[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2626-H2631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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

[[Page H2627]]

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.

                              {time}  1700

  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

[[Page H2628]]

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

[[Page H2629]]

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.

                              {time}  1715

  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

[[Page H2630]]

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.

                              {time}  1730

  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

[[Page H2631]]

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.




                          ____________________