Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 90 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6100-H6107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellsworth). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker; and it is an
honor to come to the floor once again. My good colleagues that have, we
come to the floor working on behalf of the 30-Something Working Group;
and I can just attest that it's just great to be an American and have
an opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas and concerns.
As you know, the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor to
shed light on the action of the House and to talk about this new
direction that we fought so hard for last November, especially on the
Democratic side of the aisle, to move this country in a new direction
and exactly what the American people have called for. So we're excited.
I'm glad to have Mr. Altmire and also Mr. Murphy here with me
tonight. And I know that Mr. Murphy has been pulling almost a double
duty here. I understand he was Acting Speaker a little earlier tonight.
And I had the opportunity, while you were in the Chair, to join
Speaker Pelosi celebrating her 20th year of public service, 20 years
here in the House. There were a number of great Speakers that were
there, honored her family for allowing her to serve this great country
of ours, and also recognizing the fact that she's history as being the
first female Speaker. But also there were people like Patti LaBelle
there, and just a really star-studded event. She deserves that honor
and that appreciation; and constituents also, I'm pretty sure, are
pretty happy and proud. All Americans are.
With that, I, of course, we, Mr. Speaker, we and mainly as of late,
talking about Iraq, and as we speak

[[Page H6101]]

here on the floor, there's a major debate going on just across the hall
in the Senate dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. Just in
the last 6 months, we have done so much and we've talked about so much
and we've taken action on so many different issues; and I know that Mr.
Murphy and Mr. Altmire and I will be addressing many of those issues
tonight.
This is our first time since the Memorial Day break, and I had a
wonderful opportunity to attend a NATO conference, parliamentary, that
the Speaker appointed me and I think 12 other Members of the House,
bipartisan, spent some time over in Portugal meeting with some of our
European Union partners there, and had the opportunity to go to Tunisia
to honor those World War II veterans that are, or honor those that paid
the ultimate sacrifice. It's the only U.S. cemetery on the continent of
Africa; and it was so very, very special and touching, just as an
American and as a Member of Congress, to go there and lay a wreath on
behalf of those that paid the ultimate sacrifice.
And then having, and still having, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to
come back here and join with my family, who's here in Washington, go
down to the World War II Memorial, which had Tunisia and all of the
different countries where World War II, we had fighting and men and
women lost their lives, to make that connection, all in a 5-day span,
is something great as an American.

{time} 2215

I just want to share that with the Members of the House. And we know
that one of our soldiers just today, one of the soldiers who was found
in Iraq was laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery, and we know that there
are two that are still missing of the recent ones that were missing
from the IED that exploded recently in Iraq. So we paid honor to those
that have paid the ultimate sacrifice and their families and also to
those veterans that served beside them. And it was such a great week,
and I know that many of the Members had an opportunity to go back to
their districts to celebrate the life of those that paid the ultimate
sacrifice.
With that, Mr. Murphy, I would like to yield to you, sir.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Florida for yielding.
You know, it is funny. This is my first time as a member of the 30-
Something Group, and I know I am the puppy of the group because I am
only 33 years old. So when I ran for Congress, I had tremendous support
from the network community, those bloggers out there all across
America. But there are bloggers, especially in Philadelphia and greater
Philadelphia and the suburbs that blog every day, and they got so
excited when the 30-Something Group was their voice when you were in
the minority. Your voice in talking about progressive values, talking
about the things in the New Direction, that if we were just given the
chance, we would lead. And when we got that chance just a few months
ago in the 110th Congress, those bloggers, that network community, are
just so proud of their efforts. And it is neat for me to be here to
think that when we had a rebirth in our country and Philadelphia, the
city of Philadelphia was part of that rebirth and to know that six of
the ten biggest bloggers in our country are from Philadelphia and the
Philadelphia suburbs. People like Chris Bowers of MyDD and Duncan Black
of Atrios and how they are following the 30-Something Group every day
and to be part of this group now is just a really proud moment.
And another proud moment that the gentleman from Florida mentioned is
the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the public service of
the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi from California. And when I
was in this body just a few months ago speaking and taking that oath of
office, taking that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States as a Member of Congress, and when I was there with my
wife, Jenni, and my 6-month old, at that time a month old, daughter,
Maggie Murphy, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that they are watching at home
on C-SPAN because I am down here trying to work on behalf of our great
country, I know that I was thinking of not just the folks that are over
in Iraq, those men that I served with or those men that I had taught
when I was a professor at West Point, but I thought about my month-old
daughter, Maggie, and I thought about what an incredible story it is
that when she was born into this great country, the third most powerful
person is a woman, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
And I thought about a role model. Here is this Italian Catholic woman
originally from Baltimore, now in San Francisco, and the criticism
about the Speaker before she got in here was that she wasn't going to
do a good job or she was going to lead from the left. She has really
made this a House united. She has reached across the aisle to the
Republicans. She has tried to lead in a moderate fashion, and I think
we have to give her a lot of credit. I know the analysts have said that
she is getting high marks as the Speaker, and I know that I am proud
that she is our Speaker and I am proud to serve under her leadership.
I will keep my remarks relatively brief. It is my maiden voyage here
with the 30-Something Group, and I am joined as well with one of my
brothers, the other Murphy, Chris Murphy, who is the elder statesman
from Connecticut, who is a whole, I think, 30 some days older than I
am, and I know tonight the Speaker Pro Tempore is the gentleman from
the great State of Indiana, the sheriff, but tonight I want to speak
about the New Direction that we are bringing about.
Finally, the rubber stamp Congress of the past is gone and the do
something Congress is here. And we all campaigned in saying that we
were going to hold President Bush accountable. And I had served in
Baghdad as a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division, and I am so proud
of my military service. My father served during Vietnam in the Navy. My
grandfather served. My brother is still serving in the Air Force. And I
think back to those times and what you come to expect of the Congress.
And our men and women who are serving so honorably fight for our
country. They fight to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and they execute the public policy as it is drafted and
implemented here in Washington.
And I know that I get e-mails from Iraq and Afghanistan and those
heroes talk about sometimes they don't know what the policy necessarily
should be, but what they do appreciate is the fact that we are actually
having a debate, that we are actually asking the tough questions
necessary. So when we talk about a New Direction in this 110th
Congress, when we talk about accountability, part of that is what we
just passed out of the Armed Services Committee with the defense
appropriations bill. Talking about in Iraq when we give the Iraqis
support, why is it that 4 years later they are still, for the most
part, sitting on the sidelines? Why is it that we gave them pallets and
pallets, crates and crates of literally U.S. money and pallets stacked
this high, shipped it over to Baghdad, gave it out, and billions and
billions of dollars are simply missing?
When we talk about accountability, we have to talk about the weapons
that we have given the Iraqis. In the United States military, and I
joined it back in 1993, we are taught pretty early that your weapon is
your best friend. There was even a cadence that I used to sing when I
would jog in the morning and run troops, ``I used to date a beauty
queen; now I date my M-16.'' And it is kind of funny, but it is true in
that you are always around your weapon. It is part of that
accountability. If you lose your weapon, that is the end of your
career. You will be lucky if you don't get court-martialed.

But how that relates to Iraq is we have given the Iraqis 14,000
weapons, AK-47s, M-16s, that are now missing. Think about that. We have
given 14,000 weapons to the Iraqis that are completely missing,
unaccounted for. That is not the accountability that our taxpayers are
expecting. That is not the accountability that we should be expecting
when we fight the war on terror because when you give billions of
dollars over in Iraq, when you give 14,000 weapons to Iraq that are now
just missing, that affects the lives of our soldiers. And we cannot
stand for that.
I would also like to talk about accountability when it comes to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Almost 6 years ago,

[[Page H6102]]

our Nation was attacked by Osama bin Laden. Thousands of innocent
civilians, innocent Americans were murdered on September 11 of 2001.
The culprit: Osama bin Laden. He was in Afghanistan. He trained al
Qaeda, and al Qaeda was really given a free pass by the government
there, the Taliban. And we made a decision. We got a coalition. We got
Canada and all these other countries going in there in Afghanistan to
do the job. And then a short time later, President Bush said, no, let's
change our focus to Iraq. Well, we have ten times more troops now in
Iraq now than in Afghanistan. And when we talk about accountability,
you have to ask the question, what are we doing to get Osama bin Laden?
Why is it that we give Pakistan billions of dollars? We actually give
Pakistan $80 million a month because we have intelligence that is
unclassified that we can talk about here in this setting that Osama bin
Laden is in Afghanistan and possibly on the border of Pakistan. So we
need Pakistan's help as an ally.
Why is it that President Musharraf has outsourced the hunt for Osama
bin Laden to his regional warlords?
Years ago we learned that we outsourced the hunt for Osama bin Laden
in Tora Bora and he slipped through our fingers when we had a chance.
We can't repeat the same mistakes. So if we are giving support to
Pakistan and Afghanistan, which we should, they are our allies, we need
to demand accountability. We need to demand the accountability that the
American taxpayers, that the American families, and that the American
soldiers deserve.
And the last point I would like to bring up on my maiden voyage here
in the 30-something Group is education. One of the greatest jobs I ever
had was being a professor at West Point teaching constitutional
military law. And it was the Constitution that those young cadets who
were about to become second lieutenants were going to take an oath to
support and defend. And education is vital for Americans and our
students to be more and more competitive in a global economy.
I joke with the gentleman from Florida we are not competing in my
district in Bucks County for jobs against Florida. As I look at Mr.
Altmire, we are not competing with the folks in Pittsburgh in Bucks
County. I look at the congressman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy). We are
not competing with jobs necessarily against the folks in Connecticut.
We are competing for jobs with people in China and South Korea and
Japan and in Europe. And we need to have high investment in education
so we remain more competitive.
And this gets me into our national debt. Right now our debt is over
$9 trillion. So that means every man, woman, and child in America owes
over $29,000 to our national debt. So that means when my daughter,
Maggie, was born 6 months ago at Lower Bucks Hospital in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, she was born in that hospital and she owed $29,000 to our
national debt. That is a debt that we owe to foreign countries like
communist China, like Japan, like South Korea, like Mexico. We keep
borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.
Now, when I am back home, people say to me, Patrick, we are at war.
Of course it is going to cost money.
And I say, $9 trillion we have in debt, $9 trillion; yet this war in
Iraq has only cost at this point about $450 billion. That is a huge
difference.
And how it relates to education is just in March of 2007, we paid $21
billion just that month on the interest rate to this debt, just paying
off the interest rate that we owe, $21 billion. But that same month we
only paid $5 billion in education. So what we spend on education, $5
billion, we spend four times that much that same month on our interest
rate on our debt.
We need a change and we are making that change happen here in the
110th Congress. And I am proud to be part of it. I am proud to be part
of the leadership to make sure we do what is necessary, establishing a
pay-as-you-go system, doing the things necessary to hold all of us
accountable and this government accountable.
So I would say to the gentleman of Florida, thank you for giving me
the opportunity on this maiden voyage. I look forward to many more
times back here with the 30-something Group, and I am proud of all
those supporters not just back home in Bucks County and northeast
Philadelphia and Montgomery County and the network community. I am
proud, on this 20th anniversary, of the public service of our leader,
Speaker Pelosi, to be here amongst the 30-something Group. Thank you so
much.

{time} 2230

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I am just so happy that you had an
opportunity to share some of your wisdom with us here tonight and also
a perspective, especially someone who has been in harm's way and has
been in the field with our men and women, and at the same time talking
about education.
We just had a major education summit right before the break that the
Speaker put forth, and Mr. Miller and Ms. DeLauro were a part of that
effort, and we were just so pleased to do that.
In the 30-Something Working Group, we kind of like to have a
conversation. We know that everyone has to make an opening remark or
statement, but, Mr. Altmire, I am looking forward to hearing what you
want to share with the members.
And, also, one of my constituents once called me. Serving in public
service, you have an opportunity to hear some interesting things. He
called me up. And you know these cable talk shows, where you go down to
public television and you sign up and it's like a nonprofit
organization. He called me, and I was a State representative at that
time, and he said, Kendrick, I want you to come on my show. And I said,
well, what are we going to talk about? And he said, we're going to talk
about the consequences of the consequences.
So I had to kind of, I was on the phone and I said, ``consequences of
the consequences?'' And he said, ``Yes, the consequences of the
consequences could be consequential.''
But in this case, as we look at the consequences of the consequences,
using his description of what was going on at that particular time, I
couldn't help, as I yield to you, but look at the Newsweek cover.
I went home tonight before I came over here. My wife joined me at the
celebration for the Speaker. And this Newsweek cover that many of us
will be reading this week says, ``After Bush. How to Restore America's
Place in the World.'' I mean, this is not a Democratic publication, Mr.
Speaker. I think it's important for us to understand that we are living
in serious times. And here at the 30-Something Working Group, we try to
break things down so that everyone can understand, where Members won't
say, well, I didn't know exactly my role at that particular time.
There are very historic votes that are taking place here. We just had
an emergency supplemental. I think that every vote that every Member
took was a heroic vote and a sheroic vote, in my opinion, need it be in
the positive or the affirmative.
But I think it's important for all of us to realize that we have a
role to play. And many of us, I know I do, share getting our men and
women back home and bringing an end to this conflict, especially as it
relates to U.S. troops serving in combat posture on the streets of
Baghdad in the middle of a civil war.
Mr. Altmire.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I just want to say how proud I am of my fellow
Pennsylvanian and the second Murphy now to join the 30-Something
Working Group, along with the gentleman from Connecticut. He is someone
that we look to for his expertise, having been in the field of battle
and having served in this conflict; and I really am excited to hear
that he is going to be joining us now with the 30-something group to
talk more about these issues. And he definitely has a unique
perspective that he's adding. So I was excited to hear his voice, and I
am very proud to hail from the same State.
I wanted to talk a little bit about one of the consequences of this
action that we're talking about, as Mr. Meek brought up, is the fact
that we are creating, through our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan,
hundreds of thousands of new veterans are returning to this country,
many of whom are returning seriously injured. We have over 25,000 that
have been injured. We are approaching 4,000 killed now. And those

[[Page H6103]]

that are returning and are going to have to use the VA system are going
to find, thankfully, that for the first time in the history of the
program, 77 years of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have
increased funding at a rate that has never been seen in the history of
the Department. We are up to approximately $15 billion in increased
funding for the VA in this Congress.
And as every member of the 30-Something Working Group knows and
certainly every Member of this House knows, this is a priority issue
for me. Funding for Veterans Affairs has languished in the past several
years, unfortunately, but this Congress has stepped up to the plate in
a bipartisan way, I will say, to give the Veterans Affairs Department,
especially the health accounts, the necessary funding to take care of
these hundreds of thousands of veterans that we are creating in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
These are men and women who have fought bravely, people like Mr.
Murphy from Pennsylvania who have put their lives on the line, who have
left a family behind to do this and have made every possible sacrifice.
They deserve to know that they can count on the United States to give
them the health care that they deserve and that they have earned, that
they've been promised when they entered the military.
So we voted in just the first 5 months here in this Congress to
increase funding by $15 billion for the VA. And significantly, for the
first time ever, we exceeded the recommended independent budget request
of the service organizations, the American Legion, the VFW, and others.
I want to repeat that point for my colleagues. For the first time
ever, Congress exceeded the request of the service organizations. I
think that's something we can be proud of.
We talk about the enormous achievements we've had in the first 5
months, the many bills and the different subjects that we have
addressed. The fact that we have paid attention to and finally moved
forward with our veterans health care facility in a way that is
unprecedented in the history of this country is I think one of the
things we can be most proud of in our first 5 months in office here.
Some of the things that this funding is going to allow us to do, we
are going to be able to hire more doctors and nurses and improve
medical services at the VA. As we saw with some of the Department of
Defense facilities with regard to health care and Walter Reed, chronic
underfunding can lead to some disastrous consequences. We need to make
sure that we don't allow that to happen in our VA system. So this bill
is going to improve the quality of care.
I have in my district a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital that
is undergoing a $100 plus million expansion right now. Hopefully, when
that is done, we are going to have in my district the preeminent health
care facility in the entire VA network; and I want every VA facility to
have that type of access across this country. Our veterans deserve
nothing less than the highest quality health care this Nation can
provide for them.
We are going to reduce waiting times. We have a backlog at the VA,
unfortunately, of nearly 500,000 cases. And every Member of this House
knows, you probably have the same experience that I am having in my
office of people who are calling, frustrated veterans who want to
access the VA health system but they have to wait, they have to get in
line. And it is a very long line, weeks or months of waiting, because
of that backlog, nearly 500,000 cases. The bill that we passed in this
House, the legislation that we've passed is going to go a long way
towards improving that situation.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Altmire, if you would yield, and Mr. Murphy,
I just don't want it to go by. You're talking about what we just passed
before we left, received the funding for, with a major fight at the
White House. I mean, the President wanted to veto it. He said that's
not what I asked for. Meanwhile, Walter Reed was still standing by for
the dollars to be able to make the corrections that they need to make.
We know that we passed the Chairman's, Mr. Skelton's, bill, Armed
Services bill off this floor to help us with readiness and all of those
things. The President said that he is going to veto many of these
things that are over his mark. But what you're talking about is
something that we couldn't even dream of in the last Congress. I mean,
you start thinking about how we moved the ball down field, and I mean
by force. And Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, many of us, not only do we
have to eat our Wheaties, but we have to do our pushups. And mentally
we have to prepare ourselves between our ears to go to battle on behalf
of the American people and those that have served.
So I hear exactly what you're saying. I just want to make sure that
Members understand. And guess what? Again, Democratic leadership. A
number of Republican colleagues, I believe with maybe 80 of them, voted
against the emergency supplemental to get these dollars to our veterans
to show you that if we can get these great issues to the floor and that
we can get a vote on them that the American spirit and the bipartisan
spirit will then take off, versus those that said, well, we don't need
to do it. And we are doing it in a meaningful way that veterans are
going to see an improvement as we move on.
So I just wanted to hit that real quick, and I yield back. But I just
wanted to be able to, especially from a person that was around as it
relates to Members on the floor, now, I guess I'm the only Member that
was in the 109th Congress and 108th Congress, to reflect on that
historical note there of just leadership and making it happen on behalf
of our veterans in Pennsylvania and other States.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for
his comments and certainly his leadership on this issue, which is
unmatched in this House. I am proud to hear your comments.
We have a situation at Walter Reed which we all came to know very
well, of course, in the months. I had the opportunity to tour Walter
Reed, and when you see these kids that are returning from battle and
you think about them, one of the fantastic gentlemen that we met was a
2005 graduate of the Naval Academy. And you can picture him just 2
short years ago in his uniform, throwing his hat in the air, excited,
cream of the crop, the best this Nation can put forward, and he came
home just horrifically injured.
It breaks your heart to see these men and women who fought so
bravely, and you think that they went home to Walter Reed, and it is
our responsibility to give them the best medical care that money can
provide, and we had disastrous things happening there. You think of the
living conditions that were outlined in that Washington Post article,
and the paint peeling from the walls and the rodents and the mold, and
you think, how could we possibly have let this happen?
For several years, there were complaints that were made, but nothing
was done about it. But this Congress is doing something about it. We
have not only done the investigations and the oversight to find out
what went wrong and to hold those accountable who are responsible for
what happened at Walter Reed, but, just as important, we have a
commitment in this House and in this Congress that this is never going
to happen again.
We are going to give the necessary funding to the Department of
Defense and to Walter Reed so that they can take care of the
maintenance and the repair that's necessary. And we are going to do a
top-to-bottom review of every Department of Defense health facility and
every VA facility in this country, find out if anything similar is
happening, if there are any problems of this sort, and fix them
immediately, not wait for this to take place again.
Because it shouldn't take a Washington Post article. It shouldn't
take the newspaper to bring this situation to light. We have a
responsibility, and we are fulfilling that responsibility, to ensure
that this never happens again. And we are doing that in a variety of
ways, through oversight and through the funding increases that I've
talked about.
The supplemental bill that we supported and that went to the
President's desk, which was signed, included an increase in funding to
help the Department of Defense health care and the VA health facilities
fulfill these obligations. And, as I said, we are now at record levels.
The Appropriations Committee dealing with Veterans Affairs just today
announced that they had marked up their bill with a $6.7 billion

[[Page H6104]]

increase in funding for the VA which, as I said, for this 1 year is the
largest in history and is nearly $4 billion above what the President
had requested.
We are going to talk a little bit later about bipartisanship, and
that is an issue of which there can be no disagreement. There are
issues that we talk about, like immigration, like Iraq, like tax cuts,
where there is a deep divide among us. There are serious policy
differences among us. But every Member of this House can agree that
there is no group that should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when
it comes time to make Federal funding decisions. That is an issue that
we can all agree on.
I am proud to be a Member of this House that has, for the first time
in a very long time, as I said, created an atmosphere where we all
agree that veterans come first, and we need to increase the level of
funding for the VA health facilities after years and years of neglect.
So, with that said, I would yield at this time to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Altmire.
I want to key off of your last point there, just spend a couple
moments before we kick it back to Mr. Meek, on that issue of
bipartisanship. Because you are exactly right. You know, it seems like
a pretty simple premise that the cost of the war should include taking
care of the warriors when they return back home, that the cost of the
war isn't just the guns and the ammunition and the mechanics necessary
to fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the cost of the war is also
taking care of those men and women when they get back home. That is
this war and that is previous wars.
So it sounds like a pretty unanimous premise that we could all get
behind, but the fact is that we didn't get behind it, and we didn't get
behind it until the Democrats took control of this Congress. It was
just platitudes and rhetoric for a long time, ``let's support our
troops and support our veterans.''

{time} 2245

So I think we got to be clear today, as much as we are going to talk
about the importance of bipartisanship, it took the Democrats to put
some of these issues out before the House in order to garner bipartisan
votes. I think that is maybe as important as anything that we have done
in these first 5 months, is that we have gotten rid of that old rule
that I heard a little bit about when I was watching this place from
afar in Connecticut called the ``majority of the majority.''
I heard about this rule where nothing could come to the floor of the
House of Representatives unless the majority of the majority party
supported it. So you had very few opportunities for there to be real
bipartisan cooperation, because you had to have almost unanimous
agreement from the majority party, at the time the Republicans, in
order for anything to get down here to the floor of the House.
We talked a lot, Mr. Meek, when we stood up here after that sort of
glorious first 100 hours about those bills, those six or seven bills
that we passed, and how many Republicans we had on board with each one
of those. They were really remarkable numbers. On average we had 60-70
Republican votes for each one of those. It doesn't get covered much in
the news. The news wants to cover just the grinding and gnashing of the
two parties.
We had a lot of bipartisan cooperation, and that has continued. That
has continued. In the last few weeks here we had on a bill to
reauthorize funding for children's healthcare, we had 123 Republicans
supporting it. That same 123 Republicans supporting increased record
funding for Katrina recovery. On the joint funding resolution that
finally restored some fiscal balance to this country, we had 57
Republicans supporting it. Increasing the minimum wage, 82 Republicans.
I know when you turn on the cable news networks you are not going to
hear about the times that we agree. But why a lot us were so
enthusiastic to stop by and send well wishes to Speaker Pelosi on her
20 years in Congress is because she has made good on her commitment to
make this the most open and ethical and bipartisan Congress in a real,
real long time.
I know, Mr. Meek, this doesn't get the headlines all the time, that
the newspapers want to talk about the places that we conflict. But
there has been a lot of cooperation here and it has mattered. I think
it has made a difference.
I think one of the things the people don't understand is sort of how
this place works, and I certainly didn't understand it until I got
here.
It used to be it was impossible, virtually impossible, for Democrats
to get their amendments heard on the floor of the House of
Representatives. You were going to get a bill introduced by the
Republicans, and that was about it. No more debate, no changes, no
amendments. Nothing. No real opportunity for the People's House to
actually engage in a real argument, in a process of coming up with a
better piece of legislation.
That has changed now. In the first 5 months of 2005, we had two what
are called open rules, bills in which any Member can put forth an
amendment, have a chance to have that idea vetted and aired out before
the House of Representatives. We have quadrupled the number of bills
that have come before this House under a so-called open rule.
I know these are sort of arcane terms that people out there may not
understand, but they matter. It means that every single one of the 435
people that are elected here have a chance to make a bill better, have
a chance to have their voice their constituents' voices heard. For a
long time it was shut down.
So it was a good night tonight to be able to celebrate Speaker
Pelosi's two decades here in the House. A lot of us are excited about
the potential that lies before us to be able to really reset our
direction in Iraq, to do better things in energy policy, to stand up
for working families.
But for a lot of us that came here on the backs and shoulders of our
constituents who have virtually lost complete faith in politics, maybe
we are just as excited about the fact that, despite what you may see in
the cable news networks or reading the headlines, we actually are
starting slowly to bring people together here, to open up this House,
this process, again, to make it a true bipartisan People's House.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Murphy, it is very hard to move in
a bipartisan fashion. One speaks constantly about the bipartisan
spirit, about bipartisan action. Spirit and action are two different
interpretations of actually getting something done.
The action part means that Members are able to vote with their voting
cards or walk up to that desk and sign a card that says yea or nay and
work in a bipartisan spirit on the yea. Many amendments from our
Republican colleagues, some of them are passed and some of them are not
passed. But the bottom line is they have at least the opportunity to
come to the floor and to bring their ideas to the floor. Definitely in
the area of financial services.
We have spent a very long time, Mr. Speaker, on this floor hearing
Republican amendments that were offered in committee, offered in
subcommittee. Some came to the floor and we were able to work those
amendments out to become a part of the work product. Others just wanted
to file an amendment, for whatever reason, but had their opportunity in
this democracy to do so.
Many of the Members in this House, of course we have a lot to do, and
Members when they come to the floor, they said, I thought this
amendment was already voted down in committee? But many of the Members
on the minority side, the Republican side, had an opportunity to offer
it, Mr. Murphy. I think this really makes a difference between
Democratic leadership and Republican leadership.
Even though we may not agree, giving the opportunity to others to be
able to take part in this democracy, something that was suppressed in
the two previous Congresses that I can speak to. And I can tell you
that it should be well-noted here that this House has provided the kind
of leadership to allow the minority party here in this House, which are
the Republicans, to have a voice in the process of making laws. That is
so very, very important.
I will say this and then yield back to you. Some are saying, why
aren't you

[[Page H6105]]

treating the Republicans as the Republicans treated you or treated
Democrats. Well, guess what? Forty-two new Members of the House,
especially when you are on the Democratic side, all of you in this
Chamber who are part of the majority makers, they voted for change.
They didn't vote for the same. They voted for a government that can
work in a bipartisan way. They voted for the kind of leadership to
allow minority Members, who have constituents just like I have, to vote
for veterans assistance, to be able to vote to make sure we put forth
dollars to come up with alternative fuels and other ways that we can
supply America so that we can invest in the Midwest versus the Middle
East. They voted for all of that.
And guess what? That takes time and tolerance, Mr. Speaker, and that
is something that the Republican majority in the previous Congress did
not have. I am glad we have the tolerance. I am glad we are taking the
time. I am glad we are working the way we are working, even though it
is very painful for many of us and our constituents and many that have
our families back in the district.
In this time and this place in history, when you have cover after
cover, how do we restore America's place in the world, it is not how
the world thinks about us. It is about what kind of leadership are we
providing, not only for our constituents, but for the United States of
America. And just at a time we are trying to dig ourselves out of out-
of-control borrowing from foreign nations, we are seeing differently.
I am a Member of the NATO parliamentary group, and I can tell you,
when you are talking to some countries, and it is kind of like you have
to be quiet for a moment, have some level of contrition and listen to
what other people are saying, because they feel we have been dictating
to them what they should do and what they should think, and they are
saying, by the way, you owe us money. You owe me money. You owe my
country money.
So we have domestic issues that we have to cover. I know we are going
to talk about stem cell research and I think that is very, very
important. That is part of the new direction. It is leadership.
Sometimes leadership is lonely. But we have to do it.
Mr. Murphy, I just want to thank you for bringing some of these
issues to light and talking about what it takes to bring about
bipartisan action versus Members coming to the floor and saying we
should have a bipartisan spirit.
Well, spirit is a good thing, if you use it religiously. One of my
friends, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, I have read a couple of his books, he
says spirit makes religion act right. The real issue is that it is good
to have spirit. We all feel good about it. But action is even better.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You can talk the talk, but you have to
come out here and do it. You have got to put bills before this House
that have Republican ideas in them and have Democrat ideas in them. And
you have to be okay with the fact that we can share credit. Listen,
nobody in my district cares whether I am a Republican or a Democrat, as
long as I am on the right side of the issues, as long as I am fighting
for what they believe I should be fighting for.
People don't think in Republican or Democratic terms back at the
places we come from. They think about Republican and Democratic terms
here inside the Beltway in Washington, DC, but back out in America, Mr.
Meek, people think about what is right and wrong; what is good for
people and what is bad for people. Not Republican and not Democrat. I
think we are beginning to start to figure that out.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, you are 110 percent right, and that
is what folks voted for. They didn't vote for you to go be the
strongest Democrat you can be, or I want you to go and be Republican-
like. The bottom line is they voted for us to be Members of Congress,
constitutional officers having a part in this process, one of the three
branches of Government, and making sure that every Member is able to
fulfill their constitutional duty and come here and participate.
I feel so good about it, it is like almost I have chill bumps. To be
able to come to this floor, to be a part of the whole begging, if you
get us an opportunity to train the thought it could. All of those
things we talked about, you think about where we were and where we are
now, and that we still have the kind of spirit that we had then, we
still want to fight and we still have battles ahead of us.
We have a President that is saying you do anything over the budget
that I set forth, no matter how good it may be, children's healthcare,
veterans affairs, the issues dealing with the environment, I am going
to veto it.
Well, you know something? We are here saying fine, if you want to
veto it, then consider yourself challenged, versus, well, if you say
you are going to veto it, then I guess we can't do it. Even though we
have our challenges in the Senate, I think that it is very, very
important as it relates to getting a number of these agenda items
through, because of the close numbers there, I think the American
people are going to continue to follow in the spirit of a new direction
and help us carry out the agenda that they wanted originally, and
hopefully some of our Republican colleagues in the Senate will be able
to come together and have bipartisan action and move it forward.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Before we send this back over to Mr.
Altmire, Mr. Meek, let's talk about an issue on which I think this
Congress is going to stand together tomorrow, Republicans and
Democrats, and stand against the policies of a President who is going
to show once again how out of step he is with the American public, and
that is on the issue of stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity when I was in the Connecticut
State Senate to author Connecticut's Stem Cell Investment Act.
Connecticut became the first State in the Nation through a legislative
act to invest public dollars in stem cell research. I am real proud of
that.
But part of the reason that I decided to leave the State Senate and
come here to the United States Congress is because it was a bittersweet
victory for us. We shouldn't have 50 different State legislatures
investing in basic scientific research; certainly not the type of
potentially pioneering, life-saving scientific research that stem cell
research, both adult and embryonic, holds in its vast and potentially
limitless potential.
So, tomorrow, we are going to take up a bill that we took up at the
beginning of January, now coming back to us from the Senate, which is
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which is once again
going to allow for Federal dollars to be used for both embryonic and
adult stem cell research around this country, and, by the way, finally
put some real ethical and moral and scientific boundaries around that
research.
One of the great secrets in this world today is if you don't live in
a State like Connecticut, California or New Jersey that has put forth
in State legislation some moral and ethical parameters around stem cell
research, this research is largely unregulated in this country. So I
think the most important thing we will do tomorrow is pass in a
bipartisan way a bill that will start to turn on Federal funds for
research that, as we know, potentially will unlock the treatments and
cures for such insidious diseases as juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's
research and maybe even for cancer some day.
This isn't tomorrow's cure and it is not even the day after
tomorrow's cure, but if we don't start investing now and start
investing at a Federal level, start investing our Federal dollars, we
are never going to get to that day when we can start to realize the
potential of stem cell research.
But here is where the rub is. We are going to do this with
Republicans and Democrats standing together. There will be more
Democrats supporting it than there will be Republicans. That is just
how this issue is going to work. But this is going to be an issue in
which this Congress, because we are in tune with what the people are
telling us, that they want us to use the research at our disposal to
try to make people's lives better, that is what this is all about,
trying to use the resources of the Federal Government, the communal
resources of the American people, to try to make our lives better, that
is what stem cell research can do. They want us to make that jump. It
is going to land on the President's desk and he has already told us
once again that he will veto it.
He is continually out of step with where the American people are with

[[Page H6106]]

this war in Iraq. Now he will once again show us he is out of step with
where the American people are on healthcare.
But, once again, we are going to show that if we stand together, if
we put party aside and we listen to what the people want, in this case
they want a Federal Government that is going to start standing up and
trying to find cures for cancer and Parkinson's disease and bone marrow
disease, that we can do some pretty amazing things here if we stand
together.
We passed things with bipartisan support in the past. We will do it
tomorrow on maybe one of the most important things that we will do
before we take our break for the summer, which is invest in stem cell
research.

{time} 2300

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to say that Mr. Murphy presented
himself so well tonight. Mr. Ryan is in Ohio tonight, and he
BlackBerryed me and said he wished he could be here with us. As you
know, Mr. Ryan is an outstanding Member of Congress. He had a death in
his family and had to return to his district. We appreciate and
recognize his absence. I am going to e-mail him back and say, Mr. Ryan,
I think one of the reasons why things are moving so smoothly, you
guessed, is because you're not here; but that is another issue.
Mr. Altmire, one thing that we need to talk about as relates to stem
cell research, there are so many diseases that could be cured, and 72
percent of Americans are supporting this research. We have kids with
juvenile diabetes. There are a number of issues that we want to try to
move on. This is a leadership issue. The thing about leadership is it
is lonely sometimes.
I get e-mails and calls from my constituents, I support this; or,
Kendrick, I wasn't quite with you on that decision. But the good thing
is something is happening, action versus inaction.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to commend the gentleman from Connecticut
again. We say a lot of things when we are transferring comments here
back and forth about the different roles that we play, but it truly is
the truth to say there is no one in this Congress who has done more on
a public policy basis to promote this issue than the gentleman from
Connecticut. He has done it at the State level. He is passionate about
it. He has done it here in Congress. He has made it a staple issue of
his young career, and I want to commend him. He has shown great
leadership.
And in saying that, I want to recognize that we have a colleague, the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who certainly deserves credit
second to none for her pushing this agenda. I certainly don't want to
overlook her in recognizing Mr. Murphy's equal efforts on this issue.
I have a unique perspective in my support of this issue in that I am
a pro-life Member of Congress. I used the occasion of my first floor
speech on the floor of this House specifically on this issue because it
is that important to me.
I have a view that embryonic stem cell research and a vote to promote
it is a pro-life vote. By voting to pursue embryonic stem cell
research, we are voting to improve the lives of people. And most
importantly with this bill, we are voting only on, and this is a very
key point, lines of stem cells that would otherwise be discarded by the
fertility clinic. That cannot be overlooked.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is a very good point.
Mr. ALTMIRE. This is not a situation where we are going to be able to
pick and choose types of stem cells that can be used for other
purposes. The administration talks about snowflake babies and other
uses. These are only lines of stem cells where the donor has said I am
done using them. They cannot be used for my other purpose, they are to
be discarded, and then they agree that the stem cells could be used for
research purposes. Otherwise they are discarded.
That is something that in my mind is the decisive point on this. If
they are going to be discarded anyway, hundreds of thousands of lines
of embryonic stem cells, why not use them for scientific research to
save the lives and improve the lives of people who are alive today,
real men and women who are suffering from diseases, and the people who
don't know they are going to have those diseases in the future, people
who are going to suffer from these diseases tomorrow.
We are talking about debilitating diseases, we are talking about
long-term diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions in my
district of southwestern Pennsylvania, like diabetes. Imagine if this
research could show a cure or improved treatment for any of these
illnesses. Why would we not use them for scientific purposes if they
are otherwise going to be discarded.
I am certainly not the only pro-life Member who is going to support
this tomorrow, as the gentleman said. But I do want to emphasize this
is an issue whose time has come. The President has vetoed it in the
109th Congress. He has vetoed it once in this 110th Congress. We are
expecting we are going to face a second veto, and I know the vote is
going to be close on whether or not we are going to be able to override
that veto.
But we have sent a message, and we are going to do it tomorrow, that
the time for this issue has come. This is not about political games or
trying to score points for a political agenda. This is about saving
lives and improving the lives of people who are alive today, and I
strongly support this initiative.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You couldn't ask for a better feeling being a
Member of Congress. I always share out that. Out on the steps of the
Capitol at least once or twice a week we have young people from our
districts, and they want to hear from Members of Congress. The
difference between us and the average American out there, and there are
only 500-plus Members of Congress, we read something in the paper,
something that could have been avoided, we hear a story from our
constituents, something that could have been avoided, and to have an
opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation like we are going to vote
on tomorrow, no matter how many times we have to vote on it, we are a
part of the solution to many of the health problems that are facing
Americans throughout this country. We are the leader in the world as it
relates to research and being responsible and being respectful.
To have 200 organizations supporting the bill is very, very
important. It is supported by the American Medical Association, the
AARP, the Association of American Medical Colleges, Parkinson's Action
Network, the American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Research
Foundation, Paralyzed Veterans of America, all of these groups. That is
just to name a few. And also, 72 percent of Americans support this bill
that we are looking to pass. You also have a number of corporations
that are out there calling for it. Think about the money that could be
saved, not only the money, but the lives. This is what it is all about.
People ask: How do you feel being a Member of Congress? I feel good
because I feel we can bring to the floor and bring to this government
what is needed to help Americans, and I am glad we are a part of that.
Mr. Murphy, it is good having an authority on the floor. I was a
member of the Florida State legislature, and a State legislature is an
interesting organization to be a part of. I think the first line of
public service is being a county commissioner or city commissioner.
That is when somebody can leave their house and let you know what is on
their mind. I am glad to have an opportunity to vote on this, and I
look forward to releasing information to my constituents about what we
have done, and hopefully put some pressure on the White House to do
what so many Americans want us to do, and that is get at some of the
issues that are facing our country right now.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. You talked about how much public support
this enjoys, and it is broad and far ranging. I think the public
support mirrors the support within this body. It probably cuts across
partisan lines because the diseases that stem cell research can treat
do not discriminate based on whether you are Democrat or Republican,
not even on whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.
So when you have family members out there who are watching a loved
one grapple with diabetes, watching a father or mother die of
Alzheimer's disease, and they see there is this vehicle, there is this
potential out there, untapped right now, with their Federal

[[Page H6107]]

tax dollars, they don't understand. They don't understand why their
elected representatives wouldn't stand up and at least try to make an
effort to bring a cure or treatment to their loved one who is
struggling or dying with these diseases.
This issue enjoys public support because these diseases don't
discriminate based on political discrimination, political views or
geography. I think that is why you will see so many Republicans and
Democrats supporting it.
This is an issue that arises a lot of passions in people. So there is
rhetoric that sometimes doesn't match the reality. One of the arguments
that you are going to hear tomorrow is we don't need to invest in
embryonic stem cell research, which is the controversial piece of this
debate, because adult stem cell research does the trick. That argument
doesn't wash when you talk to the scientific community.
Adult stem cells have vast potential, and we have found ways to
utilize them to make people better and give people longer lives.

{time} 2310

But the fact is that adult stem cells only work on the person that
those cells are harvested from. My adult stem cells work on me. So I
can take stem cells out of my bloodstream, manipulate them, put them
back into my bloodstream to try to cure the disease or whatever may be
affecting me.
Embryonic stem cells have almost a limitless possibility of being
manipulated, to being harvested and put into a limitless number of
people. Those cells don't just work on the people they're taken from.
Those cells can be manipulated and have universal traits to try to cure
diseases.
So we're going to have to try to talk about that tomorrow and why we
need to invest in both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell
research.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will do two things. First,
it has come to my attention that while we were talking the Anaheim
Ducks kept the Stanley Cup in the United States of America. I want to
congratulate them. And I will now yield back to the gentleman from
Florida to wrap up.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mr. Altmire.
Also, we want the Members, if they want any information we talked
about tonight or want to speak to us, we have the www.speaker.gov Web
site.
With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to address the House, the 30
Something Working Group, tonight, the two Murphies and also Mr. Altmire
and myself.

____________________