[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13948-H13952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30 SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) is 
recognized for one-half the time until midnight as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
  We are here tonight with part of the 30 Something Working Group, and 
we are going to talk about what this House has been doing this week. We 
are here, it's late into the evening, and we have been working 
throughout the day on a variety of issues, and we are going to be at 
work tomorrow. I wanted to talk with my colleagues tonight. And we are 
going to have a full house. We are going to be joined by Mr. Murphy 
from Connecticut, Mr. Meek from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz from 
Florida, and Mr. Ryan from Ohio. We are going to have a discussion 
about some of the things that this House has been doing.
  We took several significant votes this week, including the vote that 
was just discussed on Iraq. And we are going to discuss the policy in 
Iraq and the vote that we took today.
  I wanted to start by talking about the President's veto earlier in 
the week of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Now, the 
President has found his veto pen, something that on appropriations 
bills he had not used until this Congress. And I think it's instructive 
to begin this debate by reminding my colleagues, as if they needed 
reminding, that we are talking about an administration that took office 
after 4 consecutive years of record surpluses, 4 consecutive years of 
budget surpluses, that were forecast to continue as far as the eye can 
see. In fact, the 10-year projection for budget surplus beginning in 
2001 was more than $5 trillion of surplus over that 10-year period.

                              {time}  2245

  Well, what have we seen instead of that? We've seen seven consecutive 
budget deficits in the 7 years of this administration, deficits that 
are forecast to continue as far as the eye can see. And instead of that 
$5 trillion in surplus, we've seen more than $3 trillion in deficits in 
just 7 years.
  So, this administration that's now lecturing us on fiscal 
responsibility and vetoing our appropriations bills, criticizing us for 
spending, this administration saw more than $8 trillion flip from a 
projected $5 trillion surplus to $3 trillion in deficit and counting. 
So, that's the context of what we're talking about.
  So, we sent to the President the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill, which includes programs like low-income energy assistance, home 
heating, the LIHEAP program. Now, I don't think there's anyone in this 
country that has not been affected by the price of oil. And home 
heating is something in the Northeast where I'm from in Pennsylvania, 
and in Connecticut where Mr. Murphy is from, and in Ohio where Mr. Ryan 
is from, the price of home heating has continued to skyrocket. And 
we're going to get into some of the numbers, but that's one of the 
things that's in this bill. Well, I don't think that's excessive 
spending, to help people who would otherwise have their heat turned 
off.
  We're talking about funding for community health centers. We're 
talking about funding for Head Start, a program for early childhood 
education. Is there anything more important in this country than early 
childhood education, making sure our children get off to a good start 
and begin their educational careers in a way that we're able to ensure 
that they get off and they're positioned to have the best start 
possible.
  Now, what about medical research, the National Institutes of Health?

[[Page H13949]]

That's what we're talking about in this bill, funding for medical 
research. Is there anyone in the country that thinks we shouldn't be 
spending money to find cures and treatments for debilitating diseases 
across the board? That's what this bill is. That's what the Labor-HHS-
Education bill funds, and the President vetoed that bill. And we're 
going to have a vote in this House to override that veto, and it's 
going to be a very close vote. We were two votes shy of having a veto 
override majority when the bill passed the House the first time. Two 
votes. That's what stands between us and overriding the President's 
veto.
  And I would remind my colleagues as well that we were able to 
override the President's veto just last week. This is not something 
that can't be done. We had a Water Resources Development Act that had 
not passed in 7 full years. It's supposed to be reauthorized every 2 
years. Congress after Congress, in recent years, has been unable to 
pass that bill, so we passed it. And we faced a Presidential veto; the 
President vetoed it. We were able to override that veto overwhelmingly, 
300-plus votes in the House; they got 79 in the other body. And what's 
in that bill? That's another bill that the President, and I outlined 
his record on fiscal responsibility and he wants to lecture us on 
spending, for infrastructure improvements in this country. Building 
levees in New Orleans, does that sound like pork? Building flood 
prevention infrastructure all across this country.
  There were projects in that bill in almost every congressional 
district in the country to prevent flooding, to help the waterways 
infrastructure in a way that we're investing for the first time in 7 
years in flood prevention infrastructure. So we overrode that veto 
overwhelmingly. We do have the opportunity to do it again on the Labor-
HHS-Education bill. And we're going to talk more about that.
  At this time, I want to yield to my colleague Mr. Murphy from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and I 
appreciate his promptness in being here as I share with him today. We 
trust that the other members of the 30-Somethings will join us here 
today, but it falls very often on the new members of the 30-Somethings 
to make sure that we are here to begin the sharing of good news with 
the American people.
  And I hope there is good news, Mr. Altmire. I hope that people 
throughout this country who see the President's veto of this incredibly 
important bill, and you laid out very clearly and very succinctly what 
the President has vetoed, what he has said no to. We're talking about 
health care for kids. We're talking about good schools. We're talking 
about Head Start, medical research, home heating assistance for the 
elderly. And these are the basic building blocks of a compassionate 
society, and the President has said, very firmly and clearly, no to 
those.
  And as you said, we're not very far away from having the requisite 
number of votes here on the House floor to override that veto. And I 
know that's kind of inside baseball for a lot of people, whether we 
have two-thirds or three-fourths or whatever the percentage is that we 
need. But it's important because, as you said, the President has found 
his veto pen for the first time in his tenure in office. And I think 
it's important to try to figure out what's different this year than as 
was the case in the last previous 6 years of his Presidency? And it's 
kind of funny because, if you look at the record, as you said, Mr. 
Altmire, it seems a little odd to be having lectures from this 
administration on fiscal responsibility because this President and the 
Republican Congress over the last 6 years have increased Federal 
spending by 50 percent, 50 percent just over 6 years. We've put $3 
trillion on top of the deficit, on top of the debt that this country 
owes, as we've watched the President and this Congress continue to 
spend and continue to borrow. We've seen the amount of foreign-held 
debt, and you know, this is something that Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan have 
been talking about for years and years and years. We've seen the amount 
of foreign-held debt during that time double. This is all under a 
Republican-controlled Congress, both Houses, and a Republican 
administration. And during that entire time, the biggest piece of the 
budget that has exploded has been the funding for this war.
  Now, those of us who paid attention when the President initially 
rolled out his plans to invade Iraq, his very rosy and optimistic 
projections of our success there and the cost of that war, well, 
remember that he told the American people, his administration told the 
Congress that he thought that this war wasn't going to cost more than 
$50 or $60 billion to get the job done? And also, if you remember, that 
the Iraqis were going to welcome the Americans as conquering heroes. 
Well, we know that that $50 to $60 billion was a figure of fiction, 
historical fiction now, Mr. Altmire, because now the estimates are that 
this war has cost us not $50 billion, not $100 billion, not $500 
billion, but $1.3 trillion. And if we look forward to the projections 
associated with carrying out a war for the next 10 years, as this 
President has told this country he's planning to do, or that his war 
planners intend to do, we're talking about a $3.5 trillion commitment 
before this is all done. Now, that is a number that is almost 
impossible to get our hands around. I mean, what does $3.5 trillion 
mean to anybody? Well, what it means is that we're going to borrow more 
and more and more. We are going to put our children and our 
grandchildren and our great-grandchildren into hock in this country.
  And so, when we hear this President sitting down and telling the 
American people that he's going to get tough on spending, and the way 
he's going to do that is by denying education to kids and health care 
to the sick and heat to the elderly, well, during that time he and his 
Republican Congress have spent like drunken sailors when it comes to a 
very mismanaged and misguided war in Iraq, you can't help but wonder 
where his priorities are and where this Congress' priorities were for 
the last several years.
  So, it's all got to be, I think, in relation, Mr. Altmire, because 
we're making choices here, as we have for the last 6 years. We've 
chosen not to spend on American hospitals and American children. We've 
chosen not to spend to help our elderly get what they need in order to 
keep their house heated for the winter. And instead, we've chosen to 
build Iraqi buildings and Iraqi hospitals. We've chosen to put more and 
more troops in harm's way in a war that is making this country less 
safe in the long run rather than more safe. This is all about choices, 
and it's time that we started making some different ones.
  And that's why we got sent here, Mr. Altmire. We got sent here to 
start investing in this country, to start making sure that our 
priorities look to this country, to the United States of America, 
first. And that's what the Labor-HHS appropriations bill does. It is 
the foundation of that compassionate government that we all believe in. 
It's about medical research. It's about schools. It's about hospitals.
  And I hope, as you said, that there will be enough Republicans here 
who will join us, and we only need a handful, so that we can reverse 
that and bring back some common sense to our spending priorities in 
this country, Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to mention one other issue that was in that 
bill. We talked about home heating assistance. We talked about health 
care for children, medical research. We talked about the Head Start 
program, but it's the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. And one 
of the programs that's in that bill that the President thought was 
excessive spending was additional 200,000 slots for job training for 
dislocated workers. And I can tell you, coming from western 
Pennsylvania where we know about dislocated workers and the need for 
job training and people to readapt when companies move and with the 
loss of manufacturing jobs, those are critically important programs 
that the President considers to be excessive spending. That's what 
we're talking about with this bill. That's what type of spending we're 
talking about.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, if you would yield for a 
moment.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Yes, I would.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Really, when it comes down to it, the only 
thing that's different here is the party that's writing the budget. I 
mean, really, when you look at it over time, what's different about the 
last six

[[Page H13950]]

budgets that this Congress passed that over time expanded Federal 
expenditures by 50 percent and the budget that we've passed, which 
simply reflects the fact that it costs a little bit more to heat your 
home if you're a senior, that it costs a little bit more to run a 
school than it did last year? What's different? I mean, the fact is is 
that it seems like it's just base partisan politics in the end, that 
all that really is different is that the Democrats are writing this 
budget this year and the Republicans were writing the last six budgets. 
And it is not a coincidence that over the last 6 years we saw nary a 
veto from this President while his party was in charge of the Congress, 
and now all of a sudden we have seen a flurry of vetoes on bills that 
reflect many of the same priorities, we think adjusted to make a little 
bit more sense for our communities, many of the same priorities that 
were reflected in the budgets for the last 6 years. And I think to a 
lot of us that came here to change the culture of this place, as much 
as we care about resetting our priorities and putting funding back into 
our communities, we also were sort of hoping that there was a little 
bit of a message sent in this election to change the partisan rancor 
that has really enveloped this place, and the President, by vetoing 
bills very similar to ones that he has signed in the past simply 
because a different party controls the House, I think does a disservice 
to the process and a disservice to the mandates that a lot of voters 
sent us here with, Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. And the last thing for context, before I turn it over to 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz from Florida, you will remember, Mr. Murphy and I 
both being freshman, the excitement of that first week in Congress and 
the things that we did that first week when we were first sworn in at 
the beginning of 2007. Well, perhaps the most important thing that we 
did was return to pay-as-you-go budget scoring, which is very simple. 
It's the same thing that we all do in our own checkbooks at home and 
the same thing every business in America has to do. It says that you 
have to have money on one side of the ledger if you want to spend it on 
the other, pay-as-you-go. If you want to decrease revenue or you want 
to increase spending, you have to find a way to pay for it, an offset, 
you have to find an offset. And every spending bill and every 
authorization bill that we have passed out of this House this year, 
every single one of them has been compliant with pay-as-you-go. It has 
paid for itself; it's been budget neutral.
  So, the context of this debate with the President about his 
willingness to veto these bills and saying it's excessive spending, the 
American people should be aware of the fact that that's in the context 
of our returning to pay-as-you-go budget scoring. That's what led to 
the record surpluses of the 1990s that I referred to earlier. And the 
failure of this Congress to renew pay-as-you-go budget scoring in 2002 
is what led to the record deficits that we're mired in today.
  So, when you hear about the vetoes of these spending bills, please 
keep in mind that we're talking about bills that are compliant with 
pay-as-you-go budget scoring, bills that are budget neutral and that 
have the appropriate offsets when there are spending increases.
  I would yield at this time to my good friend, Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Altmire. It is a 
pleasure again to join my colleagues in the 30-Something Working Group. 
And I'm so glad that our newest members of the Working Group, Mr. 
Murphy and Mr. Altmire, have been holding down the fort for the last 
little while talking about spending priorities, because that is 
actually the most glaring difference between the Republicans and the 
way they handled this institution and the Democrats and the way we are 
handling it.
  Let's take the problem that we're facing here now that you've been 
talking about, and that is that the President vetoed the Labor Health 
and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. And I am proud to 
sit as a member of the Appropriations Committee with Mr. Ryan. And I 
can tell you that the difference in the overall spending plan that the 
President put forward versus our 12 bills combined amounts to $22 
billion. Now, $22 billion might sound like a big number, but let's put 
it in context.

                              {time}  2300

  Twenty-two billion dollars is approximately what we are spending in 
Iraq in 2 months. That's the difference between what Democrats in 
Congress are proposing to spend for all 12 bills combined, the 
difference between the President's proposal and the Democrats' 
proposal. That problem underscores the fact that the President only has 
one spending priority, and that is the war in Iraq. The problem is that 
the only spending priority that matters to President Bush is the war in 
Iraq. It's not even the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because he has so 
clearly shortchanged what was going on in Afghanistan when we started, 
which is where the war on terror, or the pursuit of bin Laden was 
ongoing that we abandoned when he shifted the focus of America to the 
war in Iraq, that it has blocked out the sun. His spending priority, 
his only one, the war in Iraq, has blocked out the sun and made it 
impossible for us to move forward on things like education, like 
expanding access to health care for children, like making sure that we 
can pass a stem cell research bill that the vast majority of this 
country supports.
  I will just give you an example of one of the things that resulted 
from the veto of the Labor-HHS bill and that is the increase in Ryan 
White title IV funding for AIDS programs for families. We have an 
explosion of AIDS in this country. We absolutely need to make sure that 
we get a handle on it. There hasn't been an increase in title IV 
funding in years. Now that we are in charge and are making sure that we 
move this country in a new direction, we are focusing on the domestic 
priorities of Americans. Americans want us to withdraw our troops from 
Iraq in a responsible way and focus on things that they care about when 
it comes to their everyday lives. That is literally what the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill does. It is an expression of our values. And our 
values reflect the needs of Americans when it comes to their health 
care, when it comes to their education, when it comes to their 
environment at work. And the priorities and values reflected in the 
Republicans' agenda is the war in Iraq.
  Now, I think the American people clearly stated what their intentions 
were and what they wanted Congress to do last November 7, and we have 
repeatedly, and we did again tonight just before we came on the floor 
this evening for the 30-Something hour, they have repeatedly urged us 
in Congress to begin a responsible withdrawal of our troops, to stop 
sending the troops over for tour after tour, the same men and women, 
the same strain on their families, sending them over there without the 
equipment that they need, sending them over there without the proper 
training, with tours of duty that are beyond the appropriate length of 
time, stretching families, causing divorces, causing strain, 
psychological impact on children, but they don't care. It just doesn't 
matter. The President's priority is Iraq, and everyone else's opinion 
be damned.
  I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not just the President. It is enough Members 
of Congress on the Republican side primarily that are standing by the 
President. They have to go to the voters next year and say, in my last 
term in Congress, I stood by President Bush. The thing is that when you 
talk about the war funding, the waste, the no-bid contracts, the 
Pentagon losing billions of dollars and nobody knows where it is, you 
don't hear our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, come up and 
pitch a fit about that. But if you want to talk about $1 billion or $2 
billion more in health, education, job retraining, all of a sudden the 
sky is falling. All of a sudden the party that raised the debt limit 
five times and borrowed $3 trillion under President Bush is now 
concerned with a shift in funding to college education, Mr. Meek, to 
community health clinics, Mr. Altmire, to Head Start, to these 
fundamental programs that this country has stood behind. And the kicker 
is SCHIP, $35 billion over 5 years, and the President says that's too 
much spending so we can't provide health care for 10 million kids, poor 
kids, but we can just turn

[[Page H13951]]

around without a blink of an eye and ask for $200 billion to keep the 
war going in Iraq, without any kind of deadlines or timelines or any 
kind of shift in the focus. That's the frustrating part.
  Before I yield to my friend, I would just like to say there has been 
a pattern here. On September 11 or after September 11, Mr. Murphy, it 
was go shopping. And then during the whole SCHIP debate, it was, well, 
they can go to the emergency room, these kids. Then during Katrina it 
was, ``You're doing a good job, Brownie,'' consistently these flippant 
remarks that the President tends to make that lacks an understanding of 
the seriousness of some of these situations.
  So it is frustrating as we are trying to make some investments into 
the United States of America, into this country, and the President 
consistently, with a small band of Republican supporters, is able to 
veto this, and unfortunately, we don't have enough votes in the House 
yet to override these vetoes.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mr. Ryan, and I want to 
thank the Members and Mr. Altmire for hosting this hour and anchoring 
this hour for us. It is always good to see Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She 
has been busy. There are a lot of appropriations bills coming through 
the floor. And Mr. Murphy has so much to offer to this 30-something.
  Mr. Ryan, I appreciate the fact that you took us down Memory Lane, 
especially what this administration has done. Being one that pays 
attention to history and appreciates those that have contributed to 
this country, whether it be in battle or service in the military and 
those families that are waiting for their loved ones to come home, 
whether it be a son or a daughter or a sister or a brother or a mother, 
waiting, I think it is important for us to recognize right here in the 
moment, I can't help but think and reflect on the contributions of 
those Americans before me, the sacrifices that they have made that was 
just regular order that we call here in Congress, it was just another 
day. But these were heroes and sheroes that stood on behalf of this 
country and wanted to carry out the will of the American 
people. Sometimes we get caught up here in Washington about what we 
think. I think it's important to note that seven out of 10 Americans 
have a bad feeling about what is going on in Iraq, the direction that 
we are going in. This New Direction Congress has tried to steer this 
administration in the right direction, but I'm just going to put it on 
the lap of those that are in Congress. The President is not running 
again.

  I actually got up pretty early this morning and had a chance to go 
down to Morning Journal and have a chance to sit there and take calls 
from the American people. As you know, you get a cross section of 
Democrats, Republicans, independents, what have you.
  But I think it is very, very important for us to realize, four 
Republicans tonight voted in the affirmative on H.R. 4156, which is the 
Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act of 2008. I 
think it is important that people note that in that bill, it put forth 
$50 billion under the $200 billion that the President called for. And 
the veto that you were talking about a little earlier as it relates to 
the health centers, as it relates to the research that has to take 
place dealing with the illness that many Americans are facing, family 
members that have cancer right now that need that research, need those 
dollars. The President vetoes those dollars.
  So I think it is important for the Members here on the floor and the 
Members that are listening to what we are saying here on the floor and 
the staff members that are listening and the Americans that are 
listening that we pay very close attention. Everyone has to be a part 
of this paradigm shift in Washington, DC. It just can't be the majority 
we have here in the House and the one majority we have in the Senate, 
because if we had 60 votes, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we would be able to 
move the agenda that the American people call for.
  So my contribution tonight would be to, well, one, to our Republican 
friends on the other side of the aisle that don't allow us to have 
enough votes to be able to override the President, that the American 
people will hold them in judgment. To the Members in the Senate that 
feel that whatever the reason may be to not allow us to override the 
President, because the President is not running again, but you are, 
that the American people, independent, Republican, Democrat, first-time 
voter will let their voice be heard in 2008. That's the good thing 
about this whole thing, the fact that I know in this democracy that 
people are paying attention to what is going on.
  You cannot justify, ladies and gentlemen, when you look in the face 
of 10 million children that have to receive health care and say that, 
well, it's okay for the President to veto and for me to stand by the 
President and not by those children, it's okay for us to continue on in 
a war with no accountability, and then we have the Blackwater incident, 
and then we have other incidents that are there. So the only thing that 
I am excited about is the fact that the American people are paying 
attention. But if it was about politics, I would just sit in my office 
and allow the President to do what he does and a very small majority as 
it relates to Republicans standing by the President because I know one 
day the Americans will rise up and the American spirit will rise up and 
we will see a different America. That is what I am praying for and I am 
hoping for very soon.
  Mr. Ryan, I think you are 110 percent right. I think we need to 
remind the Members of the past. We need to make sure that we recognize 
those Members that were once Members of Congress but decided to follow 
the President, and the American people took them out of office, and as 
far as I am concerned, if you don't want to stand on behalf of those 
that sent us here, then you are making a career decision. The bottom 
line is we have men and women in harm's way right now.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. That is a perfect segue for what I wanted to get into 
right now, and we are going to, I think, conclude on this topic because 
this is certainly the most important issue facing the country today is 
the war in Iraq. I think anybody would agree. What this House did today 
is, as the gentleman from Florida talked about, try to get a handle on 
this situation and try to put a plan in place where none exists today 
on what our mission is going to be in Iraq.
  I was going to talk a little bit about what we did today in the 
House, what the bill said, and I will turn it over to Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz to go into a little bit more detail. H.R. 4156 requires the 
redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of 
enactment with a target for completion of December 15, 2008. It 
requires transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from 
primarily combat to force protection and diplomatic protection, limited 
support to Iraqi security forces and targeted counterterrorism 
operations.
  The bill prohibits deployment of any U.S. troops not fully equipped 
and trained. Is there anybody who can disagree with that? Waivable with 
a presidential national security certification. So it gives the 
President the ability to waive that requirement if he feels it is 
necessary. It extends to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel the 
limitations of the Army Field Manual on permissible interrogation 
techniques. That means no torture, something that this House has voted 
on in the past. It is in the Army manual today. It just says you have 
to abide by what is in the Army Field Manual as it is currently 
written. And finally, as we discussed, it provides $50 billion to meet 
the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but defers the 
consideration of the remainder of the President's nearly $200 billion 
request.
  So this is a responsible course of action. The House passed it today.
  I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida at this point to give 
her views on this issue.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Altmire.
  Here is the bottom line. There is a dramatic and stark difference 
between the Republicans' priorities and the Democrats' priorities. 
There is one priority, and only one that you will ever hear from the 
other side, and that is to continue to fund the war in Iraq, continue 
to put our troops in harm's way, continue to have their families 
separated from them, continue for them to have longer and longer tours 
of duty,

[[Page H13952]]

more and more strain, more and more tours of duty.
  Here are our priorities. We passed the largest increase in veterans 
benefits in the 77-year history of the VA. We passed legislation to 
increase the minimum wage. We passed legislation to expand access to 
health care for 10 million children. We passed legislation to cut the 
student loan interest rate in half. The list goes on.
  And what do you hear from the Republicans? Nothing. You hear, let's 
put more money into the war in Iraq. Let's lengthen the time that the 
men and women fighting on our behalf spend there. Let's send them over 
there for more and more tours of duty. Do you ever hear anything from 
that side of the aisle in terms of an agenda, in terms of getting 
anything done? All I hear is ``no.'' All I hear is, ``not going to do 
that.'' All I hear, again, is, ``Yes, Mr. President. Whatever you say, 
Mr. President.''
  Our criticism of them, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan, if you remember, in the 
30-Something Working Group in the 109th was that they were the 
bobblehead Republicans who did nothing more than shake their head up 
and down and do whatever the President said. And nothing has changed. 
Well, guess what. A year from now, which is just about a year from now, 
they will be called to account just like you said, Mr. Meek, and we 
will see just how many fewer Republicans there will be here that serve 
in this chamber, because I think the American people have had it up to 
here.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just want to make a point. It is not 
like we are out on a limb here. We just saw a poll that came out a few 
days ago from CNN that shows that seven in 10 Americans oppose this 
war. That is the highest number, 68 percent, 70 percent of Americans 
oppose this war, the highest number since the war began.

                              {time}  2315

  We are seeing almost by the week, by the day, new generals, new 
senior retired American military officials coming out and breaking with 
this President. We have already seen the Iraq Study Group, we have 
already seen dozens of foreign policy experts come out and plead with 
this President. Even many of his best friends, many of his father's 
advisors have pleaded for a new course.
  The Democrats are on the side of the American public. The Democrats 
are on the side of the foreign policy community on Iraq. The Democrats 
are on the side of an increasing number of retired military generals 
and officials on this issue. As you said, there is just a very loyal, 
very recalcitrant block of Republicans who refuse to abide by the 
growing will of the American public on this issue. There will be a 
price to be paid for this.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield. What is clear 
here is there is a threat of panic running through the caucus on the 
other side of the aisle because we are up to 16 of their incumbent 
Members who have decided to bail and who recognize that the ship is 
listing and has been listing badly and is in danger of just completely 
going down. There doesn't appear to be any likelihood of the ship 
righting itself in the near future. They aren't expected and aren't 
expecting to get their act together and focus on an agenda that the 
American people support because they have been a one-note, tunnel-
vision party for far too long.
  So you have 16 that have decided to retire already, with, we are 
sure, more to come. It's just not surprising because they do not share 
the priorities of everyday working families, Americans who want the 
Congress to focus on a new direction and not give them more of the 
same.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It's interesting, and I think you made the right 
point. It seems like the President has one priority, and one and only 
one, and that is the funding of the war. What is interesting is when 
you look at the Labor-HHS bill, some of the other bills we are trying 
to pass that increase the Pell Grants and some of the other things, we 
are not getting the level of support we should.
  These vets need those programs. These veterans that are coming back, 
it's not like they are making a lot of money, many of them with their 
kids they are trying to send to college. So why wouldn't this apply? 
The vets aren't just fighting for the Defense appropriations bill that 
passes out of the House or the VA benefit package that passes out of 
the House. The veterans are fighting for America. They are fighting for 
a strong country that does research and development. Veterans have 
family members who get cancer. So they are very concerned, I would 
think, Mr. Speaker, with investments at NIH to continue cancer 
research. They have kids that may need health care. They have kids that 
go to school. They may have a kid that wants to participate in a Head 
Start program. In each instance, Mr. Altmire, our fearless leader in 
this 30-Something group tonight, these vets are fighting for what makes 
America great, and that is freedom, that is investment, that is a 
strong economy. Those are the kind of things we are investing in.
  So to say your only priority is the war and spending what is now 
projected by the end of the year $1.3 trillion in the war. The 
President says, and a small group of recalcitrant Republicans say here 
in the House: We can't fund it because we don't have the money to put 
in the health care and everything else.
  Mr. MEEK. Will the gentleman yield for a second? I know you're an 
appropriator and we are talking about appropriations. You and Mr. 
Murphy are kind of throwing around these big words tonight. Let it be 
known that some of us in the room just want to break it down a little 
bit here in this Chamber.
  I can't go back to my district and tell Ms. Johnson and Ms. Rodriguez 
or Ms. Jones who worked their entire lives that because the President 
decides to veto the Labor-Health bill, and I think it's important that 
we share this with the Members, we can't tell those individuals to suck 
it up. I am sorry that you weren't in the Defense bill. I am sorry that 
it had nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, that we can't be for 
you.
  One thing I can say here in this House is that we are for them and 
that we are standing for those individuals, and they are Republicans 
and they are Independents and they are Democrats and they are nonvoters 
and individuals thinking about voting for the first time. They are the 
sick and shut-in on that sick and shut-in list when people go to 
wherever they worship, or whatever the case may be. They are the 
individuals counting on this Congress to stand for them.
  The Congress is doing what we are supposed to do, Mr. Altmire. But 
the bottom line is that the President has to do what he has to do, and 
he has to be the President of the United States of America, not just to 
secure the issue in Iraq. We have Americans here right now that need 
our support and our help.
  I am glad that we are here and I am glad that we are putting the 
pressure on the minority party to do the right thing on behalf of their 
constituents and the American people.
  Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Thanks to all my colleagues who participated tonight. 
Thanks, especially, Mr. Speaker for the time allotted to us. Please, to 
continue the discussion, anyone can go to www.speaker.gov and go to the 
30-Something Working Group and we can continue this discussion by e-
mail.
  I thank the Speaker.

                          ____________________