[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11713-H11720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Space). 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. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House. My good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), we 
have traveled together and served together. I want that chart that he 
has. I keep asking him for it. About how when Democrats take control, 
pork barrel spending is cut in half. I appreciate it. I am glad for his 
accuracy.
  It is so good to serve with my colleagues up here in Washington, D.C. 
I am here with my good friend, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz. Our 
districts neighbor each other in south Florida. We have been good 
friends for a long time. We are here tonight part of the 30-Something 
Working Group.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, we come to the floor once, twice, and when 
we can three times a week to share with Members issues we are working 
on here.
  We want to make sure that all of the Members are fully aware of what 
is happening in Iraq. As of today, October 17, 10 a.m. report, there 
have been 3,824 deaths in Iraq. The total number wounded in action and 
returned to duty is 15,604. The total number of wounded in action not 
returning to duty is 12,674.
  We want to make sure that is not only a part of the Congressional 
Record, but that every Member of Congress understands the sacrifice 
those who are in harm's way are making. And those of us who are 
policymakers, that we make sure that we take the appropriate steps to 
do away with that number continually going up on a daily basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to turn it over to my colleagues that are here, 
but tonight I just want to take a point because the President today had 
a press conference. We did some good things. We gave out a 
Congressional Gold Medal today, and the President decided to release a 
press release driving over to the Capitol here.
  It was very interesting. In his statements he said that the 110th 
Congress, Democratic-controlled Congress, whether it be House or 
Senate, they need to go to work. That is interesting because I have 
record-breaking information here. We have taken more rollcall votes 
than any other Congress in the history of the United States of America. 
We are working 5 days a week in many cases. We have deaths or what have 
you. We have to pause for that. And national holidays and religious 
holidays that need to be recognized because there is sensitivity 
towards that.
  But I can't understand, we start talking about going to work. Let me 
read down the list of things we have done. The 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, all of them, to protect America from terrorism, 
passed. And the President said he wasn't going to sign it, but the 
American people pushed him and said they wanted to be safe, and he 
finally signed it.
  The largest college aid expansion since 1944, the GI bill, saving the 
average American $4,400. The President said he would never sign that 
bill. Because of the hard work of Members that voted for that bill, and 
these are bipartisan votes. I want to make sure that those who are 
paying attention to what we are saying here on the floor, those Members 
and Americans, that they understand this is not a Democratic message, 
this is a bipartisan message on behalf of the people of this country.
  The minimum-wage increase which raised the minimum wage for some 13 
million Americans, passed and signed into law. The President said he 
wasn't going to sign that, but it was such a good piece of legislation. 
People wanted it to happen for many, many years. We said we will not 
allow the Members of Congress to receive a pay raise until we give the 
American people a pay raise.
  Innovation agenda to promote 21st century jobs, passed and signed 
into law. All of this was signed into law at like 7:30 on a Friday 
evening as the President is leaving to go to Camp David.
  Again, tough lobbying and ethics reforms that many of the independent 
reform groups are so happy that finally passed off this floor, through 
the Senate, and signed into law.
  Reconstruction assistance for the gulf coast disaster hurricanes, 
never would have happened, Mr. Speaker, if it wasn't for the push of 
this Democratic Congress. Actually, I remember when they had two 
amendments that came to the floor, one to give assistance to the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, and one to continue 
the funding for the war for 3 months, they came in two amendments, 
never would have happened if it wasn't for a Democratic-controlled 
Congress pushing it through.
  Expansion of life-saving medical research stem cells, passed on a 
bipartisan vote, vetoed by the President. Okay.
  Again, health care for 10 million children and working families, 
passed by a bipartisan vote. A bipartisan vote which tomorrow, and we 
are going to talk about that here tonight, the Senate has the votes to 
override the President and there are some Republicans that are saying 
that they are going to take that vote. We have a problem here in the 
House because we don't have some of our friends, and I do mean some of 
our friends because some of our friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle are going to be voting with Democrats. Not with Democrats, but 
just to

[[Page H11714]]

vote on behalf of children in the United States of America. We are 
falling eight or 10 short of those votes. I want the Members to be 
aware of that.
  The largest veterans increase in the 77-year history of the VA passed 
this House and we are still waiting on it to make it through the 
process and hopefully the President won't veto that.
  Landmark energy independence and global warming initiative, that is 
something that is very, very important. Also, we have other pieces of 
legislation that are out there.
  Actually since the partisan politics started, not partisan, but some 
of the folks being partisan on this, 45 that we had last time of 
Republicans that joined Democrats on that bipartisan vote, so that's 
not 10, that's not 15, that's not 20, that is 45 of our Republican 
colleagues that, because of the Democratic leadership bringing it to 
the floor, knew it was a good idea and voted on behalf of their 
districts.
  With that, I want to make sure, just in case someone gets confused 
about that issue, because we are going to talk about SCHIP. We are 
going to do a hard push on SCHIP because this is about children's 
health care, and it is very, very important.
  I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. It is wonderful to be here with my 
good and long-time friend, Mr. Meek of Florida, and our relatively new 
friend, Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania. I have to tell you, Mr. Altmire, 
it has been such a pleasure to have the 41 new freshmen Members of our 
Democratic Caucus join us in being able to move this country in a new 
direction. It has really injected a vibrancy, a new vibrancy, an 
energized vibrancy, into our caucus. You guys are fresh from the 
campaign trail, as Speaker Pelosi always talks about. You came with 
stories from the grass roots and talking about things that people in 
America care about.
  Oftentimes what happens in this institution here, we get a little 
stale and crusty. When we are all making, many of us, policy thousands 
of miles away from our constituents. Myself and Mr. Meek, we are a 
thousand miles from our constituents. You are a good 2 or 3-hour drive 
from yours. Mr. Murphy is a little further than that. It becomes easy 
to be desensitized to what the real needs and concerns are. We get 
wrapped up in how important Congress supposedly is, and that is when it 
gets dangerous.
  That is what happened to our friends on the other side of the aisle 
when they were in charge over the last 2 years. They were engulfed by a 
culture of corruption. They really engaged in the priorities of K 
Street and the priorities of the wealthiest people in America instead 
of the priorities of the average working family, and that is what SCHIP 
is all about. That is what the Children's Health Insurance Program is 
all about. It is about getting basic health care, not to people who 
make a lot of money, not to people who have private health insurance as 
the President has said who would supposedly drop it if they were 
suddenly eligible for SCHIP, but for people who are the working poor, 
the people who fall in the huge gap that exists between not qualifying 
for Medicaid and not being able to afford to buy either the insurance 
that your employer provides you or buying it on your own.
  So what that means is that if you don't have a children's health 
insurance program that your child is eligible for and that your child 
has access to, then you are using the emergency room as your primary 
means of health care. So I am so glad we had the infusion of energy 
from your class, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Murphy, so we could make sure we 
could pass bipartisan legislation like the Children's Health Insurance 
Program.
  Mr. Meek referred to the President's comments about how Congress 
needs to get to work. Again, it is funny. It is humorous. It is 
actually sad. I joined Congress in the 109th Congress, the term before 
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Altmire, and a couple of terms after Mr. Meek. We 
were in session in the 109th Congress a total of 89 days.

                              {time}  2100

  Now how many days are there in a year?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. 365.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And I actually don't know how many of 
those 365 days are weekends. So, you know, if you discount those, I 
can't really calculate the math that quickly, but just a couple 
hundred, right, couple hundred days, and we were in session for 89. It 
was a record low for the history of the Congresses. We were known as 
the do nothingest of do nothing Congresses.
  So I think the President needs to take a look at history, maybe open 
a history book, maybe open a book, and take a look at what actually 
goes on here in the 110th since Democrats took control versus what was 
going on for the last 12 years.
  We're about making sure that we get the America people's priorities 
in focus: children's health insurance; making sure that we can focus on 
alternative energy sources; making sure we can expand health care for 
more individuals; truly end America's addiction to foreign oil; 
recognize that global warming is a problem and not just say that it is 
and do nothing. We want to make sure that the future is really bright 
for the American people.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to talk a little bit about what the President 
said today as well, and he focused his remarks in large part on the 
SCHIP vote that we're going to take tomorrow in this House. This, as we 
speak, is the day before we're going to take a vote on whether or not 
to override the veto that the President put forward on a plan that 
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from both Houses. Sixty-
seven Members of the United States Senate and 265 Members of the House 
voted for the SCHIP bill, bipartisan.
  And one of the things the President put forward today and has said in 
the past as well, we need to compromise; we need to come together. 
Well, I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker, that we have, in fact, 
made substantial compromise. We have come together as Republicans and 
Democrats. We put forward a bill in the House. The Senate put forward a 
bill. We conferenced a bill. We came to an agreement that passed with 
overwhelming support among both parties. We sent it to the White House, 
and the President, as he certainly is able to do under the Constitution 
and is his right to do so, he vetoed the bill, and we're going to have 
a vote tomorrow on whether or not to override the veto.
  But don't pretend that this was not a compromise piece of legislation 
that took weeks and months to hammer out the details and to work 
together with Republicans and Democrats alike, voting to support this 
piece of legislation that enjoys 70 to 80 percent approval in the 
country according to recent polls.
  I wanted to talk a little bit about what the President said were his 
problems with the SCHIP bill, and one of the things that he continues 
to throw out there as well: this is socialized medicine; this is a big 
Federal Government program that's a movement towards Big Government 
health care. And that just could not be further from the truth.
  Let's take a look at what the SCHIP program is. This is a capped 
block grant. The money is capped from the Federal level. It's sent to 
the States and the States carry out the program. It's a State-
administered program, and almost every State in the country contracts 
out their SCHIP program in the private health insurance market, in the 
private market. So this could not be further from the big Federal 
Government takeover of socialized medicine scheme. It's administered in 
the private market.
  We could spend our entire hour here tonight listening to groups that 
have endorsed this bill, but for the purposes of refuting what the 
President says, I would point to the health insurance industry in this 
country, which is certainly never going to support anything that's 
remotely close or a movement towards federalized health care, 
socialized medicine. They support this legislation, as does, as Speaker 
Pelosi often says, everyone alphabetically from the AARP to the YWCA. 
This has overwhelming support around the country, overwhelming support 
among Republicans and overwhelming support among Democrats.
  So, again, the President's welcome to veto this bill. He's able to do 
so, and he exercised that right, but let's be truthful about what's 
really in this piece of legislation.
  He talks about how it affects families making up to $83,000. Well, 
what are

[[Page H11715]]

the facts behind that claim? Where did that number come from? That 
comes from the fact, as I said, this is administered by the States, and 
I would welcome my friend from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, as well, who has taken a 
break from watching the Cleveland Indians tonight.
  We have $83,000 as 400 percent of poverty. There was one State in the 
country, New York State, applied for a waiver. Four hundred percent of 
poverty they wanted to cover. That waiver was denied. It did not take 
effect. No other State in the country does it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would like you to just yield for a minute 
because, as you know, in the 30-something Working Group we always enjoy 
seeing our friends come by, and the majority whip came to the floor, 
heard we were talking about children's health care, and thought he 
would just stop by and share something with the Members, and I yield to 
him.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 30-somethings for 
allowing me to intrude on their discussion here this evening.
  I think that tomorrow when we come before the American people to take 
a vote on whether or not we ought to override the President's veto, 
it's a very important program. I think it's important for the American 
people to think about a couple of mischaracterizations that have gone 
on concerning this program.
  First of all, we are hearing our friends on the other side call this 
Children's Health Insurance Program some kind of step towards 
socialized medicine. I find that very strange that when the President 
came before the American people, asking for a second term, at his 
convention, when he accepted the nomination, he called for an expansion 
of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and I think we ought to ask 
ourselves how can a program be socialized medicine for 10 million 
children but it's not socialized medicine for 6 million children. I 
think that it says something about the commitment that the President 
made to the American people and to his own party at his last nominating 
convention.
  Second mischaracterization I think that the American people ought to 
really think about, and that is the accusation that this Congress, our 
party, the Democratic Party is ignoring poor children by pushing this 
program. The fact of the matter is lower-income children will have an 
opportunity through Medicaid. That's there now. It's been there for a 
long time.
  SCHIP was not designed for that purpose. This program was designed as 
middle-income relief, relief for middle-income families, for families 
whose children are in need of health care, but their incomes are a 
little bit too high for them to qualify for Medicaid but not high 
enough for them to be able to afford the health care that they need in 
the private market.
  So I think that tomorrow, as we get ready to say to the American 
people exactly what our values are, I think that the people who are 
planning to vote to sustain this veto ought to ask themselves what is 
it that I'm doing, and I think that what they will be doing would be 
denying health care, denying to children, they will be denying relief 
to the middle-income families who work every day trying to make ends 
meet, but while they're trying to feed their families, to provide for 
their educations, to shelter them, they do not have enough left to 
afford the kind of health care that they need.

  So I want to thank you all for highlighting this program this 
evening, and I know that for the 30-somethings it may not be all that 
important now but for us 60-somethings, this is a mighty important 
program for our grandchildren, and thank you so much for allowing me to 
intrude this evening.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you for joining us.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. It was great to hear from one of the true giants of this 
House, the distinguished whip from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn. Thank 
you for joining us tonight.
  I was talking about this $83,000 income level that the President 
continues to throw out there, and it's factually inaccurate. It's just 
completely false.
  As I was saying, the history of it is New York State, one State in 
this country, applied for a waiver, attempting to reach the 400 percent 
of poverty level. That waiver was denied, never took effect. Those 
families were not covered, but the President uses that as his example 
of what could happen if we put this legislation forward.
  Well, the reality is, as under current law, it doesn't change in our 
bill; it would have to be approved. Any change in income up to that 
level would have to be approved by the administration. So if the 
President did not want to see any State move forward, he would say that 
that is denied, as it was denied when New York State tried to put that 
forward.
  So to say that the $83,000 figure is the reason for his veto is just 
factually inaccurate, at least using it as an example.
  Importantly, the bill that we passed limits the Federal matching 
percentage and gives States a strong disincentive for going above 300 
percent of poverty which would be about $62,000. So the States have a 
strong incentive to not even attempt to go above 300 percent of 
poverty; and as I said, it's inaccurate for the President to say that 
that's the reason for his veto.
  So I'll continue a little bit later on that, but we're joined by Mr. 
Murphy from Connecticut, and I mentioned earlier that Mr. Ryan from 
Ohio has been watching the baseball playoffs. Well, unfortunately, Mr. 
Murphy from Connecticut is on the other end of that.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We needed an off night tonight. We got an 
off night from the playoffs. So those of us that wallowed in the Boston 
defeat are glad to have a little separation to let our team regroup and 
rethink how they're going to approach this.
  It's rare that we have five members of the 30-somethings here. As the 
two new Members here, I want to make sure we understand our place. So 
I'm going to be very, very brief and just say this: To add on to all 
the great reasons why we should do this, this is reaching out to 
families that have done everything that we've asked them to do; they're 
playing by the rules. They simply can't afford insurance in a market in 
which in a State like Connecticut you're going to pay $8,000 or $9,000 
out of pocket before an insurance company picks up dollar one for the 
average family plan that you look at on a lot of these insurance 
programs.
  It's the right thing to do because it saves money in the long run 
because you're getting preventative care to the kids that are going to 
end up sick and in the hospital later on and end up costing the system 
way more money because you didn't invest in prevention and end up 
paying for crisis care.
  I think it's also important to note that this bill is paid for. This 
bill is part of an effort here in this Congress to advance some of the 
most important programs in the middle class. We're talking about health 
care programs, student loan programs, minimum wage and do it in a way 
that doesn't add to this enormous, unfathomable deficit that the 
Republican Congress put us under.
  Let's just talk about the facts, because Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek 
especially talked about this over and over and over again on the floor 
here.
  When the Republicans took control, they had a $5.6 trillion surplus 
that President Clinton left them with. They have now turned it into, 
along with this President, a $2 trillion 10-year deficit. The debt 
which started at the beginning of the President's administration at 
$5.7 trillion has ballooned to $9 trillion.
  So our biggest task here is to make sure that we don't add to that 
just unbelievable amount of money that this country and every single 
citizen here owes, and guess what, we are able to do that, to pass a 5-
year budget that's going to be balanced after 5 years, to pass a rule 
that mandates that we don't spend a dime of new money without 
accounting for how we pay for it. We're able to run the most fiscally 
responsible Congress that this country has seen in a very long time, 
while maintaining our commitment to expand programs that help the 
middle class.
  That's what we have to remember when we talk about this SCHIP bill, 
the children's health bill, is that this isn't more deficit spending. 
This is targeted spending on people who need it, the middle class. It's 
paid for.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Remember the beginning of this Congress that we 
gave an opportunity for every Member of this House to vote against 
paying the

[[Page H11716]]

oil companies about $14 billion in oil subsidies, and a lot of our 
friends, who are now voting against the SCHIP for fiscal responsibility 
reasons, voted to make sure that we could not take that basically 
corporate welfare that we were giving to the oil companies. They voted 
to sustain basically that corporate welfare that was going to the oil 
companies.
  But it's important for us to recognize that Members of the Republican 
Party, the same Members who were voting against SCHIP, voted against 
the Democrats pulling the money from the oil companies and putting it 
back into alternative energy, to health care, to education, all these. 
You had this opportunity to do this, and they refused to do it.

                              {time}  2115

  And to say now that you are going to draw the line in the sand, Mr. 
Altmire, you are going to draw the line in the sand on children's 
health care after raising the debt limit, as the gentleman from 
Connecticut just mentioned, five times they have asked to borrow more 
money from China, from Japan, from OPEC countries. Now you are going to 
draw the line in the sand on children's health care?
  Now, people are sitting at home saying, I don't know a whole lot 
about politics, Mr. Speaker, but my goodness gracious, you are picking 
this battle now on the backs of children. And I don't know, I didn't 
get to hear your whole argument on socialism. But my question is this. 
If everyone is saying that this is socialism, that this is somehow a 
socialistic step towards national socialized medicine, why are you 
negotiating it in the first place?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And the good thing about the 30-Something, we 
really get into a conversation about this. And behind you, you can see, 
I will let you explain that chart there. But I want Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz and I just to share a little bit. You say that everyone is 
saying that it is socialized medicine. That is not the case. Do you 
know who is saying that? The Bush administration. Do you know who else 
is saying that? Our friends on the Republican side that are not even 
thinking about health care. They are thinking about how I need to 
protect the GOP philosophy on Capitol Hill. Not in America.
  Let me just read this here. CBS News poll that was taken says, and 
here the headline goes and you can go on, it says CBSnews.com. Don't 
believe me. You can go on there if you don't believe what I am telling 
you. This came right off of this sheet here: Do you favor or oppose 
expanding the children's health care plan? Eighty-one percent said I am 
in favor of it. I am in favor of the Democratic plan. And the headline 
goes: Most backed Democrats and kids health care fight. It says, those 
that oppose, 15 percent.
  So, Mr. Ryan, when we look at that, we have to look at it for what it 
is worth. And I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz has something from the USA 
Today. And I will yield back, but I want to share that with you, Mr. 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to say, the argument that you are going 
to hear over the next day is socialism. As the gentleman from Florida 
just said, it is like, what are you talking about? Go in to private 
hospitals, private doctors, there is no question that this is privately 
administered. But here is the question. If we peel it back $1 billion 
or $5 billion, is that all of a sudden not socialism anymore? I mean, 
at what number do we get to where it stops becoming socialism and it 
starts becoming a private, some kind of health care system?
  The arguments, the strawmen, the red herrings that have been put up 
on this debate are absolutely ridiculous. And I can't believe the 
President would draw the line in the sand and just have no arguments to 
back it up.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Let me add one quote to build on that, Mr. Ryan. This is 
from one of our Republican colleagues who seems to get this. David 
Hobson, a Republican, pretty reasonable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. From Ohio. A good guy.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Talking about the President, he said, ``I don't know who 
is advising him up there, but the President is really out of touch. It 
is too little, too late for him to be a fiscal conservative. He should 
have vetoed the farm bill. Now, he is against the SCHIP bill, and he 
wants $190 billion more for the war.''
  So there are Republicans who get this. The President and a lot of 
these so-called fiscally conservative Republicans are Johnny-come-
latelies on this issue. All of a sudden, after ballooning deficits and 
skyrocketing spending, now, when it comes to kids' health they are 
going to all of a sudden be fiscal conservatives. So it is nice; we are 
talking about this year's Democrats, but there are some Republicans who 
get that as well.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Meek, 
we in the 30-Something Working Group generally try to make sure that 
the people that are able to listen to us, our colleagues, the Speaker, 
and anyone else within the sound of our voice, when we do these round 
robin conversations on the House floor we ask people not to take our 
word for it. We ask people to look at the third-party validators that 
we present on the floor and judge for themselves. We are presenting the 
facts here, not just making stuff up and talking in flowery sound 
bites.
  Let's look at today's editorial in USA Today. What they said today 
about the President's veto and what action Congress should take 
tomorrow is our view on the children's health program. Bush Gives Bogus 
Answers to the $83,000 Question. That is the headline on the editorial. 
In summary, the main quote which summarizes the body of their editorial 
is that, ``Bush's claim is misleading at best, simply wrong at worst. 
The House would do well to look past the President's deceptive rhetoric 
and override his veto.'' That is USA Today's editorial from today.
  We are going to cast this vote tomorrow, my friends, and people have 
a choice. When they swore to uphold the Constitution, at the same time 
we know that they made a commitment to their constituents to stand up 
for them; and that when you represent your constituents in government, 
you are supposed to do that and be there for people who don't have a 
voice. That is what this vote is about. It is who is for kids, and who 
stands with the President. It is very stark, very black and white.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I want to talk about that very point. The editorial that 
you held up hits the nail precisely on the head. If you are the 
President of the United States and you want to veto this bill, at least 
be factually accurate and honest about why you are vetoing the bill.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Altmire, I mean, factually, you said 
factually accurate? This whole administration is about misperception. 
It is about look right, we are going left. I mean, it is not about 
that. The good thing about it, Mr. Altmire, is that you were elected 
and your colleagues were elected in this last Congress that brought 
about that paradigm shift. And that wasn't because it was something 
great that an individual did; that was the fact that the American 
people wanted to move in a new direction. Now we are moving in that new 
direction. We have the same game, but the Congress is changing, and we 
are not going to allow that to happen. And I am glad that the Speaker 
is saying, listen, we are going to insure 10 million children, period, 
dot, and we are going to stand there.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The only thing I want to jump in on, Mr. 
Altmire, is that the bottom line is that the track record of this 
administration is that generally the facts are not on the side of their 
argument, so they have to make it up. I mean, that has been their M.O. 
the entire, we are on 7 years now, their entire administration. When 
the facts aren't on your side, make it up. And just like Mr. Meek has 
said repeatedly on this floor during our working group sessions, make 
it up and repeat it over and over and over again, and hopefully people 
will believe it is true. Only the people are on to them now.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. We have had many 30-Something sessions on that very 
topic and a variety of issues. My point on the SCHIP bill and the veto 
override vote we are taking tomorrow is, if you are going to threaten 
to veto or you are going to veto the bill and justify the veto, be 
honest about why you are doing it. Just say, ``Look, I don't agree with 
expanding the program. I don't think this is a good program. I don't 
want to do it.'' That is his prerogative

[[Page H11717]]

to make that case. Don't say it is too expensive when it doesn't cost 
one additional penny, it doesn't add one additional penny to the 
Federal deficit. This bill is paid for. It doesn't add one penny. Don't 
say it is too expensive.
  We talked about the $83,000 in your chart and the USA Today, and 
everybody who has looked at this knows that is a false statement, to 
say that this allows you to go up to $83,000 unchecked, and the 
socialized medicine that we talked about. Don't throw those out there, 
because they are not only not true, they are blatantly false. So don't 
say that is why you are vetoing the bill. Just say, ``I don't like this 
program. I don't want to expand it. I don't want to give health care to 
10 million children.'' That is his prerogative to say that. That would 
be a more accurate statement than the reasons he is giving us to veto 
this bill.
  We have four people who want to speak.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan wants to say something, but I want Mr. 
Murphy to say something because he stood up and he likely had something 
he wanted to share. Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I are always willing to 
share, because we have a whole notebook full of stuff that we are just 
ready to take off on.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I don't have notebooks; I just have loose 
scraps of paper. I haven't reached that level of organization of 
veteran Members like yourselves.
  Let me talk about one more myth. There is not a bill that comes 
before this House, and you and I, Mr. Altmire, are new here, so we are 
figuring this out as we go along. But there is not a bill that comes 
before this House that somebody on the other side doesn't scream 
``illegal immigrants'' over. Right? That is just sort of the buzz word 
that accompanies every bill here.
  We had a Native American housing bill before this House a couple of 
weeks back, and somebody on the other side filed an amendment to make 
sure that no Native American housing benefits went to illegal 
immigrants. Now, I know that we run our programs pretty inefficiently 
in this country, but you have to really mismanage the Native American 
housing program in order to give some of the housing to illegal 
immigrants.
  So what they are saying on the other side is that this children's 
health care bill is going to go to illegal immigrants. Not true. Find 
me anywhere in that bill that allows for that. In fact, Mr. Altmire, it 
doesn't even allow for those health care benefits as part of the SCHIP 
program to go to legal immigrants, people who have their papers, did 
everything right, are waiting to become citizens of this country. They 
can't get the children's health care program under this bill.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. It is expressly prohibited under the bill.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It lays it out, black and white. So yet 
another example of if you say it over and over again and you hope that 
people believe it. As we have said over and over, the agenda here is 
pretty clear. Republicans and the President simply do not want this 
Congress to extend basic foundational health care rights to middle-
class, to kids, and they are coming up with all sorts of crazy 
arguments that don't have truth, a strain of truth in them to try to 
stop them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just hope our friends who are opposing this bill 
to cover children's health care because of the cost of it, which we are 
paying for, will scrutinize the Iraq spending as it starts to come up 
over the next few weeks and few months. As we went over already, one 
day in Iraq, $330 million would cover 270,000 kids for a year for this 
program. That is one day. And if you go through 1 week, $2.3 billion 
would cover 1.8 million kids. And less than 40 days in Iraq would cover 
all of these kids that we want to cover, 10 million kids, for 1 year. 
Forty days in Iraq. And all we are saying is our priority is this.
  Now, I just want to take a minute here to just go over what has 
happened over the past 8 or 9 or 10 months here in Congress, what we 
have done, how we have shifted the priorities. We have the same Members 
who are voting against this bill who voted against the minimum wage 
increase. We have the same Members who are going to vote against the 
children's health care bill are the same members who voted against us 
increasing the Pell Grant and cutting the interest rates for college 
loans in half, the same group of folks.
  When we wanted to invest all this money in alternative energy 
research, we took it from the oil companies, corporate welfare, put it 
into alternative energy research. The same group of folks that voted 
against this SCHIP bill, children's health care bill, voted against 
that, too. And all of these issues come up. The only thing we can get 
them to agree on is probably the veterans spending, which was the 
largest increase in the history of the VA.
  So what we are saying is there is a pattern, Mr. Speaker, there is a 
pattern of behavior of a certain fringe group of people who are here 
that even very conservative people have agreed with us on this issue, 
and we can't get enough to override the veto.
  I don't know about you guys, but I have got a little restaurant I go 
to back home called Vernon's Restaurant, Vernon's Cafe, great Italian. 
But when you are sitting there and you are eating and you are talking 
to your friends who go through everyday life, they are talking about 
their student loans, they are talking about health care, they are 
talking about what are we going to do to stimulate the economy? Why are 
we so dependent on foreign oil? And we all have our own little Vernon's 
in all of our communities. We are trying to address these bread and 
butter economic issues, and I think we have in this Congress. And the 
one that lays before us here is children's health care. For God's sake, 
Mr. Speaker, God help us if we can't pass children's health care.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, it is good that all of us agree here 
that is on the floor here tonight, along with hundreds of other Members 
of Congress. But it only takes a very small percentage of numbers to 
say ``no.''
  And what is interesting, Mr. Ryan, when we start talking about fact 
versus fiction; be accurate if you are going to share something. 
Accuracy is not necessarily a value here in Washington, D.C. We pride 
ourselves, Mr. Speaker, here on the 30-Something Working Group, we go 
through a lot of pain and suffering and research and all of that to 
make sure that what we are sharing with the American people is actually 
fact and not fiction. If we had more fact, we would have better 
policymaking here in Washington, D.C.
  The fact that the President would say, oh, well, you know, the 
Democratic Congress needs to go to work, when we broke records in the 
history of the Republic of 980 rollcall votes. And that is not just 
post offices. That is major policy that has passed off this floor.
  Still saying that, what Mr. Ryan is saying, the bottom line is as we 
go into the last closing minutes of our time here on the floor, the 
bottom line is we are going to see a separation from those that are 
willing to lead and those that are willing to follow tomorrow.

                              {time}  2130

  There's going to be a supermajority vote to vote for children's 
health care to override the President of the United States. The only 
time he ever vetoed a piece of legislation last Congress was dealing 
with the stem cell research bill, and he did that. Okay. But now, every 
week he's threatening a veto. He's threatening a veto.
  Mr. Ryan, over there, has a chart that shows how record oil prices 
under the Bush administration are continuing to climb to today's oil 
prices rate that is at the top, that's recordbreaking at the top.
  Meanwhile, we're around here trying to provide health care for 
children. We have a war that's going on that the President is willing, 
you know, to say, oh, well, it's okay for us to borrow from foreign 
nations to continue a war in Iraq, but we're not willing to provide 
health care for our own children.
  And the sad part, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said funny and then we 
agreed on sad, the sad part is the fact that these are American 
children. I mean, I've been to Iraq. Mr. Altmire and I have been to 
Iraq recently, and some of the Members here, we've been. And the real 
issue is this, is the fact that we went into a health care facility. 
Iraqi children there are getting health care. I mean, you have U.S. 
troops that are in neighborhoods that are giving shots and evaluations. 
I don't have anyone in my neighborhood

[[Page H11718]]

giving shots and evaluations to all the children and not asking for any 
documentation if you have health care or not. It's almost universal.
  And so we're sitting here, and the President's going to stand on a 
small ant hill saying, well, you know, I think it's just too much that 
we're investing, and using some sort of, you know, hocus pocus talking 
about social medicine.
  Meanwhile, children are going to the CVS, Rite-Aid or whatever the 
case may be, families trying to cure themselves. So I just want to make 
sure, I want to put the pressure on my colleagues to make sure that 
they override. And in closing, I'm going to send it over to Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz.
  Y'all know this chart. This is the first action, one of the first 
actions that we took as relates to the Iraq war. It had all of the 
requirements in there to bring our men and women home, put the pressure 
on the Iraqis to stand up. And the Republicans went down there and 
stood with the President and said we stand with the President so that 
the Congress will never override the President. And they may not have 
one of these because if they do I'm going to have my staff down there 
with a camera to take a picture to make sure that we have the second 
picture.
  But those that stand with the President tomorrow in not allowing us 
to override when we have a bipartisan vote out of this House, and we 
have Senators that are standing up here like Orrin Hatch, Grassley, a 
number of other Republicans that are saying, hey, you know, Mr. 
President, you're wrong. But we have some House Members here that are 
saying, well, we're with the President. You continue to stand with the 
President. I would appreciate some sort of public kind of standing out 
with the President because the bottom line is, I believe those Members, 
Mr. Speaker, all due respect, they will be at home reading this process 
in the paper and paying attention to C-SPAN and seeing what's going on 
because their constituents will not allow a Member to vote against 
their own children and then say, I want to go back to Congress and 
represent you.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I'm sorry I went past 30 seconds when you 
asked me to yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That's okay because we are all pretty worked 
up about this. This is really important when it comes down to making 
sure. I have kids too. And Mr. Altmire has kids. One day Mr. Murphy and 
Mr. Ryan are going to have kids. It really matters to all of us.
  But one of the important points that we have not made is how 
effective this program is. The SCHIP program, the Children's Health 
Insurance Program provides health care to kids who need it and who 
wouldn't have it if there wasn't an SCHIP program, and there won't be 
an SCHIP program if we don't make sure we override the President's veto 
or pass a bill and make sure we keep putting it on his desk until he 
signs it.
  I think it's interesting, the President likes to call himself The 
Decider. So it's time for him to decide which of the families he thinks 
shouldn't get coverage, don't deserve health insurance.
  How about this family? The Wilkerson family in St. Petersburg, 
Florida. This is personal, this is the Mom speaking. This is personal 
not only to us, but for millions of parents across the United States, 
said Bethany's mother, Dara, in a telephone call Monday with reporters 
about why she and her husband, Bo, are allowing such a focus on their 
daughter. Dara Wilkerson said Bethany had to have heart surgery in 2005 
when she was 6 months old after doctors told them she had been born 
with two holes in her heart and a valve that didn't close as it should.
  The Wilkersons said their annual household income is about $34,000 
from their jobs, and they cannot afford private insurance. But even if 
they could, Bethany's pre-existing condition, the heart problem she was 
born with, made enrollment in a private plan impossible, her mother 
said. Thanks to Florida's version of SCHIP, the State KidCare program, 
she said Bethany gets the care she needs to recover from her lifesaving 
surgery.
  Those are the kinds of kids that get coverage that wouldn't get it if 
not for the SCHIP program. Those are the kinds of kids that our 
colleagues who choose not to vote to override the President's veto 
tomorrow are going to deny.
  And that's the last thing I wanted to say as we wrap up since we've 
got five of us here tonight, and I don't know who to throw it to.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I just have one more myth that I wanted to throw out 
there that none of us touched on, before our time runs out, and that's 
this idea of this bill promoting adults being in the SCHIP program. And 
the President used that as one of his examples. He talked about it 
today and has talked about it in the past.
  Well, what are the facts of adults being in the SCHIP program? It is 
true that under the current SCHIP program, the plan that is current law 
and has been for the past 10 years, some States have made the 
determination to cover the parents of children, thinking that that will 
entice them to take their entire family to the doctor. And that's 
debatable. It's something that's certainly under a policy discussion we 
could have that debate.
  But what does our bill do about that? Our bill's a reauthorization of 
the program. And the President says we're going to encourage adults to 
get into the program. Well, you know what our bill does? Our bill 
phases out adults being eligible for the program over a 2-year period. 
And after that 2-year period, the only adults that would be allowed 
into the SCHIP program are pregnant women, if it's determined by the 
State, again, it's a State option that they should be covered, and 
there's no guarantee that any State in the country would do that. But 
we phase out the current part of the SCHIP bill that allows adults into 
the program.
  So for the President of the United States to stand up before a camera 
and say, I'm going to veto this bill because it allows adults to get 
coverage under SCHIP, is again just factually inaccurate.

  So with that, if Mr. Murphy is ready. I will yield some time to him.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just think in the end this is about 
choices, Mr. Altmire. Mr. Ryan was talking about it before. This is 
about whether you want to continue to throw billions upon billions of 
dollars into a war in Iraq that, frankly, is probably making this 
country less safe rather than more safe as it breeds terrorism and 
Islamic jihadists within the boundaries of Iraq.
  It's about whether you want to continue to give away $12 to $18 
billion of tax breaks to the oil companies that the oil companies 
themselves say they don't need to continue putting products into the 
American market. Do you want to continue to subsidize the drug 
industry, which is making out like bandits off of a prescription drug 
program that pads their pockets and their profits, as we just found out 
from a new report from the Government Oversight Committee that tells us 
that we're wasting $15 billion a year on the Medicare prescription drug 
program.
  You want to help drug companies or poor kids? Do you want to help oil 
companies or poor kids? Do you want to throw more money in a religious 
civil war, or do you want to help poor kids? I mean, the reason why 
these polls, one after another, come out pleading with Congress to get 
its act together and pass children's health care is because everybody 
out there in the community, at the social halls, at the union halls, at 
the churches, at the synagogues, at the pasta suppers and the pancake 
breakfasts, the PTA, they've all figured out that we're making the 
wrong choice; that in the end the choice is easy. You help middle-class 
families afford college. You help them get health care. You boost their 
wages up to a livable wage, and you can do that without spending 
another dime in taxpayer money in the end. I mean, that's the great 
thing. You don't want to have to raise anybody's taxes to do it. You 
just make different choices. Iraq, oil companies, drug companies, 
instead, minimum wage, health care, kids going to college. I mean, that 
seems like common sense, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, the one thing that is important too, I mean, 
a lot of people would say that, you know, well, my kid has insurance 
and we're fine and everything else. You know, but if your kid's sitting 
in a classroom with a kid who is sick that does not have health care 
because they don't

[[Page H11719]]

qualify for Medicaid, they're going to get your kid sick. And I think 
this kind of ties the whole argument together that we are in this 
together. You know, we have to make very sound, prudent, targeted 
investments in certain areas that are going to yield a lot of benefits.
  These are the same kids we're asking to go off to college and get a 
degree in math and science. But if at a young age these kids don't have 
health care, where they can, if they get sick, have something, and I 
find it completely outrageous that in 2007 we would have a President of 
the United States say, go to the emergency room, or these kids can go 
to the emergency room. I mean, that's just ridiculous. That's just 
ridiculous. You don't have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out 
that it's going to cost everyone a lot more money if this kid that has 
a cold ends up two weeks later in the emergency room with pneumonia or 
something worse and spends two weeks in the hospital.
  I mean, that costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars, as opposed to 
a prescription that would cost 20 or 30 bucks. I mean, this is some 
pretty basic stuff here. And the fact that the President has drawn the 
line in the sand on this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
  So in closing, I want to thank everybody, Mr. Speaker, for being here 
and for participating in the 30-somethings. But I also want to say that 
it's been a very enjoyable week for those of us who are baseball fans 
in northeast Ohio. Those folks who may happen to be in, say, Pittsburgh 
or like Florida, or like New England for example, who, baseball season 
ended a long time ago for some of you, and others who are not faring as 
well, our sympathies go out to you. But in Cleveland, northeast Ohio, 
Youngstown, Akron, it's been a great week, followed up by a great week 
we had a few weeks ago. And many of you may not know, Mr. Speaker, that 
the new WBO/WBC middleweight champion of the world, Kelly Pavlick, is 
from Youngstown, Ohio, too.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, I'll just remind you that our 
weather is still always better than yours.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And also, Mr. Ryan, you shared that with us last 
week; you shared that with us the day before that. We're happy that the 
welterweight and middleweight champion is from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I'm not getting the kind of happy vibe 
from my friends.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, we were very mild. Those of us from 
Florida were very mild when the University of Florida, and I'll take 
this from Ms. Wasserman Schultz because if she says it she may not be 
as mild as I am when a certain team in Ohio, not only in football, but 
basketball, found themselves, no I will not yield. So what I'm saying, 
this whole dancing in the end zone experience that you're having now 
about going on and on and on, Florida, I mean, the Marlins are nowhere 
in this thing, and we had nothing, we're just sitting here quiet, doing 
an hour with you and we're not, we're not talking sports, we're all 
friends. We're talking about children's health care.
  But we understand that those victories, the people of Youngstown, 
Ohio, being in Niles, Ohio, and other cities around it are very 
represented here under your leadership, sir, and I respect that. And 
I'm saying there is a limit.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that. But I think, I want to, for the 
record, I want to clear this up. He says that the Florida folks weren't 
dancing in the end zone when University of Florida won the national 
title. I remember Ms. Wasserman Schultz showing up here in like royal 
blue and orange wardrobe with a purse that had a gator on it. I 
remember that. So that was a little bit of dancing in the end zone. I 
am being polite. I didn't even mention the fact that the Ohio State 
Buckeyes football team was number one in the Nation. I'm trying to be 
polite here. So if you'd show me a little respect.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Ryan, let me ask you a question: When 
was the last year that your team, the Indians, won the World Series? 
When was that? It was a long time ago. It was a long time ago. It's 
just something you might want to remember, that there might be a reason 
why it's taking so long to get over that hump. There is still a game 
left, Mr. Ryan.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually, Mr. Ryan, I think the last time they 
were in the World Series they lost to the Marlins, come to think of it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can we live in the present? The Dalai Lama was here 
today, Mr. Speaker, and he's pretty much focused on how we should live 
in the present moment, and I think it would behoove all of you to take 
the Dalai Lama's advice on that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But we digress.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, we just could not sit here and not 
give the representation that we were sent up here to carry out.
  But, Mr. Ryan, you know, in all seriousness to all the Members, I 
mean, the good thing about the 30-something Working Group, we work so 
hard we have to add some humor in every now and then, especially when 
we work a full day and it's a quarter to 10 and we're still here on the 
floor.
  The bottom line is one of the real historic votes of the 110th 
Congress will take place tomorrow.

                              {time}  2145

  And I'm asking the Members, those that are not willing to override 
the President's veto of children's health care in the United States of 
America, and we don't have to worry about any Democrats, but need it be 
Republicans, I implore you to please reconsider on behalf of the 
children of the United States of America.
  This is not about our children. My kids, they have health care. I am 
a Member of Congress, but I wasn't elected for my children to have 
health care. I didn't go out and give the speech, Mr. Speaker, and say 
``I want you to vote for me because my children need health care and I 
need health care. Send me to Washington. And I am not going to vote for 
you to have health care, but I want my kids to have health care.''
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It's important to point out that you pay for 
your children's health care.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Absolutely. Absolutely. But the real issue is 
this: At least I have a plan that I can afford, and the average 
American doesn't have that. And especially for these poor families, 
they need it.
  So I don't think that anyone who votes against this went to their 
constituents and gave the brimstone speech or whatever you want to call 
it saying, ``I'm going to Washington, and when we have an opportunity 
to insure 10 million American children that need health care, I am 
going to vote against it. Vote for me on Tuesday'' and walk away. That 
did not happen. I guarantee you it did not happen.
  And I want those Members to pay very close attention to when they put 
their card in the voting machine tomorrow and they vote that they look 
at that red light, if they press red, and correct their vote 
immediately on behalf of the children who don't have health care.
  We are given this card here. This card is to help children, to be 
able to help Americans have a better life, and if you vote against it, 
it is really going to be a sad situation for our poorer families that 
are here in the United States of America and those families that are 
financially challenged.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We joke around about baseball and Cleveland, Mr. 
Speaker. The Cleveland Indians are doing great, but Cleveland is the 
poorest city in the entire country. There are a lot of kids in that 
city who would, hopefully, be eligible for this program and be able to 
take advantage of it. The same in Pittsburgh and Miami and cities in 
Florida and certainly Boston. So this is important stuff that we need 
to deal with and, hopefully, we have been able to persuade a few votes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why don't you give out the Web site.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Web site is www.speaker.gov/
30something. But I hope this has been persuasive to folks who are on 
the borderline here deciding on what to do.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. We pray and hope that they join us.
  And I just want to thank Mr. Altmire and, you, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. 
Murphy and Ms. Wasserman Schultz for being here with us.

[[Page H11720]]

  We will vote tomorrow. We will be on the floor continuing in the 
debate.
  Mr. Altmire, I want to thank you for being very factual on the bill 
and sharing with the Members what is actually in the bill. A lot of 
folks don't take the time to find out what's actually in the bill; so I 
am glad you brought that perspective to the floor tonight.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House.

                          ____________________