[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4441-H4446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PROGRESS IN PASSING LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's an honor to be 
before the House once again, and I think it's important that we get a 
chance to come to the floor and not only share with the Members the 30-
Something Working Group, some of the issues that we have worked on in 
the past, but those issues that we will continue to focus on in the 
future.
  With this being the ``political season'' for those Presidential 
candidates, there's still a lot of work to be done here in the Nation's 
Capital on policy issues that are facing real consideration before this 
House and before the Senate. One may focus on what is happening in the 
campaign trail. But I want to share with the Members tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, on what has taken place here in the Democratic House of 
Representatives, majority, and also how this House has worked with a 
number of our Republican colleagues on the other side in passing major 
legislation that has made it to the floor that would allow Republicans 
and all Members of the House to work together on issues that the 
American people are hoping that we can come together on.
  This House has made progress in passing some 177 pieces of key 
legislation, more than 70 percent with a significant bipartisan vote. 
As it relates to the recent past of the last three terms that I have 
been here, we have never seen those kind of numbers before. It's 
important that Members on both sides of the aisle are able to come 
together on legislation that all of our constituents can agree on and 
that we can illustrate to those that are out there that are saying, 
Well, you know, can Democrats and Republicans work together, can 
Democrats put forth legislation that Republicans can vote for,

[[Page H4442]]

can Republicans vote for measures that Democrats bring to the floor, 
and I think through the leadership of the Speaker and the majority 
leader and also the majority whip and Democratic caucus and the vice 
chair and the rest of our leadership, the proof is in the pudding.
  I want to say that the 177 measures that have gone through this House 
and the 70 percent that have passed with a significant bipartisan vote 
is what the American people called for, what they wanted. So many 
Members of the House ran on, I am going to Washington, DC to represent 
you, I am going to Washington, DC to make sure that you pass sensible 
legislation, and I am not necessarily running to be a part of the 
Democratic caucus or to be a part of the Republican caucus or carry a 
special-interest interest.
  I think that when we looked at the new direction that the American 
people were looking for back in the 2006 elections in November, they 
got it. Measures that would have never made it to the House floor have 
made it to the House floor.
  I have to speak of a number of my colleagues that were on the floor 
prior to our new Democratic majority back in the Republican-led 
Congress that said, If you give us the opportunity to lead, we will 
lead in a way that you will be proud and that you would feel good about 
the leadership that you have in the House of Representatives. We were 
not only--I mean we weren't speaking to just independents, we weren't 
even speaking to just Democrats. We were speaking to all Americans, 
including Republicans and those that could not even vote yet, that they 
would have a voice on this floor, that they would have an opportunity 
to see a majority that would allow legislation to come to the floor 
that would change their lives.
  I also would like to say out of the 177 key measures that were 
passed, 125 of those measures had the support of more than 50 
Republicans in this House.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, you're a part of our new majority makers that are 
here. I think that it's important that we reflect on the past so we can 
see what the future is going to be about. I see a bright future in this 
House, you see a bright future in this Congress, and I think if the 
American people engage themselves as Americans and not as Democrats or 
Republicans or independents or Green party, or what have you, saying 
that they are looking for a House that would provide the kind of 
opportunities that they deserve for a Congress, for a government, 
provide the opportunity that they deserve, and they can find faith in 
what the 30-Something Working Group will share with you tonight.
  These bipartisan votes that have been signed by the President include 
the Economic Stimulus Act, College Cost Reduction and Access Act, the 
9/11 Commission Recommendations. For instance, let me put a pin right 
there. The 9/11 Commission recommendations was supported and was a 
bipartisan commission that brought about these recommendations under a 
Republican President, a Republican Congress, that the Republican 
Congress would not endorse and would not pass and the President did not 
support. But once this Democratic Congress allowed that legislation to 
come to the floor as part of our Six in 06 measure, we were able to get 
bipartisan support for that measure, and the President signed. So it 
goes to show that being in the majority does help.
  Also, the Innovation Agenda bill, the Lobbying and Ethics Reform, 
minimum wage, a bill for improving and expanding Head Start, and 
historic energy independence and security bill that reduced dependency 
on foreign oil, I think it's very, very important that we focus on 
those issues.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we look at the future 
because we have so many issues that are before us even before we finish 
this 110th Congress. We have to start to focus not only on how we are 
going to find ourselves bringing our men and women home, and there was 
a vote last week that was very historic. Never before since I have been 
here in this House that the House has voted in the majority to not 
continue to fund the failed policies of the Bush administration as 
relates to the war in Iraq.
  I also think that it's important that as we continue to consider how 
we are going to approach on an emergency supplemental, approach the 
emergency supplemental that the President has asked for to continue to 
fund the war in Iraq, that if I could put it this way on Navy terms, If 
we shoot a shot over the bow of those individuals that are in Iraq, 
what I may call the Iraqi parliament, and let them know that the United 
States of America will not continue to give a blank check to the fact 
that they have not made the political reforms that they need to make so 
that the U.S. taxpayer dollar will be spent in an appropriate way to 
enable the Iraqi government to stand up on their own feet so that we 
are able to provide the necessary resources to our constituents here in 
our country and here in our districts.
  I also think that it's important, Mr. Speaker, as we start to look at 
these issues, we look at the largest increase in veteran funding in the 
history of the Veterans Affairs Department, preparing for our men and 
women to come back so they can receive the kind of assistance that they 
deserve because they allow us to salute one flag.
  I think it's also important, Mr. Speaker, and also for the Members 
who realize that even though we may disagree on a number of issues, and 
they are a number of issues that we disagree on, we can, if you ever 
heard this, agree to disagree.

                              {time}  2245

  But when it comes down to the votes here on this House floor for our 
folks back home, I think it is important that we hold their hopes and 
their dreams paramount in that debate. And because of the kind of 
leadership that we have within our caucus, some 177 key votes, 125 of 
those votes receiving over 50 percent Republican support, it goes to 
show you or show the American people and also Members of Congress how 
we can come together on behalf of the greater good.
  I know that Mr. Murphy has joined us, and I want to yield some time 
to him so that he can share as not only a new Majority Maker, but also 
as a member of the majority, as we look at the future, as we look at 
bipartisanship that we speak so highly of, that we should reflect on 
what Mr. Ryan and I said when we first started working on 30-Something 
some 6 years ago, that bipartisanship can only happen when the majority 
allows it to happen.
  I think the evidence, the evidence of not only the Congressional 
Record, but the evidence of our words that we have laid on the 
Congressional Record over the years, is that we hold paramount 
bipartisanship, that we hold opportunity, that we hold inclusion. So if 
it is someone, an American somewhere in a super-Republican district 
saying do I have a voice in Congress, will the Democratic majority 
allow my voice to be heard, will the values of my community be heard in 
Congress and will it be allowed to pass the House of Representatives 
and the Senate, I think the proof is in the pudding.
  I am hoping on the 30-Something website we can have this information 
placed on that website, so that Americans can go and check the record 
for themselves.
  One thing I take great pride in personally, Members, is that the 30-
Something Working Group, we go through a lot of research and the 
members of our group believe in fact versus fiction. We bring fact to 
the House floor. We do not bring fiction. That is what the American 
people are calling for.
  Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Meek. The honor 
is also to be part of the 30-Something Working Group and to get to 
spend the precious moments on the floor with you and Mr. Ryan, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Altmire and others who can't be here this 
evening.
  As you noted, I am a new Member of Congress. I came from the 
Connecticut State legislature. I came here with some degree of 
trepidation, because coming from the Connecticut State legislature, a 
place in which partisanship has its day, but certainly is not the rule, 
the reputation of this place, at least under the last 12 years of 
Republican rule, struck fear into the hearts of a lot of new Members, 
because we came from experiences, at least those of us who came from 
experiences in the State legislature, where

[[Page H4443]]

the rule was that we reached out and worked across the aisle. The rule 
was that to get anything done, you needed to have Republican and 
Democratic support.
  The reason that in Connecticut the State legislature enjoys a level 
of support and approval that the United States Congress has not 
traditionally had is in part because on the most important stuff, in 
Connecticut we found a way to do that.
  I was the chair of the Public Health Committee for several years in 
the Connecticut legislature and we passed the Nation's first stem cell 
investment law. We did it with a Republican Governor. We did it on a 
bill that was introduced by a Republican senator and a Republican 
member of the House, even though Democrats had near veto-proof 
majorities in both chambers. We did it with Republicans and Democrats. 
Frankly, it didn't matter what the letter was after your name, R or D. 
It was the right thing to do. So I came down here as a member of the 
new Democratic majority wondering whether there was going to be a 
chance for that same type of cooperation.
  As you pointed out, Mr. Meek, we saw it immediately in those first 
100 hours. In the agenda we put forth on energy, on the minimum wage, 
on student loans, on ethics, we had Republicans and Democrats standing 
together.
  Now, that hasn't happened every day here on the House floor, and the 
times it doesn't are the moments in which CNN and MSNBC and the talk 
show pundits jump on it. But, really, when you talk about the big 
things that have passed here, you have seen this House coming together. 
You saw it on the farm bill most recently, and you saw it today.
  For anyone that was lucky enough to be here on the House floor, Mr. 
Meek, maybe you mentioned it, to see the debate on the defense 
authorization bill, it was a pretty remarkable bipartisan affair. In 
fact, the bill is named after the Republican ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, probably something that average 
voters out there who hear about the conflict that happens in this House 
every day wouldn't have expected. But there is, I hope, a growing 
spirit here on the House floor that we can cross the aisle that 
literally exists here on the House floor in order to pass important 
things.
  But we need more of it. We need more of it because the most important 
issues for our constituents can't happen unless we have the votes here 
all too often to overcome the President's veto. We did that today with 
an incredibly important farm bill that begins the process of 
transferring unjustifiable subsidies for American farmers and turns 
them around to funding for conservation programs and nutrition 
programs. We are going to stand up to the President when it comes to 
sensible farm policy. But we need more of that.
  When it comes to the GI Bill, which is this Congress' landmark effort 
to once again recommit ourselves to a notion that this Nation stood 
upon in the wake of World War II, that every returning GI from the 
field of battle should have access to a quality education in a school 
of their choosing in their State, we have withdrawn from that 
commitment since World War II, and this House and our compatriots in 
the Senate are attempting to make that commitment once again.
  The funding for returning GIs has withered to the point that that 
commitment no longer exists. If you want to come back and you can go to 
school, maybe you will get a little bit of help, but you are still 
going to have to pay a significant amount of money, and you are 
probably going to have to do it part-time, because there has been 
historically not enough money for living expenses for those GIs.
  We think if we are going to ask you to be a full-time warrior for 
this country in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should allow you to be a full-
time student when you come back to the United States. We should be able 
to pay your way to the most expensive State college in your State, but 
we should also give you a stipend in order to make that journey through 
college education full time. If we are asking men and women to fight 
and die for us, to sustain injuries that change their lives on the 
field of battle, we should support them when they come home by 
providing them with educational benefits.
  But we don't have the votes here on the House floor today to override 
that presidential veto, Mr. Meek. So we need more of that bipartisan 
cooperation that we have seen. Democrats are willing to stand up for 
returning veterans to give them a new GI Bill. We stood in lockstep as 
the majority party here last week to do that. We had 30 or 40-some odd 
of our Republican colleagues join us in that effort, but that is not 
enough to get past the threatened presidential veto.

  I can't explain to you why the President doesn't think it is the 
right thing to do, to stand up for our GIs when they come back home. He 
has stretched our militarily to the breaking point, and he is not 
willing to sustain them when they come back to the United States.
  We clearly believe that one of the most important things that we can 
do in this Congress between now and the adjournment is pass that GI 
Bill and recruit enough of our colleagues on the Republican side so 
that we can overturn that veto. We have shown that we can do it. We did 
it on the farm bill. We have done it before.
  We have also shown that we can go out and make our case to the 
American public so that the President changes his mind. The President, 
if you remember, Mr. Speaker, first threatened he was going to veto the 
college affordability bill, which transferred subsidies for banks into 
subsidies for students, lowering the student loan interest rate in half 
from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. The President said he was going to 
veto that. But when we went out there and made the case to the American 
public and asked them to make the case to the President that this was 
the right thing to do in a tough economy for millions of students and 
families out there that needed a little help, he changed his mind and 
signed that bill.
  Just recently, after making a lot of noise in opposition to our 
efforts to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
put that oil instead out on to the market to lower gas prices by 
anywhere, who knows, from 5 cents to 20 cents, a small but meaningful 
decrease through the suspension of deposits into the SPR, after making 
a lot of noise that the President was going to oppose or veto that 
legislation, he ended up signing it.
  So when it comes to the GI Bill, we have got two tasks ahead of us. 
Let's try to build the bipartisan consensus that we have had here on 
many days in the House of Representatives. Let's try to push beyond the 
30 or 40 Republican Members that have supported the bill so far so that 
we don't have to worry about a presidential veto. But let's go out and 
talk to veterans organizations, to talk to military families, to talk 
to our educational institutions.
  Let's grow a coalition over the coming weeks and months so that the 
President has the opportunity to change his mind, so the President has 
the opportunity to stand with us on the side of returning service men 
and women for the educational benefits that they deserve. Just like our 
grandparents, our parents, got that benefit when they came back from 
World War II, let's do it again for the thousands upon thousands of GIs 
returning every month from the field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Meek, you led off on the right note. There is an amazing amount 
of bipartisan cooperation happening here, but we have got to extend it 
to some of the most important measures that we can pass between now and 
the end of this historic legislative session.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Murphy, I think it is important, 
and I think we can do a little back and forth here in the spirit of 
bipartisanship. I see one of our Republican colleagues who would like 
to share a few things a little later on, and we don't want to take all 
of the time, because we definitely want to hear from the Republican 
side this evening in the spirit of what we are doing here.
  But I think it is important, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Murphy, I think that 
as we look at what is happening now, we know that we have an historic 
Presidential election that is taking place. And we are still in the 
primary mode, but it has a general election spirit that is there. There 
are slogans out there, ``yes, we can,'' and ``yes, we will,'' and 
``change that you deserve.''
  It is interesting, because the President is still trying to play a 
major role.

[[Page H4444]]

We know that he will be commander-in-chief until January, but I think 
it is important, especially for some of our friends on the Republican 
side, that they pay very close attention to the past to understand the 
future.
  There was a day and time when the American people were not really 
paying close attention to what is going on here in Washington, DC There 
was a time that young people who are concerned about tomorrow more than 
anyone else in this country were not paying attention to the likes of 
many of the individuals that are paying attention to politics now.
  I remember one of the general demographics was 50-plus in the 
country. You have to make sure that you meet the needs of those 
individuals. But now that goes from 50-plus all the way down to 17\1/
2\, where Americans can register, and then at 18 they will get their 
voter registration card. So we have a full kind of age range there of 
folks that are paying attention to what is happening here.
  I remember in the early days with Mr. Ryan and I, and then when Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz got here, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and 
myself, and now the Majority Makers such as yourself and others are now 
coming to the floor. But back in the early days we used to share with 
our friends on the Republican side, you have a choice to make. Either 
are you are going to be on the New Direction agenda and give the 
American people what they deserve versus the special interests, or, Mr. 
Speaker, those Members will be watching the Congress on C-SPAN and 
other television outlets that would allow them to view what we are 
doing here on the floor at home while we are here voting.
  We are in the majority now. We have won three special elections in 
quote-unquote ``Republican'' districts that were seen as Republican 
districts. But what I believe in and what I have subscribed to is the 
American spirit over politics. I believe people are now looking at 
their families and looking at their children and looking at their 
grandparents and looking at themselves in the mirror and saying, am I 
using the power that I possess with my voter registration card towards 
the benefit of my family, my community, my State, my country? Am I 
using that to the full advantage that I have as an American citizen? Or 
am I voting a party, or a personality, or what is politically quote-
unquote ``correct''?

                              {time}  2300

  And I think that question has come back in many of these districts 
and throughout the country of saying, I have to vote what is best for 
my children, for my parents, for my grandparents, for myself, for the 
fact that the economic situation is bad, for the fact that I don't have 
health care for so many Americans.
  I have traveled this country, Mr. Speaker, on Presidential election 
and I have paid attention to what is going on. And every time the 
question is asked: How many people without health care? A super 
majority of the people put their hands up. Of course, I don't put my 
hands up because I am a Member of Congress and I have health care. But 
my constituents didn't say, hey, you know, Kendrick, we are going to 
vote for you to be in Congress so that you can have a health care plan 
for you and your family. We love you that much. Don't worry about us. 
And they didn't vote for any of us for that reason. I don't think any 
Member of Congress ran for office saying, I am running to make sure 
that I can have health care, and then maybe you will have health care.
  But for some reason, some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle didn't get that message or they have forgotten the message. But I 
am hoping, as we start looking at these issues, that, Mr. Murphy and 
Mr. Speaker and members, that more Republicans start understanding that 
this is not the Republican or executive committee back in their county 
or in their parish or whatever the case may be; that this is the U.S. 
Congress, and they may have been Federalized by the people in their 
district, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, in a general 
election to come here, provide the kind of representation that they 
woke up early one Tuesday morning looking for.
  I say all of that to say this: That if it was about politics, Mr. 
Murphy, members, we would be home now. We would say nothing. We would 
allow the Republican minority to continue to get further and further 
and further in the minority. But the American spirit within our 
Democratic majority allows the 177 bipartisan votes, that we celebrate 
the 125 bipartisan votes, over 50 Republican members voting for 
Democratic measures that would never have made it to the floor on the 
Republican Congress.
  The record speaks for itself. I am so happy and so glad that we have 
the kind of leadership, we have the kind of caucus that says, you know 
something? We are going to move in a new direction that the American 
people have called for, Mr. Murphy. Some people call it change now. 
Change is the big word of this election, because people have had a 
taste of change already in this House and in the Senate. They want that 
change in the White House.
  Now, I want us to kind of go back and forth here, but I just want to 
share a little bit of the record because some work has been done here. 
I think it is important that we look at the kind of fight that--and I 
am going to call some of the things out that you have identified.
  We have the new GI bill that extends benefits to veterans, and it 
provides and restores the full 4-year college scholarships for Iraq and 
Afghanistan veterans, and the President has threatened that he is going 
to veto that.
  My question is, to the Republican minority, are you going to follow 
the President with this whole veto issue? If he does, will you leader 
up and override his veto?
  Because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we have an override once a 
week, maybe, just maybe--because the President is not running for 
election again. I just want to let my Republican colleagues know, they 
are. Some of them are, those that are not retiring. That they may want 
to pay attention to what the American people are saying versus what may 
be coming from the White House, because it hasn't worked, because they 
are in the minority right now.
  I think it is also important for the responsible timeline for 
redeployment that requires Iraqis to pay their fair share of the 
restoration and other Iraqi policy restrictions that was in H.R. 2642, 
which is the 2008 supplemental that the President has threatened to 
veto again. Will our Republican colleagues write the Republican and 
say, listen, we are already in bad shape as a Republican minority in 
the Congress, we can't follow you on this. We will join Democrats and 
override your veto.
  That is the American spirit. That is not saying, well, I am going to 
be a good Republican. Because it is important that we understand that 
folks didn't elect us to be good Republicans or good Democrats saying, 
well, I am going to follow the President because the President says 
that it should happen. The first version of the 2007 supplemental, the 
President vetoed the bill on May 1. I think it is important that folks 
understand this and the opportunities that we have to continue to build 
on the bipartisanship.
  The responsible timeline for redeployment of troops, another bill 
that passed, H.R. 4156, the President has threatened that he is going 
to veto that. Also, H.R. 2956, that carries some of the same language. 
I mean, we are putting these bills out there. That bill passed 223-201. 
The President is threatening he is going to veto that.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let's just step back. There is no question 
when you are talking about where do American people stand on the 
redeployment of the troops out of Iraq. None of these bills suggest to 
do it tomorrow or the week after. This is the responsible redeployment 
of troops out of Iraq. Do it in a planful way that maintains the safety 
of those troops as they leave, and tries to do our best to try to 
maintain a stable government that we leave behind. There is no question 
where the American people stand on that. That is not just you and me 
listening to people when we go back home; that is also every poll that 
we have seen of the American public over the last 2 years.
  There is no question, Mr. Meek, where people stand on the GI bill. 
The numbers are off the charts when you ask folks if they think that 
this country should guarantee a college education to every returning 
warrior from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no guesswork involved here.

[[Page H4445]]

  Now, I don't know where the President gets his direction from on his 
veto threats. But for all of us that are sitting here deciding whether 
we vote for these things in the first place or override the President's 
veto when they come back, there is no research that has to be done in 
the public opinion. There are no guesses that have to be made. This is 
all just common sense, whether you are listening to it when you go back 
to the district or you are reading the public opinion polls, Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Public opinion polls and what the American 
people want are pretty much the same thing, but also common sense kicks 
in at some point. I mean, if I was very--hypothetically speaking, Mr. 
Speaker, and I do mean very hypothetically. If I was a Republican 
Member of Congress at this point, I would kind of think, hmm, let's 
see, am I willing to follow the President that is going to retire and 
have a pension and have all of the things being a past two-term 
President in this country? Or am I going to stand up on what is right 
and what is sound as it relates to policy?
  Mr. Murphy, again, another bill, and I am making sure that the 
Members understand, because I think here in the 30-Something Working 
Group, you know, in Congress there is always some mystery about, well, 
you know, I didn't quite know what was in that bill.

  I am sorry, let me go back. We are about to celebrate Memorial Day 
for those and pay tribute to those that serve this country, those that 
have died to allow us to salute one flag, those that allow us to be 
here under the illumination of the lights here, to be in a free 
country, to be in a country that one can stand on the floor and speak 
freely, Republican or Democrat, what have you; for any American or any 
resident of this country to speak in opposition of its government and 
say, I disagree; or, this is the way I feel.
  Many of us Members of Congress have traveled to countries where folks 
don't have that privilege or that opportunity, and we try to share that 
kind of democracy and that freedom of those that have fallen.
  I tell a story, Mr. Speaker, of my kids and I, we rode our bikes on 
the mall here in Washington, DC, where we leave this building and pass 
the Washington monument and pass the World War II memorial, and all of 
those States are recognized on those pillars that are around that 
monument and that great fountain that they have there illuminated at 
night. And we go on and ride on and we go to the Lincoln memorial where 
so many Americans go to reflect on this great President who served our 
country. And we run into the Last Outpost, where our veterans from 
Vietnam are there selling patches and keeping that last outpost open 
for those that are missing in action. And then we take the opportunity 
to go by the Korean War memorial that is there and the Vietnam wall of 
those that lost their lives. And so many Americans will travel to the 
capital city to celebrate that and to be able to recognize those 
individuals and celebrate their lives and their commitment to our 
country and on and on and on, and the number of monuments and great 
heroes and sheroes that are there, even women that have fought in 
conflicts.
  I say all of that to say this: That with all of that history and all 
of that greatness and all of the spirit of this great country, that we 
have to take a step back sometimes and say, am I voting in the right 
direction? Am I doing the right thing? Am I listening to quote/unquote 
leaders that may be in our caucus or whatever the case may be? And 
especially on the Republican side, I think it is important because I 
think it is a very unique time in history and I think they need to be 
on the right side of history, because history has played a role in 
Members of Congress' reelection to Congress.
  And so when I start looking at legislation that the President has 
decided that he is going to veto, Mr. Murphy, I think it is important.
  And I want to also on the record call out on 3159, it is again a 
responsible troop redeployment cycle that is based on Senator Jim 
Webb's bill that enhances national security and supports our troops and 
families. And increasing troops are better at home in between 
deployment. The President has threatened that he is going to veto that.
  Will our Republican colleagues, those that are not voting in a 
bipartisan way, will they follow the President in that veto, or will 
they write a letter to the President and say no way, will they write 
President Bush and say, on House Bill 1684, the fiscal year 2008 
Homeland Security Authorization Act that the President has threatened 
that he is going to veto that will provide some $139.8 billion to the 
Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect the homeland? 
Will they write a letter or will they send a message to the White House 
that they are willing to override that veto?
  At the same time, again, time after time again the Coast Guard 
Authorization that passed the House, H.R. 2830, which is the Coast 
Guard Authorization, the President, this also passed--now, this is very 
interesting, Mr. Murphy. This authorization has passed the House. I am 
smiling because it is almost laughable if it wasn't a serious moment.
  The Coast Guard plays such an important role to homeland security, 
especially from a State like mine in Florida, and especially as we look 
at the East Coast and the West Coast. They play such a very important 
role, and they have been asked to play a role that they have never 
played before in protecting the homeland. This bill, this piece of 
legislation passed 395-7, with 165 Republicans voting ``yea,'' or yes, 
the President has threatened he is going to veto that.
  So Mr. Murphy, I think you get the picture. I don't mean to go on and 
on and on. On every page of pages to go on and on and on, two or three 
times the President has said we are going to veto that piece of 
legislation.
  We have 170 major pieces of legislation that Republicans have voted 
for in a bipartisan way. We have 125 pieces of legislation that over 50 
Republicans have vote in the affirmative. I think that some of our 
friends on the other side have to get the picture. And I can tell you, 
and I am going to yield to you and then I am going to say one more 
thing and then we are going to yield back, because I want our friend to 
be able to have an opportunity before 12:00 midnight so he can get in 
his points. I think I know why that we don't have more Republicans 
voting in a new direction or voting for change in Washington, DC on 
behalf of not only their very own constituents, but also on behalf of 
the American people.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, the President is not running 
again. The President doesn't have anybody to answer to, so the 
President is free now to act on his own instincts, to act on his own 
set of advice. And that means, to the extent that this President was 
ever listening to the American public, he is not doing it now. He 
doesn't need to do it. And, as you said before, he is not up for 
reelection. But every Member of this House, with the exception of those 
people who are retiring, are.

                              {time}  2315

  And so people in the Republican Caucus, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, have got to think about what's the motivations behind the 
President's threats here. Is it because of a political calculation 
where he wants to be on the right side of where the American people 
are, or is it because he has no one to answer to any longer?
  And sometimes, you know, we get a little bit of frustration when we 
go back home, Mr. Meek. People say, well, why hasn't more happened on 
the war coming to a close? Why haven't you done more to solve our 
health care problems?
  Well, the answer is what happens just up Pennsylvania Avenue. We've 
put legislation on the President's desk to planfully exit Iraq. He 
vetoed it. We've put legislation on his desk twice to ensure 4 million 
more kids. Both times he vetoed it.
  Over and over again, with the Republicans and Democrats standing 
together, we've put legislation on his desk, even under that threat of 
veto, and he has continued to stand against the American public, Mr. 
Meek.
  I think we can still have some victories from here to the end of the 
year. I still think we can have moments where this House comes together 
and overrides presidential veto.
  I can't think of a better bill to exercise the will of the American 
people as expressed through this House than on

[[Page H4446]]

the GI Bill, giving educational benefits to troops. I have no idea why 
the President has decided to exercise his veto threat against that 
legislation. If there's anything that we should be able to come 
together on, it's on supporting our troops when they come back home.
  I think we should have done it for those 4 million kids that should 
have gotten health care insurance. I think that we should have done it 
when it comes to the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. But let's at 
least do it as one final salvo with this Democratic Congress and a 
Republican President when it comes to standing up for our GIs, Mr. 
Meek. It would seem to be the one place, amidst a lot of the times that 
we disagree here. You named all the moments on which we have agreed. 
But the culmination of a remarkable amount of agreement, amidst a 
reputation of disagreement in this House, would be to pass that GI Bill 
with a veto-proof majority, put it on the President's desk, dare him to 
veto it, knowing that we're going to have the votes to override when it 
comes back.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Murphy, it's very interesting. As 
I speak to fact versus fiction, I can't help but think of our colleague 
who already, quote-unquote, has the Republican nomination, one of our 
friends over in the Senate. And he coined something, I think, earlier 
this week or last week as the slogan for the forward campaign on the 
Republican side. Change that you Deserve.
  Okay. Well, I would say to my Republican colleagues that have decided 
to follow the leadership, the elected leadership that they have now on 
the Republican side that are saying stay the course, follow the 
President, object, what have you. Change that you deserve, I think, is 
something that one should think about.
  Case in point. I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on television.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I'm a lawyer, Mr. Meek, so if you need 
some help I'll walk you through it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's fine. My wife's a lawyer too, so I'm kind 
to lawyers. But let me just say, you remember the letter that the 
Republican leadership wrote to the Speaker?
  I don't want you to pay attention over here, I just want you to pay 
attention over here. The Republican leadership wrote a letter saying, 
you said you were going to do something about gas prices. We're waiting 
you to do something about gas prices in America. And we're concerned 
about all of this, and you have not fulfilled your promise.
  And I think that it's important. If we can, I want to put something 
here because I don't want to have that on the chart there.
  Well, let me just for the case of keeping the 30-something piece 
together, because I don't want to get into names, I'm just going to do 
this because I don't like to like point out anything as it relates to 
an individual Member of Congress, even if they're leadership.
  But I just want to say, as it relates to doing something about gas 
prices, these are all the measures that we've passed here in this House 
that the Republican leadership decided not to vote for. But they want 
to criticize, and they want to encourage their leaders, I mean, their 
caucus to vote against change and a new direction.
  Now, even the Republican nominee on the Republican side has said 
change that you deserve. If things were going so well and the policy 
was so great, why do we have to talk about change that you deserve?
  Why can't we say we'll keep doing the things that we've continued to 
do, and we'll continue to have the problems that we have now?
  I'm just saying this to my Republican colleagues, because, not that, 
you know, many of them are friends of mine. But I'm saying, as it 
relates to the policy that we have to pass, that the American people 
need now--we're not here for political purposes. We're here because we 
want to move an agenda forward.
  I think it's important when we look at OPEC price fixing. These are 
the Republican leaders, or down the leadership line, that voted against 
that. And when you look at the top individual, as it relates to 
influence within the caucus, voted no on every last measure that 
Democrats have put forth, price gouging, renewable energy, energy 
security.
  Second person in charge voted for three of the four that we have put 
forth before this Congress. Signed the letter.
  The third person in charge voted against price gouging and also 
renewable energy. Those are two votes of the four that have taken 
place.
  The fourth person in charge voted for two measures, voted against it, 
renewable energy and also energy security, but I said it correctly, 
voted for two of the measures that we put forward.
  The fifth person in charge voted no on every last measure. Signed the 
letter.
  The sixth person in charge voted against every measure that we put 
forth to be able to give the American people a fighting chance in this 
whole issue of price gouging, this whole issue of no OPEC. And we call 
OPEC, these are oil producing companies for price fixing, countries for 
price fixing, renewable energy, energy security, voted against every 
last one of them.
  On down to the bottom, voted three times against those measures and 
voted two times.
  I said all of that to say that I think that some of these individuals 
that are influencing the minds of, or the vote of those individuals 
within the Republican caucus that don't want to be a part of the 177 
bipartisan major votes, or don't want to be a part of the 125 votes 
that we've taken, plus 50 Republicans that have voted for it, I think 
that the argument, especially when we look at the individual that is, 
quote-unquote, running on the Republican side for President of the 
United States, of saying change that you deserve, we speak fact in the 
30-Something Working Group and we do not speak fiction.
  If it was political, Mr. Murphy, and I say this in closing, if it was 
political, we would be home right now, you know, relaxing past 11 
o'clock at night.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Absolutely. You have the last word.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Your point is this, is that we've seen in 
the last 2 or 3 weeks, both the Republican minority and our Republican 
Presidential candidate all of a sudden start to use the word 
``change.'' Well, to them it's just a word. To them it's just a part of 
their slogan.
  To the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, it's what we 
live by, it's why we're here, it's why we get up in the morning, it's 
why I gave up my entire life to run for the United States Congress; 
it's why you have given up 18 hours a day to do this job, because we're 
here to change the place. It happens to be in everything that we talk 
about because it's the definition of why we're Members of Congress.
  For the Republicans here in the House and the Republican Presidential 
candidate, it's just a word. And that's what I think the American 
people are beginning to understand. That's why the American people are 
turning out in record numbers for our Presidential candidates on the 
Democratic side, and that's why we have won the last three competitive 
seats for special elections here in the House, because the voters out 
there, the American public, are figuring out that change is nothing if 
it's just a word coming out of your mouth. You've got to live it. 
You've got to breathe it, which is what we're doing here, Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I want to thank you for your 
comments. I couldn't say it better.
  Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we're going to yield 
back our hour earlier so my good friend from Texas will be able to 
share with the Members of the House what he would like to share.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

                          ____________________