[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1966-1971]
[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 half the time remaining before 5 p.m. as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House, and I can share with you on this day of the State of the Union 
we all look forward to hearing what the President/Commander in Chief 
has to share not only with the country but the world, and we hope that 
he will bring words of wisdom and unity to the House floor. This will 
be the President's seventh opportunity coming to the floor to share 
with us the needs of the Nation. And I hope that he speaks on behalf of 
the entire Nation.
  As you know, the 30-Something Working Group has been coming to the 
floor for the last 3 years sharing with the Members about what was 
going on under the Capitol dome and what wasn't going on under the 
Capitol dome. And we come today in the spirit of bipartisanship, Mr. 
Speaker, and I would also like to continue to highlight bipartisanship, 
because that is what the American people have called for and that is 
what we have delivered.
  And when I say ``we,'' I am saying a majority of the Members of the 
House of Representatives, and you can sprinkle in some Republican votes 
in achieving that. And I am glad that on a number of votes as relates 
to the Medicare prescription drug price negotiating, all Democrats on 
the floor voted for that, 24 Republicans voted for it, too. They voted 
with their constituents.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, just about all the Democrats 
on the floor voting on behalf, 216 with 37 Republicans joining us on 
that vote, it was 253, which is a good majority of the House voting in 
the affirmative. That is bipartisan.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act, Mr. Speaker, that passed on January 10, 
which was a recorded vote, there were 315 yeas in the affirmative, all 
Democrats on the floor at that time voted for it, 82 Republicans joined 
Democrats in voting on that bill together, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, in the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 
which we all know, Mr. Speaker, was a bipartisan piece of work by 
individuals that were appointed by the President, the leadership, and 
the House and Senate at that time, with two bipartisan chairmen, one 
Republican and the vice chair was Democrat, all Democrats on the floor 
voted, 231, and 68 Republicans. That brought that vote to 299.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to move on and 
as we look at the student loan vote, as we look at a number of the 
votes that have come here to the floor, a great vote today as relates 
to pensions for those that step out of the line, Members of the House 
that step out of line and Members of the Senate, that their pensions 
will be on the line. Not one vote against that measure.
  In that spirit, I know, on behalf of the Democratic side of the 
aisle, the Speaker, majority leader, Democratic whip, the chairman of 
our caucus, the vice chair of our caucus, and other elected leadership 
within the Democratic Caucus are looking to continue this bipartisan 
spirit that we have adopted here.
  As you know, in the 109th Congress, Mr. Speaker, I used to always 
share with the Members that bipartisanship is only allowed if the 
majority allows it. I think that on some issues we will see issues 
where we won't be able to see eye to eye and there will be some 
partisan votes on this floor. That is just the reality of life here in 
Washington, D.C., but it should not be the rule. It should be the 
exception. And I want to commend all of those Members that are moving 
in a bipartisan spirit.
  Now, I must say the winds of bipartisanship are here on the floor. I 
am sad to report that on many of those votes the Republican leadership 
did not vote with the majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, 
including Republicans that did vote on those measures. I say this to 
promote a bipartisan spirit here when the State of the Union, when the 
President comes in and gives his speech tonight; when he comes to speak 
to the American people in the U.S. House, the U.S. Congress, Judiciary, 
all branches of the military that will be represented here tonight, 
Cabinet officers that will be represented here tonight, hopefully 
deliver a message that we can move forward as a unit, as all Americans, 
so something we can all grasp.

                              {time}  1515

  I think it is important to move in that direction.
  Now, on our side of many of these issues, when I say ``our side,'' I 
am saying the Democratic side where we have talked about six in 2006, 
where Republicans have joined us in those efforts because they wanted 
to vote for it all along but their leadership would not allow them to 
do that. We want to continue. We want to lead by example. We want the 
American people to know that we are leading on behalf of the country, 
not just one side versus the other. We do not want to create that kind 
of environment; but when it has to take place, it has to take place.
  Tonight, Senator Webb, Virginia, will be delivering the Democratic 
response to the President, and I think it is important if we can see 
eye to eye on a policy in Iraq because right now, as you know, a number 
of the Senators on the other side of the Capitol dome have disagreed 
with the surge policy or with the escalation of troops policy that we 
have now that the President has stepped forward with. Many Members of 
the House on both sides of the aisle disagree with that policy.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of Americans spoke not only to 
Democratic candidates but to Republican candidates about a solution in 
Iraq versus just identifying a problem and continuing to add on to the 
unfortunate situation of U.S. troops losing their lives in Iraq.
  I think it is also important for us to know that for us to work in a 
bipartisan way the President cannot continue to say, just because I 
have the power to deploy troops along with my advisers that I am going 
to do it. I think a level of responsibility has to kick in.
  Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a group earlier today, and I shared 
with them that the watch word for the 110th Congress should be 
``responsibility,'' responsibility on both sides of the aisle to make 
sure that we can fight our way out of the record deficit that we have 
now and to be able to stick with our pay-as-we-go rules that we put in 
place; to make sure that we govern on behalf of all the American people 
need it be young or old, rich or poor; that we govern on behalf of 
Americans and not on behalf of the special interests; and to make sure 
that our children's children and we have safe, clean water, air to 
breath; and that we can provide health care.
  Now, saying all of that, it cannot be my way or the highway. Mr. 
Speaker, the President has put forth a commission to look at Social 
Security more than two times, and at the end of all of those 
commissions, the President has come back and said we need to privatize 
Social Security. That is a my-way-or-highway approach to governing.
  I think it is important that the President come to this floor tonight 
and the Congress respond in a way that we can work together, we can 
work together to make America better. We can work together to make sure 
that our troops in Iraq, hopefully more sooner than later, can be 
redeployed, and that we can call not only on the Iraqi Government but 
other countries throughout the world to take part in the security of 
that region. As long as we continue to have an escalation in troops 
without any questions asked, we are going to have problems.
  Now, I am glad to be joined here by my good colleague and friend from 
the great State of Ohio, Niles, Ohio, and we have spent many an hour on 
the floor here talking about these issues, but I was sharing with the 
Speaker and with the Members the fact when the President comes here 
tonight that it is important that it is a message that all

[[Page 1967]]

Americans can embrace, that we deal with the serious issues so that we 
can get on with the work of the American people, because shortly after 
he gives his speech, he is going to send his budget to Capitol Hill, 
and that is going to have a lot to do with the way this Congress is 
going to function in this first session of the 110th Congress.
  Hopefully, we will be able to pass a budget that will work on behalf 
of the American people, but it cannot be a my-way-or-the-highway kind 
of approach that it has been in the past. That did not work well, even 
when his party had the majority here in the Congress. Imagine what will 
happen, and they do have the minority in this Congress.
  But we are willing, Mr. Speaker, to work in a bipartisan way to make 
sure we can get something done. I think that is very, very important. I 
think that is what the American people are asking for, and I yield to 
my friend.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the gentleman has 
been focused on bipartisanship over the past several weeks since we 
have been here.
  I agree with my friend from Florida on several issues. Just to go 
back a few seconds, to talk about what is going on in Iraq and what 
really the President's plan has been, and I think it is important that 
we remove this from any kind of partisanship.
  As we have shown in the past couple weeks here, I mean, the votes 
that we have passed here have consistently been passed in a bipartisan 
way. Minimum wage, student loans, Medicare and negotiations, all of 
these have been passed in a bipartisan way. So the tone that Speaker 
Pelosi has set in this House has been a tone of bipartisanship.
  The concern that we have in Iraq at this point with the troop surge 
is that this President does not have the support of the American 
people. He does not have the support of the Democratic Party. He is 
losing support among the Republican Party, and the former Chair of the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services, John Warner, has now come out 
against the President's proposal. The military, for the most part, is 
against this proposal. It seems like almost everyone who was in the 
Bush administration who had been in the military under this Commander 
in Chief and has left is now against what the President is saying. The 
Iraqi leadership is against it.
  The only people who are for this is the administration, and I think 
it is important for us to recognize that we need to get out in a way 
that makes sure that we retain our dignity and that we redeploy. No 
one's talking about cutting and running, but redeploy in a responsible 
way and getting our kids out of harm's way, because this has been 
botched from the get-go.
  But I think it is important, and I appreciate you consistently 
focusing. We have talked for 3\1/2\ or 4 years about if we get in 
charge we are going to do it in a bipartisan way, and we have been able 
to maintain that over the past couple of weeks, and I think it is 
important that we continue to go down that road.
  If you look at, and I do not want to talk too long because I know my 
friend has an interest in joining, I want to look at the, Mr. Speaker, 
first 100 hours, at what we have been able to.
  Okay. This has kind of gone in two different directions. Pass the 
minimum wage, reduce student loan interest rates, cut them in half, and 
allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate down drug 
prices. So if you are an average family, those are three major steps 
forward where you are going to make more money, if you have a minimum-
wage worker, where you have less student loans to pay because the 
interest rate is going to be cut in half, and the prescription drug 
prices that your parents and grandparents are paying will be a lot 
less. So that is going to be significant savings in the short term.
  But now we have our long-term program, and if you look at where the 
Democratic Party and Speaker Pelosi is pushing our agenda, we have 
investments into stem cell research, which is something that we passed 
in this Chamber just a few days ago, that we are going to invest into 
this new and great and vibrant industry and new sector of our economy 
that is not only going to reap tremendous health care benefits for our 
citizens but also provide jobs for our scientists and our researchers 
and funding the research and development and partnering with private 
sector people.
  That is going to create an economic boom in the United States of 
America because once we pass it, if we can get it past the President, 
that is going to be a heck of a move on our part. I think it is going 
to be great for the American people, and it is going to be great for 
the next generation of people coming out of college and coming out of 
medical school and getting their Ph.D.s. We are going to have a whole 
other sector of the economy.
  In addition to the repealing of the corporate welfare, which I know 
you had talked a lot about on this floor the past couple of years, 
repealing the corporate welfare that we gave to the oil companies and 
the energy companies and putting that money into research for 
alternative energy sources, creating and pushing a whole other sector 
of our economy so that we do not depend on the Middle East for our 
energy, we got it right in the Midwest in the United States of America.
  So we are stabilizing. We are taking care of people today. We are 
giving the American people a pay raise, cutting student loan interest 
rates in half, reducing the cost of prescription drugs now, and then in 
the future moving into these two major growth areas of alternative 
energy and stem cell research and into the health care industry.
  I think Leader Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Larson 
and Mr. Emanuel have all set an agenda for the Democrats in the House 
to do some good in the short term and then to open up these other areas 
of the economy in the long term.
  So with that I would be happy to yield back to my good friend, my 
dear friend from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I think it is important that we have a 
real discussion back and forth on this very issue.
  We talked about the President coming to the floor and hopefully 
bringing about and, well, promoting bipartisanship, coming to the floor 
and saying there are some good things that have happened here; you 
know, hey recognize the historical moment of having the first female 
Speaker in the history of the country; but secondly, dealing with some 
of the major issues.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Iraq he is going to say 
what he says and says he sent the escalation troops. He is going to 
stick with it or my way or the highway. It is the wrong approach and it 
is going to inflame the American people and Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Also, I would like to say, even when it comes down to the issue of 
the minimum wage, I know that the President has said, well, you know, I 
like the minimum wage but there are some things that I would like to 
do. That is fine, but as far as I am concerned, when it comes down to 
the bill, signing it, he needs to be overjoyed to sign it because that 
is what the American people want. It is not just Democrats. I mean, the 
American people want to see folks that are making $5.15 an hour to make 
$7.15 or greater because when they make more, the American people make 
more, salaried workers, because their pay is going to go up.
  I see Mr. Ryan has something there he is going to go a little further 
into it. Stem cell research, folks may have issues here and there, but 
the bottom line is the American people have spoken in many of these 
Senate races and many of these House races, and they have spoken 
because they want their loved ones to have a better chance in beating 
some of the terminal cancer that is out there right now and diseases 
that so many Americans are suffering through and their family members 
are trying to fight through those issues.
  The bipartisan 9/11 Commission, Mr. Speaker, why fight on the commas 
and the periods saying that, well, we believe that we are already doing 
that. Well, apparently you must not be doing it because the 9/11 
Commission has given you Ds and Fs in those areas that you say that you 
are already doing it.

[[Page 1968]]

  So not just because we got to the cafeteria first we get an 
opportunity at the only oatmeal cookie that is left. It is the fact 
that we have to secure America. This goes beyond I thought of this 
first or I thought of this second.
  The American people said they want the full implementation of the 9/
11 Commission, and that is what we gave them. The majority vote here in 
this House and will be a majority vote in the Senate and will have the 
opportunity to go to the White House and hopefully the President will 
implement those recommendations, it is to make America safer. It is not 
because it was not your original thought to do it, and I am hoping that 
he comes to the floor and embraces that on behalf of all of our safety.
  I do not think that I need to advise the President in any way, but I 
think that on behalf of all of us, if we are going to continue the 
spirit that we have started and bipartisanship and having the least 
friction as possible, especially on issues that we should not even be 
debating on, the issues that I have outlined, they are not even issues 
that are brand-new issues. These are issues that have been talked about 
in committee, talked about it in commissions, even as it relates to 
campaigns to get to Congress.
  The issue of the investment on Big Oil, the billions of dollars in 
subsidies, and now we have reversed and put them in the clean, 
renewable energy, that should not even be a debate.

                              {time}  1530

  It should not even be, well, I agree with it or I don't agree with 
it. You should agree with it, because we need it more now than ever.
  One of the big issues now, Mr. Ryan, when it all boils down to 
redeployment of our troops in Iraq, all of this is a vicious circle of 
irresponsibility in the past, or a lack of responsibility, and making 
sure that we are able to carry out not only diplomatic responsibility, 
but legislative responsibility and oversight.
  I think the reason we have had the escalation in troops, Mr. Ryan, is 
prior to the lights being illuminated or the committee rooms being 
illuminated to have hearings on what we should do in Iraq, how we 
should work in a diplomatic way in Iraq, what kind of leadership should 
we have in Iraq, now that is happening with the confirmation of a new 
general to take over the command in Iraq.
  I think it is important, Mr. Ryan, that we move in the direction that 
we have been moving in, and that is in a bipartisan direction, that is 
in a direction that the supermajority of American people agree with. 
Let's get those things off the table. Let's start fine-tuning these 
issues of six in '06. I think some of the Republican leadership just 
has issues with the fact it is part of six in '06 and ``we have to be 
against it, because we didn't do it when we had the opportunity to do 
it.''
  I can care less about what happened in the last Congress. I do care 
about what is happening in this Congress, Mr. Ryan, and what is 
happening in the future Congresses. Because when folks woke up at 7 
o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday morning and voted for 
representation, they voted for leadership, they voted for 
bipartisanship, they voted for a Washington, D.C., especially under the 
Capitol dome, Americans coming together, because we are all Americans, 
coming together on behalf of the greater good.
  That is what they are counting on. That is what we should give them. 
The majority of the Members of the House should give that to them. When 
I am speaking of the majority members of the House, I am talking about 
Republicans too. I am talking about all of us coming together on their 
behalf.
  So, to hear these issues tonight, it is going to be very, very 
important. The President has a choice. If he wants to come to the 
floor, Mr. Speaker, and continue to give the same speech that he has 
been giving in the past, it will be very, very unfortunate. But if he 
comes to the floor tonight talking about how he would like to work with 
the Democratic Congress and work with the Democratic leadership and the 
Republican leadership, and the same thing over in the House and the 
Senate, work in a bipartisan way, if he used the words ``bipartisan 
Congress,'' I think he will be more successful in passing legislation 
that we can all come together on and that we do have an input in it, 
because we will have input in it, and we should not dig in and deny the 
American people of this great opportunity, Members, to see advancement 
in health care, to see some advancement in the issue of Iraq and 
Afghanistan at the same time, and to see some level of advancement in 
having clean air for our children and renewable fuel here in America, 
investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East.
  I yield to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, I appreciate that. This is something you 
mentioned about being bipartisan and working in a bipartisan way. I 
think what has happened here has been very successful, and I think this 
kind of illustrates it.
  A couple of the things that the Democratic leadership and the 
Democratic Caucus, with some help from the Republicans on the other 
side, have been very successful. This is what has happened just in the 
first 100 hours, should this all become law.
  You look at the minimum wage being raised. It means $4,400 a year for 
the average minimum wage worker. So over the next 5 years, the average 
person will make another $22,000 because of what happened here in this 
Chamber, led by Speaker Pelosi in a bipartisan way with a handful of 
Republicans who were able to do that, 80 or 90, I think.
  College loan interest rates cut over 5 years will save about $1,473. 
Total earnings and savings for a family over 5 years will be $23,473.
  This is bread and butter stuff. This is what will be implemented if 
we can get it through the other side and signed by the President. This 
is good stuff. This is what we can do in a bipartisan way.
  So, I think this kind of stuff is important to move the country 
forward. When we do that, I think we open up a lot of opportunities for 
a lot of people around the country, and really around the world, 
because of the opportunity that we would provide here. This is the kind 
of bipartisan agenda that we want to continue with.
  We are joined hereby a rising star already making a name for himself 
down here in Congress, our good friend from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I am only making a 
name for myself by associating myself with the works and deeds of Mr. 
Meek and Mr. Ryan.
  You are exactly right. As you know, I am able to join you here as a 
second time as a new Member of this Congress.
  What we were charged with doing was really taking back this House and 
this place for people who are struggling every day to make ends meet. 
The cost of tuition since 2001 has gone up 41 percent, while we know 
wages have essentially remained stagnant, the minimum wage staying 
exactly where it has been for the last 2 years, while the cost of 
everything from food to school to gas goes up exponentially.
  What we are doing here, piece by piece, is really restoring that 
American dream, that idea your kids might be able to do better than 
you, that your grandkids are going to live in a world with a greater 
quality of life than you were able to live in. The first 100 hours were 
about doing that, and, as I know you both have remarked, doing it in a 
bipartisan way, doing it in a way in which the votes that came before 
in the first 2 weeks drew an average of 60 Republican votes.
  As Mr. Meek was saying as I walked into the Chamber, I think the 
President tonight will find a very receptive Democratic side of the 
aisle if he seeks to embrace that same type of middle-class/working-
class agenda that we have made really the central feature of this place 
for the last 2 weeks.
  Mr. Ryan, if I might, I wanted to talk just for a moment about health 
care, because we are going to hear something from the President that, 
unfortunately, we have heard for the last several years. We have heard 
that the President wants to focus on the rising costs of health care, 
the trouble that middle-class families are finding in trying to find 
insurance.

[[Page 1969]]

  It is about time on the issue of health care that this administration 
starts to meet words with action. We have seen a lot of verbal 
compassion, but we haven't seen a lot of meaningful reform from this 
administration, as the profits being made by those who would make money 
off of this health care system are in record numbers today. We are 
seeing on the other side record numbers of families falling into the 
ranks the uninsured.
  Tonight we are going to hear a proposal that will essentially lop off 
families who are receiving good insurance and put them into the ranks 
of those families that have very bad insurance or are underinsured. 
Essentially the President is going to propose tonight to make health 
care cheaper and worse, whereas the Democrats, we know we can find a 
way to make health care cheaper and better.
  I simply look forward, Mr. Ryan, to engaging the President on that 
debate and trying to convert he and his administration to the new-found 
wisdom we found in this Chamber to put middle-class families rather 
than those lobbyists and corporate interests first.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. 
The President only has a couple years left, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he 
really uses this as an opportunity to try to reengage Congress and 
reengage the American people and have some bold initiatives too. And 
not just the rhetoric. Because we went through and our staffs went true 
and were comparing everything that the President had said in previous 
State of the Union addresses and then what the reality is, and you can 
pick an issue, and we will give you the Web site and you can go and 
check it all out. So a very skeptical Congress will be here listening 
tonight.
  But I hope in regards to health care that we can really focus. Of 
course, we want everyone covered. But if you think about it, we 
actually have a universe health care system right now, but it is just 
run through emergency rooms. It is run in the most inefficient, 
ineffective way that you could possibly set up a health care system. So 
it is really not even a system, but it is just health care kind of.
  What we need to do is try to get some of this investment on the front 
end, make sure our kids through SCHIP have access to health care, and 
that we are reaching out and communicating and pulling in people who 
may qualify for some of these programs but don't actually sign up for 
them. What is the outreach going to be? Because as we are competing a 
global economy, as we have talked 1 million times on this floor, we 
only have 300 million people in the United States of America. We are 
now competing against China, who has 1.3 billion, India who has a 
billion, and everyone else on the globe. We only have 300 million.
  So we have to make our best efforts count, because we need all 300 
million on the field playing for us, especially these young kids who 
are coming up through the ranks. That is why I think it is important 
when we are talking about the minimum wage and we are talking about 
making sure that student loan rates are cut in half so we can have more 
kids go to college, and then we pass the stem cell bill, so we are 
creating not only a compassionate kind of research that is going to go 
on and save people's lives and improve their quality of life, but that 
is creating jobs in a whole new sector of the economy that right now we 
are not doing exactly what we should be doing.
  Then we also repeal the corporate welfare and we take the 13 or 14 
billion and we are going to pump that into alternative energy, create a 
whole other sector for alternative energy sources.
  So you put all this stuff together that we are able to do that, that 
is bold leadership. These are the kind of initiatives that we really 
need in the country, and Speaker Pelosi has provided us with that 
leadership.
  So I hope in regards to health care, we get some bold tax credits. 
How about a bold program where all Americans are going to be covered 
and where we are going to put the money, instead of managed disease, 
prevent diseases from happening and investing in these young people so 
that they are healthy, educated and then create opportunity for us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it is very important, Mr. Ryan, to 
really talk about many of the issues that are facing the right here, 
right now Congress, right here, right now. Not, well, what we would 
like to do pie-in-the-sky. Something realistic.
  Mr. Murphy, I can tell you that it is very important that when we 
look at the issue of Iraq, that we have a real discussion. The 
President is going in the opposite direction of the American people at 
this point. I mean, in November, that is what happened. The President 
is moving in this direction, the American people are going in the 
opposite direction. He could be going this way, they are going that 
way. I mean, it is just that simple.
  I don't know who the advisers are in the White House or what have 
you, but when you have generals that have been in the field at the 
double digit numbers saying that we are headed in the wrong direction 
as it relates to the strategy that the administration has, you have 
Colin Powell. Goodness gracious, the Secretary of State, the former I 
guess two Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of the military, to say an 
escalation in troops in a civil war is a wrong thing to do.
  We have been saying in November and even now saying that the 
principal mission of our forces should be training of the Iraqi troops. 
Now, that is ``we are going to start training.''
  Well, we have been saying that from the beginning. That is a strategy 
to redeploy hopefully one day. Not ``we will work it out sometime in 
the near future.'' The issue of the logistics and force protection and 
counterterrorism activities, those are the things that we should be 
involved in versus patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Patrolling the 
streets of Mosul. That should be the Iraqi force's responsibility right 
now.
  The beginning of phase, to be able to redeploy our troops, that has 
to happen. We have military bases, Mr. Ryan, we have been there. We 
have military bases that are the size of some U.S. cities in Iraq where 
troops can be trained, Iraqi troops can be trained, along with getting 
some of our allies to take part in that.
  So for us to have what we talk about so much here on this floor, a 
bipartisan approach towards some of these major, major issues, we are 
going to have to move in that direction.
  To try to make tax cuts permanent for the super wealthy, that is the 
opposite direction as it relates to being able to provide some sort of 
relief for the middle-class and small businesses in this country. We 
have already said, Mr. Murphy, that we are going to operate in a pay-
as-you-go atmosphere. What does that mean? Mr. Ryan, you know how over 
the years we have said we want to break this down, Mr. Murphy, so that 
everyone can understand what we are talking about.
  That means if you are going to pay for something, if you are going to 
spend money, then you have to show how you are going to pay for it. Not 
just saying a chicken in the pot for everyone. Well, how much does it 
cost? That is not important, because we will just ask our country, we 
will just ask Japan, China, the U.K., the Caribbean, Taiwan, Korea, 
Canada and Germany and OPEC nations to pay that for us and we will just 
owe them. We don't have to pay it any time soon, but we will owe them. 
We will be indebted to countries even to countries that we have been 
with war with in the past.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that, because that is exactly what 
happens is you don't have the money, there was no pay-as-you-go in the 
last several Congresses, runaway spending, borrowing money from China. 
What does that mean? Well, here is our budget priorities for 2007 prior 
to Democrats taking office, budget into the billions of dollars. This 
red bar here is just interest on the money that we borrowed. This is 
not paying it down; this is just paying the interest on it. You know, 
you get your mortgage and you get your car loan and you open it up and 
you have got a 5 or $600 payment. You see $300 of it is actually going 
to the payment and the other stuff is interest, and it breaks your 
heart.

[[Page 1970]]

  This is what the country is doing. But compare that to what we are 
doing, this is education, homeland security and veterans. This is going 
back to China; this is going back to some of those other countries.
  And then you look and you see China says the test they did in space 
does not signal an intent to militarize space. You can't get the real 
facts on China's military budget, but they are buying a ton more ships. 
That is where that money is going.
  I think it is important to make that point because it is not just 
money that just goes and floats out and the Federal Reserve tries to 
find it somewhere. It is going to China, it is going to the Middle 
East, it is going to OPEC countries.
  And then we are funding both sides of the war on terror because we 
are buying all the oil, making them money. It gets back to the 
terrorists. And then we have a war in the Middle East and we pass 
almost $500 billion already that we are spending from our side already 
on the war in Iraq.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am going to yield to my friend from 
Connecticut here in one second. Great point. I am glad that you put a 
period at the end of that dot.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is why we are friends, stuff like that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
  The real issue here is, gentlemen, even before I have an opportunity 
to get a copy of the President's speech, Mr. Speaker, and even before 
our great Sergeant at Arms stands there and says, Madam Speaker, for 
the first time in the history of the country, the President of the 
United States, even before that happens, I guarantee you, gentlemen, 
that this health care proposal that the President has is going to end 
up being to the American middle-class taxpayer, a person that wants 
health care, money out of this pocket, taking money out of this pocket 
and putting it hopefully in the other, with some coming out to pay for 
it.
  There will be no real program that will benefit the middle class in 
achieving health care. It would have to almost be, Mr. Speaker, an 
atmosphere to where for a person to get a true benefit, they would 
probably have to go out and get a tax attorney to understand their 
opportunities, their lucky-ducky opportunities that we hear so much 
about here on Capitol Hill.
  I think it is important, Members, that we break this thing down 
before we leave Washington this week to make sure the American people 
know exactly the direction that the administration wants this Congress 
to move in, because there has to be a discussion. And it has to be 
open-ended, Mr. Murphy. He needs to say, Listen, I have this health 
care initiative; I would love to have a discussion with the Congress on 
how we can make this possible for the American people.
  Now, I can tell you right now, the superwealthy have an advocate in 
the administration in making their tax cuts permanent; I am talking 
about the superwealthy. I am talking about the folks who are not 
worried about if they are going to be able to get health care. They 
already have it.
  We are talking about those 47 million Americans that are stuck right 
now, and the thousands of small businesses that once provided a level 
of health care; but let's not make it so technical so that only a few 
can benefit. Some of the earned income tax credits are not taken 
advantage of, Members, because when you are punching in and punching 
out every day and you have to go pick up your kids, and if you have got 
to take them to the doctor, you are making a career decision, that is 
the reason why the emergency room is so convenient because the boss 
person doesn't want to let that working parent or parents off to be 
able to take care of his health care needs.
  So this is a huge issue. But at the same time, I think it is 
important, Members, that we keep in the frame here this issue of Iraq. 
It has to continue to surface; we have to deal with it; and the 
American people are counting on us to provide leadership.
  I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank Mr. Meek.
  There are already reports that the words we may get tonight are going 
to give a little short shrift to the issue of Iraq. If the President 
wants to put forth a plan that is so unpopular that it is not backed by 
his own military leaders, it is not backed by our civilian foreign 
policy expert, it is not backed by the American public, well, then he 
should also have the courage to talk about it, to defend it, to put it 
before us. But knowing that it is unpopular, we may not hear too much 
about it tonight.
  To get back to, Mr. Meek, your point on health care, let us be honest 
about what is going to be proposed tonight, how we are going to save 
money on health care. It is not by investing more in prevention; it is 
not by moving people out of emergency rooms and putting them into real 
programs and care. It is taking people who have good insurance and 
making their good insurance bad insurance. It is going out and taking 
folks who have had the great benefit of working for an employer that 
provides a comprehensive package of benefits, and it is becoming less 
and less likely these days that even good employers out there can 
afford to give a robust package of benefits.
  What the President is going to propose today is that for families 
that have had the good fortune to find a good insurance plan, they are 
going to tax that employer. They are going to make it less likely that 
you are going to get good insurance anymore. So we are going to get a 
proposal today which is going to actually result in worse health care 
for a lot of families.
  I guess the point here is that, you know, again, if we are going to 
listen to the words that come from this administration, we heard in 
last year's State of the Union that we need to confront the rising cost 
of care, strengthen the doctor/patient relationship and help people 
afford the insurance coverage we need, if we want to talk about that, 
then we need to do something about that. And how we do something about 
that is not by taking the haves and putting them into the column of the 
have-nots. It is by keeping the haves where they are on health care and 
taking the have-nots and giving them that same level of health care.
  We can absolutely do that without adding cost to the system, because 
those have-nots, as Mr. Ryan said, end up getting care. They just end 
up getting the most expensive, the most unfortunate type of care, that 
being crisis care. We can do a better job on that.
  And, Mr. Meek, as you said, we can make sure that we continue to have 
that discussion on Iraq, which may be missing tonight.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the issues, you know, the more you talk, the 
more you see how all this just really ties together. This is health 
care costs and tying in a way to the minimum wage. The average family 
health care premium in 2005 was $10,880; and the salary of a full-time 
year-round minimum-wage worker was less than that, $10,700. So you will 
work as a minimum-wage worker 40 hours a week for an entire year and 
not even be able to pay for your full health care bill.
  Now, in the United States of America, there is something wrong with 
that. There is something wrong with the wage of the minimum-wage 
worker, and there is obviously something wrong with the cost of health 
care in the United States because of this kind of backward system that 
we now have that just basically treats diseases and is not focusing 
probably like it should in preventing a lot of these things from 
happening.
  And I think the more we reach out through the SCHIP program to make 
sure that these families who are qualified for children's health care 
know that they are qualified, to get them signed up, because at the end 
of the day it is the right thing to do, it is the compassionate thing 
to do, but at the end of the day it is going to save everybody a lot 
more money, too.
  If we can get these kids at a young age and make sure they are 
treated, evaluated, they know the direction that they are going in, 
they know the medical history of both parents so that they can be 
treated accordingly.

[[Page 1971]]

  I appreciate what you are saying and I appreciate you bringing up the 
issue of health care.
  I know we are running down here; the clock is ticking, Mr. Meek. I 
would be happy to yield to you in order to get us down the road here of 
wrapping things up. I appreciate all the comments that have been made 
here, and I appreciate our young friend being here with us, who is 
probably older than me.
  I yield to our fearless leader from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think in light of bipartisanship, 
I know we split the hour, and I see my colleague on the Republican side 
is already here, in the light of bipartisanship, we will yield back our 
10 minutes that we have left on our time to get off on a good note 
here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for any Members who want to, also to 
their constituents, if they want to look at some of these charts we 
have, www.speaker.gov/30something, get on the Web site, send us an e-
mail at [email protected], you will get a chance to look 
at all these charts.
  I appreciate our friend from Connecticut joining us. I look forward 
to our President's speech tonight and hope it is inspiring and filled 
with good information and good public policy that we can work on in a 
bipartisan way.

                          ____________________