open the people's House, not the auction house. For the last 6 years that gavel has been turned over to the auction house, whether it is the oil and gas interests, whether it is private insurers, whether it is the HMO industry, whether it is in fact the pharmaceutical industry, or whether it came to the corporate tax bill.

Oil is approaching about $70 a barrel, now nearly $3 at the pump. Gas home heating costs, up 38 percent. Health care costs are up 58 percent for the average family, $3,600 in the last 4 years. College costs and tuition, up 38 percent for the American people, yet median incomes are down 2.3 percent, and yet what does this Congress continue to do? It continues to turn itself into an auction house for the special interests. When college costs were up 38 percent, the Republican Congress cut student loans by $13 billion. Yet, we have continued to pass on over the last 4 years $3 trillion in additional debt that was borrowed, more than all the predecessors of the last 42 Presidents combined.

One thing you can say about the Republican Congress and President Bush when it comes to the economy: We will be forever in your debt, because that is all you have left is a sea of red ink, and

you have turned the American people and the treasures that this country has over to the special interests when it did not need to be this way.

Mr. Speaker, the special interests may have bought the Capitol, but the American people are paying for it. Jack is gone, but others are leaving. This place will remain The House That Jack Built until we get serious and undertake real lobby and ethics reform and return to the work of the American people. They are struggling under the interests of higher energy costs, higher health care costs, higher educational costs. They have not had a raise in over 5 years, and the politics as usual, business as usual continues with the policies and making sure that the special interests get heard first.

This House is the time and this election will be about returning the people's House back to the American people and ensuring that that gavel does not open up the auction house but the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a spring clean at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, public approval for this Congress is at an all-time low and voters are demanding new priorities for America. But rather than working to restore the public's trust, some are more interested in protecting the culture of business as usual. They are perfectly happy with their cozy relationships where highly paid lobbyists serve as their ``back office,'' writing legislation, providing jobs to Members and relatives, and lavishing them with expensive dinners and trips.

Yesterday, for instance, the Senate missed an opportunity for real reform when it rejected new restrictions on lobbyist-sponsored travel, presidential libraries, and, most importantly, an independent office of public integrity.

Think about it. You can't take a ham sandwich from a lobbyist but you can get on their private plane with a ham sandwich. That is what they are allowed to do. You could drive a truck through those types of reforms. The House Ethics Committee hasn't even met in more than a year when one Member here has pled guilty and three others are under investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people won't accept the continuation of business as usual under the guise of real reform. When that gavel comes down, it is intended to open the people's House, not the auction house.

It is time for new priorities in America.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we give the American people a refund, because this Congress is not giving them what they paid for. Day after day, we see headlines detailing the incompetence, mismanagement and sometimes outright corruption of our government, and yet this Congress sits idly by rubber-stamping the administration's policies.

Three years after the invasion, we are mired in an endless occupation of Iraq. Yet this Congress has approved $480 billion without a single question of where the $10 billion that is missing has gone and how did Halliburton continue to get its no-bid contracts.

A few days ago we learned that government investigators were able to smuggle enough radioactive material in the U.S. to make two dirty bombs. Not a single question by the administration or this Congress, because they have not provided the money for border and port security.

Since 2000, the Congress has added $3 trillion to the national debt. Yet we didn't hear so much as a peep out of this Congress when the debt limit was raised for the fourth time in 5 years. The taxpayers bought thousands of trailers in Louisiana, and they sit empty.

Mr. Speaker, the people's House is here to serve the people, not the special interests. It is time the American people either got their money's worth or a refund. It is time for new priorities. It is time to end this rubber-stamp Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the prior speaker said she was appalled by some of the characterizations. Funny, that was my emotion when this Congress just 2 months ago cut $12.5 billion from college assistance, the largest cut in the history of the United States for college assistance. So when you want to get appalled, try getting appalled by the biggest cut, $12.5 billion, from college assistance.

We have all read many articles that in the 21st century a college education is as essential to economic success as a high school education was in the 20th century. In a century in which you earn what you learn, what does the Republican Congress do as one of its first acts? The largest cut in history in college assistance, $12.5 billion.

And on the heels of that, they propose this act which, literally on the heels of a $12.5 billion cut, a bill that would freeze Pell Grants 2 years in a row at the level they are at.

The average Illinois graduate today graduates $15,000 in debt. You are supposed to get your diploma on graduation day. You get your diploma and your Visa credit bill. That is what is happening to our kids. Parents in my district are working second jobs, taking second mortgages so their kids get a chance at a future where doors are opening.

And what are we doing in this Congress? We are slamming the door on their future. We can do better than that. We owe it to our children.

College costs in the last 4 years have gone up, on average, 38 percent; and the United States Congress, under Republican stewardship, has had the largest cut in the history of the country, $12.5 billion, frozen Pell Grants, and not made it easier for parents to give their children the most important thing besides love, an education.

So what are we offering them? More of the same at a time when we all know you need an education. We know about the importance of a college education, and we have done nothing to make it easier for parents to afford an education for their kids, except for a second job or a second mortgage. And that is after the largest cut in the history of the country.

I think that we can do better. I know we can do better. We must rethink the way we apply and get assistance to families so they can send their kids to college. A college education is important for the 21st century.

When World War II was over, we had a GI bill for our returning vets that built the middle class. The GI bill, after a high school education, built America and made the 20th century the American century. It is time now that we make a college education as universal in the 21st century as a high school education was in the 20th century.

This is a step backwards, closing doors on families rather than opening doors and giving kids a chance to do better for the next generation, as their parents have done, and build on their shoulders. We must restore the $12.5 billion of cuts through an amendment that I offered that was denied, and make sure that we do not freeze college assistance, but enrich it and make it stronger.