[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 163 (Saturday, December 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12150-H12157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). 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, once again, it is an honor to come 
before the House, and we would like to thank the Democratic leadership 
for this opportunity, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; our whip, Mr. 
Steny Hoyer; and also our chairman, Mr. Bob Menendez; and chairman to 
be Mr. Jim Clyburn.
  As the Members know, Mr. Speaker, we have a 30-Something Working 
Group that comes to the floor every opportunity we have to talk about 
the good things that are happening here under the Capitol Dome and also 
some of the bad things that are happening and the things that are not 
happening at all that should be happening on behalf of the American 
people.
  Today, as the Members know, Mr. Speaker, there has been quite a bit 
said in the Capitol, very little done in the first session of this 
Congress, facing some of the needs that the American people are wanting 
to be addressed. The American people want to have issues such as health 
care, veteran affairs, also making sure that we have a strategy in Iraq 
for success, making sure that we stand up on behalf of those Americans 
that have been devastated by natural disasters, making sure that we get 
down to the bottom and get rid of a culture of corruption and cronyism 
and incompetence under the Capitol Dome, and also making sure that we 
can expand jobs for Americans and also for small businesses.
  But in the last 24 to 48 hours, there have been quite a few strange 
things that are going on here in the Capitol. There have been bills 
that Members have tried to put amendments on that are not passable and 
should not be even honored with the paper that they are printed on, of 
personal agendas and agendas on behalf of the special interests.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this hour tonight 
with Mr. Ryan and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz but also with a respected 
Member this House with whom Mr. Ryan and I serve on the Armed Services 
Committee with, and he is also the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee and has been working very hard on a number of pieces of 
legislation. He is from South Carolina.
  I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  And I would like to turn to a matter of some significant concern to 
me and to the gentleman because, as he said, we both serve on the House 
Armed Services Committee. We both have worked diligently to see a good 
Defense authorization bill put together this year and finally, we 
thought, put to bed last week. But here is what is happening, to 
everybody's dismay, on this side of the line.
  On Thursday afternoon, the House appointed conferees on the Defense 
authorization bill to go to conference with the Senate. Thursday 
afternoon. Within hours, the conference committee met for the first and 
only time. We made a cursory review, which is all we had time for, of 
the conference report which staff and mainly the Republican Members had 
worked up and put together over the last several weeks. We reviewed it. 
We reviewed the salient points. We made some objections. And finally, 
we approved it.
  This summary procedure is not my idea or I think the Framers' idea of 
how we would make law, particularly law that authorizes the expenditure 
of $440 billion for something as important as the defense of this 
Nation. This kind of summary procedure should not be repeated. This 
year, we were late getting started. The Senate was even later getting 
started. So we had to do it in record time. And I am glad we got it 
done, but it is not the best procedure.

  As bad as that procedure is, the worst was yet to come. After the 
conference report had been signed, signed by the Democratic conferees, 
signed by the Republican conferees, signed by the Senate, signed by the 
House, after it had been signed, the Republican leadership decided it 
needed a must-pass moving vehicle, some kind of bill to which they 
could attach legislation that otherwise could not be passed, maybe 
would not stand the light of day. Reputedly, it dealt with section 527, 
political advocacy corporations and campaign limits. We suspected it 
also dealt with a bill known as Pence-Wynn. We do not know yet because 
we have not seen the conference report that they have tried to amend.
  In any event, we know this: These bills are about campaign finance 
reform. They have absolutely nothing to do with the defense of the 
United States. This is not a technical change they are trying to make. 
It is not even about defense. Far from it.
  Worse still, it is fundamentally serious major legislation. It is not 
something minor that you bobtail on or piggyback on another bill. 
Pence-Wynn, if that is the legislation they are trying to append to 
this conference report, is a major fundamental revamping of the 
campaign finance laws of this country, lifting the limits enormously on 
all kinds of corporations from PACs and individuals, creating virtual 
carte blanche for the wealthy of this country to contribute to 
political campaigns.
  Our ranking member, Mr. Skelton of Missouri, heard what was happened, 
to the extent that he could find out anything. He protested and pulled 
our names on the grounds, the House Democratic names, from the 
conference report on the grounds that they were amending or seeking to 
amend that the conference agreement that had been signed and sealed and 
all but delivered to the House floor for action, amending it after the 
fact, Members who were not even parties to the agreement trying to 
change the bill in a significant way without any kind of collegiality, 
any kind of comity, any kind of consultation with our side. He pulled 
our names.
  In the Senate, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Republican, the very distinguished Senator Warner, was so outraged to 
see this gross violation of the processes of the House, the procedures 
of the House and the Congress, of fundamental fair play, that he said, 
if the Republican leadership in the House tried to unilaterally change 
this agreement after it had been signed, he would vigorously object and 
pull out the signatories at least on the Republican side. And Mr. 
Levin, the gentleman from Michigan who is the Democratic Senator who is 
the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the 
very same thing.
  Now, we ask tonight, what is the status of this bill that has taken 
months to produce, that addresses our troops deployed all over the 
world, that contains important personnel provisions that probably will 
not be overlapped in the appropriations bill? Where is the bill that we 
have worked and produced, that we signed and had ready to go?

[[Page H12151]]

Where is the bill? Where is the Defense authorization bill? Where is it 
left if we do not take action on it?
  It is left in limbo. It is left hanging. It is left unauthorized, 
unpassed. A hard effort coming to no worthy conclusion.
  Representative Pryce, who chairs the Republican conference, is quoted 
as saying in the CQ Daily that Congress may not even consider this bill 
before Christmas. Why not? It is ready to go. All we need is 1 hour on 
the floor. It is written. The conference report is ready to come to the 
floor. Why would we not consider it before Christmas? And, more 
importantly, what are the consequences if we do not consider it before 
Christmas?
  Well, let me tell my colleagues just a few of the things that will 
not be enacted that otherwise might be a nice package to send to our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ramparts around the world where 
they are standing up for freedom. Let me just mention a few things that 
are not covered in the appropriation bill and may never come to pass if 
we do not pass this bill: There is a 3.1 percent pay increase. Not a 
big increase, but I am sure that every troop will be glad to get it. 
There is an end-strength increase. We think the ground forces are 
undersized, so we have called for a couple of years for an increase in 
the size of the ground forces, Army and Marines, 30,000 in the Army, 
4,000 in the Marines, in fiscal year 2006. That will not be done.
  There is a death gratuity. The conference report increases the death 
gratuity for all active and activated servicemembers up to $100,000 
retroactive to October 7, 2001. For the 2,100-odd troops who have been 
killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Iraq in particular, I am sure this 
would be welcomed by their families as some token of appreciation for 
the ultimate sacrifice they had to pay.
  TRICARE: For the first time ever, reservists who agree to continue 
service in the Selected Reserves will have an opportunity, depending on 
their status, to buy into the government-subsidized TRICARE standard 
health program for themselves and their families.
  Recruiting: Enlistment bonuses will expire unless we reauthorize it. 
There is a whole list of things like this.
  Life insurance: It was previously increased for servicemen, life 
insurance, SGLI, to $400,000 in amount. We said in this bill, if they 
are in Iraq, if they are in Afghanistan, if they are putting their 
lives on the line in a hazardous duty zone, by golly, as a part of 
their hazardous duty pay, we will pay that first $150,000. I wanted to 
pay more of it. But that will be a nice addendum, a nice Christmas 
present for the troops who are in the field and for their families back 
home who worry, if our servicemember does not come home, who will 
provide for us? The least we can do is increase the life insurance.
  I could go down the list with other personnel changes. They are 
numerous. Let me give you just one. This conference report would extend 
TRICARE coverage also for children of servicemembers killed in the line 
of duty until they reached the age of 21. This is just a sampling of 
what will not be done if, for petty, high-handed partisan reasons, the 
conference report, already finished on the Defense authorization bill, 
is not brought to the floor.
  This is an outrage. It is an outrage. It is sort of inside baseball 
to some people, hard to explain to the American people because, in the 
parliamentary sense, it is so complicated. But it is an outrage, and it 
should not be allowed to happen. This is the one bill we should pass 
before we go home.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that Mr. Spratt came 
to the floor tonight to share with the Members what is important in 
this bill. And this was an authorization bill even before it went to 
conference that a super majority of the Members voted for because they 
believe that many of those provisions needed to be enacted on behalf of 
our security.
  And we hear a lot of talk about what needs to happen now, what the 
troops need, what our Armed Forces need throughout, rank and file, 
officers, flag officers, individuals who are interested in being a part 
of our military, and to be able to send a very strong signal that we 
support them 110 percent. And for it to be held up for political 
purposes, and I can tell my colleagues for political purposes because 
in that 527 bill, there are a lot of special interests that would like 
to have access, more access than they have right now, to this majority. 
And it is very unfortunate that it is being held up. Of all things, the 
Defense authorization bill. It is hard to explain with a straight face. 
And Mr. Ryan was there in committee when we voted this bill out, and he 
was here on the floor and also Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. For this to be 
happening now in the closing days of the session and possibly held off 
in the authorization bill until 2006 is beyond reproach, in my opinion.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have been on the committee 3 years now, Mr. 
Spratt has been on the committee a few more years than we have, but 
when you first get on the committee, I think the leadership on our side 
has always told the younger Members who come on, you know, this is a 
bipartisan committee. This is one of the committees in Congress where 
we try to do what is best for the men and women in uniform, to do what 
is best to protect the security of the United States of America. And I 
think this tradition we have had has really been damaged throughout 
this whole process. I am sure Mr. Spratt knows a lot better than I do.
  Mr. SPRATT. I have been on the conference committee every year for at 
least 20 years, and I never seen this happen before. I have never seen 
the leadership of either party come forth and say, you may have signed 
it, you may have closed it, you may have signed and sealed and 
delivered it; but we can still change it and add to it things that are 
totally out of the scope, out of scope because they are not in the 
jurisdiction of our committee, and out of scope because they have never 
been considered by either committee in either House, hearings, markup, 
on the floor, in the committee, anywhere. Totally out of the blue to 
come at the 11th hour.
  And to impose this on the bill in deference to wealthy contributors 
who do not want to be encumbered with limits on what they can 
contribute is outrageous. There is no nicer word for it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We talk a lot on the 30-something group here about 
how the Republican leadership in this Chamber and the Senate and in the 
White House right now consistently over the past few years have put 
their party's interests above the country's interests. We know on 
Energy and Commerce, you know, you are talking about telecommunications 
and there are a lot of business interests and labor. There are fights, 
there are scraps, and it gets very partisan.
  For this kind of attitude I think to permeate into the Armed Services 
Committee during a time of war is outrageous. It really is. And Mr. 
Spratt, I cannot thank you enough, because we come down every night, 
and to have someone of your caliber, your experience, your 
understanding of the issues to come down and share with us means a 
great deal. But for campaign finance issues to work their way into the 
Defense bill is just crazy.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, I am the new kid on the block here, 
and I do not sit on the Armed Services Committee; and I completely 
agree it is a privilege and honor to have Mr. Spratt join us tonight.
  But, you know, Mr. Spratt, my observation being of the shortest 
tenure among the four of us is, at least since I have been here, we 
should not be surprised that they would do this, because you start at 
the beginning of this year, and it was very clear that the leadership 
here has no regard for the process, no regard for the system of checks 
and balances, they have no regard for the judiciary.
  At the beginning of this year, 10 weeks into my tenure, they put the 
Terri Schiavo bill on the floor, even though you had months and years 
of court decisions that made it clear that it was not appropriate for 
Congress to insert itself into one family's tragedy. Yet to them it was 
seemingly the right thing to do, to insert the legislative branch of 
government into an area that was clearly the jurisdiction of the 
courts.
  Now you fast forward to the end of the year, and throughout this year 
they have had other examples of their lack of regard for the 
governmental

[[Page H12152]]

mechanics and the lack of regard for decency into what the American 
people support. Adding campaign finance provisions or anything other 
than the protection and defense of this country to the Defense 
appropriations bill? I mean, really.
  If they were so concerned about campaign finance reform, why are they 
waiting until less than 24 hours before we are supposed to adjourn 
here? Really, we were supposed to adjourn weeks ago. I mean, they have 
so little regard for process that they are not able to get the job 
done. I mean, we are here, and it is a week before Christmas and 
Chanukah and the beginning of the holiday season, and we are still here 
in the Chamber debating things that should have been settled long ago.
  So it has just been obvious to me since I began my term that they 
have no regard for the process, no regard for the American people's 
priorities, and they just keep setting example after example.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We heard a lot in the last few weeks, you know, 
that you are sending the wrong signal to the troops. You are sending 
the wrong signal to the troops, when we want to have a discussion about 
when we are going to actually pull the troops out and end the war and 
redeploy and how things are going to work and what does it look like 
and how is this all going to end. You are unpatriotic, you should not 
have that discussion. You are not allowed to talk about that kind of 
stuff, you know. The people may find out that maybe things are not 
going as well as we think they are going, so let us not talk about it 
because it will affect the morale of the troops.
  I have got to tell you, when we went to Iraq, it was probably the 
first meeting, as soon as we got there in Baghdad, Mr. Meek was in the 
meeting with the troops and there was about 20 of us sitting there, and 
I specifically asked one of them, I think we were with the marines, 
specifically asked, does the debate that we are having now in the 
United States, that was shortly after Mr. Murtha came out for his 
redeployment efforts in 6 months and figuring this out, and I asked one 
of the kids, I said, does this hurt your morale over here? Does this 
offend you?
  The kid said to me, this is why we are here, so the Iraqis can have 
this kind of discussion. We expect people in Washington to be having a 
debate in a democracy, in a representative democracy. The great 
Republic should have these debates. And he just said that is why we are 
here, so the Iraqis will be able to have this discussion too one day.
  Would that not be great, if the Iraqis can have a parliament and get 
in a squabble and fight without someone saying that that is somehow 
having a negative effect on the troops.
  So we hear that a lot, that this debate may hurt them, which it is 
not, hurting the morale of the troops, which the troops are telling us 
it is not, it is okay. But then to try to somehow take the Defense bill 
and put campaign finance language in it so that the Republican majority 
can raise more money to further corrupt the institution is an outrage.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I just wanted to say when you talked 
to that marine, we were actually in Mosul at the time, and I am going 
to be a third-party validator as it relates to your discussion with 
them. Also, it was a bipartisan delegation, and we heard it on both 
sides of the aisle.
  One thing that I want to say, even Mr. Spratt as we talk about the 
authorization bill, as you know, defense seems to be the vehicle to 
pass all pieces of legislation or thoughts or ideas that the majority 
has problems in passing under regular order. They have problems passing 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, so they want 
to attach that onto a piece of legislation and try to push it through 
the process.
  But I can tell you that this abuse of authority is stepping in the 
middle of national security at this point, and it is very, very 
unfortunate. And it is not like coincidence; it is not like something 
that is blowing through the air conditioner vents here.

  I am so glad, sir, once again, that you came down. We are talking 
about this subject. Many times some Members may not know what is going 
on. The American people may not know what is going on. That is the 
reason why we are here, to make sure they do know what is going on.
  Mr. SPRATT. I will guarantee you the people do not know what is going 
on. Until I got back this afternoon, I had to go home and make a speech 
and started reading some of these dailies that we get over our fax 
machines and got some phone calls from others who had found out, pieced 
it together. I did not know about it, so I am sure the American people 
do not know about it.
  Let me just take a second, if I can, maybe a minute or two, and read 
from the memo that was given to us as conferees just as to what the 
personnel provisions of this bill are. For the most part, these will 
not be backstopped by overlapping provisions in the appropriations 
bill. It simply will not be done unless and until this bill for 2006 is 
enacted.
  I already mentioned a pay raise of 3.1 percent to all servicemembers. 
I mentioned the increase in end strength needed for our stretched-out 
ground forces. The death gratuity is raised substantially to $100,000, 
but, even more important, provided for retroactively to October 7, 
2001. And we remove, and only we can do this, we remove the combat-
related requirement for the death gratuity.
  TRICARE, I mentioned the changes there. In addition, there are some 
other changes for TRICARE Reserve Select. It enhances that coverage, 
not as much as we wanted; but it is better than what we have got.
  Enlistment bonuses, the authority for those is increased 
substantially. We have got recruitment problems. We have retention 
problems. We need this authority to help our recruiters if they are to 
keep end strength in.
  The enlistment age. There are some folks out there that would like to 
get back into the service, age 42, still in good physical condition. 
This would allow persons who have previously served who would like to 
enlist again to be considered up to the age of 42.
  Here is something that everybody has noted, given the condition of 
many soldiers who are coming back from the Iraqi and Afghanistan 
theater: the establishment of a mental health task force that will look 
at how the Department and services can treat better, identify better, 
and support better mental health needs, particularly including post-
traumatic stress disorder.
  It enhances programs and policies to improve the transition of 
servicemembers who are severely wounded or injured back into civilian 
life.
  It provides temporary authority to the Army to set up four innovative 
recruitment tests to see if it can improve its recruitment.
  It increases hardship duty pay to $750.
  It allows the establishment of a pilot program that would match 
enlisted members' contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  It provides foreign language pay, which we badly need, given the 
shortage of Arab-speaking servicemembers, up to $12,000.
  It extends TRICARE, as I said earlier, for children of servicemembers 
killed in the line of duty until they reach 21 years of age, or 23 if 
they are a full-time student.
  These are just the personnel changes, but every one has a particular 
appeal to them. They were carefully considered in our committee and the 
Senate committee and put into the conference bill. Much of this will 
not be done if this bill does not get passed, and it certainly will not 
be done until it is finally enacted.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to ask you a quick question, Mr. 
Spratt. I think it is important not only for the Members to know, but 
for everyone to know: How much work has gone into this Defense 
authorization bill? It just was not something that one meeting took 
place. I am pretty sure hours and hours of testimony and also committee 
work.
  Mr. SPRATT. As the gentleman knows, we get the budget the second week 
in February. Our hearings start almost immediately in the authorization 
committee because we have got all four services, we have procurement, 
personnel, research and development, all kinds of issues that have to 
be thrashed out every year.
  We do not mark up and bring a bill to the floor typically until May, 
sometimes until June. Then we wait on the Senate to get their work 
done; and usually, if we are lucky, they get theirs

[[Page H12153]]

done in July. If we are not lucky, theirs gets done in September or 
October, and we find ourselves playing catch-up, which is what we are 
doing in the extreme this year.
  Nevertheless, it is a year-long process. We carefully sift through 
all these issues. We go back to what we did the previous year and see 
if it worked. If it did not, we make adjustments. It is an ongoing, 
continual process. An immense amount of work goes into this.
  You can say the appropriators do the same thing; but their committee 
is much, much smaller than ours. Therefore, they do not get into all of 
these elements nearly as deeply as we do. That is why this 
authorization is so critically important as part of the process.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You never heard of a measure coming before the 
Armed Services Committee dealing with elections. Maybe absentee ballot 
access for troops or something, but that is about the extent of it, I 
am pretty sure.
  Mr. SPRATT. That is a very good example of something you can spend a 
lot of time on, but it is important to troops. They are over there 
fighting for our freedom. We need to make it possible for them to have 
the fundamental right to vote and make sure their vote will count, make 
sure it will not be held up somewhere and not get transmitted to be 
counted. That is not as easy as it seems in some cases. So we have to 
give a lot of consideration to it.
  That is one of the reasons this bill is done annually, every year, 
because we have to come back and look at what we did last year and see 
if it is working. If it is not, we make further adjustments and also 
find out what new problems have cropped up in the past year.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Spratt, I want to thank you once again 
for coming down and bringing clarification to that. But this is just an 
ongoing issue.
  I can tell you, I had the opportunity, I wanted to share with the 
Members, to be a guest at 8 a.m. this morning on Washington Journal. 
And Mr. Ryan knows, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz knows, not to put me in 
charge of an 8 o'clock volunteer breakfast. It is kind of rough for me 
at 8 in the morning, even though many mornings I am driving my kids to 
school. But I do not have to speak on the issues that are before the 
Congress.
  It was very strange, like Mr. Spratt mentioned. There are a lot of 
things that happened just today, today, that do not ordinarily happen 
here under the Capitol dome.

                              {time}  2100

  To be able to have an authorization bill, to try to put some sort of 
campaign, let us take the roof off the limits, on to a must-pass bill 
is very, very unfortunate. To have the whole discussion about the 
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve where we have Senators on the other 
side of the aisle saying, well, we are not going to vote on the budget. 
Before we vote, we will vote on the Defense appropriations bill, and we 
want to put this in because it cannot pass on its own merits. So it is 
very, very unfortunate.
  I always say, I do not fault the special interests for fighting for 
what they want. That is their job. That is what they are supposed to 
do. We are sent here to represent the people of the United States of 
America, and if we allow it, then shame on us.
  I can tell you, fighting against this, any Member can come and can 
file a piece of legislation, and in some cases we have seen legislation 
filed early one day and passed later on the same day. In this case, for 
this to come in on the back of national security and Defense is just 
beyond me.
  I think the American people need to know about it, and the Members 
need to pay close attention to it. When you have a majority that feels 
that they can do exactly what they want to do it when they want to do 
it, that is okay when it is a personal decision. We talk about that. If 
we make a personal decision and there is a mistake, it is on us. When 
we make a decision affecting the American people, the men and women in 
uniform, need it be here, we have a number of military bases that this 
bill helps for those troops that are here and the civilian personnel 
that is involved with the Defense Department and other measures 
throughout, even contractors in this bill.
  For them to come in and do this to those individuals right now, 
putting something on the bill, I hope through our efforts and through 
many efforts and through, hopefully, some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, we can take this off the bill and be able to take 
care of our business and give our troops what they need.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We thank the gentleman from South Carolina so 
much for joining us. Your expertise is incredibly helpful in terms of 
us highlighting the problems that we are trying to address in this 
Chamber.
  Do you know how I would analogize the fact that the Republican 
leadership has now allowed the drilling in the Alaskan National 
Wildlife Refuge to be added to the Defense appropriations bill, that 
they have actually agreed to that? I would analogize it this way, and 
analogize the addition of any extraneous material, campaign finance 
reform, well, I would say, we almost would have to say ``reverse 
campaign finance reform,'' because the 527 legislation that they are 
talking about is more insidious, not being done in a way that would be 
designed to help add to the public discourse.
  But the addition of campaign finance issues or oil drilling in the 
Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to the Defense appropriations bill, 
the way I would analogize it is similar to insurgents in Iraq and in 
other areas of the world using children as shields. When our troops go 
into a neighborhood in Iraq and the insurgents put women and children 
in front of them so that they get killed instead of the insurgents, 
that is exactly what the Republican leadership is trying to do here. 
They are trying to put things in that they cannot get passed on their 
own because they cannot stand on their own merits.
  They are putting the Defense appropriations bill, analogous to the 
women and children in war-torn countries, in front of items that have 
no merit, that do not have broad bipartisan support, and that cannot 
pass by themselves and, as a result, causing significant, unnecessary 
harming to this country. It is just absolutely unconscionable.
  It is another circumvention of the process. It is another example of 
not dealing straight; another example of the incompetence, of the 
corruption, of the cronyism. Why can they not just be straight?
  I serve on a committee where we work together in a bipartisan 
fashion. We lay our cards on the table in the Financial Services 
Committee. We agree on some things; we do not agree on others. But 
there is no clandestine backroom dealing. There is no attempt in that 
committee to try to stick things in that they can hide what they are 
really trying to do.
  The American people want openness. They want us to vote clearly. I 
want a clear shot to vote tomorrow. I support defense of this country. 
Since I have been here, I have taken every opportunity to vote ``yes'' 
on defending this country to the degree that we need to. But I have 
serious problems, and so do my constituents, with drilling in the 
Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Quite honestly, we have a raging 
debate about oil drilling off the coast of Florida. Fortunately, that 
is not in this bill, but it could have been.
  If we are going to continue the debate that we have had on campaign 
finance reform, then it should be done in the open. It should be done 
not at the last minute when we are trying to get out of here for the 
holidays. It should be done in the deliberative fashion, in the 
appropriate place, in the committees of jurisdiction. But they cannot 
get it in the honest and straight and fair way. It has to be the back 
door. It has to be clandestine. And it has to be putting things that 
they feel like most Members could not vote against in front of, just 
like insurgents put women and children in front of them so that they 
can get hurt first.
  The American people are going to get hurt first when extraneous 
material that has nothing to do with the defense of our country is in 
front of some awful proposals that would never be sustained on their 
own.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is no question, it is the abuse of power. And 
we have been given an awesome gift to just be here in the Chamber, to 
be here as a Member of Congress. To be in the majority is even a 
greater gift. And to take that and to use the power that

[[Page H12154]]

you are given by the American people for the sole purpose of advancing 
the cause of your own political party, the Republican Party, instead of 
looking out for what is in the best interest of the United States of 
America, that is an abuse of power. I think we have seen it here time 
and time and time again.
  We saw it here during the prescription drug bill where we were here 
until 3 in the morning and it passed by just a couple of votes. We were 
told as Members of Congress voting on that bill that it was only going 
to be $400 billion, and then this bill ends up being over 700 almost 
$800 billion. And the Democrats had two provisions that we wanted to 
put in that bill: allow for reimportation from Canada to drop the costs 
of prescription drugs in the United States and, therefore, save the 
taxpayers' money; and also allow the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services the opportunity to negotiate down the drug prices and go to 
America and say, if you want the contract from the Medicare recipients, 
you have to sit down and we have to negotiate price. Just think how 
much money we would have saved the taxpayer if we would have done that. 
Just think about that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me say, just to back up what you were saying 
and be a third-party validator on that, I have the facts here. You want 
to talk about abuse of power? It was printed just this afternoon a 
story that was posted around 7 p.m. tonight about what is going on in 
the back Halls of Congress. I mean, we have leaders in the Senate 
saying that we have an agreement with a said Senator, but I do not want 
to go into details. That is what our leadership says here in the House.

  At the appropriate time when I find the cover sheet to this one 
story, I will enter that into the Record because I think that needs to 
go into the Congressional Record so that when folks start backtracking 
on what happened in the 109th Congress at the closing of the first 
session of the 109th Congress, I want them to clearly know what the 
thinking was on behalf of the majority. These are two majority leaders 
that are talking about this kind of ``we have a deal worked out, but we 
do not want to go into details,'' meanwhile holding up the Defense 
authorization bill. Not only that, holding up the Defense 
appropriations bill. There are other bills that we would like to get 
through this Congress.
  Mr. Ryan talked about abuse of power. Let me take you down memory 
lane for a moment. October 7, the Republicans held open a 5-minute vote 
on Gasoline American Security Act. It lasted over 40 minutes to pass an 
energy bill that does nothing to lower gas prices, and that bill 
actually passed only by two votes. The Republican leadership, they have 
bills that even Republicans do not want to vote for.
  I think it is important that the American people are made aware of 
that and also Members that may need to freshen their memory.
  November 22 of 2003 in the 108th Congress as it relates to the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Bill: 3 hours we stood in this Chamber, Mr. 
Speaker, waiting on this bill, waiting on us to close the board. When 
we say ``the board,'' we are talking about the voting board. We sat 
here for 3 hours while the arm twisting went on. Leader Pelosi came to 
the floor and put forth a resolution in detail talking about some of 
the activities on that given evening here on this floor that I am 
speaking on.
  I think it is important we go down memory lane to make sure that 
people understand when folks talk about fairness and inclusion and that 
Democrats have access to the process, we just need to go down a brief 
history of what is going on. And that is the purpose of the 30-
something Working Group, that the American people understand exactly 
what is going on here.
  You want to talk about arm twisting? Just recently, July 24 and 28, 
on those two dates the vote was held open for so long. Leaders held the 
vote open for 1 hour, well past the 15-minute voting time as they 
rounded up enough votes to pass CAFTA, which was in the final vote 217-
215. Even some Republicans on that side of the aisle could not vote for 
that piece of legislation because it did not meet the merit to be able 
to be a sound free trade agreement the American people can embrace. It 
took an hour for that to happen. Let us go down memory lane once again.
  Veterans Affairs, the chairman being pro-veteran, goodness gracious, 
if you are pro-veteran in the Republican majority, you are going to 
lose your chairmanship. This is not just our report that we have in the 
back room here and we said, let us see if we can fabricate something.
  January 6, this year, 2005, House Republicans ousted Mr. Chris Smith 
as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for bucking his 
leadership and being a tireless advocate on behalf of veterans rights. 
He was not only removed as chairman, which he served on the committee 
for 24 years, but he was kicked off of the committee, off of the 
committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Unbelievable.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, it is really rough 
to be removed as chairman and then to be kicked off the committee that 
you served on for 24 years.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I served on that committee my last term in 
Congress. I sat on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And that 
gentleman that you are speaking about had a relationship with the 
veterans that was unsurpassed. It was unbelievable. The veterans groups 
loved Mr. Smith. Loved him. And he advocated for them on their behalf 
as chairman of the veterans committee.
  You do not have to ask me or the 30-something Working Group; you do 
not have to ask us. Go talk to the head of the disabled veterans 
groups, go talk to the head of AMVETS, go talk to any single veterans 
group and they will tell you that they loved them, and he advocated for 
them, and he disagreed with not fully funding and providing mandatory 
funding for our veterans health care benefits.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have a tail end to that statement on this 
whole abuse of power, and I am glad you have the perspective from the 
108th Congress about what actually took place and how you served with 
this past-chairman and past-member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  The change was widely denounced by leaders of several veterans 
groups. Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America said in 
response to that, ``The Republican leadership has made a statement that 
the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who 
have served in uniform.''
  This is from the New Jersey Star Ledger. I think it is important that 
this is a man, this is obviously a man that has served. He is the 
president, or was the President, at that particular time of the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America in response to that. And they have made a 
very strong statement that they are not willing to make the commitment 
to men and women that have served in uniform.

                              {time}  2115

  So when we talk about the abuse of power, we look at this budget that 
is under consideration right now. We have been talking about the budget 
now for several weeks. I think if this Republican majority could give 
millionaires and billionaires a tax break, they would borrow as much 
money as they have to borrow to make it happen.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Who are they borrowing it from?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this Republican majority is willing 
to borrow as much money as possible to give millionaires a tax break.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before you change the subject, I just want to 
say, on veterans, because if we are going to talk about tails, there is 
the tail the size of a doberman and one the size of a German shepherd. 
I want to do the length of a German shepherd on this.
  We are not talking about the fact that a chairman here who was 
wonderful for veterans was removed from the chairmanship and removed 
from the committee. We can go much further and lengthen the tail and 
talk about the commitment or severe lack thereof commitment to veterans 
and their health care and sustaining veterans who have given not just 
their lives but dedicated their lives to this country and put their 
lives on the line.
  Just 6 months ago, we finally had a culmination of a debate that we 
had begun where we, as Democrats, have been insisting that the Veterans 
Affairs had a significant shortfall in their budget, at least $1 
billion, and there was denial after denial that that was the case. I 
was not here. In fact, I was

[[Page H12155]]

not a Member of Congress at the beginning of that debate.
  Then I joined the Congress, and a few months later, we are on the 
floor passing a supplemental appropriation because the Republican 
leadership here had to finally acknowledge that there was a shortfall. 
We had to come in and pass an emergency appropriation so that our 
veterans could continue to get health care.
  As it is, the Republican administration here makes them wait at least 
6 months to get any health care services. Now, in this budget, we are 
going to be cutting, under the Republican's plan, veterans health care 
by as much as $600 million, even as we have the number of our veterans 
growing with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So it is not just what we are doing to veterans by throwing out the 
Members here on both sides who support them, but we are also totally 
shortchanging them. I just wanted to add that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Really, to get to the nitty-gritty of the whole 
veterans, they instruct the Republican majority, which I must say, when 
the budget came through this House, Mr. Speaker, not one Democrat voted 
for the budget. Not one Democrat said, well, maybe I need to vote for 
this reduction and maybe I just need to do it because of the folks back 
home; I just do not want to vote against the budget. Not one Democrat 
voted for the budget that they passed on the backs of the American 
people, and to come here with a straight face and talk about how we are 
going to borrow as much money as we have to borrow to give billionaires 
the majority of the tax breaks of a proposal that we put forward, and 
these are the very individuals that are standing up with all kinds of 
markers behind them and charts and everything, fiscal responsibility, 
``trust us'' kind of thing, and I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, 
we should have as much trust and confidence within our government. But 
when we see our leaders act in such a way legislatively, I think it is 
something that should be quite alarming.
  I want to come to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for a second, 
but I want to hit this chart since we are talking about being 
responsible.
  If I could, I would like to kind of get a billboard placed probably 
right where the Members come in to vote, if I could. If I could talk to 
House Administration to see if I could do that, I think it would be 
helpful for the financial well-being of every American. So when the 
Republican majority is driving in here and saying, I want to borrow as 
much money as I can to make sure that oil companies have the subsidies 
that they would like to have, even though they are making record 
profits, we are going to give them more than we are giving to the 
American people or more than we are giving to Leave No Child Left 
Behind to improve that Act.
  There are going to be 11 States that have filed suit against the 
Federal Government because it is underfunded, but meanwhile, here we 
are speaking of, let us borrow as much as we can to give billionaires 
their tax break, $1.05 trillion this President has borrowed with the 
Republican majority, in just 4 years, from foreign nations such as 
China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, you name it. They have a piece of the 
American pie now because we have borrowed $1.05 trillion. Forty-two 
Presidents before this President and before this overwhelming so-shall-
it-be-written-so-shall-it-be-done Republican majority, 42 Presidents in 
the past, $1.01 trillion, 42 Presidents, 224 years of a country and 
trying to be as fiscally responsible as possible. I think it is 
important that the Members pay very close attention to this chart, and 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is continuing to go up and up and up 
and up and up.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, when you are having your Christmas 
party or your Chanukah party or your Kwanzaa party or your holiday 
party or whatever you call things these days, because I even get 
nervous wishing somebody a merry Christmas anymore, when one of the 
billionaires, one of the millionaires are around the party table in the 
next week or two and they are holding up their glass, they should say, 
thank you, Chinese government; thank you, House of Sahd; thank you, 
Japan, for loaning my country the money to be able to give me a tax 
cut. Do not thank us. Thank the people we are borrowing the money from. 
Thank them, because we are borrowing money from the Chinese and the 
Saudi Arabians and the Japanese to give a tax cut to the wealthiest 
people in the United States of America.
  Not only are we borrowing it, but the money we do take in, look what 
we are spending it on in Iraq: $1.5 billion a week. Look at these Iraqi 
projects: Transportation and communication, $508 million. Look what we 
are cutting over here in the United States: $500 million to our student 
loan programs. In Iraq: Electricity projects, $4 billion for 
electricity projects in Iraq. In the United States, we are cutting $4.9 
billion from child support to go after deadbeat dads; $1.72 billion in 
Iraq for oil infrastructure. What are we cutting back here at home? 
Farm commodity and conservation programs, just about the same number, 
$1.76 billion, we are cutting here at home.

  We are borrowing from China. We are giving that money to the richest 
people in our country, and then we are putting the cuts that we have to 
have over here, because this administration and the Republican majority 
cannot get the economy up and running; we are cutting here child 
support, student loans, free and reduced lunch. All these things are 
happening on the backs of the American people.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. While we are at it, while we are cutting the 
budget and basically paying for what is going on in the war in Iraq, we 
are providing billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, and we 
are all about third party validators here.
  On top of what you just outlined, tax analysts agree, and this is in 
the New York Times, third party validators, tax analysts agree that the 
overwhelming bulk of the dividend goes to the top 5 percent of income 
earners. We just passed a $56 billion tax cut package over 5 years one 
day last week after we passed another tax cut package that is $39 
billion over 5 years. There was no argument, no argument at all that 
the tax cuts that we have been passing go to the top two-tenths of 1 
percent of the wealthiest people in America.
  When I go home, I represent a fairly middle class district, working 
families, not the depths of the poor, working families. When I stand up 
in town hall meetings, I ask my folks to raise your hand if you have 
benefited from any of the tax breaks that have been handed down by the 
Bush administration for the last 6 years. Do you know, maybe one, two 
hands go up in a roomful of hundreds of people? Who are getting these 
tax breaks? The Rolls Royce Republicans. That is who are getting these 
tax breaks. That is what this administration and this leadership is all 
about, the Rolls Royce Republicans.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is a great point because this is not your 
father's Republican party. This is not the Richard Nixon Republican 
party or Abraham Lincoln Republican party. This is a right wing agenda 
that is coming down the pike here with ANWR drilling coming in. If you 
are pro-environment and you are with the right wingers, you are in the 
wrong party because they want to drill. And they do not want to have an 
alternative energy program.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Once again, I just have to point out, and this 
is going to take me about 10 seconds to do it. They cannot get 
Republicans in this House to vote for drilling in ANWR. They cannot get 
them to do it. So I do not blame Republicans, and I do not even blame 
the Republican Party. I blame the Republican leadership that is leading 
the Republican side of the aisle and even giving the oil companies and 
the special interests the thought that they can invade the Defense 
appropriations bill of all bills. Republicans, their stomach is all 
messed up over this.
  The Republicans need to ask elected Republicans when they go home, 
why did you change on me? You changed uniforms in the middle of the 
football game. I am not an advocate for the majority, but I am just 
saying, there is something fundamentally wrong here. I want to know, 
what is the problem, and who is whispering in whose ear?
  I did find the article, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to insert 
it, but it is, Plan to Move ANWR to Defense Bill Moves Budget Deal 
Forward. That is CQ Today, December 17 article, Mr. Speaker, and I will 
enter that into the Record at this point.

[[Page H12156]]

                 [From the CQ Today, December 17, 2005]

      Plan to Move ANWR to Defense Bill Moves Budget Deal Forward

                 (By Steven T. Dennis and Liriel Higa)

       A conference report on a $45 billion budget savings package 
     was nearly complete Saturday evening after House leaders 
     reached an agreement with Senate Defense Appropriations 
     Chairman Ted Stevens to move a provision allowing drilling in 
     Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) out of the 
     legislation and into the Defense bill.
       The agreement on moving ANWR came on a day of negotiations 
     on multiple fronts. On Saturday night, the House by voice 
     vote passed a stopgap spending measure (H J Res 75) to 
     temporarily fund Defense programs and other government 
     operations after a day-long dispute between Republican 
     leaders in both chambers over when the measure would expire.
       A new stopgap measure must be cleared by Congress and 
     signed by President Bush by midnight, when an earlier stopgap 
     spending measure (H J Res 72) expires.
       On Sunday, House leaders expect to bring the budget package 
     (HR 4241, S 1932) to the floor for a vote. And they expect 
     Stevens, R-Alaska, to sign the budget conference report.
       Stevens, a staunch supporter of ANWR energy exploration, 
     had vowed not to do so until the lawmakers cleared the 
     Defense spending bill (HR 2863) with drilling provisions 
     intact. But he later agreed to allow the budget conference to 
     move forward provided that the House passes the Defense bill 
     with ANWR attached.
       ``We have an agreement with Sen. Stevens, but I don't want 
     to go into all of the details,'' said House Speaker J. Dennis 
     Hastert, R-Ill.
       House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, said Saturday 
     afternoon that his panel was expecting final reports from 
     authorizing committee chairmen by the evening and that once 
     the final bill is scored by the Congressional Budget Office, 
     the budget savings package should come close to the $45 
     billion goal set by House leaders.
       Nussle said that they ``need, want, expect'' Stevens' vote 
     on the budget bill. He said the House would vote on the 
     Defense spending bill Sunday before voting on the 
     reconciliation bill.
       The Senate also would likely vote on the Defense bill with 
     ANWR attached before voting on the budget reconciliation 
     package according to a senior Senate GOP leadership aide. The 
     timetable for Senate action is unclear.
       It is uncertain if Democrats would attempt to filibuster 
     the Defense measure. But they were hoping to muster the 51 
     votes needed to reject attaching ANWR drilling to the 
     conference report.
       The budget savings package is protected from filibuster in 
     the Senate under special budget reconciliation rules, but the 
     Defense spending measure has no such protection.
       ``This language has the potential, in my opinion, to sink 
     the package once it reaches the Senate.''
       The ANWR provision, which was included in the Senate's 
     version of the budget package but not the House bill, has 
     been a sticking point in finishing work on the legislation--
     especially for House moderates and Democrats. Negotiators 
     hope that moving the proposal to the must-pass Defense bill 
     makes the budget legislation easier to pass while making it 
     harder politically for Democrats to filibuster.
       A number of other provisions in the Budget savings bill 
     opposed by House moderates--including savings in food stamps, 
     child support enforcement and welfare--would not be in the 
     final bill either, Nussle said.
       But a $3.2 billion House provision shifting trade dumping 
     penalties to the U.S. Treasury instead of aggrieved companies 
     was still in the package, Nussle said.
       Medicaid and Medicare provisions were still being hashed 
     out late Saturday afternoon, as negotiators awaited scoring 
     of the provisions.
       The package still needed to go through a so-called ``Byrd 
     bath,'' to ensure that it does not run afoul of the Byrd 
     rule. Named for Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the rule 
     prohibits provisions in budget legislation that would have a 
     negligible spending impact.
       Meanwhile, Republican moderates in the House began to worry 
     that their victory in stripping ANWR from the House budget 
     package was becoming a fleeting one.
       Representative Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., said he and other 
     moderates would consider voting against the budget savings 
     package unless ANWR is removed from the Defense bill. ``The 
     my way or the highway crowd'' has been winning, and moderates 
     need to consider changing tactics, he said.
       House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said 
     appropriators were close to a deal on additions to the 
     Defense appropriations bill, including hurricane relief, flu 
     prevention funding and a 1 percent across-the-board cut that 
     would apply to Defense but spare veteran's benefits. That cut 
     would save about $8 billion a year.


                            Stopgap Funding

       Lewis lost in an intraparty dispute Saturday with Senate 
     leaders over how long to temporarily fund government 
     operations covered by spending bills have not yet cleared, 
     including Defense.
       Since the fiscal year began on Oct. 1, Congress has twice 
     enacted such stopgap spending measures. On Saturday, Lewis 
     introduced a third continuing resolution lasting until Feb. 
     15, but the Senate insisted that the measure expire sooner, 
     on Dec. 31.
       The continuing resolution would fund programs covered under 
     the Defense bill and the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
     measure (HR 3010)--the only two spending measures that have 
     not yet cleared.
       Lewis had said he was seeking a Feb. 15 extension because 
     of concerns that the Senate would not be able to clear the 
     Labor-HHS spending measure before adjourning.
       Lewis rejected a proposal floated Friday by Senator Arlen 
     Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations Subcommittee, to tack the bill on to the 
     Defense Appropriations measure.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have got to stop thinking about the special 
interests before we think about the average American because that is 
really what it boils down to, and those Republicans that you are 
talking about, I represent a lot of them.
  I live in a town that precinct by precinct, 13 precincts in my town, 
in this city of Weston; every single one of them is majority Republican 
registration. I cannot walk down the street without interacting with a 
Republican registered voter, and by the way, I win every one of those 
precincts with more than 60 percent of the vote. I am certainly not a 
Republican, and the reason that happens is because it happens to be a 
community that has some wealth. People stop me in the supermarket, on 
the soccer field all the time and say: Debbie, keep the darn tax cut. I 
do not need the tax cut. It does not help me that much. I want my kid 
to have a good education. I want people to have health care.
  They understand. They understand that the economy does not boom 
because the top two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans get a tax cut. 
They understand that it is kids who grow up and can get a good 
education and who sit across the desk from these constituents of mine, 
most of whom are employers, who are bosses who are interviewing kids 
who graduate from high school unprepared for the path that they choose 
in life because we are not adequately funding education because they 
come to work sick and have to go home early because we have 45 million 
people who do not have health insurance.
  They want to know where this Republican leadership's priorities are, 
where their Republican party that they have chosen to affiliate 
themselves with, where their priorities are, because it is not with 
them. I am not sure what our other colleagues' Republican constituents 
are saying to them, but that is what mine are saying to me.
  I think we have got to stop being the Congress of the special 
interests and return to being the Congress of the American people. 
While we are on the subject of the success of this administration, and 
you talk about how significant that deficit, and the combination of 42 
other Presidents combined, had a bigger deficit. The President does 
like to talk about the success of the economy and how it is 
experiencing a resurgence and how we are really in real good shape 
right now. I want to just show you a chart that I had made up. It gives 
you an example of the economic success of America under the Bush 
administration.

                              {time}  2130

  Let us go down memory lane. Under the administration of Bush 41, the 
Dow went up 10.1 percent. Under President Clinton's first Presidency, 
19.6 percent. Second Clinton Presidency, 12.3 percent. Negative. Three 
percent under this President's first term; now two-tenth's of 1 
percent. Literally, President Clinton's Dow went up 225 percent; and 
under this President, the Dow has gone up 3 percent. Not exactly a 
stellar record in terms of improving the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is no doubt about it, and here is where not 
only the Dow is not growing at the clip we need it to, this is where 
the tax cuts are going.
  And I think we have to make this point. We talk about health care and 
education, and the Democrats have talked about how we have reformed 
those systems, not talking just throwing money at them, but we need new 
innovative progressive ways of educating our kids and delivering health 
care. The Democrats have a plan to do that. These are good investments.
  The gentlewoman was talking about the millions of kids who do not 
have

[[Page H12157]]

health insurance and how people in her community are smart enough to 
know we need to do that. Those kids end up in the emergency room much 
sicker than they would be if they had some preventive care. What we are 
advocating for is to make sure we provide this kind of care for those 
kids, to make sure we save the taxpayer money in the long run.
  So as this is probably our last 30-something for 2005, Happy 
Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Merry Christmas.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A joyous holiday season.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Have a very happy, joyous holiday season, because 
we are all Americans. And I would like to now give the e-mail address 
here: [email protected]. That is 30, the number, 
[email protected].
  Does the gentleman from Florida have any final words to share with 
the American people and his colleagues?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, first Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I look forward to coming back and joining my 
colleagues in the 30-something Working Group next year.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to say to my colleagues here, and 
Mr. Spratt, who was here earlier, that it has definitely been a great 
joy and honor to be a part of this group that we have that is working 
so hard, and also Mr. Delahunt and many other members of the 30-
something Working Group. On behalf of all of us, we want to thank not 
only the Speaker-to-be, hopefully in the next Congress, Leader Pelosi, 
but also our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer. And I want to congratulate Mr. 
Bob Menendez on being appointed to the Senate in the very near future, 
and also to Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And also Mr. Tom Manatos, who keeps us all together 
down here. Tom, you are the man.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And, Mr. Speaker, we wish you a Merry Christmas, 
too, sir.

                          ____________________