[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27021-27026]
[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 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Madam Speaker. It is an 
honor to be here before the House once again. As you know, the 30-
Something Working Group, we come to the floor weekly, if not once, 
twice, if not twice, three times, to share with the Members the forward 
progress we are making with a number of pieces of legislation. In some 
areas we not only need Member help, but we need the American people to 
stay involved and get involved in certain issues.
  As you know, last week we talked quite a bit about the children's 
health care bill that passed in a bipartisan vote here in Congress. We 
know that we have given Web sites out to the Members so that they can 
be able to educate themselves even more and also to the American 
people. I think it is important, Madam Speaker, that we continue in 
that light.
  There will be a vote, I believe not this Thursday, but next Thursday, 
to override the President on behalf of children's health care. There 
are a lot of editorials that have been written, a lot of pressure that 
has been applied to the President and also mainly to Members on the 
Republican side of the aisle that we would need to vote in the 
affirmative to be able to allow us to do that.
  I have faith, because I have watched legislation pass. I have watched 
the President and I have watched Republicans on the other side say that 
we're not going to increase the minimum wage; we're not going to take 
part in increasing the minimum wage. And when the American people voted 
for a new direction, that legislation was one of the first pieces of 
legislation that came before this House. We voted an overwhelming 
affirmative, the whole Congress.
  The President was kind of stutter-stepping on it, and, all of a 
sudden, he signed it, even though he said he wouldn't sign it. That is 
not because of an act of the Members of Congress. That is because the 
American people were involved in that process and thought it was very, 
very important. A supermajority of the American people called their 
Members of Congress and said this is important, we must do this, and it 
is important for our economy.
  The same thing as relates to the student loan interest rate. We cut 
it in half. The President said he would not sign that bill. It was not 
just because of the act of the Democratic majority moving in a new 
direction, it was because the American people got involved in that 
process and President Bush changed his mind.
  I think it is very, very important for us, and I just want to say 
this to the Members and also to staff, maybe it is important for us to 
get the time that the President signs these bills late Friday at like 
7:30 in the afternoon before he goes to Camp David. If the President 
signs it in broad daylight or at night, as long as he signs the bill 
and allows the American people to get what they deserve, a piece of the 
pie.
  I am going to yield right now, because I know that I have a couple of 
colleagues that are here that want to shed some light on action. We 
have finished votes.
  I just want to say also, Madam Speaker, our colleague, Congresswoman 
Davis, our hearts go out to her family and also to her constituents and 
also everyone that she has touched in her lifetime. We served together, 
I believe on Armed Services, and even though she was on the Republican 
side of the aisle, we were colleagues here in Congress. She served to 
the very end, and I am forever grateful to her family for allowing her 
to serve and be a part of this body, to serve the American people.
  I know that over the coming days, tomorrow, I believe, will be her 
home-going service, that there will be further reflections on her life.
  With that, I would like to yield to Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Meek, and my 
condolences go out as well to the Davis family.
  Mr. Meek, I am glad you started where we left off last time, talking 
about children's health care, because it is still on the table. For a 
lot us, we still believe that it has hope. This 2-week period in which 
we postponed a vote on the override will give our friends on the other 
side of the aisle the opportunity to rethink their position on this 
issue, to go back to their districts and talk to the millions of

[[Page 27022]]

families, thousands and thousands of families in each congressional 
district across this country who are struggling with the real peril 
associated with trying to get health care in this country.
  We are talking about 6 million kids which are going to lose health 
care if we don't reauthorize the national Federal Children's Health 
Program, the SCHIP program. We are talking about 4 million new kids 
that don't have health care now that could have health care.
  We are really talking about families that are playing by the rules, 
who are doing everything we ask of them, working one job, two jobs, 
maybe even three jobs, but can't get health care through their 
employers. It just makes sense for us to reach out and try to help 
those families.
  Mr. Speaker, it makes sense not only because it's the right thing to 
do from a moral standpoint, but we care about our fellow human beings, 
and we are our brother's keeper. But reaching out a helping hand to a 
sick child who lies in their bed simply because their parents can't 
afford a doctor, that is part of our moral obligation as Members of 
Congress, but it's also the fiscally responsible thing to do. These 
kids get health care, but they don't get health care until they get so 
sick that they end up in emergency rooms, and they end up getting the 
least humane, most expensive health care available to them.
  Madam Speaker, this bill, the SCHIP bill, the Children's Health 
Insurance bill, which we hope we will have enough votes to override the 
President's veto on next week, this is not just about our moral 
obligation as a Congress, but it is also about our fiscal obligation. I 
know Ms. Wasserman Schultz will talk about this today.
  It is also about choices. This is not about play money, found money 
or new money. This is about taking funding that we have been sending 
for far too long into the civil, religious conflict in Iraq. Thirty-
seven days worth of funding of that war could insure every child that 
the SCHIP bill seeks to cover, 10 million kids. In the end, this is 
just about choices.
  Madam Speaker, we have still got time to convince a few folks on the 
other side of the aisle to join us. You remember, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz, when this bill first came before the House, there were only a 
handful of Republicans that supported that. They went back to their 
districts over the course of August and they came back to take another 
shot, and, guess what? We had almost three to four times as many 
Republicans who, after they went back and heard from their constituents 
on this, decided they were going to stand with us, stand up for 
children's health.
  I think the same thing can happen again next week if families 
throughout this country, if hardworking Americans who have no health 
care, go to their Members of Congress and say, listen, it is time to do 
the right thing for kids, time to do the right thing for families, time 
to do the right thing for health care. I think we can have a victory.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I also want to add my voice and 
sorrow that goes out to the Davis family. Mr. Meek, Mr. Murphy, this is 
also Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Since we know that our dear 
colleague, Mrs. Davis, succumbed to breast cancer after a valiant 2-
year battle, I think it is important to note that we are in Breast 
Cancer Awareness Month.
  Breast cancer affects so many women from so many different walks of 
life, and it strikes every potential family, whether you're a Member of 
Congress, a maintenance worker, whether you're a scientist or someone 
from any walk of life. It is important that we focus our research and 
our effort, our dollars, our passion and our commitment to finding a 
cure for this horrendous disease. My prayers and thoughts go out to her 
family as well.
  Madam Speaker, that having been said, I do have to tell you that I go 
back to my district and have talked to lots of different groups at home 
and in various places around the country, and when I bring up the 
possibility of the fact that President Bush might, and then did, veto a 
bill that would expand access to health care to 10 million kids, people 
really look at me like we must be working with aliens from another 
planet. Really. The jaws drop open, the puzzled look on people's faces 
in the audiences that I speak in front of, when I tell them that most 
of the Republicans and this President are actually opposed to expanding 
access to children's health care.
  Now, they will say they are not. They have been saying, no, no, we 
support it. But words are pretty hollow when it comes to a mom or a dad 
whose child is suffering with a fever and they have no health 
insurance, which means they can't call up a doctor like we can and make 
an appointment to have a simple checkup or to get some antibiotics, and 
that they have to wait until their child is so sick, until that 
temperature climbs to about 104, 105, until you're ready to push the 
panic button, fly in your car, if you have a car, if you have a way to 
get yourself to the emergency room, to take your child to the emergency 
room to use it as your primary health care access.
  People get that this is simple: You are either for making sure that 
kids have health care, or you're not. The lame excuse that they use, 
Mr. Meek and Mr. Murphy, is that they try to tell people that this is 
covering kids whose parents can afford insurance already, or who are 
already covered. They actually say that there are people that will drop 
the health insurance that they are paying for privately now to sign up 
for SCHIP; that that is exactly what any right-minded parent would do, 
is drop comprehensive health care coverage that they already have so 
that they can hopefully qualify for and keep their child qualified for 
a health insurance program that is really targeted for kids who fall in 
the gap.
  Madam Speaker, not only is that completely wrong, it's a shell game 
designed to take away the focus that is clearly being shined on them 
right now, that shows that we are for children and they are not. That 
is the bottom line. It is very simple.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a simple choice 
coming up next Thursday, October 18. They can stand with the kids and 
make sure that kids who fall in the gap, who don't qualify for 
Medicaid, whose families aren't poor enough to qualify to get them 
Medicaid, and whose families can't afford to buy private health 
insurance, the gap of those kids in the middle, we need to make sure we 
cover them. It's the bottom line, Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Let me tell you a story. I know you have 
heard it, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, but it is pretty indicative of how low 
the other side is prepared to go to try to undermine children's health 
care.

                              {time}  1900

  There is a family, the Frosts. Their son, Graeme Frost, doesn't have 
health insurance. He is 13 years old and suffers with severe brain 
injury as a result of a car crash. The family has been the face of some 
of this discussion. The father is self-employed. He is a woodworker. 
The mother has had some part-time jobs on and off. They are not living 
in destitute poverty, but they are playing by the rules and doing 
everything we ask them to do. They are paying their taxes and 
contributing to society.
  But because their son has a preexisting condition, they have been 
turned down for health insurance time and time and time again. And so 
they have to pay for injuries from a car crash for a 13-year-old boy 
out of their pockets. This is the kind of family that we are talking 
about. This is a family that has done everything that we have asked, a 
family that is getting by, but because their son has an injury that 
excludes him from most private insurance, he has no other recourse than 
the SCHIP program, a stopgap solution until the family finds some 
insurance program that does cover him.
  Well, what happened. This family had their whole life uncovered by 
the right wing that is trying to stop children's health care from going 
forward. Every tax return, every purchase they have ever made, right 
down to the type of

[[Page 27023]]

countertops they have in their kitchen was exposed by the right wing of 
this city to try to prove that this family is just leaching off the 
government.
  This is a 13-year-old kid with brain injuries and a family that has 
done everything that they can to try to find insurance and haven't 
found it.
  I was home this past weekend, and on Monday I listened to one of the 
talk show hosts in my district talk about the fact, he said: I don't 
understand why people are saying the poor can't get health care 
insurance. I went onto a Web site for one of the big health insurance 
companies, and I just plugged in for a family of four to see how much 
it would cost. He said, it is reasonable. You can get a 80/20 plan, he 
said, 80 percent covered by the insurer, 20 percent by you, with a 
$5,000 deductible for only $300 a month. That's a deal. That's a deal.
  Madam Speaker, think of that, for a family making a little more than 
minimum wage, maybe making $22,000 a year, which in Connecticut just to 
have a roof over their head is paying about $10,000 a year in rent, now 
has to pay $9,000 a year for insurance.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you happen to know what the average price 
of a house or of housing in your district is?
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. In my district, forget buying a house, if 
you want to rent an apartment with a couple of bedrooms, it is at least 
$600, $700 a month. You are talking $10,000 a year when it is all said 
and done. You add on $9,000 for health care costs, which under that 
plan that he found on a website, the minimum amount you have to pay 
before you even have a dime of health care coverage kick in, and you 
have $2,000 or $3,000 left over to do everything else, to put food on 
the table and educate your kids and pay for heat. It is mind numbing 
that people can't see that health care is so expensive that it is 
prohibitive for families doing the right thing. This is humane and it 
is right.
  The conspiracy that gets thrown out there, and the stats and the 
numbers, by the right wing on this issue are pretty easy to punch 
through in the end.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There are different ways to talk about this 
issue. As a mom, I like to talk about it from the standpoint when I 
talk to other parents that there is pretty much nothing more basic, no 
more guttural reaction that a parent has than wanting to keep their 
child healthy. Everywhere I go when I talk to people, this is the most 
basic thing. It is as simple and as black and white and as big a no-
brainer as most people have ever come across.
  A lot of the issues we deal with up here are complex. They are not 
black and white necessarily. There is a lot of gray. There is no gray 
on whether or not, if we can cover 10 million kids, we should. There is 
no gray for most folks. If that is the case, and I am certain that is 
the case in my liberal Democratic district, as opposed to conservative 
Republican districts or moderate Democrat/moderate Republican 
districts. I don't think there is any tinge of partisanship on the 
basic instinct that parents want to make sure they provide health care 
for their kids.
  But if that is not the priorities that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle share, what is? Well, I think a glance at this chart 
will demonstrate what their priorities are.
  This chart details 37 days in Iraq and what that would pay for if we 
were comparing it to what we could pay for to cover children's health 
care.
  One day in Iraq costs $330 million in funds that we appropriate. That 
would cover, over the 5 years that this children's health insurance 
program would authorize, 270,222 children.
  One week of paying for the war in Iraq costs $2.3 billion, which 
would cover 1,891,551 kids over the 5 years of this program.
  A month of the war in Iraq, which we are now in the sixth year, I 
believe, costs $10 billion, and that would cover 8,196,721 kids over 
the 5 years that we would authorize this program.
  And finally, over 37 days, which would be about 4\1/2\ months' worth 
of paying for Iraq in the 5-year program, $12.2 billion, it costs us 
for 37 days in Iraq, that would cover the 10 million kids this program 
would cover. So 10 million kids times 5.
  They have repeatedly voted to blindly follow President Bush, blindly 
follow President Bush on the war in Iraq, and now, except for 45 brave 
Republicans who understand that children come first, blindly follow him 
over a cliff and vote for $12.2 billion over 37 days in a given month 
and a week for the war in Iraq, and to continue it even though 
Americans want us to withdraw and refocus our efforts on homeland 
security here. And on top of that, choose to spend that money on a 
hopeless war as opposed to funding health care for 10 million kids.
  Who is for children and who is just kidding? I think the numbers 
demonstrate that it is clear. They have an opportunity to right the 
wrong that the President's veto pen established last week. Next 
Thursday they can vote to override it, and the American people have 
been speaking and need to continue to speak to their Members who voted 
wrong on this bill. We need 15 more Republicans. We are this close, 15 
Republicans. Grow some courage, see the wizard, toughen that spine or 
grow one. Vote to override the President's veto and 10 million children 
get health care coverage.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I was going to pick up on that point. We 
are so close. This has been a bipartisan effort. We have the votes 
necessary to override the President's veto in the Senate. You have 
Senator Hatch saying that the SCHIP proposal is an honest compromise 
that improves a program that works for America's low-income children. 
You have Senator Grassley saying it is a good bill, it is a good 
comprise. Pat Roberts rises to express his support for the SCHIP bill. 
So with 45 Members in the House supporting this bill, we are so close.
  This is a picture, I believe, from earlier in the year. We have a 
President standing out in front of his loyal soldiers, the Republican 
caucus in their winter coats, which suggests it was one of the early 
meetings the President had to galvanize support for his plan to 
escalate the war. We have seen, as time goes on, that if the President 
were to regather this group for a conversation on SCHIP there might not 
be as many Republicans there.
  I think as Members go back to their district and start to hear from 
constituents about how important this SCHIP bill is, all of those loyal 
soldiers are going to get a little smaller and fewer every day. As 
people start to figure out that the President is so far out on a limb 
on this issue, that not only is he doing damage to America's children, 
but he is doing damage to the prospects of his colleagues in the House, 
you are going to find a lot more people seeking that courage and 
finding that wisdom and coming on board here.
  We hope it happens next week. But if it does not happen next week, we 
are not going away because the 4 million kids out there who are showing 
up in emergency rooms because they can't get the treatment to try to 
prevent the mental illness that will cripple them as an adolescent, 
they can't get the treatment to try to cure that physical ailment that 
ends them up in the emergency room, those kids aren't going away, so we 
won't go away. If we fall 15 votes or seven votes or two votes or one 
vote short, we will be back here next year, we will be back here next 
summer. If there is anything that is important to us, it is standing up 
for the kids. If there is anything that should be important to the 
entire Congress, Republicans and Democrats, it is standing up for the 
kids. That is our message here tonight. It is not just that we hope 
that the Republicans go out and find that courage and that wisdom, but 
they know, and all those children and all those families know, that we 
are not going to stop until we get a bill that insures kids of families 
in this country who so desperately need our help.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Murphy, this process we are going through 
in trying to win over the 15 Republicans kind of reminds me of the 
lessons my parents taught me when I was a little kid. You would 
struggle, Madam Speaker, with what was really

[[Page 27024]]

right from wrong and to understand the values that your parents were 
instilling. I know I did. I would ask my mom on tough questions: How am 
I going to know I did the right thing? What is the guidepost I should 
use? That is the kind of lessons parents teach their kids all the time.
  I remember so vividly my mom and dad telling me you have to be able 
to go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning and look at yourself 
in the mirror and like what you see staring back at you. You have to 
know that your conscience is not going to gnaw at you.
  There are plenty of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
will thump their chests and use a lot of bravado, false bravado, I 
would add, and say, I can live with myself. I am doing the right thing. 
But you know in your heart of hearts when you go to sleep at night and 
you are the only one in the room with yourself whether or not you have 
done the right thing.
  I am desperately hopeful they will listen to that inner voice, 
because you know your inner voice has to be telling you, if they truly 
have the values that they say they have as opposed to the ones that are 
reflected in many of their votes, that they will do the right thing, at 
least 15 of them, and vote to override the President's veto.
  We all remember the vivid picture that we had when history was made 
on January 4 this year when Speaker Pelosi was sworn in and handed the 
gavel with all of those children, the children of our colleagues and 
grandchildren, surrounding her at the roster. That was a very vivid 
picture, but that wasn't a photo op. That was a representation of what 
Speaker Pelosi has staked her speakership on. She dedicated her 
speakership to our Nation's children, and we are making our entire 
agenda about improving their lives and affecting and impacting their 
future.
  I mean at the end of the day, like I said a couple of minutes ago, 
and it bears repeating, this is a black-and-white issue. You vote to 
override the President's veto, you are for expanding access to health 
care for 10 million children. If you vote no, you are against it, 
period. There is no other way to define it.
  This is one of those things, Mr. Meek, the more they have to explain 
why they are doing what they are doing, the worse it gets for them. 
Again, I go back to standing in front of your constituents at a town 
hall meeting, and sometimes you look out at the faces that we represent 
and you hope you are winning the audience over. But on this issue, 
those puzzled expressions don't go away the more words that come out of 
our colleagues' mouths in explanation of why they can't support 
expanding access to health care for 10 million children.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Murphy, I can't 
help but think of the action that we are taking here in Congress, and 
we know that we have some of our friends on the other side of the aisle 
that don't necessarily see it our way. But because the American people 
are involved in what we are doing, because we are moving in a new 
direction, we are giving the American people what they asked for. That 
is what is supposed to happen. You run for office and say what you 
stand for. The people send you to Washington. Some races are closer 
than others. Or you are reelected to Congress and you come here to 
represent the people.
  I see a pattern. You showed a picture of some of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle running down to the White House saying we are 
going to stand with you, Mr. President, not to allow the Congress to 
override, article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

                              {time}  1915

  I want you to talk about that a little later. There's something 
blowing through the air conditioning ducts, I guess, here in Congress 
and in the White House. One would be in disbelief of the fact that we 
actually have a say in what happens in this government because we 
appropriate the necessary dollars. We put forth the policy to be able 
to get the revenue to run the country.
  I just want to say that some things that we have done here we can 
claim victory on, and I think we need to talk about a few of those 
things. We can claim victory on passing a children's health care bill 
with a bipartisan vote. This was not just powerful Democrats that 
voted. There are a number of Republicans that voted in both chambers. 
We have quotes on the Speaker's Web site. I believe it's, what is it, 
45 Republicans over here and 18 Republicans in the Senate. And on 
www.speaker.gov you can go on the Web site and get the quotes of our 
Republican colleagues that spoke so very highly about this bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  You know something, we're putting in the work. We're putting in the 
work. I mean, the House last week held its 943rd rollcall vote of the 
year, and I mean of this year, breaking a previous record of 942 votes. 
That mark was set in 1978, and we're well on our way to taking care of 
the country's business of heading into a higher number of at least 
1,000 votes by the end of this year. People wanted us to go to work. 
We're working now. We're working now. If it wasn't for the loss we had 
here in Congress, we would be working tomorrow.
  But the bottom line is this, Madam Speaker, is that we have to 
continue to move down the track of responsibility, and that's the 
reason why we come to the floor because we want the Members to feel the 
pressure.
  You might have seen me moving around here on the floor because, as 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz can tell you, my good friend from Florida, and 
Mr. Murphy can tell you, that we pride ourselves, Madam Speaker, on 
making sure that we share accurate information with the Members and the 
American people. That's just where it is. We don't talk about fiction. 
We just talk about facts.
  Now, earlier today we had H.R. 3056. What does that mean? There's a 
lot of House bills that are around, but this bill was actually a very, 
very important bill to the U.S. taxpayer. It dealt with the Tax 
Collection Responsibility Act.
  We had tax collectors that the Republican majority put it in power to 
have the phone numbers of every American taxpayer, and they were so-
called to ring in dollars of individuals that are not paying taxes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Private.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Private. I mean, these are private tax 
collectors that we ended up spending more money paying them than what 
they collected, and then they turned around and there's an instance of 
when an elderly couple received 150 calls in the course of 27 days. 
Now, anyone that knows anything about people calling your home that you 
don't want calling your home, and they're calling for someone else, 
they're calling the Murphy household and they're asking for the Johnson 
family, and you keep telling them that, no, the Johnson family doesn't 
live here, what we did today was to do the right thing on behalf of the 
American taxpayer by passing that piece of legislation that repealed 
the IRS authority to enter into private debt collector contracts. I 
think that's very, very important.
  Also, when you look at it from a fiscal responsibility piece, Madam 
Speaker, and we're talking about being responsible, you have to look at 
this whole issue of the study that shows that the IRS employees that 
are employed by the IRS is 13-1 on what they can collect from what the 
private collectors are actually able to collect.
  Also in that great piece of legislation was something that we all 
feel very strong about, the 1-year suspension on the 3 percent, 3 
percent that is collected from small businesses up front when they 
contract with local governments, and a number of other issues that were 
in that bill.
  I'm saying all of this to make this point: 210 Democrats voted for 
it; 22 Republicans voted for it. Now, one can say that's a bipartisan 
vote, but when you look at 164 Republicans voting against something 
that, on its surface, you don't have to dig far, the numbers, when we 
had hearing in Ways and Means on it, the numbers represent the true 
meaning of what has not happened and contracting with a private company 
to call the taxpayers of this great country of ours and not doing the 
job

[[Page 27025]]

that they set out to do, that they ended up getting a real paycheck at 
the end of the day, which they didn't even do the work, and then better 
yet, they're calling individuals' homes that already paid their taxes, 
because the accountability was not there.
  I think it is very, very important. I just want to make sure that it 
is very important that we highlight these issues and we talk about the 
success that we're having here in Congress where we need our Republican 
colleagues to join us, but we're still pushing forward because the good 
thing about it is the fact that the American people are with the new 
direction agenda, and it's their agenda. We're just a vehicle to allow 
it to happen, need it be children's health care, need it be cutting 
student loan interest rates in half, need it be increasing the minimum 
wage, need it be what we're doing and what's at the President's desk on 
the issue of energy.
  I mean, we have all these issues. Some were the 6 in '06 that we 
talked about. Some were ideas we picked up along the way that we 
thought was very, very important.
  As we continue to move down this track, I just want to share with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is not necessarily or 
if it is something of a Democratic idea, because when you see votes 
like this, I can't help but think as a legislator going into my 14th 
year of public service, you have me by 2 years, to see a vote like this 
vote, that was obviously a good vote to take on behalf of the American 
people and to go the opposite way, if it was just merely politics, then 
I would say, well, you know, let's just go back and sit in our office 
and allow them to continue to take these votes.
  But when we start looking at how we are going to deal with the war in 
Iraq, you called those numbers out of how many children I mean by day, 
by week, by month, by days that can receive health care, and just like 
this, $3,316 I think are spent every second in Iraq when children can 
receive health care.
  And so when you look at it, I mean, when we start talking about why 
and it should work itself out or it's the right thing to do, it's 
something that's happening around here that we haven't quite uncovered 
yet. But I don't have a lot of time, Madam Speaker, to try to uncover 
the problem on the other side of the aisle. I don't.
  I'm with the Speaker and I'm with the majority leader and I'm with 
the majority whip and I'm with the Chair of the caucus and the Vice 
Chair of the caucus and all of the leadership folks that are running 
around here in the different caucuses and saying that the American 
people sent us here to go to work. We've gone to work. We've already 
broken records. We're on our way to break another record as it relates 
to what we're doing on behalf of the American people.
  But that's something that Members are going to have to explain back 
home if they're taking these unpopular votes, when one may say the 
blind leading the blind and two shall fall down in the ditch, that 
should happen. That's what we used to stay when I was on the football 
field at Florida A&M.
  The real issue here is we should feel good about what we have 
accomplished. We should feel good that the American people are on 
board. We're on board with the American people. We're carrying out 
their agenda, and that's Democrat and Republican, too. I don't want an 
American that opens their wallet and, you know, look at their voter 
registration card and say, well, I'm a Republican, Congressman Meek is 
not talking to me. I'm talking to you because when you look at fiscal 
responsibility, when you look at this issue, this is your wallet, too. 
When we cut interest rates in half, the President didn't want to do it. 
You wanted it to happen, Republican, independent, nonvoter, Democrat, 
you wanted it to happen. That was a bill for you, not for the three of 
us, for you to cut your interest rates in half. So when we look at 
these issues, we have to look at a functional government, that we have 
responsibility, and then we have to put the partisanship aside.
  One thing I can say, that we have passed major pieces of legislation 
in a bipartisan way and have allowed Republican input that has not been 
the case, I know and I can attest, for the 108th and 109th Congress.
  I say all of that to say that I think it's important that we continue 
to paint the picture, especially for our colleagues that are not voting 
when it's abundantly clear of why you should vote for something. I 
mean, someone had to say don't vote for it, and then they say, okay, 
I'm not going to vote for it. There has to be a reason why, when you 
empower private debt collectors to have private information, you know 
what I'm talking about because I know you wear that privacy hat, 
privacy information of your personal information, okay, and they abuse 
and they fail in the mission of collecting the dollars that they're 
supposed to collect from individuals that are not paying their taxes. 
And then to turn around and see numbers of cases of abuse where 
individuals have been called over 150 times that have been documented 
over a period of 27 days to an elderly couple and still you come to the 
floor and vote no? I mean, I just don't understand it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'm so glad that you brought this up, because 
as a member of the whip team, I was working this debt collection bill 
that we passed on the House floor today, and I was just equally as 
shocked as you were about how many of our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle voted against this because here are the facts.
  Those private debt collection companies were costing us $70 million. 
We paid them $70 million of government funds to collect $20 million.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I know we have it for the record, but I just 
want, when folks open the Congressional Record, that they can see that 
number twice, because that's the point even driven further down the 
street as it relates to why would you vote against something like this.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will be glad to say it again. It's that 
shocking. We were paying private debt collection companies, instead of 
paying IRS employees a salary, to collect the debt that is owed in 
taxes from the people who have not been paying their taxes, $70 million 
to private debt collection companies to collect $20 million, and if we 
had spent the same $70 million, the statistics show that the track 
record of IRS employees paid the same amount of money would have 
collected $1.6 billion. $1.6 billion would have been collected by 
government employees working for the IRS who we have to presume are 
quite a bit more trustworthy with our constituents' private, personal 
information in this time of stolen identities and stolen funds from our 
constituents.
  The thing that strikes me as the most disturbing about this is that 
the Republicans talk this good game about being fiscally responsible 
and being the ones that are the stewards of the public's tax dollars, 
and then let's go down the list of where our votes and our leadership 
has been as Democrats under Speaker Pelosi and where theirs have been.
  There was this bill today. Do you have the numbers on how many 
Republicans voted against this bill today? Voted to continue the 
practice of spending $70 million to collect $20 million. 232 Democrat 
``yes'' votes and 173 Republican ``no'' votes. Only 22 Republicans 
voted ``yes.'' I don't understand that. So maybe it's an isolated 
incident. Maybe it's isolated.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let's just engage in a conversation here. I 
mean, the real issue is this: It's not an isolated incident, and that's 
the reason why many of our Republican colleagues that were here in the 
109th Congress is now reading about what Congress is doing in their 
hometown paper in an involuntary retirement. It's not like they said, 
oh, I just don't want to be your Congressman here anymore.
  No, they took votes that were unpopular, and when I say unpopular, 
one person may say, well, leadership, you're supposed to lead, but when 
you have a bill like the bill that is in question here, H.R. 3056, and 
I encourage the Members, staff and what have you because maybe there 
may be another opportunity.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I believe it's called the Tax Collection 
Responsibility Act.

[[Page 27026]]


  Mr. MEEKS of Florida. Yes, that's correct, but they may have the 
opportunity to do the right thing.
  We made the point, because even on the minimum wage bill, we had 
Republicans. Over my dead body, you know.

                              {time}  1930

  That should not happen, especially when something is so good on 
behalf of the American people. That's the decision that folks have to 
make. I am not concerned. I am not concerned about decisions they are 
making. I am saying that we should shed light on what we should 
celebrate. We should celebrate the fact we are providing the leadership 
for such a bill to come to the floor. It wouldn't have even been heard 
in Ways and Means if it was under a Republican Congress.
  When we look at it, when I say ``Republican'' and ``Democrat,'' I 
just want to make sure the people understand that I am not talking 
about us versus them; I am talking about fiscal responsibility and 
doing what government is supposed to do. This is what we are supposed 
to do.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Again, for some more examples, Mr. Murphy, you 
came in the new freshman class or majority-makers who were committed to 
this campaign to come here and help move this country in a new 
direction. The new direction we have been talking about is eliminating 
the consistent examples of Republicans talking about being fiscally 
responsible but doing exactly the opposite. The next time we should 
bring the numbers of the votes to the floor on how many Republicans 
voted for the PAYGO rules and how many Democrats voted for it, how many 
Republicans voted against the amendment that closed the tax loophole 
that allowed American companies to hide how much they were supposed to 
pay in taxes by headquartering them in a different country even if they 
were really American companies doing business here.
  In that energy bill, we put a provision in that energy bill to make 
sure we could close that loophole. I would like to see numbers here on 
how many Republicans voted against it, allowing companies to skirt 
their responsibility. This is not about increasing taxes. That vote was 
about collecting the taxes that are due, that these companies owe.
  So no on PAYGO, no on closing tax loopholes, no on debt collection 
responsibility and leaving $50 million on the table. Who is fiscally 
responsible and who is just kidding?
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. It goes to the very subject that we opened 
with in talking about here, which is the war itself, and we believe 
that there is a much better way to spend pretty much all of that money, 
whether it be rebuilding our schools, educating kids, giving health 
care to children.
  But even, even given the vast amount of money that we are spending 
over there, there has been virtually no check, virtually no oversight 
by this Congress and this administration. A great example is the 
Government Oversight Committee, which has done really yeoman's work in 
trying to make up for the complete absence of oversight during the past 
several Congresses. The Oversight Committee held a hearing, very well 
attended, very highly publicized hearing a few weeks back with the CEO 
of Blackwater, who came before Congress, Blackwater, the private 
security firm which has basically created a privatized military in Iraq 
today.
  Blackwater came before us, the CEO of Blackwater came before us the 
other week, and we asked him simply this. We said, tell us how much 
profit you are making. Tell us how much profit Blackwater is making off 
of U.S. Government contracts and said, You know what? It's none of your 
business. I can give you an estimation. I think we are making about $85 
million a year in profits off of $850 million in contracts. But, 
basically, it's none of your business, United States Congress.
  There weren't a lot of people on the Republican side of the aisle, on 
that government Oversight Committee that blinked at that suggestion, 
because that has been the practice in this Congress over the past 
several years. That has been de rigueur, as a matter of course here, 
that we don't ask any questions, that it is okay that Blackwater 
security, a private military operating in Iraq, can make $85 million in 
profit off of doing what we know the United States military could do 
themselves.
  So it's endemic when you talk about private tax collectors, it's 
endemic when you talk about the issues such as PAYGO that 
Representative Wasserman Schultz raised and certainly in spending on 
the war. Time after time again we have seen no fiscal responsibility 
here, and time after time this Congress, Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz, is shedding light on that misused taxpayer funds, but passing 
legislation like the bill that we passed today, which changes the 
course, and we start spending tax money wisely once again.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are going to start closing out here, and this 
is something we don't ordinarily do. We are going to end up leaving 10 
minutes left open. I mean, there is just so much information we want to 
share, but we know that the House has to continue, but I want to 
recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In helping to close us out, I do want to 
direct people to the charts and the other information that we have 
talked about here tonight. Our Web site can be reached by going to 
www.speaker.gov, and you will find the 30-something link right on that 
Web page, www.speaker.gov. I can only hope that the next time we meet, 
which will be the day before we cast that children's health insurance 
vote, to decide who is for kids and who is not, to override the 
President's veto, that we will be able to report that we have picked up 
those 15 Republicans who have found their way and would be willing to 
do right by our Nation's kids. It has been a pleasure to join you here 
this evening.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to thank the Members for what they have 
done this far, the majority of the Members in this House, and that is 
including some of our Republican friends that have voted for a number 
of these measures that the American people want, Republicans, 
Democrats, you name it, those that are involved in other parties and 
those that are thinking about voting. We have to show that we are a 
functional House and that we can be able to provide the leadership, 
when necessary, to be able to run the country in a way that it should 
be operated, especially on appropriations and on the finance and tax 
hand.
  I want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have the 
hour.

                          ____________________