[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1136-H1143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hare). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here once again to continue the discussion of the 30-
something Working Group. We want to thank Speaker
[[Page H1137]]
Pelosi for the honor to be on the House floor.
We actually had one of our newer Members, Mr. Speaker, make page 3.
He is still a freshman, but he made significant advances. This is Jason
Altmire, Mr. Speaker, from western Pennsylvania. His district abuts
mine. His picture, name, pressing our leadership to make sure that we
increase funding in the CR for veterans, to make sure that we did not
accept any pay raise until the American people get their pay raise
through the minimum wage. So we already have young leaders stepping up
to bat contributing in their first term here.
I have got to say, Mr. Speaker, it has just been I actually think in
many ways pathetic to listen to the debate here today over the
continuing resolution. We all know the political situation over the
past, you know, 14 years, Republican control in the Congress, and their
inability in the last several years to govern at all. And they have
locked out the Democrats for years and years and years.
Votes in the wee hours of the morning on the prescription drug
benefit, on the energy bill, on budgets, which raided student aid money
for students all across our country; and then, on top of all of that,
they leave the new Democratic majority an absolute budget catastrophe
for us to deal with.
Over the course of those 14 years, the Republican Congress and the
Republican President borrowed more money, more money from foreign
interests than all of the previous Presidents combined. So now we are
going to get lectures from the Republican majority on how to run the
budget process. Now we are going to get lectures from the most
incompetent, ineffective Congress in the history of this institution,
Mr. Speaker, the history of this institution.
This party will not be lectured about veterans' benefits, we will not
be lectured to by the Republican minority about how to balance a
budget, and we will not be lectured to about investments in this
country.
You look at this CR and you look what we put in. We are not going to
be lectured to by anybody. We made promises and accomplished more in
the last few hundred hours of this Congress than that Republican
majority has in the last 14 years. We implemented PAYGO so we will
balance the budget.
We made some difficult decisions with the CR so we can move forward,
and we are not going to be lectured to. Because we have made promises,
and we have delivered.
Now just look at the first hundred hours, Mr. Speaker, just the first
hundred hours. We cut student loan interest rates in half. Once fully
implemented, it will save the average person taking out a loan almost
$5,000.
We raised the minimum wage. We allowed the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the Medicare
recipients. We repealed the corporate welfare to the energy companies
that that majority, Republican majority put in place; and we are taking
that money and investing it into alternative energy sources. We are
doing things positive for the American people.
And we are going to inherit this budget, which we already have, that
has borrowed more money from China, borrowed more money from Japan,
borrowed money from OPEC countries, incapable of executing FEMA to
address natural disasters and emergency situations in the United
States. We know how to run Government.
When the Democrats passed the budget in 1993 with the Democratic
President, created 20 million new jobs, we had surpluses as far as the
eye can see. So we are cleaning up a mess here that we have inherited,
and we are going to move forward and continue with our agenda, and we
are proud.
We are going to move forward, and we have an agenda. We have moved on
it. We promised it. We acted on it. And we are going to continue to
move on it.
I will yield to our young, new rising star from western Pennsylvania,
Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk for just a moment about
how important it is that veterans were taken care of in this continuing
resolution.
I do want to commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and the rest of
the Democratic leadership who did a great job of putting together what
was a mess that was left to us.
As Mr. Ryan talked about, we had nine out of eleven appropriations
bills to fund this Government that were left in our lap, and we had to
deal with that, and we had some tough decisions to make. But under the
leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey we did what needed to be
done.
I made clear to the leadership, and they agreed, that we needed to
make sure that nobody should stand in front of our veterans when it
comes time to pass funding resolutions. We have people fighting for us
in the field overseas right now. We have veterans coming back from Iraq
and, of course, veterans of every age.
That need does not go away. That need does not stop. As the
Congressional Budget Office has indicated, the cost of caring for those
veterans goes up year after year; and we have an obligation and a duty
as Members of Congress to make sure that the VA health care budget goes
up enough to maintain the current level of services for every veteran
that walks through the door. I want to commend Chairman Obey for taking
care of that under this continuing resolution.
I also wanted to just take a walk down memory lane and let's take a
look at what the Republican leadership did for veterans' health care
over the past several years.
I have a chart here. It might be difficult for some to read.
January, 2003, the Bush administration cut veterans' health care for
164,000 veterans; and that is just the start.
March, 2003, 2 months later, the Republican budget that passed this
Congress cut $14 billion from veterans' health care.
March, 2004, 1 year later, the Republican budget shortchanged
veterans' health care by an additional $1\1/2\ billion.
March, 2005, the following year, President Bush's budget shortchanged
veterans' health care by another $2 billion and cut veterans' benefits
by $14 billion over 5 years. That is what we were left with.
Now, in the summer of 2005, after they had been warned when they
passed that budget back in 2004 and after enormous pressure from the
Democrats and from people around this country and especially from
veterans' organizations, the Bush administration finally did
acknowledge that they shortchanged the veterans; and they added back
$2.7 billion after months of Democratic pressure to put that money back
in.
But then only a few months later, in March, 2006, President Bush's
budget cut veterans' funding by an additional $6 billion over 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, that is the mess that we were left with, this continuing
resolution, and that was what needed to be resolved. And I said
throughout my campaign and I say every weekend when I go back and speak
to these veterans' groups that we are, as a Congress, going to make a
new commitment to our veterans, a commitment that has not been there
for the past 12 years; and we are going to put veterans' interests
first when it comes time to deal with these funding resolutions.
So what did we do? In this continuing resolution that passed this
House today, the Democrats increased the VA health care budget by $3.6
billion. Now that is in an atmosphere of having left nine spending
bills completely undone, and the Republican leadership made no effort
to increase that funding. But we found the will, as Democrats, and we
added $3.6 billion to the veterans' budget.
That is leadership; and for that I commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman
Obey and the rest of the Democratic leaders who were involved in
putting that together. That is what we have done here today.
So, at this point, I am going to yield to the gentleman from Ohio so
he can continue to run the show.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield the remainder of the hour to Ms.
Wasserman Schultz. I need to step out. I will be back, but I would like
to yield the rest of the hour to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
{time} 1815
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hare). Under the Speaker's announced
[[Page H1138]]
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) is recognized for the balance of the majority leader's hour.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, I want to tell a little story
because I am really pleased that you raised this issue, and that you
have been the champion of ensuring that we don't, as we move through
what is an unfortunate but necessary situation with this continuing
resolution, I want to tell anyone listening a little story about an
exchange that you and I had the other day on the House floor.
I have the privilege of serving as a Chief Deputy Whip for the House
Democratic Caucus, and you are one of my assignments. We divide the
House Democratic Caucus members up into groups, and you are included
among the Members that I am typically engaged in lobbying. And when I
approached you about whether you were going to be supportive of the
continuing resolution that we voted on today, your immediate response,
which was the right one, was, well, not if we are cutting money for
veterans. And I was really proud that you did that and that you were
absolutely not going to move forward on your support for the continuing
resolution unless you were able to get the information that you needed
to ensure that, in fact, not only were we not cutting funding for
veterans but, we in fact, increased funding for veterans. And so the
notation in your hometown paper was apt and appropriate, and I commend
you for your advocacy because that is what this is all about.
The new direction that the American people demanded, that they chose
on November 7 included selecting people like you to send to Washington
to make sure that when there was no one standing up, we certainly were
all standing up united as a minority; but that there were not enough
people in this body standing up for veterans. On the contrary, as you
just outlined through the charts in a chronological way, the
Republicans and the Republican administration were doing the opposite,
were actually making it more difficult for veterans to get the services
that they need and that they were entitled to and that they deserved
through their patriotism and devotion to this country. So I commend you
on that.
We were in a situation in adopting the continuing resolution today
that was the result of the mess, as you said, that the Republicans
handed us. I mean, how irresponsible to just not complete nine of the
11 appropriations bills. I sit on the House Appropriations Committee
now. I am just at the beginning of that process, but it is mind
boggling to me, how, really, I mean, the Constitution says the only
thing we have to do, the only thing Congress has to do is pass the
budget. And they didn't do it. They didn't do it because it is hard. It
is difficult. You have to make tough decisions. And you know, right up
in front of an election, where they were struggling as it was, they
didn't want to make those difficult decisions. And we have a lot of our
Members, some in tough districts that are going to have to go home and
have to answer some difficult questions, because obviously, you know,
we didn't like everything that we had to do. But if we didn't go
forward and try to get to the 2008 budgetary process and make sure we
could do right by the people in this country, then we would have been
in an even worse mess.
So kudos to you for standing up for veterans and for adding another
voice on their behalf where there wasn't one before.
And if the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) wanted to jump in
I would be happy to yield to him.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for yielding.
One of the things I realized when I came down here in January was
that you get a lot of analogies, and some of them work, some of them
don't. But listening to our colleagues criticize the budget, the
continuing resolution we just passed here, you kind of think of the old
``bull in the china shop'' analogy.
This is kind of like the bull walking into the china shop spending a
good half an hour breaking everything in the china shop; the owner
finally having the good sense to kick him out, and then him showing up
about 2 days later and asking why everything hasn't been fixed yet. I
mean, that is essentially, what has happened here is that there has
been so much damage, Mr. Speaker, done to this budget by virtue of nine
of the 11, nine of the 11 appropriations bills not being completed by
the end of business.
And an important thing to note is that, you know, Congress was back
here in the holiday season in November and December trying to finish
those budget bills. And I am just learning, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
about the budget process, but from what I know, November, December is
pretty late to be even working on those budget bills. Those budget
bills were supposed to be done over the summer and fall. And so even
giving themselves an extra 4 or 5 months to complete those bills, they
still weren't done on time.
And so when the Democrats finally were put back in charge of this
place by virtue of the millions of Americans who stood up across this
country to start putting common sense middle class values first, the
people who put Mr. Altmire and myself here in Congress, when they
finally, we finally sort of reentered the china shop and realized that
everything had been broken, we realized it was going to take a little
while to clean everything up. And what we did today, this continuing
resolution which keeps this government running for the next several
months, is an important first step because there are some critical
programs, veterans benefits at the top of that list, Mr. Altmire, that
are funded here.
What else are we talking about? We are talking about Pell grants.
Even after coming before this body and, with remarkable bipartisan
support, decreasing the rate of student loans for millions of students
across this country, we came back in this budget, we increased the
maximum Pell grant by $260, to over $4,000, $4,300 for the average
student.
We put in new money or in schools that are failing to meet the Head
Start standards. Mr. Altmire, you know that both of us heard so much
about that from our school districts over the course of the campaign
and over the course of the last month. Now, 6,700 schools across this
country that are failing to meet those No Child Left Behind standards
are going to get new funding from this government in order to keep on
operating.
We increased community health center funding by $207 million.
Community health centers in this very broken health care system are
sometimes the place of last resort, often the place of only resort for
so many uninsured families. We are now going to make sure that they get
the funding that they deserve.
So in so many ways we started to clean up the mess that that bull
made for the last 12 years. We are starting to put the china back
together. We are starting to buy a little bit of new stuff to put on
the shelves. And it is going to take a little while. It is going to
take a little while.
But it is important to remember that the work we did here today, I
think, is just a beginning on that front, Mr. Altmire. And I join Ms.
Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan in commending you for standing up for
the veterans in your district, because when you speak for those
veterans, it is not just in your district, it is for all the veterans
in my district and, as an extension, it is for all the future veterans,
because as you know, we are so lucky to have an all volunteer military.
But if they think that by going into the service they will return
home and find a country and a Nation that does not honor their service,
well, then we are going to have a lot harder time than we are already
having finding people to fight the future battles and wars that this
country may engage in.
I would yield. I see Mr. Meek has joined us. But I would yield to Mr.
Altmire and thank him again for his advocacy over the past several
weeks.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And I did want to follow up on what the gentlelady from
Florida had talked about earlier, what was left to us, and the reason
that it was left to us. This was a politically, cowardly maneuver,
calculated to gamble on the outcome of the elections. They left nine
spending bills unfinished, hoping that they would then win and come
back for a lame duck session where they could ram through further
spending increases and increase the
[[Page H1139]]
Federal budget deficit even more, as they have done every year for the
past 6 years. Instead, the results of the election were not to their
liking.
The Democrats are retaking control of Congress at that point, and
they made a calculated decision. Instead of finishing the work that
their constituents sent them here to do, they, instead, dropped the
ball and left all nine spending bills until the new year and the new
Congress, and countless programs languishing, twisting in the wind
while the new change in Congress came.
And again, under the leadership of the new Democrats who have taken
control of Congress, we were able to pass, within a month, nine
appropriation bills that they couldn't pass over the course of an
entire year.
So I can't say enough about the work that this House has done and
that this Congress has done in putting together a package that was
very, very difficult to do, and it is just a great accomplishment.
Mr. Meek has joined us. I would ask, does the gentleman wish to
comment on this?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am listening.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, let me just jump in while the
gentleman from Florida is listening, because one of the things I think
it is important to point out is when we talk in the language of
government, it is difficult for regular folks to understand what we are
saying. So we are talking about the CR, the continuing resolution, the
terminology that we deal with on a daily basis. But that is not what
sort of every day folks understand.
And the continuing resolution, it is important to point out, is the
budget, the Federal budget that keeps the lights on. And people will
recall a number of years ago when the Republican Congress decided that,
in retaliation for who knows what, because they couldn't get the
Clinton administration to agree to what they wanted, because they
thought that brinksmanship was the most appropriate strategy, they shut
the government down. People were furloughed. Government programs that
were vitally important to different constituencies around the country
came to a halt.
What we have done is, and Chairman Obey has been the champion of
this. What we have done is, not only have we made sure that that
doesn't happen, because brinksmanship and engaging in irresponsible
actions like that make no sense, we have made some difficult decisions.
But we haven't made irrational decisions that would be harmful to
people.
For example, we could have passed a continuing resolution that simply
adopted the 2006 spending levels, the same spending levels that we had
in 2006 and just moved forward. But that would have resulted, as you
pointed out for veterans, in some cuts. And in our discussion on the
floor the other day, you pointed out that unless there were increases,
essentially, because of inflation, because of the adjustments in cost
of living that are necessary, and because there are simply more people,
more service men and women who are in need, we would not have had the
money we needed to meet the needs of veterans.
But beyond that, let me just talk about what, because our good
friends on the other side of the aisle are, of course, being critical
that we didn't just pass a straight continuing resolution. Let's talk
about what that would have done. Essentially, that would have
jeopardized our national security. If we did that, if we simply passed
the same level budget that we adopted in 2006, that would have resulted
in thousands of layoffs, cuts for health care workers, cuts for members
of the Armed Forces, cuts for veterans.
For example, the Food Safety and Inspection Service would face a
month of furloughs. Can you imagine a month of furloughs in the Food
Safety and Inspection Service? That means that we could end up with
rotting meat in supermarkets and people potentially buying them. Or
let's not use language that is too strong. Questionable meat. I mean,
if we don't make sure that we have our food inspected, then we are
going to jeopardize people's health. That would have also resulted in
the closure of 6,000 meat processing plants that could not have been
inspected.
The Federal Judiciary would have had to fire 2,500 workers. The Small
Business Administration, and Mr. Meek, this is incredibly important to
our area because how often we face natural disasters through
hurricanes. But the Small Business Administration's disaster loan
assistance program, which provides back up for FEMA's individual
assistance program, that would have been run dry by the end of
February.
Now, given how many people are still suffering from the aftermath of
Katrina and Rita and Wilma and the other hurricanes and the other
natural disasters that have hit around this country, I just cannot
imagine what the consequences would have been. Actually, I can imagine
what the consequences would have been for millions of Americans.
So we struck a balance here. We were being fiscally responsible, but
at the same time, not hanging Americans out to dry without regard for
their well-being. And that is what the Democratic Caucus's approach
always is. You have to think about the fact that all of the decisions
that we make here, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Meek, affect real
people.
I have often thought over the time I have served in the Congress and
in the State Legislature in Florida, in Florida, and I am not sure how
far your State capital is in Connecticut from your home, Mr. Murphy,
but Tallahassee is 450 miles from where I live. And I served in the
State Legislature for 12 years. Mr. Meek, I think, served in the State
Legislature for 10, between the House and the Senate. It is so easy, I
mean, we are obviously even further away from our homes, I certainly
am. But you are pretty far from your homes, too, making decisions in
Washington. And it could be argued that it would be so easy to make
decisions in a vacuum here. The people we affect, whose decisions that
we make, who we affect, they can't come in this Chamber. They are not
in the room with us. The folks in the gallery are that are watching,
but it would be so easy to just forget that every decision, every vote,
every time we put our card in that slot and our name lights up on the
board ``yea'' or ``nay,'' the decision we make affects a human being.
{time} 1830
But you become desensitized to it. There is a danger that you could
become desensitized to it. Certainly the Republican side of the aisle
became desensitized to it. For years and years, they didn't think about
the results, they didn't think about the consequences. Well, that is
the balance the Democrats strike. Pragmatism with a healthy dose of
thoughtfulness and compassion. That is what it is all about.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Would the gentlewoman yield for a moment?
And I think she is exactly right, and I think that that disconnect that
you talk about, that certainly was in existence here for a very long
time was one of the reasons why we now have a Democratic majority. The
people last summer were fueling up their cars at $3.50 a gallons. We
are finding that all of a sudden, they were having to pay $50 co-pays
rather than $25 co-pays. And they looked at a Congress which seemed
pretty incredulous to their concerns, that seemed to watch without
listening. And you are right, people get hurt by the decisions they
make down here. And I will give you an example.
In my district I have a senior housing complex in Torrington, major
place where a lot of seniors live in one of the biggest cities in my
district, and we have had some security problems there, some people
coming in off the streets and had a couple violent incidents. Well,
most of the facility and the staff there are financed through Federal
grants. Well, because this Congress, over the last 12 years, slashed
Federal housing funds to the bone, they have had to make major layoffs
at that housing complex.
In fact, it finally came down to a very difficult but unfortunately
necessary decision that that housing facility made to lay off their
security guards. That is going to put hundreds of senior citizens at
risk in this senior housing complex. And they come to their local
elected officials, their State-elected officials and ask, what can you
do to help? And everybody points back to where the problem came
[[Page H1140]]
from. It was years of neglect down here in Washington of housing
programs, just as there were years of neglect years to health care
programs, years of neglect to defense and certain national security
programs.
And in order to reinstill that commitment to the seniors of
Torrington, to those veterans in Pennsylvania, it is going to take a
little while.
But if you are back in your communities, if you are talking to
people, regular middle-class, working folks people, you will hear those
stories on how the votes we take here affect people back in
Connecticut, back in Florida, back in Pennsylvania. And for some
reason, whether it was the power that went to people's head, whether it
was the pomp and circumstance that surrounds being a Member of
Congress, for some reason, over the last 12 years, and in particular, I
think, Mr. Altmire, over the past 4, 5, or 6 years, there was a wall
that was put up around Washington, D.C., and folks that were
controlling the committees here and the budget here just were not
listening to people back in State of Connecticut, State of
Pennsylvania, Florida, and throughout this country, because if they
did, they would know we have to put more money in housing.
If they listened to those veterans that you and I talk to every day
at people's doors, they would know that men and women who came back
from Iraq, came back from Vietnam, World War II veterans are
struggling. And what we are now doing here in starting to clean up that
mess is also to start listening again. And I believe Ms. Wasserman
Schultz is very correct on that notion.
I yield to Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you so very much. You know, I don't put
a lot of value in folks coming down to the floor sharing inaccurate
information. And it is very unfortunate, because one thing that I can
say here of the 30-something Working Group, we actually meet off the
floor and we make sure, Mr. Speaker, that information that we are
sharing is factual, that it is factual and that if someone wants to
challenge us on that particular fact, they can go to the Congressional
Record, they can go to the Library of Congress, what have you. It is
there. Or they can go to a piece of legislation.
To come down and make statements that could mislead Members of
Congress or could mislead the American public, I think that it is very
unfortunate and it is something that should be frowned upon. But I
guess the only good reason why I can come up with the reason why some
Members on the minority side will come to the floor and make some
inaccurate statements of the essence of the continuing resolution
today, I go back to what I have been talking about for the last 2 weeks
and that is the bipartisanship that has been taking place here on this
floor.
If I was a part of the Republican leadership, I would be concerned,
too. I would wonder how would the American people think, I mean, what
would they think, Democrat or Republican, on how Democrats can be in
control of the House and then, at the same time, have this
bipartisanship taking place with Democrats in control. Let me just
clarify what I am saying.
Time after time, Republicans are voting with Democrats on good
measures. Today, this continuing resolution was a good piece of
legislation. It wasn't a partisan vote. It shouldn't have been a
partisan vote. Two hundred twenty-nine Democrats voted for the
continuing resolution; 57 Republicans voted for the continuing
resolution. We should all be on the floor happy that we can come
together on a piece of legislation that is so important to the country.
What is the alternative? The government shutting down? We don't want
that.
I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I have a question. Does the gentleman know off the top
of his head, with the major legislation that we passed in the 100 hours
and what we have done subsequent to that, including the continuing
resolution, approximately how many Republicans we have seen cross the
aisle and join us in a bipartisan manner?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I don't have my notes right here. If you have it
handy, go ahead and answer the question.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows,
I do know that we got an average of 62 Republicans to vote with the
Democrats on the Six-in-'06 agenda on making sure that the Federal
Government can negotiate for lower prices for the Medicare part D
prescription drug plan; making sure that we fully implement the 9/11
Commission Report; making sure that we repeal the subsidies to the oil
industry; making sure that we do the job that the people sent us here
to do and that they spoke so strongly about through their vote on
November 7. An average of 62 Republicans voted with us on each of those
items.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And then today 57 more, as the gentleman said. I didn't
mean to put the gentleman on the spot, but I wanted to just reemphasize
the point that he was making that this is not a partisan majority
ramming it down the throat of the Republicans. This is working in a
bipartisan spirit, something that has not been seen in this Congress
for more than 12 years. And here we are, the end of our first month in
office, we passed another major piece of legislation joined by 57
Members on the other side. And the gentleman is right that this is
something that we should be applauding. And this is new to Congress.
This is not something that has happened recently.
So I would hate for people on the other side during the debate to
characterize this as a partisan bill and a partisan effort. It is not.
We again, with an average of 62 Republicans, 57 again today, have done
this in a bipartisan way, crafting it so that all sides can support it,
because we all agree that we need to do things that are to the
betterment of the American people and to the benefit of the American
people.
I would yield again to the gentleman from Florida to continue, but I
did want to just reemphasize that point.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is no problem at all. Clarification is very,
very important in this process. And the Republican leadership seems to
continue to have a problem with the bipartisan spirit that is in the
Chamber now, because in the last Congress that wasn't the case; in the
Congress before that, that wasn't the case. There were partisan votes
every day. I mean, it was almost like, how can we send a bill to the
floor to make the Democrats vote against the bill versus for the bill?
And one of the things that the American people want is for us to work
together. We are all Americans. We salute one flag. We walk into this
Chamber, we all carry one voting card. And I think that is important.
But to the point, to show the difference between us and others that
may come to the floor sharing this information off the cuff, and Ms.
Wasserman Schultz is 110 percent right and accurate as it relates to
the percentage, but she named off a piece of legislation that
Republicans and Democrats voted for: 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Act, 68 Republicans voted for it, 231 Democrats voted for it, which was
299 total for us to pass it. The Fair Minimum Wage, 82 Republicans
voted for it, 233 Democrats voted for it, and brought the vote to 315.
We looked at the issue of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; 37
Republicans, 216 Democrats brought that vote to 253, which was in the
affirmative. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiating Act, 24
Republicans, 231 Democrats, 255, to make it an affirmative vote. And
the College Student Relief Act, 124 Republicans, 232 Democrats, that
brought that vote to 356.
These are major, major, major issues that are facing the country,
issues that have been clogged up in the Republican Congress, 109th,
108th, 107th, 105th Congress. And now the American people said they
wanted to move in a new direction and we are moving in that direction.
And, unfortunately, there are some Members of Congress on the
Republican side of the aisle that have a problem with that.
I told you that I am all excited, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz can tell
you, Mr. Ryan can tell you: Lead us the opportunity to lead and we will
lead.
Mr. Ryan how, many times: If you give us the opportunity to be in the
leadership of the House of Representatives you will be served? West
Coast.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Put me in, Coach.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Put me in, Coach. The Heartland of America, East
Coast, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, thinking about
[[Page H1141]]
voting, now voting. You do it, we will make it happen, and it is
happening.
So you have some that come to the floor and talk about, well, you
know, this is not happening and I voted against it because I didn't get
2 hours to speak independently on the floor against it, and that is the
reason why I voted against it.
I just want to lay it out because I want to make sure that the
Members know and the American people know that it is just Washington
rhetoric. We are here making it happen. We are happening.
I yield to my good friend.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate my good from Miami, Florida yielding
to me.
The funny part watching the debate today was that the other side,
because they had the opportunity for so long to pass so many of these
pieces of legislation and to get them through the Senate and get them
signed by the President and they didn't take advantage of it, that they
have very little credibility in dealing with the issue of the fact that
we are actually doing this stuff.
And so I agree with my friend Mr. Meek; it has been exciting. This is
great. This is good stuff. You guys are reading the increases and the
different programs. And, as Mr. Obey said, this is a thinking man's
document.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, just the way you are going back and
forth on the Republican's response to the process, you know, it is just
really, gosh, I can't say what comes to mind. It is galling. It really
is galling that they do have nerve to talk about process.
Because just in my 2 years of experience, and certainly two wrongs
don't make a wrong, but there is no second wrong here. I mean, in my
experience in the last 2 years, and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, you have had
more experience and more lengthy experience than I and Mr. Altmire and
Mr. Murphy have had, but I recall votes being held open for 40 minutes
to several hours to twist enough arms to get the votes. We, of course,
haven't had to do that because not only do we get all of our Members to
vote for our legislation, but we get a good chunk if not, and in one
case, a majority of theirs.
I remember being shut out, completely shut out on every major
question over the last 2 years, no amendments allowed, no commentary
except in a token way. And now they are whining about process?
You know, the small point I wanted to make, and Mr. Altmire, you are
a dad, you have young kids; I am a mom, I have young kids; Mr. Meek has
young kids, and some day Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ryan, I am sure you will
have young kids too.
But you know, when your kids whine at you and complain about
something that you know is just their immaturity, their wishing
something could be the case, but when they get a little older they will
realize that they were wrong? That is what this is.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. What is it? You are saying, what is it? Just
tell us.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is nerve is what it is. It is just pure
unadulterated nerve. The American people see through this. They don't
have any substance to talk about. They can only whine about process.
{time} 1845
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The interesting part here is the CR that we passed
today was to clean up their mess that they left. They only passed one
out of 13 appropriations bills.
So you can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden they leave all
of this mess for us to deal with and we try to deal with their mess and
they want input. Well, you had your chance. You had 14 years and all
kinds of months last year to pass this stuff, and you didn't do it.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think they should have their say. I really
do. Going forward, when we hear legislation and get into the regular
order, we have markups in committee hearings and legislation that
Members file, we will do that. But we are still cleaning up their mess.
The Six in '06 agenda is an agenda of the major issues that the
American people voted for us to come here and do that we offered as
amendments.
We offered the minimum wage, we offered fully implementing the 9/11
Commission recommendations, and through all of the other procedural
attempts we made within the confines of their limiting us, we offered
repealing the subsidies to the oil industry.
We offered legislation and amendments that would have the student
loan interest rate and make higher education access more affordable.
And they said no. They said no, no, no, over and over and over again.
Sorry, now it is our turn. It is time to implement the agenda that
the American people asked us to. It is time to clean up their mess.
Mr. Ryan, going forward, I am all for what Speaker Pelosi has said
that we will do, which is give them the most bipartisan House of
Representatives that history has ever seen. But the mess has to be
cleaned up before we can do that.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You and Mr. Ryan are members of the powerful
Appropriations Committee; and, today, watching Mr. Obey, the chairman,
and seeing what he was able to do in moving this continuing resolution,
which is the appropriations act which funds the government, to see that
happen and to understand the history of it. Because when the
Republicans took over in 1995 or 1994, went into power in 1995, they
didn't have to deal with a continuing resolution because Mr. Obey and
the Appropriations Committee passed all of their bills on time. They
didn't leave unfinished business for the Republican Congress.
And, guess what, they also had a surplus as far as the eye could see.
So whatever idea we wanted to implement, we had the money to do it
because we had managers in this House of Representatives under
Democratic leadership to make sure that the country was in the black
and in good standing and did not have bad credit and did not owe
foreign nations $1.05 trillion.
Then the Republican leadership comes in here and they hand things
out, special projects, bridges to nowhere, all of these big items, and
then come to the floor and grab it. That's fine.
The reason I am happy today is today is the beginning of getting the
Appropriations Committee and this House in order and getting us on
track under regular order. And I will guarantee as sure as my name is
Kendrick Meek that the 2008 appropriations act will pass on time. There
will be hearings. We will look at every project and make sure that
everything is in order, because American taxpayer dollars are going
towards those projects.
Very few appropriations committees met. They hardly met. Why do you
want to ask questions and have hearings? As I said, the Foreign Affairs
Committee only had one hearing on Iraq. They have had five thus far in
this Congress, and counting.
So I feel very confident about the fact that we are talking about our
vision and the leadership; B, we are pointing out the difference
between some of the Members on the minority side that want to continue
to carry out the old way and the Members on the minority side that want
to move in a new direction. I am glad that they are there.
My last point, we have five Members in the majority here on a
Wednesday afternoon when we are going to recess for the week that has
the will and the desire. We have the will and desire to continue to let
the American people and the Members know that we want to lead and we
want to lead this country in a new direction and we want to work in a
bipartisan way.
We could be home. We could be somewhere else. My kids are back in the
cloakroom right now. I could be having dinner with them. But this is
important. I want them to know, and when historians look at what was
happening during a time when we had two wars going on, we have a
President wanting to escalate with troops and the American people
saying we don't want it, we have the country in a deficit, and then we
have Members here crying about a project was cut out of the bill and I
am upset about it.
I am glad, ladies and gentlemen, that we are here on this floor, and
I am glad that we are representing on behalf of the American people. We
are not the Democratic National Committee. We are Members of Congress.
And it should not be the Republican National Committee, it should be
Members of Congress. That is what makes this House
[[Page H1142]]
work, and that is the reason why it worked today on the continuing
resolution.
I am very happy that we did pass this continuing resolution. I am so
glad that 57 Republicans joined Democrats in passing this continuing
resolution, because it is showing that we are actually moving in a new
direction, not just Democrats are moving in a new direction, but the
U.S. House of Representatives is.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you, Mr. Meek,
on behalf of my constituents and the people throughout this country for
the vigilance that you and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan showed
for the last 2 years, and in your case longer than that. There were a
lot of things you could be doing late at night when Mr. Altmire and I
might have caught you on TV into the wee hours. But you were out here
spreading the message that it was time for working class, regular folks
throughout this country to have their day here again. There had been
enough time for the special interests and lobbyists and everyone else
to have their day in Congress. It was time for regular people to have
their day in the people's House.
I want to add something. We use this term ``Republican leadership,''
and I think that is important. Because one of the things that you have
figured out over the last couple of weeks is that there is a difference
between the Republican leadership and a lot of the rest of the folks in
the Republican Party.
Maybe I should be careful to not give too much credit to the other
side. But it seems like on every measure the Republican leadership
trots out and says, the Republicans are going to be against raising the
minimum wage, and they turn around to see who is following. And, guess
what, they vote for it.
The Republican leadership says, we are going to be against cutting
the student loan interest rates. They run out here and turn around to
see who is following them, and there are even more of their colleagues
voting with the Democrats.
They say, this process is broken, we are going to vote against this
continuing resolution, and they turn around, and there are 50-some-odd
of their Members supporting it.
Why? Because, on average, we had 60-some-odd votes for every piece of
the 100 hours agenda from the Republican side and 50-plus votes for the
continuing resolution.
Why do you have so many Republican votes? Because there are
Republicans, just as there are Democrats, who are in touch with their
constituents. When they go home for weekends, they hear about the
struggles that middle-class families are going through to pay for
health care and education.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to
interject on that point.
Because the funny thing, ironically funny, about what you are talking
about, where we have an average of 62 Republicans supporting the Six in
'06 agenda and 57 supporting the continuing resolutions appropriations
bill today, the last 2 years, our experience, Mr. Ryan's, Mr. Meek's
and my experience, is watching the Republican leadership wrench our
colleagues's arms behind their back; and, in many cases, new Members
replaced those Members. Those Members caved. Those Members either
didn't vote their conscience.
We used to talk about, in the 30-something hour, about how it seemed
they checked their consciences and their beliefs and their
constituents' beliefs at the door. They would come here and allow
themselves to be influenced by their leadership and vote differently in
some cases than they publicly said they would vote.
I think that actually happened with your predecessor, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. That's right. I think what happened here
for the last 12 years, the agenda on the House floor was a Republican
agenda. Republicans supported it, and they twisted some Republican arms
to support it.
The agenda that is now before the House of Representatives is a
people's agenda. That is why you see Republicans and Democrats
supporting it. Because the agenda doesn't have to do with somebody on
the seventh floor of the Republican National Committee or somebody on
the third floor of the Democratic National Committee. The agenda has to
do with the people that we meet at the diner and the senior housing
center.
That is why I think for the next 2 years, I know for the next 2
years, we are going to see Republicans and Democrats coming together.
Because this isn't a party agenda anymore. This is a people's agenda.
That may sound corny, but it is probably the best way to articulate
what is happening here.
As a new Member, it fills me with joy and pride to be part of this.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Two things that we did not mention that were
also part of the Six in '06 agenda were ethics reform and the PAYGO
rules. Mr. Altmire, I know you have been a supporter of both of those
things.
We had a culture of corruption hanging over this institution and over
this Capitol, and we were able to adopt some ethics rules that make
sure that we can restore the American people's confidence in their
government again. That is what our freshman class on the Democratic
side ran on. One of the issues that they ran on was making sure that
they could inspire their constituents to believe in what we are doing
here again.
Mr. ALTMIRE. You are right. Those are the two things that we did the
very first couple of days, right after we swore in that new class of
freshmen and Democrats took control of Congress. We did away with the
gifts and travel and the golf outings and the meals that had been so
pervasive in Congress over the past several years.
More importantly to what we are talking about tonight, we
reinstituted the PAYGO budget scoring system. And for those Members who
talk to their constituents at home, it is what they do in their home
kitchens at the end of month. It is what we do when we have to balance
our own budgets. You have to have money on one side of the ledger to
pay for what goes out on the other side. It is a very simple concept.
Unfortunately, this Congress right after this President took office
decided to let that expire. That was required in Congresses past. But,
unfortunately, this administration had other ideas; and so they ran up
mountains of debt because they were no longer required to have money on
the other side of the ledger when they wanted to continue their free-
spending ways.
The result was when President Bush first took office he inherited 4
consecutive years of budget surpluses that were forecast to continue as
far as the eye could see. In fact, the 10-year budget projection was
$5.3 trillion, trillion, with a ``T,'' in surplus over the 10-year
period from 2001 to 2010.
Well, what has happened since then? They allowed pay-as-you-go to
expire. They have run up the deficit, $3.5 trillion of debt over the
past 6 years. The President next week is going to submit to us his
budget for fiscal year 2008. It is going to be his seventh consecutive
out-of-balance budget. Those deficits continue as far as the eye can
see.
What we did in the first week when Democrats took control of
Congress, we said, enough is enough. This must stop. We instituted the
PAYGO scoring system, which is what turned the record deficits of the
1980s into the record surpluses that we had in the 1990s.
Now that led us to have to make some very difficult decisions in the
continuing resolution that we passed today, but we have done it. We
have done the hard work. We have talked about the increases that were
included in the bill and the funding for veterans and for Pell Grants
and for the new expanded health centers that are going to serve 1.2
million patients around the country.
But I do want to make clear to everybody that this measure also
includes more than 60 different program cuts to help pay for that, to
help balance that situation.
{time} 1900
So those 60 programs were reduced below fiscal year 2006 funding
proposals, and that provided the $10 billion in savings that we needed
to offset those increases that we made in veterans health care and the
other programs that we talked about.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I find it very interesting as the debate progressed
today to hear all the conservatives who have been saying government's
too big and then they blew the budget completely out of balance,
borrowed money
[[Page H1143]]
from China and they are here complaining about all this government is
bad stuff, well, you are cutting this program and that program. That is
why I think they have lost a lot of credibility with the American
people, Mr. Speaker, is because there is no consistency with their
argument.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Consistency.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No consistency. What they said last year, they did
not do this year. What they did last year, they do not want us to do.
There is no consistency to their argument at all. Consistency is the
word for today, the lack thereof on the Republican side.
As we close, because I know we just have a few minutes left, and I
want to yield back to my friend from Florida, I think it is very
interesting what we are seeing happening already. We talked a lot in
the last couple of years about oversight and that when the Democrats
were in charge, Mr. Speaker, we were going to provide oversight.
Now, we start seeing things open up in Iraq, with all these
contracts, from all these big corporations who were getting all these
big government contracts, all of the sudden you are starting to see
come out of these committee hearings exactly what has been going on.
Now you are starting to see maybe the administration was strong arming
some scientists to spin global climate change data. You are starting to
see this all percolate up.
I think one of the other things we said we are going to do is execute
our constitutional obligation to provide oversight, and we are seeing
that, and we are seeing the results of that with the global warming,
with the war in Iraq, things happening, that didn't happen in Katrina,
all starting to rise up.
I want to thank the gentleman from the Pittsburgh area and the
gentleman from Connecticut, my two favorite people from Florida. I want
to thank you and I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her closing
remarks.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think your comments are a good segue to
where we should close which is that the Congress has now finally
reasserted our constitutional role to be a check, a check and a balance
over the other branches of government, particularly over the executive
branch in which that authority and oversight was completely ceded over
the last 12 years.
I sit on the House Judiciary Committee. We had an oversight committee
today on the presidential signing statement where the President, this
President in particular more than any other President combined, has
issued signing statements, his opinion and his interpretation of
legislation which is really the judicial branch's responsibility, that
he would just choose not to implement or implement in the way that he
wanted to, a particular section of law, wholly inappropriate.
Congress is back in our appropriate role, and I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about our Web site, but first to
the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just want to warn the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that you need to say both the e-mail address and the Web
site or you will be scolded by some of the more veteran Members of the
30 Something Group. So I want to give you that piece of advice as you
close.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut alerting me
to that.
For the Members who would like to tell the constituents how they can
learn something more about the 30 Something Working Group, I would
encourage them to e-mail us at [email protected] or they
can visit the Web site at www.speaker.gov/30something.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the 30 Something Working Group
appreciates the hour granted to us by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
____________________