[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2788-2795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hare). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here once again to continue the discussion of the 30-
something Working Group. We want to thank Speaker Pelosi for the honor 
to be on the House floor.
  We actually had one of our newer Members, Mr. Speaker, make page 3. 
He is still a freshman, but he made significant advances. This is Jason 
Altmire, Mr. Speaker, from western Pennsylvania. His district abuts 
mine. His picture, name, pressing our leadership to make sure that we 
increase funding in the CR for veterans, to make sure that we did not 
accept any pay raise until the American people get their pay raise 
through the minimum wage. So we already have young leaders stepping up 
to bat contributing in their first term here.
  I have got to say, Mr. Speaker, it has just been I actually think in 
many ways pathetic to listen to the debate here today over the 
continuing resolution. We all know the political situation over the 
past, you know, 14 years, Republican control in the Congress, and their 
inability in the last several years to govern at all. And they have 
locked out the Democrats for years and years and years.
  Votes in the wee hours of the morning on the prescription drug 
benefit, on the energy bill, on budgets, which raided student aid money 
for students all across our country; and then, on top of all of that, 
they leave the new Democratic majority an absolute budget catastrophe 
for us to deal with.
  Over the course of those 14 years, the Republican Congress and the 
Republican President borrowed more money, more money from foreign 
interests than all of the previous Presidents

[[Page 2789]]

combined. So now we are going to get lectures from the Republican 
majority on how to run the budget process. Now we are going to get 
lectures from the most incompetent, ineffective Congress in the history 
of this institution, Mr. Speaker, the history of this institution.
  This party will not be lectured about veterans' benefits, we will not 
be lectured to by the Republican minority about how to balance a 
budget, and we will not be lectured to about investments in this 
country.
  You look at this CR and you look what we put in. We are not going to 
be lectured to by anybody. We made promises and accomplished more in 
the last few hundred hours of this Congress than that Republican 
majority has in the last 14 years. We implemented PAYGO so we will 
balance the budget.
  We made some difficult decisions with the CR so we can move forward, 
and we are not going to be lectured to. Because we have made promises, 
and we have delivered.
  Now just look at the first hundred hours, Mr. Speaker, just the first 
hundred hours. We cut student loan interest rates in half. Once fully 
implemented, it will save the average person taking out a loan almost 
$5,000.
  We raised the minimum wage. We allowed the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the Medicare 
recipients. We repealed the corporate welfare to the energy companies 
that that majority, Republican majority put in place; and we are taking 
that money and investing it into alternative energy sources. We are 
doing things positive for the American people.
  And we are going to inherit this budget, which we already have, that 
has borrowed more money from China, borrowed more money from Japan, 
borrowed money from OPEC countries, incapable of executing FEMA to 
address natural disasters and emergency situations in the United 
States. We know how to run Government.
  When the Democrats passed the budget in 1993 with the Democratic 
President, created 20 million new jobs, we had surpluses as far as the 
eye can see. So we are cleaning up a mess here that we have inherited, 
and we are going to move forward and continue with our agenda, and we 
are proud.
  We are going to move forward, and we have an agenda. We have moved on 
it. We promised it. We acted on it. And we are going to continue to 
move on it.
  I will yield to our young, new rising star from western Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk for just a moment about 
how important it is that veterans were taken care of in this continuing 
resolution.
  I do want to commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and the rest of 
the Democratic leadership who did a great job of putting together what 
was a mess that was left to us.
  As Mr. Ryan talked about, we had nine out of eleven appropriations 
bills to fund this Government that were left in our lap, and we had to 
deal with that, and we had some tough decisions to make. But under the 
leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey we did what needed to be 
done.
  I made clear to the leadership, and they agreed, that we needed to 
make sure that nobody should stand in front of our veterans when it 
comes time to pass funding resolutions. We have people fighting for us 
in the field overseas right now. We have veterans coming back from Iraq 
and, of course, veterans of every age.
  That need does not go away. That need does not stop. As the 
Congressional Budget Office has indicated, the cost of caring for those 
veterans goes up year after year; and we have an obligation and a duty 
as Members of Congress to make sure that the VA health care budget goes 
up enough to maintain the current level of services for every veteran 
that walks through the door. I want to commend Chairman Obey for taking 
care of that under this continuing resolution.
  I also wanted to just take a walk down memory lane and let's take a 
look at what the Republican leadership did for veterans' health care 
over the past several years.
  I have a chart here. It might be difficult for some to read.
  January, 2003, the Bush administration cut veterans' health care for 
164,000 veterans; and that is just the start.
  March, 2003, 2 months later, the Republican budget that passed this 
Congress cut $14 billion from veterans' health care.
  March, 2004, 1 year later, the Republican budget shortchanged 
veterans' health care by an additional $1\1/2\ billion.
  March, 2005, the following year, President Bush's budget shortchanged 
veterans' health care by another $2 billion and cut veterans' benefits 
by $14 billion over 5 years. That is what we were left with.
  Now, in the summer of 2005, after they had been warned when they 
passed that budget back in 2004 and after enormous pressure from the 
Democrats and from people around this country and especially from 
veterans' organizations, the Bush administration finally did 
acknowledge that they shortchanged the veterans; and they added back 
$2.7 billion after months of Democratic pressure to put that money back 
in.
  But then only a few months later, in March, 2006, President Bush's 
budget cut veterans' funding by an additional $6 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the mess that we were left with, this continuing 
resolution, and that was what needed to be resolved. And I said 
throughout my campaign and I say every weekend when I go back and speak 
to these veterans' groups that we are, as a Congress, going to make a 
new commitment to our veterans, a commitment that has not been there 
for the past 12 years; and we are going to put veterans' interests 
first when it comes time to deal with these funding resolutions.
  So what did we do? In this continuing resolution that passed this 
House today, the Democrats increased the VA health care budget by $3.6 
billion. Now that is in an atmosphere of having left nine spending 
bills completely undone, and the Republican leadership made no effort 
to increase that funding. But we found the will, as Democrats, and we 
added $3.6 billion to the veterans' budget.
  That is leadership; and for that I commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman 
Obey and the rest of the Democratic leaders who were involved in 
putting that together. That is what we have done here today.
  So, at this point, I am going to yield to the gentleman from Ohio so 
he can continue to run the show.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield the remainder of the hour to Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz. I need to step out. I will be back, but I would like 
to yield the rest of the hour to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

                              {time}  1815

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hare). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz) is recognized for the balance of the majority leader's hour.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, I want to tell a little story 
because I am really pleased that you raised this issue, and that you 
have been the champion of ensuring that we don't, as we move through 
what is an unfortunate but necessary situation with this continuing 
resolution, I want to tell anyone listening a little story about an 
exchange that you and I had the other day on the House floor.
  I have the privilege of serving as a Chief Deputy Whip for the House 
Democratic Caucus, and you are one of my assignments. We divide the 
House Democratic Caucus members up into groups, and you are included 
among the Members that I am typically engaged in lobbying. And when I 
approached you about whether you were going to be supportive of the 
continuing resolution that we voted on today, your immediate response, 
which was the right one, was, well, not if we are cutting money for 
veterans. And I was really proud that you did that and that you were 
absolutely not going to move forward on your support for the

[[Page 2790]]

continuing resolution unless you were able to get the information that 
you needed to ensure that, in fact, not only were we not cutting 
funding for veterans but, we in fact, increased funding for veterans. 
And so the notation in your hometown paper was apt and appropriate, and 
I commend you for your advocacy because that is what this is all about.
  The new direction that the American people demanded, that they chose 
on November 7 included selecting people like you to send to Washington 
to make sure that when there was no one standing up, we certainly were 
all standing up united as a minority; but that there were not enough 
people in this body standing up for veterans. On the contrary, as you 
just outlined through the charts in a chronological way, the 
Republicans and the Republican administration were doing the opposite, 
were actually making it more difficult for veterans to get the services 
that they need and that they were entitled to and that they deserved 
through their patriotism and devotion to this country. So I commend you 
on that.
  We were in a situation in adopting the continuing resolution today 
that was the result of the mess, as you said, that the Republicans 
handed us. I mean, how irresponsible to just not complete nine of the 
11 appropriations bills. I sit on the House Appropriations Committee 
now. I am just at the beginning of that process, but it is mind 
boggling to me, how, really, I mean, the Constitution says the only 
thing we have to do, the only thing Congress has to do is pass the 
budget. And they didn't do it. They didn't do it because it is hard. It 
is difficult. You have to make tough decisions. And you know, right up 
in front of an election, where they were struggling as it was, they 
didn't want to make those difficult decisions. And we have a lot of our 
Members, some in tough districts that are going to have to go home and 
have to answer some difficult questions, because obviously, you know, 
we didn't like everything that we had to do. But if we didn't go 
forward and try to get to the 2008 budgetary process and make sure we 
could do right by the people in this country, then we would have been 
in an even worse mess.
  So kudos to you for standing up for veterans and for adding another 
voice on their behalf where there wasn't one before.
  And if the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) wanted to jump in 
I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for yielding.
  One of the things I realized when I came down here in January was 
that you get a lot of analogies, and some of them work, some of them 
don't. But listening to our colleagues criticize the budget, the 
continuing resolution we just passed here, you kind of think of the old 
``bull in the china shop'' analogy.
  This is kind of like the bull walking into the china shop spending a 
good half an hour breaking everything in the china shop; the owner 
finally having the good sense to kick him out, and then him showing up 
about 2 days later and asking why everything hasn't been fixed yet. I 
mean, that is essentially, what has happened here is that there has 
been so much damage, Mr. Speaker, done to this budget by virtue of nine 
of the 11, nine of the 11 appropriations bills not being completed by 
the end of business.
  And an important thing to note is that, you know, Congress was back 
here in the holiday season in November and December trying to finish 
those budget bills. And I am just learning, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
about the budget process, but from what I know, November, December is 
pretty late to be even working on those budget bills. Those budget 
bills were supposed to be done over the summer and fall. And so even 
giving themselves an extra 4 or 5 months to complete those bills, they 
still weren't done on time.
  And so when the Democrats finally were put back in charge of this 
place by virtue of the millions of Americans who stood up across this 
country to start putting common sense middle class values first, the 
people who put Mr. Altmire and myself here in Congress, when they 
finally, we finally sort of reentered the china shop and realized that 
everything had been broken, we realized it was going to take a little 
while to clean everything up. And what we did today, this continuing 
resolution which keeps this government running for the next several 
months, is an important first step because there are some critical 
programs, veterans benefits at the top of that list, Mr. Altmire, that 
are funded here.
  What else are we talking about? We are talking about Pell grants. 
Even after coming before this body and, with remarkable bipartisan 
support, decreasing the rate of student loans for millions of students 
across this country, we came back in this budget, we increased the 
maximum Pell grant by $260, to over $4,000, $4,300 for the average 
student.
  We put in new money or in schools that are failing to meet the Head 
Start standards. Mr. Altmire, you know that both of us heard so much 
about that from our school districts over the course of the campaign 
and over the course of the last month. Now, 6,700 schools across this 
country that are failing to meet those No Child Left Behind standards 
are going to get new funding from this government in order to keep on 
operating.
  We increased community health center funding by $207 million. 
Community health centers in this very broken health care system are 
sometimes the place of last resort, often the place of only resort for 
so many uninsured families. We are now going to make sure that they get 
the funding that they deserve.
  So in so many ways we started to clean up the mess that that bull 
made for the last 12 years. We are starting to put the china back 
together. We are starting to buy a little bit of new stuff to put on 
the shelves. And it is going to take a little while. It is going to 
take a little while.
  But it is important to remember that the work we did here today, I 
think, is just a beginning on that front, Mr. Altmire. And I join Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan in commending you for standing up for 
the veterans in your district, because when you speak for those 
veterans, it is not just in your district, it is for all the veterans 
in my district and, as an extension, it is for all the future veterans, 
because as you know, we are so lucky to have an all volunteer military.
  But if they think that by going into the service they will return 
home and find a country and a Nation that does not honor their service, 
well, then we are going to have a lot harder time than we are already 
having finding people to fight the future battles and wars that this 
country may engage in.
  I would yield. I see Mr. Meek has joined us. But I would yield to Mr. 
Altmire and thank him again for his advocacy over the past several 
weeks.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. And I did want to follow up on what the gentlelady from 
Florida had talked about earlier, what was left to us, and the reason 
that it was left to us. This was a politically, cowardly maneuver, 
calculated to gamble on the outcome of the elections. They left nine 
spending bills unfinished, hoping that they would then win and come 
back for a lame duck session where they could ram through further 
spending increases and increase the Federal budget deficit even more, 
as they have done every year for the past 6 years. Instead, the results 
of the election were not to their liking.
  The Democrats are retaking control of Congress at that point, and 
they made a calculated decision. Instead of finishing the work that 
their constituents sent them here to do, they, instead, dropped the 
ball and left all nine spending bills until the new year and the new 
Congress, and countless programs languishing, twisting in the wind 
while the new change in Congress came.
  And again, under the leadership of the new Democrats who have taken 
control of Congress, we were able to pass, within a month, nine 
appropriation bills that they couldn't pass over the course of an 
entire year.
  So I can't say enough about the work that this House has done and 
that this

[[Page 2791]]

Congress has done in putting together a package that was very, very 
difficult to do, and it is just a great accomplishment.
  Mr. Meek has joined us. I would ask, does the gentleman wish to 
comment on this?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am listening.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, let me just jump in while the 
gentleman from Florida is listening, because one of the things I think 
it is important to point out is when we talk in the language of 
government, it is difficult for regular folks to understand what we are 
saying. So we are talking about the CR, the continuing resolution, the 
terminology that we deal with on a daily basis. But that is not what 
sort of every day folks understand.
  And the continuing resolution, it is important to point out, is the 
budget, the Federal budget that keeps the lights on. And people will 
recall a number of years ago when the Republican Congress decided that, 
in retaliation for who knows what, because they couldn't get the 
Clinton administration to agree to what they wanted, because they 
thought that brinksmanship was the most appropriate strategy, they shut 
the government down. People were furloughed. Government programs that 
were vitally important to different constituencies around the country 
came to a halt.
  What we have done is, and Chairman Obey has been the champion of 
this. What we have done is, not only have we made sure that that 
doesn't happen, because brinksmanship and engaging in irresponsible 
actions like that make no sense, we have made some difficult decisions. 
But we haven't made irrational decisions that would be harmful to 
people.
  For example, we could have passed a continuing resolution that simply 
adopted the 2006 spending levels, the same spending levels that we had 
in 2006 and just moved forward. But that would have resulted, as you 
pointed out for veterans, in some cuts. And in our discussion on the 
floor the other day, you pointed out that unless there were increases, 
essentially, because of inflation, because of the adjustments in cost 
of living that are necessary, and because there are simply more people, 
more service men and women who are in need, we would not have had the 
money we needed to meet the needs of veterans.
  But beyond that, let me just talk about what, because our good 
friends on the other side of the aisle are, of course, being critical 
that we didn't just pass a straight continuing resolution. Let's talk 
about what that would have done. Essentially, that would have 
jeopardized our national security. If we did that, if we simply passed 
the same level budget that we adopted in 2006, that would have resulted 
in thousands of layoffs, cuts for health care workers, cuts for members 
of the Armed Forces, cuts for veterans.
  For example, the Food Safety and Inspection Service would face a 
month of furloughs. Can you imagine a month of furloughs in the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service? That means that we could end up with 
rotting meat in supermarkets and people potentially buying them. Or 
let's not use language that is too strong. Questionable meat. I mean, 
if we don't make sure that we have our food inspected, then we are 
going to jeopardize people's health. That would have also resulted in 
the closure of 6,000 meat processing plants that could not have been 
inspected.
  The Federal Judiciary would have had to fire 2,500 workers. The Small 
Business Administration, and Mr. Meek, this is incredibly important to 
our area because how often we face natural disasters through 
hurricanes. But the Small Business Administration's disaster loan 
assistance program, which provides back up for FEMA's individual 
assistance program, that would have been run dry by the end of 
February.
  Now, given how many people are still suffering from the aftermath of 
Katrina and Rita and Wilma and the other hurricanes and the other 
natural disasters that have hit around this country, I just cannot 
imagine what the consequences would have been. Actually, I can imagine 
what the consequences would have been for millions of Americans.
  So we struck a balance here. We were being fiscally responsible, but 
at the same time, not hanging Americans out to dry without regard for 
their well-being. And that is what the Democratic Caucus's approach 
always is. You have to think about the fact that all of the decisions 
that we make here, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Meek, affect real 
people.
  I have often thought over the time I have served in the Congress and 
in the State Legislature in Florida, in Florida, and I am not sure how 
far your State capital is in Connecticut from your home, Mr. Murphy, 
but Tallahassee is 450 miles from where I live. And I served in the 
State Legislature for 12 years. Mr. Meek, I think, served in the State 
Legislature for 10, between the House and the Senate. It is so easy, I 
mean, we are obviously even further away from our homes, I certainly 
am. But you are pretty far from your homes, too, making decisions in 
Washington. And it could be argued that it would be so easy to make 
decisions in a vacuum here. The people we affect, whose decisions that 
we make, who we affect, they can't come in this Chamber. They are not 
in the room with us. The folks in the gallery are that are watching, 
but it would be so easy to just forget that every decision, every vote, 
every time we put our card in that slot and our name lights up on the 
board ``yea'' or ``nay,'' the decision we make affects a human being.

                              {time}  1830

  But you become desensitized to it. There is a danger that you could 
become desensitized to it. Certainly the Republican side of the aisle 
became desensitized to it. For years and years, they didn't think about 
the results, they didn't think about the consequences. Well, that is 
the balance the Democrats strike. Pragmatism with a healthy dose of 
thoughtfulness and compassion. That is what it is all about.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Would the gentlewoman yield for a moment? 
And I think she is exactly right, and I think that that disconnect that 
you talk about, that certainly was in existence here for a very long 
time was one of the reasons why we now have a Democratic majority. The 
people last summer were fueling up their cars at $3.50 a gallons. We 
are finding that all of a sudden, they were having to pay $50 co-pays 
rather than $25 co-pays. And they looked at a Congress which seemed 
pretty incredulous to their concerns, that seemed to watch without 
listening. And you are right, people get hurt by the decisions they 
make down here. And I will give you an example.
  In my district I have a senior housing complex in Torrington, major 
place where a lot of seniors live in one of the biggest cities in my 
district, and we have had some security problems there, some people 
coming in off the streets and had a couple violent incidents. Well, 
most of the facility and the staff there are financed through Federal 
grants. Well, because this Congress, over the last 12 years, slashed 
Federal housing funds to the bone, they have had to make major layoffs 
at that housing complex.
  In fact, it finally came down to a very difficult but unfortunately 
necessary decision that that housing facility made to lay off their 
security guards. That is going to put hundreds of senior citizens at 
risk in this senior housing complex. And they come to their local 
elected officials, their State-elected officials and ask, what can you 
do to help? And everybody points back to where the problem came from. 
It was years of neglect down here in Washington of housing programs, 
just as there were years of neglect years to health care programs, 
years of neglect to defense and certain national security programs.
  And in order to reinstill that commitment to the seniors of 
Torrington, to those veterans in Pennsylvania, it is going to take a 
little while.
  But if you are back in your communities, if you are talking to 
people, regular middle-class, working folks people, you will hear those 
stories on how

[[Page 2792]]

the votes we take here affect people back in Connecticut, back in 
Florida, back in Pennsylvania. And for some reason, whether it was the 
power that went to people's head, whether it was the pomp and 
circumstance that surrounds being a Member of Congress, for some 
reason, over the last 12 years, and in particular, I think, Mr. 
Altmire, over the past 4, 5, or 6 years, there was a wall that was put 
up around Washington, D.C., and folks that were controlling the 
committees here and the budget here just were not listening to people 
back in State of Connecticut, State of Pennsylvania, Florida, and 
throughout this country, because if they did, they would know we have 
to put more money in housing.
  If they listened to those veterans that you and I talk to every day 
at people's doors, they would know that men and women who came back 
from Iraq, came back from Vietnam, World War II veterans are 
struggling. And what we are now doing here in starting to clean up that 
mess is also to start listening again. And I believe Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz is very correct on that notion.
  I yield to Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you so very much. You know, I don't put 
a lot of value in folks coming down to the floor sharing inaccurate 
information. And it is very unfortunate, because one thing that I can 
say here of the 30-something Working Group, we actually meet off the 
floor and we make sure, Mr. Speaker, that information that we are 
sharing is factual, that it is factual and that if someone wants to 
challenge us on that particular fact, they can go to the Congressional 
Record, they can go to the Library of Congress, what have you. It is 
there. Or they can go to a piece of legislation.
  To come down and make statements that could mislead Members of 
Congress or could mislead the American public, I think that it is very 
unfortunate and it is something that should be frowned upon. But I 
guess the only good reason why I can come up with the reason why some 
Members on the minority side will come to the floor and make some 
inaccurate statements of the essence of the continuing resolution 
today, I go back to what I have been talking about for the last 2 weeks 
and that is the bipartisanship that has been taking place here on this 
floor.
  If I was a part of the Republican leadership, I would be concerned, 
too. I would wonder how would the American people think, I mean, what 
would they think, Democrat or Republican, on how Democrats can be in 
control of the House and then, at the same time, have this 
bipartisanship taking place with Democrats in control. Let me just 
clarify what I am saying.
  Time after time, Republicans are voting with Democrats on good 
measures. Today, this continuing resolution was a good piece of 
legislation. It wasn't a partisan vote. It shouldn't have been a 
partisan vote. Two hundred twenty-nine Democrats voted for the 
continuing resolution; 57 Republicans voted for the continuing 
resolution. We should all be on the floor happy that we can come 
together on a piece of legislation that is so important to the country. 
What is the alternative? The government shutting down? We don't want 
that.
  I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I have a question. Does the gentleman know off the top 
of his head, with the major legislation that we passed in the 100 hours 
and what we have done subsequent to that, including the continuing 
resolution, approximately how many Republicans we have seen cross the 
aisle and join us in a bipartisan manner?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I don't have my notes right here. If you have it 
handy, go ahead and answer the question.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, 
I do know that we got an average of 62 Republicans to vote with the 
Democrats on the Six-in-'06 agenda on making sure that the Federal 
Government can negotiate for lower prices for the Medicare part D 
prescription drug plan; making sure that we fully implement the 9/11 
Commission Report; making sure that we repeal the subsidies to the oil 
industry; making sure that we do the job that the people sent us here 
to do and that they spoke so strongly about through their vote on 
November 7. An average of 62 Republicans voted with us on each of those 
items.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. And then today 57 more, as the gentleman said. I didn't 
mean to put the gentleman on the spot, but I wanted to just reemphasize 
the point that he was making that this is not a partisan majority 
ramming it down the throat of the Republicans. This is working in a 
bipartisan spirit, something that has not been seen in this Congress 
for more than 12 years. And here we are, the end of our first month in 
office, we passed another major piece of legislation joined by 57 
Members on the other side. And the gentleman is right that this is 
something that we should be applauding. And this is new to Congress. 
This is not something that has happened recently.
  So I would hate for people on the other side during the debate to 
characterize this as a partisan bill and a partisan effort. It is not. 
We again, with an average of 62 Republicans, 57 again today, have done 
this in a bipartisan way, crafting it so that all sides can support it, 
because we all agree that we need to do things that are to the 
betterment of the American people and to the benefit of the American 
people.
  I would yield again to the gentleman from Florida to continue, but I 
did want to just reemphasize that point.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is no problem at all. Clarification is very, 
very important in this process. And the Republican leadership seems to 
continue to have a problem with the bipartisan spirit that is in the 
Chamber now, because in the last Congress that wasn't the case; in the 
Congress before that, that wasn't the case. There were partisan votes 
every day. I mean, it was almost like, how can we send a bill to the 
floor to make the Democrats vote against the bill versus for the bill? 
And one of the things that the American people want is for us to work 
together. We are all Americans. We salute one flag. We walk into this 
Chamber, we all carry one voting card. And I think that is important.
  But to the point, to show the difference between us and others that 
may come to the floor sharing this information off the cuff, and Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz is 110 percent right and accurate as it relates to 
the percentage, but she named off a piece of legislation that 
Republicans and Democrats voted for: 9/11 Commission Recommendations 
Act, 68 Republicans voted for it, 231 Democrats voted for it, which was 
299 total for us to pass it. The Fair Minimum Wage, 82 Republicans 
voted for it, 233 Democrats voted for it, and brought the vote to 315. 
We looked at the issue of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; 37 
Republicans, 216 Democrats brought that vote to 253, which was in the 
affirmative. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiating Act, 24 
Republicans, 231 Democrats, 255, to make it an affirmative vote. And 
the College Student Relief Act, 124 Republicans, 232 Democrats, that 
brought that vote to 356.
  These are major, major, major issues that are facing the country, 
issues that have been clogged up in the Republican Congress, 109th, 
108th, 107th, 105th Congress. And now the American people said they 
wanted to move in a new direction and we are moving in that direction. 
And, unfortunately, there are some Members of Congress on the 
Republican side of the aisle that have a problem with that.
  I told you that I am all excited, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz can tell 
you, Mr. Ryan can tell you: Lead us the opportunity to lead and we will 
lead.
  Mr. Ryan how, many times: If you give us the opportunity to be in the 
leadership of the House of Representatives you will be served? West 
Coast.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Put me in, Coach.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Put me in, Coach. The Heartland of America, East 
Coast, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, thinking about 
voting, now voting. You do it, we will make it happen, and it is 
happening.
  So you have some that come to the floor and talk about, well, you 
know, this is not happening and I voted against it because I didn't get 
2 hours

[[Page 2793]]

to speak independently on the floor against it, and that is the reason 
why I voted against it.
  I just want to lay it out because I want to make sure that the 
Members know and the American people know that it is just Washington 
rhetoric. We are here making it happen. We are happening.
  I yield to my good friend.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate my good from Miami, Florida yielding 
to me.
  The funny part watching the debate today was that the other side, 
because they had the opportunity for so long to pass so many of these 
pieces of legislation and to get them through the Senate and get them 
signed by the President and they didn't take advantage of it, that they 
have very little credibility in dealing with the issue of the fact that 
we are actually doing this stuff.
  And so I agree with my friend Mr. Meek; it has been exciting. This is 
great. This is good stuff. You guys are reading the increases and the 
different programs. And, as Mr. Obey said, this is a thinking man's 
document.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, just the way you are going back and 
forth on the Republican's response to the process, you know, it is just 
really, gosh, I can't say what comes to mind. It is galling. It really 
is galling that they do have nerve to talk about process.
  Because just in my 2 years of experience, and certainly two wrongs 
don't make a wrong, but there is no second wrong here. I mean, in my 
experience in the last 2 years, and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, you have had 
more experience and more lengthy experience than I and Mr. Altmire and 
Mr. Murphy have had, but I recall votes being held open for 40 minutes 
to several hours to twist enough arms to get the votes. We, of course, 
haven't had to do that because not only do we get all of our Members to 
vote for our legislation, but we get a good chunk if not, and in one 
case, a majority of theirs.
  I remember being shut out, completely shut out on every major 
question over the last 2 years, no amendments allowed, no commentary 
except in a token way. And now they are whining about process?
  You know, the small point I wanted to make, and Mr. Altmire, you are 
a dad, you have young kids; I am a mom, I have young kids; Mr. Meek has 
young kids, and some day Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ryan, I am sure you will 
have young kids too.
  But you know, when your kids whine at you and complain about 
something that you know is just their immaturity, their wishing 
something could be the case, but when they get a little older they will 
realize that they were wrong? That is what this is.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What is it? You are saying, what is it? Just 
tell us.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is nerve is what it is. It is just pure 
unadulterated nerve. The American people see through this. They don't 
have any substance to talk about. They can only whine about process.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The interesting part here is the CR that we passed 
today was to clean up their mess that they left. They only passed one 
out of 13 appropriations bills.
  So you can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden they leave all 
of this mess for us to deal with and we try to deal with their mess and 
they want input. Well, you had your chance. You had 14 years and all 
kinds of months last year to pass this stuff, and you didn't do it.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think they should have their say. I really 
do. Going forward, when we hear legislation and get into the regular 
order, we have markups in committee hearings and legislation that 
Members file, we will do that. But we are still cleaning up their mess.
  The Six in '06 agenda is an agenda of the major issues that the 
American people voted for us to come here and do that we offered as 
amendments.
  We offered the minimum wage, we offered fully implementing the 9/11 
Commission recommendations, and through all of the other procedural 
attempts we made within the confines of their limiting us, we offered 
repealing the subsidies to the oil industry.
  We offered legislation and amendments that would have the student 
loan interest rate and make higher education access more affordable. 
And they said no. They said no, no, no, over and over and over again.
  Sorry, now it is our turn. It is time to implement the agenda that 
the American people asked us to. It is time to clean up their mess.
  Mr. Ryan, going forward, I am all for what Speaker Pelosi has said 
that we will do, which is give them the most bipartisan House of 
Representatives that history has ever seen. But the mess has to be 
cleaned up before we can do that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You and Mr. Ryan are members of the powerful 
Appropriations Committee; and, today, watching Mr. Obey, the chairman, 
and seeing what he was able to do in moving this continuing resolution, 
which is the appropriations act which funds the government, to see that 
happen and to understand the history of it. Because when the 
Republicans took over in 1995 or 1994, went into power in 1995, they 
didn't have to deal with a continuing resolution because Mr. Obey and 
the Appropriations Committee passed all of their bills on time. They 
didn't leave unfinished business for the Republican Congress.
  And, guess what, they also had a surplus as far as the eye could see. 
So whatever idea we wanted to implement, we had the money to do it 
because we had managers in this House of Representatives under 
Democratic leadership to make sure that the country was in the black 
and in good standing and did not have bad credit and did not owe 
foreign nations $1.05 trillion.
  Then the Republican leadership comes in here and they hand things 
out, special projects, bridges to nowhere, all of these big items, and 
then come to the floor and grab it. That's fine.
  The reason I am happy today is today is the beginning of getting the 
Appropriations Committee and this House in order and getting us on 
track under regular order. And I will guarantee as sure as my name is 
Kendrick Meek that the 2008 appropriations act will pass on time. There 
will be hearings. We will look at every project and make sure that 
everything is in order, because American taxpayer dollars are going 
towards those projects.
  Very few appropriations committees met. They hardly met. Why do you 
want to ask questions and have hearings? As I said, the Foreign Affairs 
Committee only had one hearing on Iraq. They have had five thus far in 
this Congress, and counting.
  So I feel very confident about the fact that we are talking about our 
vision and the leadership; B, we are pointing out the difference 
between some of the Members on the minority side that want to continue 
to carry out the old way and the Members on the minority side that want 
to move in a new direction. I am glad that they are there.
  My last point, we have five Members in the majority here on a 
Wednesday afternoon when we are going to recess for the week that has 
the will and the desire. We have the will and desire to continue to let 
the American people and the Members know that we want to lead and we 
want to lead this country in a new direction and we want to work in a 
bipartisan way.
  We could be home. We could be somewhere else. My kids are back in the 
cloakroom right now. I could be having dinner with them. But this is 
important. I want them to know, and when historians look at what was 
happening during a time when we had two wars going on, we have a 
President wanting to escalate with troops and the American people 
saying we don't want it, we have the country in a deficit, and then we 
have Members here crying about a project was cut out of the bill and I 
am upset about it.
  I am glad, ladies and gentlemen, that we are here on this floor, and 
I am glad that we are representing on behalf of the American people. We 
are not the Democratic National Committee. We are Members of Congress. 
And it should

[[Page 2794]]

not be the Republican National Committee, it should be Members of 
Congress. That is what makes this House work, and that is the reason 
why it worked today on the continuing resolution.
  I am very happy that we did pass this continuing resolution. I am so 
glad that 57 Republicans joined Democrats in passing this continuing 
resolution, because it is showing that we are actually moving in a new 
direction, not just Democrats are moving in a new direction, but the 
U.S. House of Representatives is.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you, Mr. Meek, 
on behalf of my constituents and the people throughout this country for 
the vigilance that you and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan showed 
for the last 2 years, and in your case longer than that. There were a 
lot of things you could be doing late at night when Mr. Altmire and I 
might have caught you on TV into the wee hours. But you were out here 
spreading the message that it was time for working class, regular folks 
throughout this country to have their day here again. There had been 
enough time for the special interests and lobbyists and everyone else 
to have their day in Congress. It was time for regular people to have 
their day in the people's House.
  I want to add something. We use this term ``Republican leadership,'' 
and I think that is important. Because one of the things that you have 
figured out over the last couple of weeks is that there is a difference 
between the Republican leadership and a lot of the rest of the folks in 
the Republican Party.
  Maybe I should be careful to not give too much credit to the other 
side. But it seems like on every measure the Republican leadership 
trots out and says, the Republicans are going to be against raising the 
minimum wage, and they turn around to see who is following. And, guess 
what, they vote for it.
  The Republican leadership says, we are going to be against cutting 
the student loan interest rates. They run out here and turn around to 
see who is following them, and there are even more of their colleagues 
voting with the Democrats.
  They say, this process is broken, we are going to vote against this 
continuing resolution, and they turn around, and there are 50-some-odd 
of their Members supporting it.
  Why? Because, on average, we had 60-some-odd votes for every piece of 
the 100 hours agenda from the Republican side and 50-plus votes for the 
continuing resolution.
  Why do you have so many Republican votes? Because there are 
Republicans, just as there are Democrats, who are in touch with their 
constituents. When they go home for weekends, they hear about the 
struggles that middle-class families are going through to pay for 
health care and education.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to 
interject on that point.
  Because the funny thing, ironically funny, about what you are talking 
about, where we have an average of 62 Republicans supporting the Six in 
'06 agenda and 57 supporting the continuing resolutions appropriations 
bill today, the last 2 years, our experience, Mr. Ryan's, Mr. Meek's 
and my experience, is watching the Republican leadership wrench our 
colleagues's arms behind their back; and, in many cases, new Members 
replaced those Members. Those Members caved. Those Members either 
didn't vote their conscience.
  We used to talk about, in the 30-something hour, about how it seemed 
they checked their consciences and their beliefs and their 
constituents' beliefs at the door. They would come here and allow 
themselves to be influenced by their leadership and vote differently in 
some cases than they publicly said they would vote.
  I think that actually happened with your predecessor, Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. That's right. I think what happened here 
for the last 12 years, the agenda on the House floor was a Republican 
agenda. Republicans supported it, and they twisted some Republican arms 
to support it.
  The agenda that is now before the House of Representatives is a 
people's agenda. That is why you see Republicans and Democrats 
supporting it. Because the agenda doesn't have to do with somebody on 
the seventh floor of the Republican National Committee or somebody on 
the third floor of the Democratic National Committee. The agenda has to 
do with the people that we meet at the diner and the senior housing 
center.
  That is why I think for the next 2 years, I know for the next 2 
years, we are going to see Republicans and Democrats coming together. 
Because this isn't a party agenda anymore. This is a people's agenda. 
That may sound corny, but it is probably the best way to articulate 
what is happening here.
  As a new Member, it fills me with joy and pride to be part of this.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Two things that we did not mention that were 
also part of the Six in '06 agenda were ethics reform and the PAYGO 
rules. Mr. Altmire, I know you have been a supporter of both of those 
things.
  We had a culture of corruption hanging over this institution and over 
this Capitol, and we were able to adopt some ethics rules that make 
sure that we can restore the American people's confidence in their 
government again. That is what our freshman class on the Democratic 
side ran on. One of the issues that they ran on was making sure that 
they could inspire their constituents to believe in what we are doing 
here again.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. You are right. Those are the two things that we did the 
very first couple of days, right after we swore in that new class of 
freshmen and Democrats took control of Congress. We did away with the 
gifts and travel and the golf outings and the meals that had been so 
pervasive in Congress over the past several years.
  More importantly to what we are talking about tonight, we 
reinstituted the PAYGO budget scoring system. And for those Members who 
talk to their constituents at home, it is what they do in their home 
kitchens at the end of month. It is what we do when we have to balance 
our own budgets. You have to have money on one side of the ledger to 
pay for what goes out on the other side. It is a very simple concept.
  Unfortunately, this Congress right after this President took office 
decided to let that expire. That was required in Congresses past. But, 
unfortunately, this administration had other ideas; and so they ran up 
mountains of debt because they were no longer required to have money on 
the other side of the ledger when they wanted to continue their free-
spending ways.
  The result was when President Bush first took office he inherited 4 
consecutive years of budget surpluses that were forecast to continue as 
far as the eye could see. In fact, the 10-year budget projection was 
$5.3 trillion, trillion, with a ``T,'' in surplus over the 10-year 
period from 2001 to 2010.
  Well, what has happened since then? They allowed pay-as-you-go to 
expire. They have run up the deficit, $3.5 trillion of debt over the 
past 6 years. The President next week is going to submit to us his 
budget for fiscal year 2008. It is going to be his seventh consecutive 
out-of-balance budget. Those deficits continue as far as the eye can 
see.
  What we did in the first week when Democrats took control of 
Congress, we said, enough is enough. This must stop. We instituted the 
PAYGO scoring system, which is what turned the record deficits of the 
1980s into the record surpluses that we had in the 1990s.
  Now that led us to have to make some very difficult decisions in the 
continuing resolution that we passed today, but we have done it. We 
have done the hard work. We have talked about the increases that were 
included in the bill and the funding for veterans and for Pell Grants 
and for the new expanded health centers that are going to serve 1.2 
million patients around the country.
  But I do want to make clear to everybody that this measure also 
includes more than 60 different program cuts to help pay for that, to 
help balance that situation.

[[Page 2795]]



                              {time}  1900

  So those 60 programs were reduced below fiscal year 2006 funding 
proposals, and that provided the $10 billion in savings that we needed 
to offset those increases that we made in veterans health care and the 
other programs that we talked about.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I find it very interesting as the debate progressed 
today to hear all the conservatives who have been saying government's 
too big and then they blew the budget completely out of balance, 
borrowed money from China and they are here complaining about all this 
government is bad stuff, well, you are cutting this program and that 
program. That is why I think they have lost a lot of credibility with 
the American people, Mr. Speaker, is because there is no consistency 
with their argument.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Consistency.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No consistency. What they said last year, they did 
not do this year. What they did last year, they do not want us to do. 
There is no consistency to their argument at all. Consistency is the 
word for today, the lack thereof on the Republican side.
  As we close, because I know we just have a few minutes left, and I 
want to yield back to my friend from Florida, I think it is very 
interesting what we are seeing happening already. We talked a lot in 
the last couple of years about oversight and that when the Democrats 
were in charge, Mr. Speaker, we were going to provide oversight.
  Now, we start seeing things open up in Iraq, with all these 
contracts, from all these big corporations who were getting all these 
big government contracts, all of the sudden you are starting to see 
come out of these committee hearings exactly what has been going on. 
Now you are starting to see maybe the administration was strong arming 
some scientists to spin global climate change data. You are starting to 
see this all percolate up.
  I think one of the other things we said we are going to do is execute 
our constitutional obligation to provide oversight, and we are seeing 
that, and we are seeing the results of that with the global warming, 
with the war in Iraq, things happening, that didn't happen in Katrina, 
all starting to rise up.
  I want to thank the gentleman from the Pittsburgh area and the 
gentleman from Connecticut, my two favorite people from Florida. I want 
to thank you and I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz for her closing 
remarks.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think your comments are a good segue to 
where we should close which is that the Congress has now finally 
reasserted our constitutional role to be a check, a check and a balance 
over the other branches of government, particularly over the executive 
branch in which that authority and oversight was completely ceded over 
the last 12 years.
  I sit on the House Judiciary Committee. We had an oversight committee 
today on the presidential signing statement where the President, this 
President in particular more than any other President combined, has 
issued signing statements, his opinion and his interpretation of 
legislation which is really the judicial branch's responsibility, that 
he would just choose not to implement or implement in the way that he 
wanted to, a particular section of law, wholly inappropriate.
  Congress is back in our appropriate role, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about our Web site, but first to 
the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just want to warn the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that you need to say both the e-mail address and the Web 
site or you will be scolded by some of the more veteran Members of the 
30 Something Group. So I want to give you that piece of advice as you 
close.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut alerting me 
to that.
  For the Members who would like to tell the constituents how they can 
learn something more about the 30 Something Working Group, I would 
encourage them to e-mail us at [email protected] or they 
can visit the Web site at www.speaker.gov/30something.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the 30 Something Working Group 
appreciates the hour granted to us by Speaker  Nancy Pelosi.

                          ____________________