[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2161-2167]
[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 very much, Mr. Speaker. It is an honor 
to come before the House once again. We have finished our work for the 
week, and a lot has happened, a lot has been said. As you know, the 30-
Something Working Group, Mr. Murphy, and I are here today, my good 
friend from Connecticut. We are going to talk about some of the issues 
that have been discussed over the last 24 hours on the floor, some of 
the votes that we have taken, even as it relates to last week, some of 
the challenges that are facing the country.
  I know there will be other Members of the 30-Something Working Group 
that may be joining us this afternoon. I can tell you as we continue to 
move forward in this 110th Congress, there is a lot that the American 
people have to be proud of at some level of accomplishment as it 
relates to issues that are truly facing the American people.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to hear from the 
President of the United States. Some say that there was some issues 
that he brought to the table that are not new. He has mentioned some of 
these issues before. Alternative fuel, the issue of Iraq, talking about 
health care, still holding onto the issue of savings accounts that have 
been proposed in past State of the Unions but haven't been acted upon 
to even bring about real changes as relates to health care.
  The President talked about earmarks last night, Mr. Speaker. But it 
is interesting under the Republican-controlled Congress, that is when 
the earmarks were out of control. And it was under his watch and his 
party's watch. And now the President wants to be the chief, I guess, 
the chief person who says who gets an earmark and who does not get an 
earmark. Earmark reform was a part of the Democratic reform package, 
and was not even really given serious consideration until the Democrats 
took control of the Congress.
  The glaring issue as it relates to Iraq, and Mr. Murphy and I and Mr. 
Ryan were talking about this just yesterday, it is obvious that the 
American people voted for change in the last election, and that the 
President continues to march in the opposite direction of the American 
people. The American people are ready to go in a new direction. The 
President seems like he is ready to go and continue to keep going in 
the old direction.
  The new direction, redeployment of troops, working in a diplomatic 
way, following some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations of talking 
with Iran and Syria, and I would even add Turkey if we want to look at 
a diplomatic resolution to what is happening in the Middle East, making 
sure that our troops are safe, making sure that we take the training 
wheels off the Iraqi Government train, redeploy, diplomatic mission.
  The President seems to think that the answer is to have an escalation 
in troops. The American people are looking for escalation in the truth, 
not the troops. And also the President has spoken of giving him a 
chance for his plan to work. Well, I can tell you that the American 
people have given the President a lot of latitude as it relates to 
Iraq. I think it is important, I take from Senator Warner's, and I can 
talk, I have a number of quotes here on the escalation of troops from 
Senator Warner, the former chairman, who is a Republican, the former 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[[Page 2162]]

  I can also take from our colleagues who spoke after the President 
spoke yesterday and prior to his speech yesterday, that contradict or 
are going in a new direction as it relates to Iraq and what the 
American people called for, versus what they did not call for, more of 
the same.

                              {time}  1600

  So hopefully, Mr. Murphy, we will talk a little bit about some of 
this today.
  There are some other issues, as it relates to the State of the Union 
speech, that we can get into, but I think it is important, we spent a 
lot of time yesterday talking about bipartisanship, we spent a lot of 
time yesterday saying the President had an opportunity, and we hoped 
that he would come and share with us, hold up issues such as the 
minimum wage that we passed overwhelmingly on this floor that he is 
ready to sign. We thought that he would come to the floor saying, I 
want to work with the leaders here in the House on the minority and 
majority side on passing real health care on behalf of millions of 
Americans that are without health care. Those things did not come out.
  I can say that the Americans, Mr. Speaker, that were pointed out 
yesterday in the gallery by the President, well-noted heroes and ``she-
roes'' that were sitting up there, this State of the Union was about a 
state of the Union, and I can tell you, hearing last night's speech, we 
have a lot of work ahead of us, Democrats and Republicans. So I am 
excited about that opportunity.
  I yield to my good friend, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Meek.
  It is an honor to be standing in the traditional place of Mr. Ryan 
today, and I will attempt to equal at least half of his eloquence on 
this floor.
  You are right, I think there are a lot of missing pieces from that 
speech last night. It was my first opportunity to sit and listen to a 
Presidential State of the Union, and you couldn't help but leave 
disappointed. There were a lot of promises that I think the American 
people were looking to be fulfilled in that speech.
  Mr. Meek, I think you were exactly right when you talked about a 
sense of bipartisanship, which I think is infectious in this building 
right now due to the first 100-hours agenda that, as we know, drew 
bipartisan support, on average 60 Members of the other aisle supporting 
each piece of that 100-hours agenda. That bipartisanship seems to be 
lost when it comes to the issue of Iraq.
  It doesn't go without note that since the President had unveiled his 
plan to escalate this war, to put another 21,000 brave men and women in 
harm's way to do a job that Colin Powell and others will tell you 
100,000 people can't do.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, will you yield for a moment?
  I was kind of paying attention to the room last night when the 
President said, ``Give my plan a chance to work.'' Now, if you kind of 
look on the gauge of who stands up for that or who claps for it, I can 
tell you that it was lukewarm on the Republican side, and definitely 
over here on the Democratic side it was more of the same.
  I mean, you made it to Congress, I made it back to Congress with a 
message that we were going to move in a new direction. And I believe 
that we will have a majority, and I am not just talking about a 
Democratic majority, if it comes down to a question, I know they had 
some action on the other side of the Capitol dome today, on this very 
issue of the escalation of the troops, and we have quotes here that 
will be on the 30-Something Web site I know, hopefully, by the end of 
the week of Senators, Representatives and others that have said just 
the contrary to what the President said last night. So I believe that 
there is some hope on the Iraq issue.
  Now, the Republican leadership is not necessarily there where we need 
them to be. And you heard me say once before that I am not upset with 
certain Members that are not following the will and the desire of the 
American people. The good thing about the U.S. House of Representatives 
is we are all up for reelection in 23, 24 months from now, and we have 
to be accountable. And if Members want to follow leadership, or whoever 
they think that is going to share with them how they should vote and 
what they should stand for on all these different issues, then I think 
it is important that they realize that we are going to have an 
election, and that you have got to go home, you have to explain why you 
voted for more of the same.
  I believe that we are getting to a head here. And the good thing 
about being in the majority is that we have the opportunity, we used to 
give speeches on this floor, Mr. Murphy, saying if we are blessed 
enough to have the opportunity to be in the majority to lead the 
American agenda, the American people, everyday Americans who wants 
accountability and who pray and look for bipartisanship, look for 
leadership, we will give it to them, and that is what we are going to 
have a chance to do.
  Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to point that out because that 
was an observation. And while I am speaking, if you want, I will yield 
to you so that we can drive this home, because we want to break this 
down because we don't want Members to go back to their districts and 
say, you know, I didn't understand that. We want individuals to be able 
to pull the Congressional Record and say, wow, how couldn't you 
understand it; it was mentioned 10 or 12 times in a given day on the 
reason why we were doing what we did.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, you are very right. And I am 
glad those quotes are going to be on the 30-Something Web site because 
it really is a cross-section of this Chamber, the people who have been 
really speaking out and asking the President to revisit this plan to 
escalate the war. You have dozens of Republicans, more every day, that 
are coming out and suggesting that there has got to be a plan C, right? 
Plan A we know didn't work; we are now debating plan B, which everyone 
from foreign policy experts to the President's own military advisors 
suggest won't work.
  And we hope that some of the folks watching us on C-SPAN right now 
caught some of the hearings, Mr. Meek, before the Armed Services 
Committees and other relevant committees because you have heard some 
remarkable testimony from the President's own military leaders 
expressing grave doubts about this plan to put new troops into Iraq and 
into Baghdad.
  So we have got both sides of the aisle coming together and saying, 
listen, let's sit down and talk about plan C, because that is what this 
is about. This is not about just standing up here in front of TV 
cameras and telling people the President's plan doesn't work; it has 
got to be about setting another way. And there are other ways. We can 
talk about the redeployment of troops. We can talk about starting to 
rebuild our credibility in the world.
  The President talked last night, Mr. Meek, about the unification of 
the world's communities around the President's strategy. Well, that 
certainty doesn't comport with reality, it doesn't comport with what we 
are seeing; but it doesn't mean that the opportunity is lost, it 
doesn't mean that we still can't go back to the world community and 
say, let's together build a new strategy to get ourselves out of Iraq 
in a way that leaves that country as stable as we can.
  And, Mr. Meek, I don't know about you, but I think we can still do 
that. And I am actually interested. The President is going to speak to 
our issues conference in a week and a half, and I know there is some 
grumbling about that, but I am actually looking forward to him coming 
to us so that we might be able to have another chance to persuade him 
to work with both sides of the aisle here on this floor to come up with 
a new strategy that will allow us to lend stability to that country and 
rebuild the world community, and do it in a way that doesn't put more 
and more troops of ours in harm's way. And I know, Mr. Meek, of other 
Members who have been here much longer than I believe that we can do 
that together.

[[Page 2163]]


  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We can do it together. And I can tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, that it can be done.
  Let's just put it this way: It is the new direction versus more of 
the same. There are Members of Congress that are saying that they are 
on board on the new direction. There are troops in Iraq that are saying 
that they are on board for a new direction. And I can tell you from 4 
years on the Armed Services Committee that looking in the eyes of the 
commanders when they come, they are also looking for a new direction. 
And even, Mr. Speaker, when the President puts forth this Iraq Study 
Group that brought forth recommendations on the direction we should 
move in, the President says, thank you very much for your input, I 
appointed you, bipartisan commission, but we are going to send new 
troops to Iraq, and that is the answer.
  I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but I will 
say that the President sent the 20,000 additional troops before we had 
an opportunity to really look at what is happening or what has been 
happening in the time that our committee rooms have sat with the lights 
off. We didn't have hearings in the 109th Congress. Nancy Pelosi wasn't 
Speaker of the House. The will and the desire wasn't there to find out 
what is happening with all the supplemental money that we have given 
towards Iraq and Afghanistan and other issues that we paid for that 
didn't go through the regular budget process.
  Now we are going to have an opportunity, hopefully, in speaking with 
Mr. Murtha, who is the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Defense. 
He is asking questions. They are having hearings. Brass and suits 
together are coming in to answer the tough questions about, well, what 
happened to the money we have already given you?
  When you look at companies like--we talked about Halliburton, and we 
talked about some of these other companies that have run away with 
these dollars, we talked about the U.S. troops that are being there, 
let's talk about the mercenaries that are there. Let's talk about the 
hired individuals that are there to carry out missions that are not 
wearing a U.S. flag on their shoulders, but they are contractors to 
carry out security missions for convoys. There are a number of those 
individuals that are dying, and they are not being counted in the troop 
calculation. And many of those individuals, Mr. Speaker, are former 
members of our military Armed Forces. I know for a fact that some of 
these companies are providing even better incentives, much greater, 
sometimes twice that our men and women are earning in uniform. So after 
their time is up, as we give the military their ability, because so 
many individuals have been deployed two and three times, and when their 
time is up as it relates to their service, to get them to reenlist we 
incentivize them not only through monetary means, but also the ability 
to move up the ladder.
  At the same time you have the private sector that understands that 
same philosophy, Mr. Speaker and Members, and they are incentivizing 
them to go into the private side of it. And these individuals are 
securing the convoys, securing some of the facilities that are there, 
carrying out some missions. And they are replacing, because we talk 
about the coalition, if you want to break that down, I mean, we have 
U.S. men and women in uniform, and then U.S. contractors. It is not 
Great Britain, it is not some of the other folks that people are 
talking about, the coalition of the few, the United States of America 
and U.S. contractors. Guess what? U.S. taxpayers are paying for that. 
So I think it is important, the issues that we talked about.
  I have Senator Warner here, I mentioned him earlier, the Republican 
from Virginia. Basically he is saying after the speech last night, to 
place our U.S. men in the middle of a fight between Sunnis and Shiites 
is not the right time to do that.
  You also have Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel has also said, Republican, 
has said that he thinks the speech that was given last night by the 
President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this 
country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, he would have to resist 
it. He said, ``I will resist it.'' This is not what Democrats are 
saying. People have heard what we had to say. Now we have Republicans 
that have heard the voice of the American people that are saying, if I 
am going to stay in the U.S. Congress, I am not appointed, I am 
elected, if I am going to stay in the U.S. Congress, I have to follow 
the will and the desire of my constituents and the American people.
  I always say, Mr. Murphy, when we are elected from our districts, we 
are federalized to represent an entire country and those that are in 
harm's way. We are talking about training. We are talking about 
tactical missions against terrorists or what have you, not everyday 
street patrol, security patrol on the block. That is where our men and 
women are losing.
  We have been talking about training of the troops from the time that 
we were in Baghdad, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, I am a witness to it, 
I have been on the committee, we have had the testimony. Oh, we are 
training them; and then all of a sudden we find out that the training 
is not keeping up with the need. Well, we have military bases not only 
in Mosul, but Tikrit, also in Baghdad and other spots throughout Iraq 
where those troops can be trained right there.
  I look forward, Mr. Speaker, in going to Iraq within the next couple 
of months, Mr. Murphy, I would love to have you join me if you haven't 
gone already, to ask these tough questions on the issue of the training 
issues because now it is under our watch. The American people have 
empowered a majority of the Members who feel the way the American 
people feel, that we need to take care of our mission in Iraq. I am 
pretty sure we will have some presence of troops there for some time, 
but not at these levels, not at the level to where that is not an issue 
of redeployment.
  Mr. Murphy, I hate to get preachy on this, but the President has said 
that is up to another President to deal with, another administration to 
deal with, I am not going to do it. Well, like our good friend Senator 
Webb said last night, if he doesn't want to take the leadership way, 
then we are going to have to show him the way, the Congress.

                              {time}  1615

  And the good thing about it, Mr. Speaker, it will be in a bipartisan 
way. It won't be just Democrats. It will be Democrats and Republicans, 
and I welcome that bipartisan spirit
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meek is very right. It is 
going to be in a bipartisan way. And there are moments when maybe 
public opinion and things you hear back in the district don't always 
match up with maybe the things that you hear from the experts on that 
particular issue. That is inevitable in public service. And there are 
choices to be made, and inevitably your obligation in the end is to 
side with the people that you represent.
  But on this issue there is a growing hegemony of opinion that backs 
up public opinion within the military community. Mr. Meek quoted some 
of the leaders of both parties who have come out against this plan for 
escalation, but the military has come out against this plan as well.
  Let me just give a quick quote of Colonel Paul Hughes, who was the 
first person that was put in charge of strategic planning of the U.S. 
occupation in Baghdad, the first person on the ground to start planning 
on how we were going to keep Baghdad stable. We obviously failed pretty 
miserably in that mission, but here is what he said about the 
President's plan to escalate this war. He said: ``Just sending more 
troops to Baghdad is like pouring more water in the sands of Al Anbar. 
It's going to disappear without accomplishing anything.''
  And that is what we have heard over and over again. There may be a 
number of troops that you could put into Baghdad or, lest we forget, 
the 12 other, 11 other major areas of conflict in Iraq. There might be 
a number, but it certainly isn't 21,000. And the President in his 
speech talked about not only using

[[Page 2164]]

those troops to secure Baghdad but also using them to secure Al Anbar 
Province, also trying to do increased training, also trying to better 
secure the borders around Iraq to prevent the insurgents from coming 
in. Twenty-one thousand troops can't do that, and what ends up 
happening, as many of our military experts have told us over and over 
again, is it just puts those men and women in even graver danger. That 
is an opinion shared not just by Members of Congress on both sides of 
the aisle but by the military community as well.
  And Mr. Meek talked about the oversight that is going to happen here 
in terms of our strategy going forward. And I think that these hearings 
have been so valuable because I think they educate the American public 
and educate all of us about our options going forward. But the 
oversight also has to be about how we conduct ourselves so far, because 
if there was any faith in our ability to manage this war and manage the 
reconstruction, then maybe we would look a little bit differently upon 
the President's proposal.
  But the fact is, and this number startled me, we have $8.8 billion of 
money, Mr. Meek, of money that is unaccounted for by the Coalition 
Provisional Authority, $8.8 billion that we can't even explain where it 
went. That is about enough money to run the State of Connecticut for an 
entire year. And that is not the money we spent; that is the money we 
can't find anymore.
  Mr. Meek served on the Armed Services Committee. I am going to get 
the opportunity to serve on the Government Reform Committee under Mr. 
Waxman of California, and our focus there is going to be on that waste, 
fraud, and abuse that has happened within our military spending in 
Iraq. And it is important not just because of taxpayer dollars and 
because we were all sent here to make sure that every hard-earned 
dollar that our taxpayers send to Washington gets spent effectively, 
but it is important because it educates us on the inefficiency and the 
blundering in a lot of places that has happened in the conduct of this 
war and the conduct of the reconstruction. And there are a myriad of 
reasons why we should start listening to people like Mr. Murtha and 
others who are counseling us to redeploy our forces and to 
significantly draw down the number of troops we have there very soon. 
There are a number of reasons why we should take those arguments 
seriously and why many of us support bringing a large number of our 
troops home very soon.
  But at the top of that list is the fact that the money we are 
spending there, even beyond the philosophy, just when you are talking 
about the money, the money isn't being spent to make that country 
safer, to rebuild that country. That money is being lost, and as you 
said, Mr. Meek, through the Speaker, much of that money we are now 
finding out actually finds its way into the hands of the very people 
that we are fighting in Iraq. We can't account for it, and thus it 
finds its way into the hands of the insurgents who are attacking the 
convoys, who are taking the oil that is being produced there, and are, 
in fact, using our own money to fight our own efforts there. So it is 
our obligation, Mr. Meek, as you have said, not only to investigate, 
not only to hold hearings into the strategy and the conduct of our 
military operations but also to ask some questions about how all of our 
taxpayer dollars are being spent there, because I think we are going to 
find some very interesting things as we go forward in the next few 
weeks.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I would tell you right now, and 
Members, I think it is important that we look at this for what it is 
worth. If I was thinking of the Iraq issue solely as a political issue, 
it would be let us go to the floor, Mr. Murphy, and as we talk, we meet 
in the 30-something Working Group, let us not talk about the politics 
of the Iraq issue. If this was about maintaining the majority as it 
relates to politics, Mr. Speaker and Members, if this was about 
capturing the White House, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't come to the floor 
to talk about how we can work in a bipartisan way or come to the floor 
and promote leadership. And I think it is important that we promote 
leadership and move in this new direction and saying that we have to 
deal with the big issue of Iraq.
  I get members of local government and State government saying, 
Congressman, I need more money in my city. You cut the COPS program. 
Your Federal commitment as it relates to dollars for health care, for 
security, for the environment, they are not there like they used to be 
there. And we put parameters on ourselves because we told the American 
people what we would do, pay-as-we-go philosophy or principles that we 
already passed, and we have this war going on and we have young men and 
young women. You have a lot of Reservists that are there that are 40, 
50 years old, that are away from their families 15 months at a pop.
  We come to Washington, D.C., most of us, our families are back in the 
district and we are here and we are missing for about 4 or 5 days, but 
we get to go back home at the end of the week, unlike those men and 
women when they board that chartered flight. When they go over to 
Kuwait or fly straight into Baghdad Airport or end up in Turkey at one 
of our staging bases there, or end up somewhere else as they feed into 
Iraq, they don't get the opportunity to say, Hey, kids, I am going to 
be back in a couple of weeks. So I think it is important that we look 
at this issue and treat it with the serious attention that it needs.
  So for the President to come here last night and say, give me an 
opportunity, give me an opportunity for my plan to work, well, let me 
tell you something. It is almost like looking in the refrigerator and 
seeing a carton of milk there and you take it out and open the carton 
and you say, wow, that milk is sour; let me put it back in, maybe it 
will be fresh tomorrow. That logic doesn't work. So it is important.
  And I am glad to see some of our Republican colleagues and many of 
our Democratic colleagues that are questioning the President, before he 
can even leave the Chamber, about the speech, what he did not say in 
the speech, that did November 7 happen? Did you hear it?
  At the press conference after the November election, he said, you 
know, I guess it did have something to do with Iraq. And some of the 
tough talk ended. And I just want to say if I can commend the 
President, he didn't come with the chest-beating that he usually does, 
but he did go back to scaring the American people.
  So I think it is important. There are issues we have to deal with. 
But I am on record, Mr. Speaker and Members, on the issue of being a 
leader, having the courage, and representing the people that have sent 
us to Washington, DC to be able to govern in this government. Give our 
men and women what they need in Iraq, but at the same time push forth 
diplomatic talks. At the same time make sure that we start not only 
discussion but redeployment of our troops more sooner than later, 
because that message would not only get to the Iraqi Government but 
also to the world community because we all play a role in this.
  I see my good friend from Florida. We have served together, and she 
is the chairwoman on the Rail Subcommittee under the Transportation 
Committee. I am so glad she has joined us. Mr. Murphy has had so much 
to say on this topic, and I am so glad you are here on the floor.
  I yield to Ms. Brown from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you so much for your leadership, 
Congressman from Miami, my good friend.
  Let me just say I just finished with Gator Radio, and they asked me 
the question, What is the role of Congress, what can we do about 
stopping the President from expanding the war? And I was just on the 
radio talking to the community and I have gotten some call back, what 
can we do as a Congress?
  I tell people all the time I did not vote for the war, but I support 
the troops. And you have got your head in the lion's mouth. How do you 
get it out? And the question is what can we do as a Congress to stop 
the expansion?

[[Page 2165]]

Because I think the speech that the President gave about expanding it 
to 20,000 troops, that is not what he was saying. I think he was saying 
that he doesn't need to come to this Congress to decide that he is 
going into Iran or that he is going into other places, and so there is 
clearly an expansion of the war. And what is our role as Members of 
Congress when the President of the United States does not respect the 
Congress and does not feel that we are coequal branches and that he 
does not have to come to us to get permission to expand this war? The 
students want to know. I want to know what to tell them.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is, Ms. 
Brown, that we have the responsibility to govern here. The President is 
the executive. He is the Commander in Chief. He was given the authority 
by the Congress, even though there were many votes that weren't in the 
affirmative of giving him that authority. He can send additional 
troops.
  There has been a discussion in the Senate. I haven't quite read the 
briefing information on it or the report from the Senate session today. 
I know there will be sessions in the House dealing with that. I talked 
earlier in this Special Order about Mr. Murtha and what he is doing in 
his committee as it relates to defense oversight. We know that there 
will be a bill, a supplemental, I think a $99 billion bill coming to 
the floor, which will be, from what I understand, the last supplemental 
bill.
  When we say ``supplemental,'' I want to make sure all the Members and 
everyone understands this is basically what we call emergency funding 
for the war. It is not necessarily in the budget. If it was in the 
budget, it would go through a process just like you do with your 
transportation dollars in your committee, giving authorization for 
certain spending. This is just pretty much a wish list from the 
administration that is given to the Appropriations Committee, and it 
really doesn't go through the full process. I understand this is the 
last supplemental that will come through for Iraq and Afghanistan. But 
what is also in his supplemental are ballistic missiles, other issues 
that they are spending money on.
  So we have the power of the purse strings. But I can tell you, which 
I know that we are all together on and you mentioned, we will not cut 
money off to the troops that are on the ground there. But we said, 
leading up to the end of the 109th Congress, that we will not defund 
the troops that are in harm's way. But no one said anything about 
escalating the number of troops, adding more onto it.
  So a lot of folks are upset. It is not just Democrats that are upset. 
The American people are. And the President is going against a 70-plus 
percent approval and heading in a new direction on this issue of Iraq, 
and he is still heading in the same direction that he was heading in 
prior to the November election. So it is up to us, Congresswoman Brown, 
to not only state within the Congressional Record but encourage our 
colleagues not only on our side of the aisle but on the Republican side 
of the aisle that we have to lead in the way that the American people 
want us to lead.
  I am encouraged by something, seeing some of the comments by some of 
the Republicans about what the President said.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. You know, we had a closed-door briefing 
yesterday, and the important point that I made is that every Member, 
all 435 Members of this House of Representatives have the 
responsibility for the security of this country. And I think we have 
more of a responsibility than just to give this President a blank 
check. And I think we owe it to this country to make sure we get more 
of some kind of response other than we are just expanding, and not 
really deal with us in a very constructive way.
  The second point, and I have just got two quick points, and I have a 
plane to catch. On the area of health care, the President talked about 
health care, and I am one Member that would vote for it. I believe we 
should have universal health care. But you have to, always dealing with 
this administration, it is always in the details. Now he is talking 
about taking money from public hospitals. And when we say public 
hospitals, you have got one, I have got Shands, but you have got 
Jackson Memorial. Taking money from public hospitals, that is 
unacceptable. That is the only safety net that we have. And so that is 
one proposal that shouldn't arrive here, but when it does, it should be 
dead on arrival.
  And the last point, I was disappointed, and I guess everybody in the 
gulf region was disappointed, there was no discussion about the gulf 
region, none whatsoever. Nothing about Katrina. Now, the American 
people, they saw something with Katrina that they didn't like. Not only 
did they see a government that was inept, uncaring, but incompetent, 
and yet nothing.
  I talked to an 82-year-old lady on Thursday who 3 months before 
Katrina, she paid off her house. Paid off her house 3 months before 
Katrina. To this day she is homeless and hasn't received a penny from 
all of the dollars that we have appropriated. Now, we have a 
responsibility to this lady just like we do, we are insisting, that we 
put almost $500 billion in Iraq and said that, oh, they don't have to 
pay it back. But every dime that we put into New Orleans, we are going 
to say they have got to pay it back. I am sure it doesn't have anything 
to do that they are people of color.
  But I have got to say we have got our challenges. I want to thank all 
of you 30-something-plus for your leadership on the floor and keeping 
these issues before the American people.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, when you said 30-something-plus, you 
looked at me.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then she looked at me.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Well, obviously we have a couple of 
Gators here on the floor, and like I said, I just talked to the Gator 
network. And so it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with 
maturity on the issues. And I want to thank you all for bringing these 
issues before the American people.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, before you leave, I just wanted to 
say before yielding to Ms. Wasserman Schultz that I am glad that you 
came to the floor, because you have been given voice in this.
  And I remember being a non-Member of Congress. You served with my 
mom; and I was in the senate, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I were serving 
in the Florida Senate. I remember you going out to the mike by the 
Cannon Building where C-SPAN had a camera rolling, and it was a press 
conference, and you went out along with a number of Members saying that 
it is wrong that we gave the President the authority to go to war; and 
that you have been a voice on this issue because you knew that this 
could possibly happen, the position that we are in now.
  I also want to add, since you said he didn't mention anything about 
Katrina, he didn't say anything about veterans. And I know you have 
been up front and on target on veteran benefits. We have many from 
Florida; I know Mr. Murphy has them from Connecticut. And I think that 
it is important that even though, Mr. Speaker, veterans were not 
mentioned, victims of Katrina weren't mentioned, we picked up on it. 
And we are going to make sure that we continue to do the things that we 
need to do.
  Thank you, Ms. Brown.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you. And as far as veterans are 
concerned, I am the second person on the committee, and I have been 
here for over 14 years, and I have been on that committee because I 
think it is so important that people that give their most, that we have 
got to make sure that we pay them back. And I am concerned that in the 
past under this administration, that is where we have cut. We have cut 
veterans programs, and they are coming back, and they need everything. 
I have gone out to Bethesda, and I am planning that we all go out there 
to Bethesda, and every veteran in every room needed casework and 
assistance.

[[Page 2166]]

  So, basically we are not doing our duty, not taking care of those men 
and women when they come back wounded after giving their all for this 
country. We have got a responsibility in the Constitution, coequal 
branches. This is the people's House, and we should speak up and make 
sure that we fund programs that will benefit those veterans. Thank you 
again for your leadership.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to our colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Brown. And I am so pleased to 
join my 30-Something colleagues here this afternoon, our newest 30-
Something colleague from Connecticut Chris Murphy. With our new-found 
responsibility, I have been a little tied up the last couple times we 
have had this Special Order hour, so I am really pleased to be able to 
be with you. And we have some fresh blood and some new dynamics that we 
will engage in. It will be really fun to work with you and banter a 
little bit.
  But I will tell you that this being the day after the President's 
State of the Union Address, Mr. Murphy, I was particularly disturbed 
listening to the President. The privilege that we have here in this 
House, and it was yours for the first time last night, and I remember 2 
years ago, I am just 2 years ahead of you in this process, and I 
remember the feeling that I had sitting in this Chamber and the awesome 
responsibility that I felt on my shoulders being this far from the 
President and having the chance to listen to him deliver that address, 
and the expectation that I had as a representative of my constituents, 
that the expectation that he would say something more than words.
  And last year, if you recall, you were in your State legislature when 
he delivered last year's State of the Union. He talked about the need 
to end America's addiction to foreign oil, and subsequently that turned 
out to just be words because he ended up proposing in his budget, and 
they actually enacted, a cut in the energy legislation, that this 
Republican leadership that is no longer in charge here, they actually 
cut the funding to alternative energy, exploring alternative energy 
resources.
  Now, last night he says the same thing in a different way. And we are 
just to the point, why should we expect that there is meaning and 
action coming down the pipe behind the words?
  On the war in Iraq, I know I have heard from my constituents, and it 
is just shocking that after the response from the voters on November 7, 
that this President would not get the message that the American people 
were sending him. They want a new direction. They want to move the 
troops from a combat focus to a training focus, get the Iraqi troops to 
stand up on their own so that that country can take care of itself. So 
it is just shocking the lack of understanding of his priorities and 
where he is on the issues that are most important to people.
  On health care, the health care priorities. There are 47 million 
people in this country, 3\1/2\ million in Florida, that don't have 
health insurance. And his solution to that problem is a tax deduction, 
a tiny tax deduction that he thinks will spur people who benefit from 
it to take that money and buy health insurance. That just shows a 
callous indifference. And you are an expert in health care; that was 
your focus. That shows a callous indifference to what the problems that 
the uninsured and underinsured are really facing.
  You are probably familiar with the death spiral created by insurance 
companies where they cordoned off the people who are the most sick. 
Some States have adopted guaranteed-issue policies and modified 
community rating like we did in Florida so that there were only a few 
things that were taken into consideration when rates were set. But for 
the most part that is not what people are able to get when buying 
health insurance. So the sickest of the sick get cordoned off into a 
group; that group is priced out of the market, and then they don't have 
the ability to afford that health insurance.
  A simple tax deduction is not going to make health insurance 
accessible and affordable for that group of people. It is just 
unbelievable, Mr. Murphy. And I fail to understand why this President 
only seems to keep his own counsel. It is just really unbelievable.
  So I will yield to you or to Mr. Meek, but that was my feeling and my 
reaction in listening last night. And when I talked to our radio 
stations in south Florida this morning, I know the feedback that our 
radio hosts were getting was similar.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you for yielding, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz. I think that was the feeling that a lot of us here for our 
first State of the Union felt as well. I was able to sit with a lot of 
the first-term Members to listen to the speech, and we all left shaking 
our heads, because when we went out and campaigned to come to this 
body, and when we go back to our districts to talk to people, I mean, 
it is very clear that they don't want patchwork solutions when it comes 
to health care; they don't want a little tinkering around the edges 
when it comes to energy reform. They want bold leadership from 
Washington.
  It is no small thing for a bunch of people across this country to go 
out and cast out long-term incumbents, which is what happened in a lot 
of these districts. It takes a lot of courage in order to make that 
decision for change. And, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think you are 
exactly right that they are looking to us to have that same type of 
courage. They are requiring us to take that same type of bold action 
that they took by turning over this body into new hands, into new 
leadership. And the President's suggestions last night when it came to 
health care and when it came to energy policy simply don't measure up.
  Let's think about it; 6.8 million people in this country have lost 
their health care insurance in the last 6 years. Premiums during that 
time have risen 81 percent in the last 6 years while wages stayed flat. 
Now, if the President, as you said, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, listened to 
counsel besides his own, he would know that a tax deduction doesn't 
help the people that don't have insurance because about 50 percent of 
the uninsured aren't paying income taxes right now. So the people that 
we need to help, the people that right now are clogging up our 
emergency rooms, and, as you know, this is not just a matter of doing 
the right thing for the uninsured, this is doing the right thing for 
all of us who are subsidizing the people who walk into the emergency 
rooms, get this extravagantly expensive care simply because they didn't 
have the insurance to get them in to have preventative care. The 
proposal he unveiled yesterday really, I think, does grave injustice to 
those people out there who were struggling with a system that is 
fundamentally broken, and it simply isn't going to be fixed around the 
edges.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second on that 
point? Because on the health care issue specifically, the gentlewoman 
from Florida talked about being supportive of universal health care. 
And, I mean, I am supportive of expanding access to health care to 
everyone as well. But our good friends on the other side of the aisle 
like to use that as a bogeyman for us and imply that that means 
socialized medicine, and that we want to implement this single-payer 
system that is going to be government top-down health care.
  There are ways to expand access to health care to large populations, 
to almost everybody who is uninsured, and then we only have to work 
hard towards ensuring that last phase of the population. We can expand 
access to health care for all children by expanding the SCHIP program. 
We can expand access to health care to more older Americans by simply 
expanding the Medicare program and letting people from 50 to 64 years 
old buy into that program. Those are bills that were filed when we were 
in the minority and that will be filed again and that we will have an 
opportunity to able to pursue now that we are past the 100-hour agenda. 
So just you having come just out of the State legislature and being a 
health care expert, I would just love to hear your thoughts about that.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are exactly

[[Page 2167]]

right. I remember standing at a supermarket in my district during the 
campaign or maybe a few years before, and a woman who was, I think, 59, 
58 years old, who had been laid off, and who understandably was having 
trouble finding new employment. It is difficult for older Americans to 
find a new job, especially one that has a comprehensive package of 
benefits. And she looked at me with this blank face and said, ``Why am 
I in this position? Why can I not get health care when I know the 
Medicare program is right there? I am willing to pay for it. I am 
willing to contribute to it. And yet I can't get access to this program 
simply because I have been put into a situation where I can't find a 
job or I can't find a job with benefits, and I don't qualify for the 
program.''
  So there are ways that we can help, as you said, those older 
Americans who are on the cusp of being able to qualify for Medicare, 
and certainly the millions of children around this country who have no 
health care insurance and end up getting sick. I mean, they get sick, 
and they come into our emergency rooms to get the care they need. Mr. 
Ryan said here the other night, we do have a system of universal 
coverage in this country; unfortunately, it is in our emergency rooms 
rather than in our doctors' offices and our primary care doctors' 
offices.
  And maybe just to tie this back to what we were talking about before 
when it comes to the war in Iraq. You know, we have an obligation to 
our veterans when they come back, and what we have done here over the 
past 10 years to the health care system for veterans is a travesty of 
justice to the brave men and women who have fought for this country.
  I absolutely support moving towards universal coverage. I think you 
are right, it doesn't have to be done all at once. In fact, I think the 
best proposals before this body are to really take some commonsense 
approaches to it. But maybe the first thing we should do is start to 
repair some of the damage that we did to the veterans health care 
system to make sure that when you volunteer to serve this country 
abroad, that when you come back, you are going to get the mental health 
care that you need, that you are going to not have to wait in line for 
a surgery that you badly need. Maybe that is our first obligation is to 
take care of those folks, because in the end we are here to serve 
everyone, but we are certainly here to make sure that those people that 
fight for us, Mr. Meek, are taken care of. And I would yield to you.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. All I am going to do is do a close. I know we 
have the Web site and all, but I want to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
because I want to tell you, I am not from Connecticut, but if I was one 
of your constituents, I would vote for you. You are good. That is all I 
can say.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We had another member of the Florida 
delegation. I am honored to be part of the 30-something group, but to 
be part of the Florida delegation here today was just as impressive.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I was just saying if I was your constituent I 
would vote for you. It is good to have a Member of Congress that is as 
well informed into the issues that are facing the constituents and the 
American people. I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz because we are going 
to be closing out soon.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. One of the things that I 
think is important for the Members and other folks to know is we did 
this 30-something hour night after night in the minority for the last 
several years, and we want folks to know that we are not just shutting 
down and becoming complacent and resting on our laurels now that we are 
in the majority because there continues to be a need for 
accountability, as the State of the Union address demonstrated last 
night.
  We are going to assert Congress's oversight role, reestablish the 
system of checks and balances that was totally absent the last number 
of years. We are going to use the 30-something Working Group forum to 
be able to do that and also talk about what Democrats are going to do, 
implement our agenda, talk about the priorities of the American people.
  I am so thrilled that we have expanded our ranks and that we have an 
opportunity to interact and dialogue with you. I can tell you that on 
election night on November 7, I was cheering very loud that you were 
coming to join us in the 110th.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Murphy and he is going to 
give the Web site out and we will be ready to shut down.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much. As I said before, 
coming back from the campaign trail I got to watch the three of you 
down here, and I think stole a lot of your material. So I am glad to 
maybe provide a little bit of material for the next crop of 30-
somethings.
  May I do Mr. Ryan's job today?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. And give out the Web site for the 30-
something Working Group: www.speaker.gov/30something. If you go there, 
you will get all the good information that we talked about today and 
participate online in the discussion that we have been having here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, it is an honor to be on the floor with Mr. 
Murphy and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Being in the majority brings 
about responsibility for all of us. So we have a lot to do. And Mr. 
Speaker, we want to thank the Democratic leadership, from the Speaker 
to the leader to the whip to the chair and the vice chair for allowing 
us to have this Special Order on the Democratic side. It was an honor 
addressing the House once again.

                          ____________________