[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16196-16202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for the remainder of the time until midnight.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to come before the 
House once again. I am glad to be here with my good friend Mr. Altmire.
  As you know the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor 
weekly, talk about issues that are facing the Nation, and also give a 
report on what's happening and what's not happening. We are hoping to 
do good things on behalf of the American people, and we hope that we 
can build a relationship with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, to help pass the American 
agenda.
  Mr. Altmire and I usually have some opening comments, and then we 
usually get into a conversation about some of the issues that we are 
facing this week, about some of the ongoing issues.
  Over the weekend, I took the opportunity, because Mr. Altmire, Mr. 
Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Murphy, who are part of the 30-
something Working Group, we do meet, and we talk about issues that we 
want to bring before the Members.
  I can tell you there are 47 major measures that have passed this 
floor with a bipartisan vote of 79 percent, so that means that 75 
percent of the issues that have passed this floor have had bipartisan 
support.
  I see that we have one of our charts here to show, under the 
Democratic Congress, that Republicans all along, we were saying in the 
109th, 108th Congress, some of them really wanted to vote for the 
priorities of America and move this in a new direction.
  But obviously the Republican leadership in the 109th, 108th, going 
back even further, did not want to bring those issues to the floor. But 
when they were brought to the floor, the 9/11 Commission 
Recommendations, H.R. 1, passed with 299 votes with 68 Republicans 
voting affirmative; raising the minimum wage, H.R. 2, again, passed 
315, passed with 315 votes here with 82 Republicans voting along with 
Democrats.
  The funding to enhance stem cell research, H.R. 3, 257 and 37 
Republicans; making prescription drugs more affordable, H.R. 4, 24 
Republicans joined the majority of Democrats, passing that measure by 
255; cutting student loan interest rates in half, H.R. 5, 356 votes in 
favor, passed the House with 124 Republicans joining the Democratic 
leadership on that vote.

                              {time}  2310

  And creating long-term energy initiatives, H.R. 6, 264, with 36 
Republicans.
  And Mr. Speaker, I think it's also important to be able to outline 
the fact that we want to move in a new direction. And so far, the 
President has signed the following: The first increase in the minimum 
wage in almost a decade, which will take effect on July 24 of this 
year. This is not fiction; it's fact. And it will be fully phased in. 
It will mean a raise of $4,400.
  And also, we passed tax incentives to be able to help small 
businesses; $3.7 billion in additional emergency funding for veteran 
and military health care. This is $3.4 billion in additional funds for 
military readiness also, including armored vehicles and also to meet 
the National Guard shortfalls that they have been experiencing over 
some time.
  Emergency funding to keep hundreds and thousands of children in 11 
States from losing their health care. That's very significant.
  Overdue funding to repair and complete flood areas of Louisiana and 
Mississippi, and also, assisting other gulf coast communities, schools 
and universities to rebuild and recover from Hurricane Katrina Rita and 
also Wilma.
  Overdue disaster aid to American families and ranchers, more than 80 
percent of the funding that they were looking for they were able to 
receive through this Democratic Congress.
  Emergency wildfire funding, to be able to assist communities that 
have

[[Page 16197]]

been waiting on Federal response, and also benchmarks for the Iraqi 
government and requiring the President to report the progress of the 
war to the Congress more than two times.
  I think it's important to also state the many of the things that 
we've done here in the House, Mr. Speaker, without needing Presidential 
approval. We restored pay-as-you-go budget discipline for the first 
time in 6 years in Washington and received praise from major fiscal 
watchdog groups.
  Also, passed a budget balanced by 2010 with no more deficit spending 
and no taxes after 2 years of Republican leadership failure to agree on 
a budget.
  I think it's also important that we outline that we've imposed very 
strict ethics rules in the history of the House; also guaranteed that 
the House will operate as a green Capitol. I'm glad we have the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee that deals with the House, House 
Administration with us, the chairwoman.
  Also, the Speaker has convened a National Summit on America's 
Children, and we're beginning to link Federal policy and law and 
cutting-edge research as relates to bring development; and also 
restored Congressional oversight, saving tens of millions of dollars 
that are being wasted here.
  I think it's important that we also outline that stem cell research 
bill, supported by two out of three Americans, which offers hope for 
many, many families, is sitting on the President's desk right now 
waiting for action, Mr. Speaker.
  And also, a bill ending the politicizing of the appointments of U.S. 
attorneys.
  I can go on and on, but I think, as it relates to an opening, I think 
we're off to a great start, Mr. Speaker. And I think it's also 
important for the Members to realize that, for us to not only end the 
war in Iraq, but for us to be able to fulfill the dreams and the needs 
of the American people and those that are in harm's way, that we have 
to move in a bipartisan way. And when we can't move in a bipartisan 
way, then we have to take the majority of this Democratic majority that 
we have now to be able to get 218 votes to be able to carry out the 
will of the people.
  Later on, since Ms. Wasserman Schultz has joined us, and I know Mr. 
Altmire has something to add, too, I want to talk a little bit about 
the President's address, the President's radio address, because I think 
it's important that we address these issues as they come up. We should 
not allow any statement or any speech to go unchallenged because I 
think the American people, it's time for them to be leveled with. And I 
can't wait until this thing rolls around again, when we get into open 
discussion, because this is the good part about the 30-Something 
Working Group is that we do get an opportunity to kind of volley the 
ball around.
  Mr. Altmire, Happy Father's Day, belated Father's day, sir.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. Same to you. I had a wonderful Father's Day 
with my two children, and I'm happy to be back on this Monday night. 
And I did want to add some levity to the evening, because people watch 
late night television. We're here; it's after 11:00. And the gentleman 
perfectly set me up by talking about the President's radio address. So 
I wanted to read a quote from the President's radio address that, for 
those that know history and for those that don't, I'm going to remind 
them of some of the history. They're going to find this quote to be 
quite entertaining. And this is the President's radio address.
  ``In the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for 
earmark reform and holding the line on Federal spending. The American 
people do not want a return to the days of tax and spend policies. They 
expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, DC.''
  Now, certainly, we don't disagree with that statement, but for those 
that understand the history of this administration, they can understand 
why some of us might be amused to hear the President saying such a 
thing, because I would remind my colleagues, if they need reminding, 
that prior to President Bush taking office, the 4 years immediately 
before his term, his first term, we had had 4 consecutive years of 
budget surplus, surpluses that were forecast as far as the eye can see.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scored the 10-year 
projection of surplus at over $5 trillion of surplus.
  So President Bush comes into office, there's every reason to expect 
these surpluses are going to continue.
  Well, what have we seen in the 6-plus years that this President has 
been this office? Well, we've seen six consecutive budget deficits, 
deficits that before the Democrats retook control of Congress, were 
forecast as far as the eye can see. And this has been the biggest 
spending administration in over the past 6 years before this year, the 
biggest spending Congresses in the history of this country.
  So for the President to get on the radio and come before audiences 
and lecture the Democrats on fiscal responsibility, and I would re-read 
that last statement on what he says the American people expect, ``They 
expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, DC.''
  Well, over the course of that 6 years, the President added $3.5 
trillion to the national debt. Now, keep in mind what I said earlier, 
that the projection before he took office was, over the 10-year period, 
we would have over $5 trillion in surplus. But, instead, in just 6 
years, he had an $8 trillion turnaround, from $5 trillion on the plus 
side to $3 trillion on the deficit side.
  And I would suggest, if you had said to an economist going into that 
term, figure out a way that this is possible, how can a President, 
using economic policy, working with the Republican-controlled Congress, 
have a $8 trillion swing from surplus to deficit, most economists would 
have said, oh, that's impossible. You can't possibly mismanage the 
economy in such a way that you could have that poor of an outcome. 
Well, unfortunately, we have.
  So here, again, to have this President lecture this Congress on 
fiscal responsibility is simply inconsistent with the facts.
  He also references earmarks in the appropriations process. And we do 
have Ms. Wasserman Schultz here, a member of the Appropriations 
Committee. And I know she will have something to say about this as 
well.
  But I wanted to remind my colleagues about the history of the 12 
years that the Republicans were in control of this House, from 1995 
through 2006. Well, for that 12-year period, the 12 budget cycles that 
we had, I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to venture a 
guess, how many times in those 12 years do you think the Republican 
Congress finished the appropriations process on time? How many times 
were all the appropriations bills completed by October 1, which, under 
statute, is the beginning of the fiscal year?
  The gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would it be none?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Zero. That is correct.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be none
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Zero times in 12 years. Now, interestingly, you'd say, 
well, it must be difficult to do then. Maybe it's not often that we're 
able to do this. Does the gentlewoman from Florida wish to venture a 
guess on the last time that the budgets were all completed on time and 
the appropriations were completed by October 1 in their entirety?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, at the risk of being the little 
girl who shoots her hand up in the first row of the classroom, that 
would be the last time Democrats were in control right before the 1994 
switch from majority to minority.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. ALTMIRE. Right. In the 1994 year, the Democratic Congress, the 
last year the Democrats controlled Congress, the Democrats were able to 
complete all the budget bills, all the appropriations bills on time. 
The last time it has happened. Then we had 12 years of Republican rule 
in this Congress, in this House, and we had 12 consecutive years where 
the appropriations bills were not completed on time.

[[Page 16198]]

  So it should be no surprise to any of my colleagues and other outside 
observers that the Republicans are not anxious to see the Democrats 
come back into power and right away pass all 12 appropriations bills in 
a timely fashion. So I was not surprised, and I suspect others were not 
surprised, to see the extraordinary delaying tactics that we saw take 
place in this House last week, with continual and repeated procedural 
motions, motions to rise.
  And those of us that sat here at 2 o'clock in the morning on that 
night, we realized that this was not about substance. This was not 
about policy. This was merely about denying the Democrats a legislative 
victory because the last thing those on the other side would want is 
for us to come in and right away pass the appropriations bills on time, 
which hasn't happened since 12 years ago when we last controlled 
Congress.
  And, lastly, the President mentions earmarks. His quote again: ``In 
the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for earmark 
reform.''
  Well, what has been the history of earmarks under the Republican 
Congress? Let's go back to that 12-year period, and I know the 
gentlewoman knows the answer; so I will spare you the question this 
time. In 1994, that last year that the Democrats controlled Congress, 
there were 4,000 earmarks, approximately, in all the spending bills 
combined for $26 billion. That is what they represented. Now, that 
sounds like a lot and it is a lot. It is a lot of earmarks and it is a 
lot of money.
  Well, let's compare that to last year, the last year the Republicans 
controlled Congress. These were the people, you recall, that last week 
were decrying the use of earmarks and talking about how unfair it was 
how the Democrats were approaching it, and we have a President now who 
says he is going to continue pushing for earmark reform, ``continue'' 
being the operative word there. Well, when you hear the word 
``continue,'' let's thing think about what happened last year. Now, 
recall in 1994, 4,000 earmarks, $26 billion. Last year, 2006, 16,000 
earmarks, unprecedented, the highest in the history of the country, $64 
billion of earmarks, compared to $26 billion in 1994.
  So here again, please spare us the lecture about fiscal 
responsibility and accountability in the appropriations process and 
certainly as it pertains to earmarks. We have had, over the past 6 
years of this administration and over the past 12 years of Republican 
leadership in this Congress, the biggest-spending Congress and 
administration in the history of the country. They spent more money, 
they ran up bigger deficits, they used more earmarks for more money 
than any Congress and any administration in the history of the country. 
So please forgive me if I view with skepticism some of the President's 
comments over the weekend.
  And at this time I will now turn it over to the gentlewoman from 
Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Altmire.
  And I am going to maybe abbreviate my view on what happened last week 
and just call it what it is: hypocrisy.
  Where were our good friend on the other side of the aisle when they 
controlled this process for 12 years? And I am not going to spend a lot 
of time on the process because that is all they have because if they 
allow the debate to turn to the substance of the legislation, the 
substance of the appropriations bills that we are moving forward and 
will pass off this floor, with the vast majority of them supporting it 
because they have to, because when they admit that the substance of the 
legislation that we are putting forward in the Homeland Security bill, 
in the military construction bill, in the other bills that will be 
coming forward to this floor, they have to admit that not only are they 
good bills but they go much further and do a much better job of 
providing for the needs of this country than they ever did.
  On the floor last week, I took an opportunity to spend a few minutes 
debating the process with them. One of the things that I had an 
opportunity to engage in debate on was where was their outrage on the 
other side when they controlled this process? Where were the reformers, 
leaping to their feet, urging and pounding on their leadership to adopt 
transparency and to adopt a process in which they could have the 
maximum amount of input into earmark reform?
  The answer is it was nonexistent because they didn't care about it. 
It didn't matter to them. They were very happy fat and happy to take 
all the earmarks they could get, bring them home, tied up with their 
lobbyists and their friends and their culture of corruption, all 
twisted up and intertwined, and that is what their process was like. 
And our process is clear and transparent and participatory and 
inclusive, and they can't stand it. So what they have to do is they 
have to try to muck up the perception of what we are doing here because 
if they acknowledge what is really going on, not only have we adopted a 
more inclusive, more transparent process when it comes to earmark 
reform, but the substance of our legislation they have to support 
because they know that we are going much further than they did.
  I want to go beyond process, though, to President Bush's veto threat 
of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. He actually has 
threatened to veto this bill, which is just absolutely astonishing. And 
one of the things that I have heard him articulate, Mr. Meek and Mr. 
Altmire, is that if the Congress proposes to spend $1 over what he 
proposed in his administration's budget that he would veto any of that 
legislation. And that includes the Homeland Security bill, which 
provides for the homeland security needs for our border protection, for 
our first responders, for the 9/11 Commission recommendations that we 
passed in the first bill out of this Chamber during our 100-hour push 
for the Six in 06 agenda, and the President is actually proposing to 
veto a bill that would ensure that we spend more money on protecting 
our homeland domestically.
  You know, you can argue process and earmarks and reform and all that. 
But at the end of the day, that is the stark contrast that people of 
this country have to choose from. When they go to the polls next 
November and when they evaluate how they think a Democratic Congress is 
doing versus how a Republican Congress did, at the end of the day, we 
are passing a Homeland Security appropriations bill that will really 
provide for the domestic homeland security needs, as opposed to 
continuing to twist us up and mire us in the war in Iraq with an 
endless, open-ended commitment that never proposes to get us out of 
there.
  On top of that, we have a President who has been critical of a 
military construction bill that will provide for the largest single 
increase in veterans' health care in history. I mean this is how 
backwards their priorities are. Under the Republican control, their 
goal was to help lobbyists, was to make sure that they brought home as 
many earmarks that were pushed by lobbyists as they could. And, 
instead, what we are doing here is we have transparency, where people 
will know, anyone can know, who is sponsoring an earmark, where any 
Member can offer an amendment to strike an earmark, where any Member 
can offer to sponsor an earmark. Members will be able to participate in 
the conference process, which you would think that that would be a 
normal thing, but it wasn't normal under the Republicans because you 
couldn't even participate as the minority in the conference process.

                              {time}  2330

  But at the end of the day, all of that has been a deliberate 
distraction because they can't argue with the content of our 
appropriations bills because they are much stronger and go much further 
and do more for the country than they did. They don't win that debate. 
They don't win a head-to-head, toe-to-toe debate on the substance, so 
they have to try to distract people with the process. And that is what 
I am hopeful that we can get into in this 30-Something hour and future 
special order hours that we participate in, because what we need to 
make sure we focus on is the substance of our legislation, because they 
would like nothing

[[Page 16199]]

better than to twist us up in debate on process.
  Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, what they say and 
what we do are two different things. And the good thing about it is 
that right is on our side and the American people are on our side, be 
it Republican, Democrat, independent, those that are thinking about 
voting, those that may be voting for the first time in the 2008 
elections. I think it is very important to lay the facts out, and 
that's what we are doing here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, we go through a great deal of work to make sure that we 
actually give facts, not fiction. And we know that there is a lot of 
fiction on this floor. That's what I would call it. And there is 
another word to call it, but I would just call it ``fiction'' to be 
honorable in this Chamber. But I think it is also important for us to 
just take the President's words for what they are. I am reading from 
his radio address, and this week, the President said the tax-and-spend 
approach is endangering the economic growth. And balanced budget 
efforts, mark ``efforts,'' balanced budget efforts, that's what he's 
calling it, that's what the President is calling it, as it relates to 
the budget, saying they have passed a budget that would mean higher 
taxes; put another line under ``higher taxes'' because I want to come 
back to that; for American families and job creators, put a line under 
that.
  I think it's important, just in that paragraph alone, Mr. Speaker, 
for me to just dissect that for a moment. Let me just work on that 
paragraph just for a moment. It's just a paragraph within many, but 
it's at the beginning of the President's speech. I think it's 
important, as we start looking at fact versus fiction, I mean, we need 
to have a segment in the 30-Something group, fact versus fiction, 
because I think it's important that we do away with the fiction, 
because we have two wars going on. We have a country that's begging for 
health care. We have children that we were about to lose their health 
care if it wasn't for the action of the Democratic majority here to be 
able to push that effort along and put it on the President's desk for 
him to sign.
  Now, let's just start with the whole piece of endangering and taxes. 
Listen, I'm on the Ways and Means Committee, and unless there is a 
meeting that I missed or several days that I missed from Congress, I 
haven't seen anything that dealt with a tax increase. And I would 
challenge anyone from the White House or from the minority side of this 
Chamber to point out somewhere, anywhere, where taxes are being 
increased. Okay. That's what I thought. I think it is very, very 
important that we pay very close attention to what's being said here on 
this floor.
  I think it's also important for us to underline ``budget balancing 
efforts.'' People, Mr. Altmire, they don't want an effort; they want it 
to happen. Okay? One of the first things we did without the President's 
approval, thank God we didn't need it, to say that we're going to move 
pay-as-you-go rules and that we are no longer going to borrow from 
foreign nations. As soon as I can get my chart over here, I will pull 
it over, of how much money we have borrowed from foreign nations, Mr. 
Speaker, more than ever before in the history of the republic. As a 
matter of fact, I have my old chart here. I will use this one, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz. For folks here in the Chamber, you know that this is 
an old chart. And I am really fond of this chart. The rubber stamp is 
in my office under lock and key because somehow my velcro chart somehow 
grew legs and it went somewhere. And I don't know where it is, Mr. 
Altmire, but I think it's important that we find that chart. I'm going 
to put pictures around the Capitol. Have you seen the out-of-control 
borrowing that the Bush Administration and Republican Congress were 
able to do in the past?
  Remember this chart here? And it talked about, it went all the way 
through 2005? Well, I am going to draw a line through that right now. 
And I know that we are going to have a new chart here on the floor, 
because our good people that work with us here, the new number that 
comes at the end of the 109th Congress and the Republican Congress, 
this number is no longer 1.50; it is now $1.0019 trillion that the 
President Bush and the old Republican Congress passed under the rubber 
stamp policy of the Congress of the past, but not now; $1.01 trillion, 
42 Presidents before this President and the past Republican Congress, 
and between the two, they were able to borrow from foreign nations, 
these are foreign nations who I have outlined on the next chart, 
$1.0019 trillion. Historical. Never happened before. No one can point 
to World War I and World War II.
  Who are we borrowing from that we are putting a stop to here in this 
Democratic Congress? Let's just start with Japan at $644.3 billion. 
Let's look over at China, Red China of all places, at $349.6 billion. 
These numbers are old. Many other countries are involved in this. And, 
you know, that is just one sentence.
  Then we move on, ``They have passed a budget that will mean higher 
taxes for American families and job creators.'' Now, I have already 
addressed the issue of higher taxes. Taxes have not been raised.
  So for the President to say this means that it's fiction. That's the 
word I choose. Job creators. Who's he talking about? Must be talking 
about Big Oil. I guess they're creating all kinds of jobs. I know there 
are a lot of people that are trying to figure out how they are going to 
get to their job, paying the high prices.
  And look at the profits. Wow. And it's funny, remember that little 
thing I talked about, the meeting at the White House, and Vice 
President Cheney with the executives, and then all of a sudden the 
energy bill was written? And it was almost like every oil executive, 
somehow they figured out the six numbers to the Lotto. That Lotto 
happened to be the payoff by the American people. And their stock went 
skyrocketing up. In 2002, the profits were $6.5 billion in profits. And 
look, 2007, $30.2 billion, and you're paying almost $3 at the pump. I 
wonder who the job creators are. And we took some of these incentives 
and give-aways away, or so-called incentives, that were just tax 
giveaways of the taxpayers' money back into finding alternative fuels.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will yield, yes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's zero in specifically on what we did 
compared to what they did. If you recall, that was the energy bill that 
they held open for 40 minutes longer than our normal time limit so they 
could twist enough arms to get the votes to ensure that they could give 
the oil companies $14 billion in subsidies, give them those subsidies 
in the face of world record profits. Now, you know, we support profit. 
Profit is a good thing. Profit is not a bad word; it's a good thing. 
But when you are doing what they did, which was forgive the royalties 
that the oil industry would have been required to pay the Federal 
Government; they are supposed to pay the Federal Government to use the 
land that they drill on in exchange for the oil that they pull out and 
make a profit on. And the Republican majority gave away the $14 billion 
and said, no, no, no, very profitable oil industry, that's okay, you 
don't have to pay us. Just put that in your pocket, no problem. And 
what we did, as part of our 100-hour agenda in the Six in '06 bills 
that we passed when we first became the majority is we passed a bill 
that repealed those $14 billion in give-aways and said, what we are 
going to do with that money is we are going to use it to fund 
alternative energy research so that we can make sure that we truly make 
a commitment to wean ourselves off of our addiction to foreign oil, 
which were nice words that the President said in the State of the Union 
last year, but then promptly he signed that energy bill that gave $14 
billion in subsidies away to the oil industry. So I just wanted to jump 
off that poster because it really needed to be zeroed in on.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and thank you 
for yielding back.

[[Page 16200]]

  Mr. Altmire, this is why we come to work, this is why we, Members of 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, to be able to point out, and I love this whole 
fact versus fiction. You know, this is probably going to be my new top 
ten because I think it's important that we outline these issues. 
Because the American people, hopefully what we are sharing with them, 
it's fact. Now, folks start writing speeches and start saying, well, 
what sounds better or using words like efforts, you know ``efforts'' is 
open-ended.

                              {time}  2340

  Well, you know, I make a great effort to do some things around the 
house. But eventually I will get around to them. Well, we are dealing 
with the Federal Treasury, and it is not some sort of slush fund. That 
is the way it has been treated. We are talking about accountability.
  I also want to point out Mr. Bob Novak, I don't think I am on his 
Kwanzaa list and he is not on mine, but he is one of the most 
conservative writers here in this town and well-known, and I appreciate 
his work, and we see him moving around on Sunday talk shows.
  This is interesting. ``Bush veto strategy.'' This is in the 
Washington Post. Just in case, we like third-party validators. We want 
you to go on, we want Members to be able to go on WashingtonPost.com. 
And this was June 18. It was actually on A-17, if you have an old copy 
of the Washington Post.
  I will go down to paragraph three, where it talks about Bush was the 
first President since John Quincy Adams not to exercise his veto power 
during the complete 4-year term, even though the Republican-controlled 
Congress was on a spending spree.
  All right, we have heard of shopping sprees. You look in the 
dictionary, let's just do it. Let's do it because we can. Let's do it 
because we can borrow from foreign nations and put this country in a 
posture that it has never been in before.
  He has two bills in his second term, rejecting only the Iraq war 
bill, since the Democrats took control.
  Let me just say this. One of them was that. Let me just point that 
out, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Altmire. It is important that we 
outline that, that we outline the fact that the President has had a 
rubber-stamp Congress, and that even the conservative writers are 
saying, wait a minute. All of a sudden now you want to be Mr. Veto. You 
want to send a letter to the Speaker of the House saying if you go $1 
over my projected budget and I am going to veto the bill, even if it 
means healthcare for children, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, even if it means 
better healthcare for our veterans that are coming back and that are 
here and that are waiting in line 8 or 9 weeks to see the 
ophthalmologist, which is not what they signed up for and not the 
promise that we gave them. Even if it means that school districts will 
not have the money that they deserve as it relates to the Federal 
dollar.
  The bottom line is I wish the President and I wish the Republican 
side had the kind of courage to stand up to corporate America when they 
were giving away all of the taxpayers' money during their spending 
spree. This is now what I am saying. This is what Bob Novak is saying.
  I think it is also important to note that one of our Republican 
colleagues took enough time to get 147 votes against the Homeland 
Security bill, an appropriations bill, and also it is important that we 
point this out, because this was done to be able to say that we can 
withstand a veto. I think it is 146 that is needed to make sure that we 
can override the President if we need to override him.
  The last point I want to make on this topic, you know I always have a 
number of points, but after we passed the bill that the American people 
wanted, date on redeployment of when troops will be redeployed out of 
the field and letting the Iraqi government know we will not be in the 
middle of a civil war forever and ever and ever, and passed this House 
and it passed the Senate. And before the President could even get to 
it, Republicans marched down to the White House, had lunch, and came 
out and said, ``We stand with the President in not overriding his veto. 
We say that we stand with the President.''
  That is what the Republicans said. Not one Democrat was at the White 
House. I want to know how many more times that Republicans are going to 
go down to the White House and stand with the President. Are they going 
to stand in front of VA Healthcare? Are they going to stand in front of 
universal healthcare for children? Are they going to stand in front of 
everything that we came to Congress to do? And I talking about 
Democrats and Republicans?
  And I am just going to say it, not every Republican went to the White 
House, but enough to be able to stop us from doing the business of the 
people of this country. And I think it is important that we outline 
these issues. Go to WashingtonPost.com.
  There is an old saying out there, if I am lying, I am flying. The 
bottom line is this: It is right here. I didn't write it. Mr. Novak 
wrote it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield, I am so pleased. 
We are all pleased that we have been joined by Mr. Altmire and the 40 
other Democratic freshmen in his class who are majority makers who came 
to Congress to help us move this country in a new direction and make it 
possible to move this country in a new direction.
  The stark contrast you are talking about, where you have tired old, 
same old, do business as shall Republicans standing with the Republican 
standing with the President, supporting his veto, his suggestion that 
he would veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  Now, I sit on the Appropriation Committee so I know what is in that 
bill and had an opportunity to comment on it and participate in it, and 
I am proud to have supported it.
  But I would like Mr. Altmire, given that he is part of the new 
direction Democrats and our freshmen class who brought us to this 
point, to outline for us, let's talk just exactly what the President is 
talking about vetoing. Let's outline that for folks.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  I did want to make clear, just for anyone who is watching this 
debate, that all of these bills that the President is threatening to 
veto over spending are compliant with pay-as-you-go policy. That is 
critical.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are not borrowing and you are not taxing, am 
I correct?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. It means we as the Congress are doing the same thing the 
American people have to do in their own home. Checkbooks, you have to 
have money on one side of the ledger if you want to spend it on 
another. That is something this Congress has not done.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Were PAYGO rules, in other words, not spending 
more than you are taking in, were those in place before Democrats took 
over the Congress?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. They came into place in the 1990 budget agreement.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I mean just a few months ago, before November 
7, in the 109th Congress.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. They were allowed to expire, and that led to the record 
deficits of the past 6 years that I talked about earlier.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And who reinstated the PAYGO rules to make 
sure that we didn't spend more money than we took in?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. On our very first day in Congress, it was this Congress 
that reinstated the pay-as-you-go. As a result, all of these 
appropriations bills that the President is threatening to veto, for the 
first time in 6 years, these appropriations bills are compliant with 
PAYGO. They say simply, as I said, you have to have money on one side 
to pay for it on the other. If you want to increase spending, or 
decrease revenue, for that matter, you have to find an offset to pay 
for it on the other side of the ledger. That is what the President is 
talking about vetoing.
  Specific to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we 
passed last week, I just wanted to talk a little

[[Page 16201]]

bit about immigration. Boy, we hear a lot about immigration, around the 
country on talk radio. I am sure each of you in your Florida districts 
hear about it. I can promise you in my Western Pennsylvania district, I 
hear more about immigration than I hear about any other issue, and 
there is not even a close second.
  It is an important issue. It is an issue for a lot of people that we 
have illegal immigrants coming across the border. And for anyone who is 
talking about this Homeland Security bill that is concerned about that 
issue, I want to tell you that in this bill we have money for fencing.
  The speaker before us had his prop out where he was showing about 
building a fence along the border. This bill has money to build the 
fence.
  This bill has money for new technologies for detection of immigrants, 
illegal immigrants coming across the borders.
  This bill has increased border agents and security agents that are 
able to enforce our laws, 3,000 new border agents along our southern 
border with Mexico.
  It has new detention beds. We have a catch-and-release program where 
we don't have the capacity to hold on to folks that we are catching on 
the southern border, so we simply release them. This bill has money to 
stop that practice with new border agents and new detention beds.
  So for anyone that is watching this debate that is concerned about 
immigration and thinks we need to secure the boarders, we agree, and we 
passed a bill to make that happen. That is the bill the President is 
threatening to veto.
  We also have port and aviation security measures. We have a situation 
where as a result of 9/11 we have to be very concerned about our 
aviation security, certainly, and our port security. We have money in 
this bill to increase our security on both of those. That is what the 
President is threatening to veto.
  We have increased the money available for first responders. The 
President cut by 55 percent firefighter funding. So anyone who is 
concerned about firefighters, can you think of a more worthy commitment 
for our Federal spending priorities than the brave men and women who 
put their lives on the line every single day here at home to keep us 
safe and are doing it on a voluntary basis through the fire department?
  The President cut that funding by 55 percent in his budget. Well, we 
restored that, because our priorities say that we should find that 
money, and through pay-as-you-go we did find the money to pay for that. 
But we put that money back in for our firefighters and our police, our 
first responders.
  Lastly, before I turn it over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who can speak 
as a member of the Appropriations Committee, this is so important. This 
bill ensures our tax dollars are spent wisely with the requirement for 
competitive bidding on contracts.
  Now, anyone who has followed what happened in the Homeland Security 
arena over the past several years, and certainly that includes Katrina 
and the fiasco that took place with the no-bid contracts thereafter 
along the Gulf Coast, knows how important it is to ensure that our tax 
dollars are spent in a responsible and fiscally rational way.

                              {time}  2350

  We do that through the requirement that we do competitive bidding on 
contracts which has been in very short supply over the past 6 years.
  So that is what is in this bill. We secure our borders. We put money 
into detection and prevention and detention of illegal immigrants. We 
secure our aviation, our airplanes and our airports. We secure our 
ports. We put money in for first responders. That is what the Homeland 
Security bill does, and that is what the President is threatening to 
veto.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
outlining what the President has been threatening to veto.
  I want to take it a step beyond the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill and outline a few of the other bills all related to homeland 
security that the President has also threatened to veto. Tonight what 
we aim to show, fact versus fiction, is basically who is for homeland 
security and who is just kidding, who is just talk, who is just a lot 
of hot air, versus who is supportive of putting forward substance.
  The only thing I can think of in terms of a reason that you have 
these veto threats and suddenly the President discovers ink in his pen, 
never having threatened a veto in his first 6 years, instead of an 
``R'' next to the idea there is a ``D'' next to the idea. Now this is 
from a person who has talked a really nice story about being bipartisan 
and working with the Democratic Congress. This is how he has been 
proposing to work with the Democratic Congress: proposing to veto the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill which has a lot of very important 
issues that went unaddressed by the Republican Congress.
  Also, threatening to veto the 9/11 Commission recommendations which 
was his own 9/11 Commission. We just passed that bill in our Six in 06 
agenda with a vote of 299-128. And that would fully implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendations.
  The Homeland Security authorization bill which is the statutory 
provisions in Homeland Security that go with the appropriations bill, 
he has threatened to veto that. That authorizes $40 billion for the 
activities of the Department of Homeland Security and includes strong 
accountability measures which were nonexistent under the Republican 
majority.
  He has threatened to veto the rail and transit security bill, H.R. 
1401, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop 
plans to protect rail and mass transit and authorizes $6 billion over 4 
years in grants to protect those systems. We don't have a system in 
place to protect rail and mass transit.
  In south Florida, we don't have a really strong mass transit system. 
You do in the major populations across the country. How many times have 
you been on a train and been checked or gone through security? There 
are no security measures around our rail system. We proposed 
legislation to do that, and the President is threatening to veto that.
  The Dubai Ports bill, maybe people have forgotten about the proposal 
that the administration was completely supportive of and allowed to 
sail through their FISA process that would have allowed essentially a 
state foreign-owned company to own port terminals in America. I mean, 
that just sailed through the administration's process. They basically 
ignored Federal law and allowed it to happen. We passed a law to 
tighten that. That passed 423-0. No threat to veto there. We weren't 
going to allow that situation to continue. We need to ensure foreign 
countries do not own our port terminals and further undermining our 
security in America.
  Now we have passed the military construction appropriations bill that 
would ensure that we have the largest single increase in veterans 
health care in American history, in addition to the Wounded Warrior 
Assistance Act which responds to the Walter Reed scandal, also ignored 
by the Republicans. That passed 426-0, but it took Democrats to pass 
that legislation.
  Really what this is about is who is for homeland security and who is 
just talk; who is for homeland security and who is just kidding. At the 
end of the day, actions are what speak louder than words. It is what 
you learned in kindergarten: Follow what people do, don't just listen 
to them talk, talk, talk. We have to show the American people what the 
Democrats are trying to accomplish that Republicans and this President 
is trying to block.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I just want to remind our colleagues who are with us 
tonight and watching us tonight that this is about preventing the 
Democrats from a legislative victory. It is not about the budget 
because this is compliant with pay-as-you-go rules.
  I was amused in listening to the gentlewoman from Florida when I 
thought about what one of the major Republican Presidential candidates 
said recently, ``The Democrats don't understand terrorism.'' The 
gentlewoman

[[Page 16202]]

went through a very lengthy list of things that we have done here in 
the first 6 months on homeland security and on terrorism, and the fact 
that the President is threatening to veto many of those initiatives.
  I would ask the question rhetorically, who among us, the Democrats or 
Republicans, don't understand terrorism? I think we are the ones 
putting forward initiative after initiative after initiative compliant 
with PAYGO rules to prevent terrorist attacks, as much as it is 
possible to do that, and to address these issues in a way that has not 
been done. It has languished for years.
  The 9/11 Commission recommendations were put forward in 2003. Here we 
are 4 years later. September 11 took place nearly 6 years ago. We still 
have not implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and 
that is indefensible.
  I would just say to anyone who says it is the Democrats who don't 
understand terrorism to take a look at the list that the gentlewoman 
has put forward that we have done in only 6 months after these 
initiatives have languished year after year.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, for more information, if they 
would like to learn, of course you can go to Speaker.gov/30something, 
or there is now a link on the Speaker's Web site to the 30-Something 
Working Group of which the three of us are members as well as Mr. 
Murphy and Mr. Ryan and others. So that site is www.speaker.gov, click 
on the 30-Something icon and you can learn more about the issues and 
see the charts, even the gentleman's Velcro chart which is now missing.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you can e-mail us as well.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. That is 30somethingD[email protected].
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would like to thank Mr. Altmire and Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that $2 billion-plus a week are 
being spent in Iraq as we are here trying to resolve issues that we 
don't have money to resolve them.
  Also I think it is important, at the top of the hour I meant to give 
this report, but as of this morning, June 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. the 
death total in Iraq is 3,517. Wounded in action and returned to duty is 
14,283. Wounded in action and not returning to duty is 11,667. I think 
it is important that we share that with the Members constantly.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also asking Members, I am trying to find a picture 
and I have been looking high and low for somebody to e-mail us a 
picture of this great White House meeting that the President had with 
the Republicans standing behind him saying they won't participate in 
overriding his veto of accountability in Iraq. I need that picture 
because we need that to be a chart so that we can discourage our 
friends on the other side of the aisle from going down and standing in 
the schoolhouse door on behalf of the majority of Americans' 
priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to address the House once again.

                          ____________________