[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28952-28960]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 110TH CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this 
evening along with my colleagues from our freshman class. It is 
Halloween, and we are happy to be here. We know that our friends and 
neighbors are celebrating the holiday with their families, but we are 
going to talk about a little trick or treat, if you will, tonight. In 
addition, we are going to talk about some things that tie into a little 
bit of a Halloween theme and what is important in America right now. 
Back on the streets and back in the homes of the families that are 
very, very concerned about our country and the opportunities that their 
children have, taking care of their parents and grandparents, these are 
things that we recognize as all Members of Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans, that we have a responsibility to work with our businesses 
and our community leaders and our families to make sure that we make 
life a little bit better.
  Before I get into some of the details, I am going to yield to the 
president of our freshman class, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Walz).
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here 
tonight

[[Page 28953]]

with these great legislators to do several things. One is to reiterate 
the responsibilities of the first branch, article I of the 
Constitution, the House of Representatives and the Senate as coequal 
branches of our government, and also to highlight by the use of finally 
reinstating after 6 years of capitulation to the administration, 
finally illustrating to the American people what can be done when there 
is a coequal branch of government.
  As my colleague from Florida was speaking about Halloween, our 
children are home celebrating Halloween. And the President was very 
clever today when he talked about a bill that he saw disguised as a 
trick. This bill he talked about is the SCHIP legislation which has 43 
of our Nation's Governors supporting it, 273 Members of the House of 
Representatives, 68 Senators, and 81 percent of the American public.
  What the President does not realize any more is there is a coequal 
branch of government functioning here. The President also said we have 
been wasting time. This perception of Congress failing is not something 
that is done by chance. It is done on message. Many Members know that a 
former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich, when he talked about how 
to take control of this House, talked about the only way to do so was 
to destroy the credibility of this institution and to pull Congress 
down.
  Make no mistake, there is very much an idea here of obstructionism, 
but I want to be very clear: What the President talks about wasting 
time is things like ensuring the richest, most prosperous nation on 
Earth provides health care for its most vulnerable citizens, its 
children. The measure of this society, if it cannot be by what we are 
willing to do for our children, I am not sure there is another measure. 
And as we consider ourselves a great Nation, of which we are, the idea 
that this President would use the idea of fiscal conservativeness, 
after spending trillions and trillions into debt, and wasting, as you 
heard one of our previous colleagues speak about, money that 
disappeared, the money that has disappeared in Iraq and the waste on 
the contractors alone would pay for this bill. And this President asked 
us not to ask those questions.
  Well, if he thinks that looking for fraud, waste and abuse is wasting 
time, I guess his definition is correct. I would say it is our 
constitutional authority.
  Making college more affordable for middle-class Americans, making 
homeownership a reality based on fair lending practices, not predatory 
lending practices. And making sure we care for our veterans and for our 
soldiers. Those are the things that this Democratic Congress came here 
to do. We face massive opposition from a President who never even 
uttered the word ``veto'' in his first 6 years, but now utters it every 
single day on legislation that will improve this country. So I am proud 
to be part of this new class and I am proud to be part of this movement 
to once again reassert our authority on this.
  The President's definition of wasting time is this country's business 
that we are doing. He simply dislikes it because, as we all here agree, 
the President has a very different reality of what makes a great 
Nation. We would argue a great Nation is one that is founded on those 
principles that were so critically important to the founding of article 
I of our Constitution which my colleague is shortly going to discuss. I 
yield back, and I look forward to a lively conversation here about the 
real progress that is being made.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I think 
you have provided great leadership for all of us in our freshman class. 
We are freshmen now for 9 months.
  As you said, what the President categorizes as wasting time and the 
notion that nothing is getting done, well, there are some things that 
are getting done. Most importantly, there are some things that are on 
the brink. We will talk about a couple of those things.
  Before I turn it over to the gentleman who is going to talk about the 
balance of power and how we are going to get to where we want to go 
here, because that is the American value of our democracy, I am going 
to list a few of the items that we have passed in this Congress with 
Democrats and Republicans, Democrat leadership but Republicans coming 
together, many of them, and the President signed them. A couple of 
things that are very, very important, I know many of these subjects 
were talked about in our campaigns.
  Many people said 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, a thorough report 
that unfortunately most of it was not adopted. It has been adopted by 
this Congress in full and paid for.
  I come from an area in Florida where we have ports, two major 
seaports in my district, and many airports. Many of you from all over 
the country have the same thing. It's now fully funded. We are making 
sure that the cargo is screened and all of the cargo, whether seafaring 
or air, is moving along.
  PAYGO. We all believe in strong fiscal management. You only pay as 
you go. No more guessing we are going to have all this money in the 
future. No more taking the war and not even counting it against the 
national deficit. We now have a standard that was passed unanimously in 
this Congress. You can only spend what you have, just like you balance 
your books at home.
  We made ethics and lobbying a reform priority. We now have gift bans. 
I don't need a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. I can buy my own cup of 
coffee. It is a standard everybody should have, and now it is in place.
  We passed America COMPETES which is an innovative agenda supported by 
Chambers of Commerce all over the country, putting our priorities first 
in math and science and making sure the high-tech jobs will stay here.
  We have lower interest rates for education. We all know the 
importance of a college education is crucial. Every one of these bills 
I have ticked off so far, I have listed so far, were passed by this 
Congress and signed by the President. We are very, very proud of that. 
Again, we have to talk about it.
  There is a water resources bill for those with water projects. In my 
area, it is the Everglades. Many have polluted rivers and lakes and 
water issues. That bill was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. It 
is on the President's desk. He has said he may veto it. If he does, 
that may be the first bill that gets overridden because I think there 
are enough votes.
  And we will come back to SCHIP. It is a bipartisan supported bill 
written by Democrats and Republicans, and it is a wonderful bill. But 
before we get to SCHIP, I want to turn it over to Mr. Yarmuth of 
Kentucky to talk about what our democracy is all about and how this 
balance of power needs to come through.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and 
it's a pleasure to be here with my distinguished colleagues from the 
class of 2006 talking about the issues that confront this Congress and 
this Nation and also some of the issues that we have in dealing with 
the basic functioning of government, which is one of the reasons we're 
here tonight.
  And I'm so happy that my colleague from Minnesota mentioned the 
President's statement that we were wasting time and doing many of these 
things. I can only think when I heard him make that statement, did he 
really think that maybe the Founding Fathers were wasting their time 
when they wrote the Constitution? Because the first thing they did when 
they wrote the Constitution was write article I, which established the 
Congress of the United States and vested all legislative powers in the 
Congress of the United States, not some of them, not those dealing with 
certain subjects, but all of them in the Congress of the United States.
  And the reason they did that was simple. They had escaped. They had 
revolted to escape a dictatorial form of government when one person was 
the decider. We've had one person who thinks he's the decider in the 
White House, and we've had members of both parties who have been in the 
White House and felt that they were the deciders, but that's not what 
the Founding Fathers envisioned.
  They envisioned a representative democracy in which people that they 
sent

[[Page 28954]]

to decide how the government would affect their lives would make those 
decisions, and that's why they put article I first. That's why they 
created the executive branch in article II of the Constitution, and 
that's why when we act, whether it's to provide health insurance for 
kids, whether it's to provide resources for water projects throughout 
the country, whether it's to provide for the Defense Department for our 
soldiers, our brave men and women fighting overseas, for our veterans, 
whether it's when we try to create a new energy policy for this 
country, when we try to provide a sound and high-quality education for 
everyone in this country, that we're doing it pursuant to the powers, 
and not just the powers but the responsibilities that the Founding 
Fathers vested in this very body.
  So, when the President says we're wasting time, I would beg to 
differ, because if we're wasting time, then the Founding Fathers wasted 
time when they wrote the Constitution.
  And that's why it's so important that we focus not just on what we do 
here but why we're doing it and the fact that we are actually realizing 
the direction and the decisions made by those great men 220 years ago 
when they formed this Constitution that determines how we operate in 
this country and that has served this country so well for so long.
  So I look forward to the next few minutes of discussion, and once 
again, I'm so proud to be here talking about how we're putting article 
I to use for the benefit of the American people.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman 
from Kentucky for really highlighting the importance of article I. I 
mean, it's something we all went to elementary school and middle and 
high school and learned about our Constitution, but it is that balance 
of power that really sets our country out from any other country in the 
world, any other democracy.
  And I know the gentleman from New Hampshire has also taken a real 
lead in explaining and talking about the application of this and how 
the abuses have just been out there. So, if the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Hodes), would share some of your thoughts with us.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm very 
glad to be here on this Halloween night. I'd like to think this is a 
treat for us, a treat for those who are listening to us or watching on 
television and in the country, although lots of folks are probably out 
with their kids trick-or-treating tonight.
  But it is an absolute honor to be here with the Members of the class 
of 2006, and many of us are wearing article I buttons. And the 
importance of those buttons is to raise the awareness in Congress and 
around the country about the importance of the checks and balances in 
our system of government.
  We spoke last week about some of these issues, and I was flooded with 
calls not just from my constituents but from people around the country 
thanking us for talking about the checks and balances in our system and 
explaining in as clear a way as we could the importance of our system 
of government and why the Founding Fathers put Congress first.
  Many people think that Congress is three coequal branches of 
government. Many people think that the President and the House of 
Representatives and the Senate somehow are coequal when actually the 
Congress, in article I of our Constitution, as the people's House, as 
the voice of the people, is given preeminence.
  It is the Congress that makes the laws, not the President. The 
President doesn't make the law. He's got to follow the law that 
Congress makes. It is the Congress that raises the money to run 
government, to fill the programs, and Congress that spends the money we 
raise. It is Congress that has the power to assess taxes, levy taxes. 
It is Congress that has the power to declare war and only Congress that 
has the power to declare war.
  And these days, as we contemplate very difficult issues of war and 
peace in the Middle East, our involvement in Iraq and around the world, 
those powers, the war powers of Congress, versus the powers asserted by 
this President have come into sharp focus and occasional sharp 
contrast. I believe that we're going to see in the days ahead those 
kinds of debates in this people's House as we discuss who has the power 
to take this country into armed conflict, who has the power to declare 
war or not, are we at war. These are questions that are going to be 
heard.
  There's a very interesting example of the clash between the assertion 
of Presidential power, which we've seen here, and the real power that 
Congress has. Right now, as many of my colleagues know, the House 
Judiciary Committee, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee, is 
investigating. These committees are investigating whether there was 
something amiss in the way the United States Attorney's Office was run, 
whether there was political interference with United States attorneys. 
And Congress, the Judiciary Committee, has issued subpoenas.
  Subpoenas are the method by which a body that has the power to make 
witnesses come issues a subpoena that says to a witness, you've got to 
come and testify under oath. And Congress has issued subpoenas to two 
members of the White House, who previously were in the White House, 
Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. They have refused to come to testify 
before Congress, and a question arises.
  Congress can hold them in contempt and then ask the Justice 
Department to enforce that contempt, and right now we're looking at a 
new Attorney General possibly for this country. He was asked, this 
Attorney General who was nominated by the President, he was asked 
whether or not if Congress holds these witnesses in contempt for not 
answering the subpoenas, would his Justice Department refer the matter 
to grand jury for criminal prosecution as Federal law requires. Mr. 
Mukasey, the nominee for the Attorney General, suggested that his 
answer would be no.
  Now, this is not the law. That is not the proper balance for Congress 
and the President. He made, in addition, a startling claim. He claimed, 
this is the possible Attorney General of the United States, that the 
President of the United States could defy the law as it's written in 
Congress if he believed that it was his responsibility to defend the 
country. That is a huge exception to the rule that Congress' laws are 
supreme and it is Congress that makes the law and the President is to 
follow them.
  So this issue, what is Congress' power, what are the powers given to 
us by article I and how we assert them, and the clash between 
congressional power and Presidential power is alive today. It's going 
on right now, and it's of vital importance to the future of this 
country as we decide whether we are a Nation of laws or a Nation of 
men.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman from New 
Hampshire. I think you bring up something that although back home when 
people are thinking about these issues, they don't necessarily think 
about the battle between the President and Congress or the battle 
between the agency head and Congress.
  But I think the bottom line is what you just said. It's about the 
rule of law. I mean, every American accepts the fact we're a Nation of 
laws, we live by the rule of law, and there's nobody that gets excepted 
from that, whether it's someone who's cleaning an office or whether 
it's someone who's an accountant or whether it's the President of the 
United States. We're equal, and it doesn't have to mean somebody's been 
elected or not. We're all under the same law. I think that's the bottom 
line of this whole consideration.
  I now would like to bring into this conversation a colleague of ours 
from the freshman class, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition. It's a great 
honor to be a member of this class and a Member of this Congress.
  I can testify, having spent really a lifetime in local and State 
government, about the talent level that exists in this class and, to be 
honest, this Congress. There are numerous people who

[[Page 28955]]

are committed to issues and have a wealth of talent and knowledge, and 
they put that to work on a daily basis to try to come up with the best 
solutions for the American people for a new direction in this country.
  The gentlemen I'm with are four of the leaders in this class and in 
this Congress. I really want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Yarmuth) for bringing this article I issue to the fore. The op-ed 
written in the New York Times by Mr. Adam Cohen really brought forth 
all the points that Congressman Yarmuth thought about when he brought 
this campaign to our attention and the freshman class adopted it.
  Article I does make it clear that Congress makes the laws and 
Congress is where the power starts. It's really supposed to be the 
strongest arm of government because it truly represents the people, and 
this House has 435 Members. Each Member in the history of this House, 
and there have been about 10,000 people who have served in this House 
over the history, have been elected. Nobody, if there's a vacancy, gets 
appointed. In this place, not like the United States Senate or your 
State legislature, there aren't any interim appointments. Every person 
is elected by the people at home and they're supposed to represent 
those people, and I think it happens here.
  This House needs to assert its power, and one of the areas where it's 
been doing it, particularly in the Government Reform Committee which 
Mr. Waxman chairs, and looking into actions of this administration is 
also the Judiciary Committee, where I'm blessed to be a member with 
Chairman John Conyers. We've had the opportunity to look into the 
Justice Department, which Mr. Hodes brought up. The Justice Department 
we found has politicized that office to the extent that it's really 
embarrassing I think to us as members of the committee, Members of us 
particularly who are attorneys and know what the attorneys and judges 
are supposed to be in terms of being impartial in the way they mete out 
justice, and I think to the judiciary at large in this country.
  The politicization of that office has been greater than I think at 
anytime in the history of this country. The cases that have been 
brought we have found have been based, oftentimes, on the politics of 
who the defendant is.
  We had the discussion last week of the case in Mississippi where one 
gentleman was indicted and another gentleman was not investigated. The 
gentlemen did the same exact thing. They each guaranteed loans, which 
was legal in Mississippi, to a justice, a Justice Diaz of the Supreme 
Court.
  One gentleman made contributions that guaranteed a contribution of 
$65,000. Another gentleman guaranteed contributions of $80,000. The 
gentleman who guaranteed the $65,000 was indicted and tried in a 
Federal court. The gentleman that made the $80,000 contribution wasn't 
indicted or even investigated.
  They each loaned a home to Justice Diaz when he had family problems 
and needed a new place to stay. They were co-owners of the home, Mr. 
Scruggs and Mr. Minor. The one gentleman who was the man that made the 
$65,000 loan and was indicted was indicted for loaning his home to the 
Supreme Court justice. The other gentleman wasn't.
  What were the differences in the gentlemen? Well, one man was one of 
the top ten contributors to John Edwards for President, a Democrat. One 
man supported Democrats and trial lawyer issues in Mississippi. He was 
indicted. He was convicted the second time, and he's spending now, 
started serving 11 years in jail and was fined $4.5 million, 15 times 
what was recommended.
  The other gentleman, man named Dickie Scruggs, is also a trial 
lawyer. He wasn't even investigated. He did the same exact thing. He 
donated a half a million dollars to Republican activity, a quarter of a 
million dollars to the Bush-Cheney reelection effort, and he, for 
whatever reason, may have nothing to do with it, he happens to be the 
brother-in-law of one of our colleagues in the Senate, Trent Lott.
  So if you look at that case, and it's hard for anybody to look at it 
and think that there wasn't politically selective prosecutions, which 
makes Lady Justice have to turn her eyes and maybe shed tears at what's 
happened in Mississippi. That's happened in Alabama where a Governor 
was indicted and convicted of things that ordinarily wouldn't even be 
investigated.
  We've seen U.S. attorneys, Republicans, appointed by President Bush 
fired because they didn't go after Democrats or they didn't go after 
voting actions that people in the Republican Party wanted pursued.
  So oversight's real important in the Judiciary Committee. We've seen 
it. And the Justice Department, I mean, that's an area where Caesar's 
wife should be beyond reproach. Every area of government should be 
beyond reproach, but justice first. Justice is supposed to be blind, 
and justice has not been blind, and the work of Chairman Conyers and 
his staff and the members of that committee exposed much of that.
  This Congress has done a lot of good. The idea that Mr. Yarmuth 
brought up from the President where he suggested we've been wasting 
time, that's ridiculous. The fact he's tried to veto bills or has 
vetoed bills and threatened vetoes shows we've been doing some things 
that are effective and good.

                              {time}  1845

  The minimum wage should have happened years ago. We finally got a 
minimum wage. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder needed 
that step up. We passed the minimum wage.
  People that need a step up and to start college educations, they got 
Pell Grant increases, they got the cost of their loans reduced so they 
won't be saddled with high interest rates in the future on their loans. 
To help kids get a start and go to a college and to not, when they get 
out, have a tremendous debt to pay back is important. To be able to 
have Pell Grant money to give them a better start is important. These 
are two of the best initiatives that I think we have seen.
  When I was a State Senator I worked on college scholarships, and I 
worked on minimum wage. I am happy to be in a Congress that have seen 
both of them effectuated and made a change.
  We have looked at global warming, we have passed some bills that 
require renewable energies, and we have looked at bills that will help 
clean up our environment, which is definitely in jeopardy. And we have 
looked at the budget. We have put our future generations in debt, this 
administration and this Congress, by spending, spending, spending, not 
having a PAYGO bill.
  The future of this country is in jeopardy because of the recklessness 
of the past Republican Congress and this President for spending too 
much money, sacrificing our goodwill overseas with a foreign policy 
that has been reckless after we had a President in Bill Clinton who had 
a balanced budget, a surplus, in fact, and the respect of the world for 
this country. We have lost the respect of the world, we have lost our 
budget surplus, and, finally, we have restored a modicum of fairness by 
giving an increase in the minimum wage, increases to kids going to 
college, help with health care and work on the environment.
  I am very proud to be a Member of this Congress, this class and this 
Congress, and the differences you see are healthy and good. Rubber 
stamp shouldn't exist in government. There should be healthy debate. 
The conflict of ideas produces better ideas. That's why this Democratic 
Congress is so important to the future of this country.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. We are very proud to have the gentleman from 
Tennessee as one of our colleagues and a great contributor to the 
freshman class, particularly on accountability. There have been so many 
members of our class that came in with the criticism of our campaigns 
that we had heard from so many people back home, who is the check and 
balance? Who is minding the store? What happened to that $8 billion of 
cash that disappeared on the streets of Iraq? What's with Blackwater? 
What's with all these kinds of things? Who is checking what's going on 
here?
  You know, it's one thing to say you are going to run things like a 
business,

[[Page 28956]]

it's another to do it. Businesses have known checks and balances, 
shareholders, managers, things like that. Unfortunately, it wasn't 
happening with this government. It's now changing.
  I am very proud of you and the others. I am very proud to have 
another gentleman with us, the gentleman from Vermont, who has been at 
the forefront of the committee itself, working with Mr. Waxman. I know 
you have been very vocal on these issues, so I am going to turn it over 
to the gentleman, Mr. Welch, from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you. I really think that everything that 
the gentleman from Tennessee said is right.
  The question that I ask myself at times is how is it, if we have been 
doing a good job and accomplishing the things that you recited, so many 
of the American people think we are not doing much at all, or we are 
doing a bad job? That is a sentiment that a lot of folks have. It's in 
conflict, in my view, with many of the concrete things that we have 
done here in the House.
  I will tell you what I think it is. Back in Vermont, people are 
asking me, when are we going to the stop the war, and when are we going 
to change the priorities of this country so that we are standing up for 
the needs of average, middle-income families and not just the wealthy, 
not just corporations who can get legislation passed.
  They are also asking the question that Mr. Yarmuth has presented in 
very stark form, when are we going to reassert our own constitutional 
authority and be willing to stand up to the President? I am hearing 
from people in my State, really good people, real Democrats, real 
Republicans, and they are saying even when Congress is right, it seems 
that they are not willing to stand up to the President.
  I think some of the frustration is that on the war there has been no 
change by the President, despite the efforts of many of us in Congress, 
and that's a fact.
  Number two, there has been some sense that even when we are right 
here in Congress, we are not willing to hold our ground.
  I want to address both of those.
  First of all, on the war, the bottom line reality is that the 
President of the United States has an immense amount of power. We have 
article I power, but he has executive power. Despite the fact that the 
people of this country voted across the country from Vermont to Ohio to 
Pennsylvania to California and chose a new Congress, and a clear 
message of that election and decision by the people was that we wanted 
a new direction in Iraq, the President ignored that election.
  He then ignored that March vote of the House of Representatives where 
we put a date certain on ending the war, August of 2008. Think about 
where we would be and what kind of optimism we would have in this 
country if that legislation was signed by the President instead of 
vetoed.
  Then the President, of course, dismissed the advice of retired 
generals who are critical of the war, and, of course, paid no attention 
whatsoever to the Iraq Study Commission. I have come to the conclusion 
that the President is not at all going to bend, no matter what, and we 
have to be willing to fight that battle with him day in and day out.
  Second, on the priorities, there is good news. I mean, this House, 
oftentimes with a bipartisan vote, has shifted the priorities to 
middle-class needs. The minimum wage was raised. The student loan cost 
of interest was cut in half. Prescription drugs are going to be 
negotiated, price negotiations so we can lower the cost, make it more 
accessible to seniors, less costly to taxpayers.
  All of this we did by returning to pay-as-you-go principles, so we 
are not going to bankrupt future generations. The largest increase in 
the veterans budget in the history of the country.
  All of that is important. It reflects that we are actually walking 
the walk of trying to change priorities. It's not getting out into the 
public either because it can't get through the Senate or it gets vetoed 
by the President.
  We are going to be talking, I guess, a little bit about children's 
health care. But that's an example where it was the right thing we did 
to insure 10 million kids in this country. The President vetoed it. We 
made some minor adjustments, not nickel and diming about which kids we 
take off of health care, passed it again, and we will be sending it 
back to the President. I think that's the type of thing that we need to 
do.
  But I also do believe that any time this Congress has an opportunity 
to hold its ground and essentially embrace and accept the 
responsibility that the Constitution gives this Congress under article 
I, we have to do it, whether it's on war funding, when we believe we 
are right, we have to be able to weather the storm; whether it's on 
budgets that are going to get vetoed when those budgets reflect the 
bipartisan consensus in this body that they meet the needs of average 
people, and that they comply with our obligation to pay our bill as we 
go.
  There is good news, but we also have to acknowledge that there is 
much more fighting to be done, and that it's time for us in the right 
circumstances to hold our ground, to be willing to weather the storm of 
criticism that will come from the White House machine and to stand up 
for that change and direction that I believe the people of this country 
voted for in November.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And thank you, Mr. Welch. It really was very 
well explained and easy to follow. I think what people in this country 
respect is the fight. The fight is good, but at the end of the days, 
results. The President has made it very difficult, unfortunately. He 
has been unwilling to come out of his corner. A lot of alternatives 
have been offered on the war, a lot of alternatives have been offered 
on SCHIP which we are going to talk about in a minute, a lot of 
alternatives.
  As we have talked about already, there have been a lot of 
accomplishments, student loans, minimum wage, people competing in 
business. We have had a lot of good things so far which the President 
has signed, which is good. But there is more to do. We need to get him 
sort of out of the view that it's him versus the Congress, or his 
ideology versus the rest of the country. People want consensus. They 
want solutions.
  I would like to turn to Mr. Solution himself here, because Mr. 
Ellison from Minnesota has really totally been bringing a lot of 
consensus on a whole lot of issues, from our foreign policy issues to 
our domestic issues. I want to bring you into this conversation and 
please add some value to it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Klein. Whether it be from 
Colorado to Vermont, from Kentucky to Tennessee, to Minnesota, to 
Florida, no matter where we come from, this freshman class that we 
belong to is here to stay and here to say, very clearly, that we are 
reclaiming the coequal branch of this legislative body in our 
constitutional framework. We don't have another branch of government 
which we take orders from. We don't have to prove patriotism by servile 
behavior towards the executive branch. We stand up with doing our 
constitutional responsibility, and our only boss is the American 
people, not the President, not the courts.
  Article I states, all legislative power herein granted shall be 
vested in the Congress of the United States. Part of that power is, of 
course, passing laws and, of course, all of you, my fine colleagues, 
have made it clear that we have been productive, we have been busy, we 
have been putting up the fight, and we have been passing legislation 
that this President should sign and, in fact, in many cases has signed. 
But we have also done something else which I am proud of, and that is 
provided oversight. We have subpoenaed people and made them come to 
these hearings. We have asked people the questions, the tough 
questions, and made them give forth the right answer.
  Why, on the Judiciary Committee just this week, we had Mr. Tanner, 
who is the section chief of the voting section. He offered the opinion 
that, actually I wish I had it written down, because I don't want to 
get it wrong, but he offered the opinion that voter

[[Page 28957]]

ID bills may affect seniors because they live longer, but when it comes 
to minority seniors they die, so it doesn't really matter for them. 
Chairman Conyers issued that request for him to come to that committee, 
and we asked him questions about voting rights. We asked him about how 
that department was being run. We asked him the tough questions that 
Americans expect us to ask.
  But that's not all. Chairman Nadler of the committee has had 
constitutional hearings, and we have had people come in and talk about 
important issues, and, of course, Representative Cohen has been there 
as well, on Guantanamo, on habeas corpus. These are the kinds of things 
that Americans are concerned about because America will never be a 
place where we give up on our constitutional protections and our civil 
liberties.
  I just want to say that I am so proud to be a Member of this freshman 
class that is not only passing legislation, not only standing up for 
its right as a coequal branch of government, but is calling people on 
the carpet and asking the tough questions as it is our job to do. The 
American people expect us to say, What's going on? Tell us what's going 
on. What have you done? Why have you done it?
  That is our job, and we will continue to do it, because we don't work 
for anybody but for the American people. Not the judiciary. Not the 
executive branch. We are enshrined in article I of the Constitution, 
coequal branch of government, that branch of government in which all 
vested power to legislate is inside of us.
  Mr. Klein, I want to thank you for conducting yet another excellent 
freshman hour.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ellison.
  Just to follow up on the point, a number of our colleagues have been 
talking about the idea of oversight and accountability. Well, the 
simple answer is not just for the exercise of bringing people in by 
subpoena or asking them to come in and talk, it's to learn from your 
mistakes.
  It's a very simple principle. What do we teach our children? Learn 
from your mistakes. What do you do in business? You want to learn from 
your mistakes. That, of course, is what the whole purpose of this is. 
If we see something has gone wrong, accountability, some bad business 
practices that the government is involved with or paid for something 
they shouldn't have paid for, let's not let it happen again. That's the 
simple bottom line.
  I would like to shift, because many of our Members are interested--
thank you, Mr. Hodes, otherwise known as Vanna White--Mr. Hodes is 
holding up a little poster here which talks about the children's SCHIP 
plan. The SCHIP plan, as I think everyone is now familiar with, or many 
people are in our country, or certainly Members of Congress are, it's 
about making sure that children, low-income children can participate in 
a health care plan that's private health insurance.
  It makes the parents pay on a sliding scale what they can afford. It 
leverages tax dollars. It does everything it's supposed to do. Our 
business community back home in my area loves it. It's very popular 
because instead of kids going to the emergency room, they are going 
where they should go, and that is to get doctor and preventative health 
care.
  We have had a bipartisan plan that has now been passed twice out of 
this chamber, and the President vetoed it one time, and I guess he is 
going to veto it again, but bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans 
coming together, not everybody, but all the Democrats, I think, just 
about all, and many Republicans.
  In the Senate, I think the Republicans are the ones who helped draft 
this. It really brings it together. A quick little fun thing on 
Halloween here, it talks about the trick-or-treat and the Republican 
plan, we are just sort of joking around a little bit, but we are 
calling it the trick, and the bipartisan plan the treat.
  The Republican plan, which we are calling the trick, covers 8.3 
million children. The treat, the plan that most of us are pushing, 
Democrats and Republicans, covers 10 million. This is an additional 
number of children that we believe are part of this plan that we want 
to get covered.
  The targeting of low-income kids, in the Republican plan it targets 
fewer lowest-income children. In the Democratic plan, the one we just 
passed, it enrolls the lowest-income kids first, a goal that we all 
want to make sure that we are covering.

                              {time}  1900

  And of course there is a cigarette tax in both plans, the exact same 
cigarette tax to pay for it. The question though is, if the same amount 
of money is being raised, why are we covering 10 million in the 
Democratic bipartisan plan and we're only covering 8.3 million in the 
Republican plan? Where's the money going? So we obviously want to have 
the lowest taxes possible, but we want to cover the most number of 
children. And I know that that's something that I know the president of 
our class has been very interested in.
  I know that Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado has joined us in our 
freshman class, has taken a lead in, and I know your experiences in 
Colorado. Maybe you can share some of your thoughts on the SCHIP plan 
with our group here in the Chamber today.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I thank my friend from Florida. This is a place 
where the Democrats and Republicans have come together to look after 
kids from hardworking families across this country. This is not 
something that is just given out, and it doesn't make any fiscal sense 
or anything else. This is for people coming from hardworking families 
where the kids don't have insurance. And instead of going to the 
doctors, which is the most fiscally prudent way for a kid to be 
treated, they have to go to the emergency room, and at the emergency 
room, then, we, the taxpayers, pick up the bill. It's the most 
expensive form of medical care we could have. So it makes utter sense 
that we provide insurance to 10 million kids across this country from 
hardworking families so that they don't have to go to the emergency 
room, so they can go to their doctor, get proper treatment. But that 
just doesn't seem to be acceptable to the President of the United 
States.
  Here we are wanting to bring change. We promised our constituents 
that we were going to change the way this Nation's being run, and one 
of those places is providing insurance in a prudent fashion for kids 
from hardworking families. But we have a President who wants the status 
quo, does not want to assist the hardworking people in the middle, and 
those are the folks that make up my district. It's not a rich district. 
It's not poor. Financially, it's right down the middle and people are 
struggling. And one of the first things to go when you're putting food 
on the table is insurance. And we want to make sure that 10 million 
kids have that insurance in this country. We passed it once; we passed 
it twice. This President says he's going to veto it again. He's about 
the status quo. He calls himself prudent fiscally, a fiscal 
conservative. Just the opposite, ladies and gentlemen, just the 
opposite.
  So my friends, you know, we came here to change the direction of this 
Nation. We passed a stem cell bill which would have provided relief to 
millions of people across this country or hope for them who have 
debilitating diseases. We passed the SCHIP bill for 10 million kids.
  But this President, he doesn't want change. He wants things as usual. 
He wants Washington to run as usual. We are going to keep knocking on 
his door until we change the direction of this Nation. And I'm happy to 
be part of a class that is going to fight every day to do the right 
thing for our constituents and for the future of this Nation.
  And with that, I'll yield back to my friends from Florida or 
Minnesota or New Hampshire, although he's not my friend, because I lost 
a bet on the Boston Red Sox game. But I would yield back to my friends.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. The Colorado Rockies were playing. That's 
right.
  We're going to turn it back to the gentleman from Minnesota to get 
some thoughts on SCHIP and other things.

[[Page 28958]]


  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the passion 
from my friend from Colorado. And he's exactly right. When we came to 
this Congress with a debt that was skyrocketed, no accountability, a 
President who said he was the decider and a Congress here that thought 
that their job was to just be an echo chamber for this President, much 
has changed. Unfortunately, the President doesn't realize that yet, and 
that's why we get a lot of gridlock that's happened.
  But the gentleman brought up some very interesting points considering 
SCHIP and this idea of funding. I think that one of the issues that 
many of us agree on here is fiscal responsibility is an absolute 
priority because, unlike the previous Congresses, we understand that 
there will be a day of reckoning, and it will come for our children and 
our grandchildren. And it's putting this country in a position where I 
read an article here out of the Hong Kong Standard talking about where 
places around the world, when you would travel, and many of us have, 
where taxi drivers and store owners would take the U.S. dollars, 
they're no longer taking that. They're saying no because our currency 
is now seen as something that's not as stable, a nation that's in debt, 
a nation that's seen as a rogue nation to people. Those are the types 
of things that this administration did mainly because of what Mr. 
Yarmuth and the other members of this class have said, we did not 
exercise our right.
  And as far as SCHIP goes, when we create a budget, and we want to 
balance this budget and we will, we understand it's far more than a 
fiscal document. It's also a reflection of this Nation's values and 
morals. And this issue of trying to cover our children, and I've heard 
my Republican colleagues say this is an attempt to expand coverage, to 
make it socialized or nationalized medicine.
  Well, my colleagues have no real plan how to deal with this. They 
continue to pull this up. The bottom line here is the richest, most 
prosperous, greatest Nation this Earth has ever seen is leaving 
children uncovered. But it gets worse than that.
  A Harvard study that recently came out shows one in eight of our 
veterans are not covered by health care insurance, those who have 
served this Nation most honorably. This President has decided when he 
had fiscally irresponsible budgets, we couldn't balance the VA budget, 
the President simply made a great decision here. He cut off 400,000 
veterans, sliced them off the bottom by saying they don't qualify. 
These could be combat veterans in my district making $27,801. They are 
not injured in combat and they make too much money. Well, all of us 
know that's not going to buy you health insurance.
  So this issue of SCHIP, this idea of trying to cover our veterans, 
what this President fails to realize is the values of the vast majority 
of people in this Nation that sent this class to Congress are not the 
ones he shares. And the talk of, we can't afford this, while telling 
our Judiciary Committee and our Oversight Committee that we can't ask 
questions about no-bid contracts and billions of dollars lost is 
unacceptable. And it is unacceptable because it stops in this Chamber. 
We are here to represent the districts of the people that sent us here, 
and we have an obligation by article I to fulfill those.
  So this issue of SCHIP is not the smoke and mirrors you're hearing. 
It's, bottom line, covering our children. The issue of VA funding is 
simply, bottom line, X number of veterans, X number of costs this 
Nation should provide it. If you choose not to do that, then have the 
courage to tell the American people you are more interested in a tax 
cut to the top 1 percent than caring for children and veterans. But we 
won't hear that because this is about elections. This is about a vision 
of America that extends to next November.
  This group gathered here tonight is about a vision of America that 
extends to the next generation, one that once again puts us in our 
rightful place.
  So I couldn't be more proud. The gentleman from Florida has been a 
long-time advocate of caring for those in our society, the least 
fortunate, as well as making a fair society and growing opportunities. 
It's what we're all about. The old used-up cliches don't resonate with 
the public anymore. The old used-up cliches are nothing more than a way 
to try and hold on to a political ideology that is dead in this 
country, and it's time has passed. And we are once again here to 
reassert that.
  So with that, I yield back to my esteemed colleague from Florida and 
look forward to the rest of our conversation.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you very much, the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  We have a very, very special guest today, an honorary member of our 
freshman class, a senior Member of the Congress, the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, who'd like to join us and add something 
to our conversation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, my first act is to give my greatest 
appreciation for this caring and vested freshman class, front liners, 
front thinkers, front runners running toward the next generation. I 
cannot thank you enough for joining this Congress with one mission, and 
that is that we are, servants of America.
  And I've asked today, officially, on the record, to get that article 
I pin, and to reemphasize the language that my good friend has before 
him by just holding up the Constitution and reinforcing the language 
that all powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the 
United States, which shall consist of the Senate and the House.
  And I just want to speak, somewhat weaving in to this idea of 
veterans and the war in Iraq and why we have the ability even to 
address that question of the Iraq war, because as my colleagues know, 
there was never a constitutional declaration of war. It was statutory. 
That was in the fall of 2002 when, by public law, we gave the President 
simply an opportunity to negotiate and then ultimately, if necessary, 
to use force.
  So I raise the question, because Congress has, in some sense, been 
stifled by others not thinking the way the American people have asked 
us to think and act, and that is to focus resources on veterans, on the 
domestic agenda, and to be able to say that we have, in essence, 
finished our job in Iraq.
  And so I wanted to offer to my good friends H.R. 4020 that the 
chairman of the Veterans Committee has joined me in offering, or 
introducing, which calls itself the Military Success Act. And of course 
all eyebrows will be raised. Sounds conflicted. But I thought and 
thought about this, and I continue to hear the terminology, cut-and-
run, not willing to support the troops. So we went to the Pentagon, and 
in this legislation we chronicle all of the successes of the United 
States Military, in particular in Iraq. We do it in Iraq and not 
Afghanistan because that's an ongoing mission. We know that there's 
more work to be done there. And we come to a conclusion, and I'll just 
briefly read this: That the public law that we voted on in 2002 
authorized by the President to use military force against Iraq, it goes 
on to list the indicia or the points of that bill. And it concludes by 
saying, according to that public law, we believe that, in fact, all of 
this has been achieved. A simple statement. It doesn't follow up by 
saying, come home. Of course, that's what I would suggest once you read 
a statement that says all that you were asked to do, the United States 
Military, you've achieved it. And we finish this up by calling on 
America to have days of proclamation and ribbons, and as these soldiers 
come home, unlike Vietnam, that we actually have days of recognition 
for those soldiers. And ultimately it finishes, because I heard my 
distinguished colleague speak of veterans, by giving these returning 
soldiers a $5,000 stipend.
  Now, this does not leave out Afghanistan soldiers. This really 
appeals or deals with the whole idea of the fact that their mission is 
completed. We do it in a way to call it a military success. And we know 
that there are many other things that need to be done. But what that 
does is it gives Congress the

[[Page 28959]]

power to make its own statement that the initiative that we voted for, 
statutory, the public law in 2002 that gave powers is now being brought 
to an end, that we, as a Congress, are saying that we applaud our 
military, and those resources that are now being used for the war, $120 
billion, can be used for SCHIP, can be used to fix Medicare.
  I sat down with some seniors who wanted us to fix the prescription 
part D. They said, Can you help us? Can you get back in there and help 
us to understand it?
  And then of course, what it does, it honors our soldiers. It dashes 
this whole cut-and-run, this whole accusation of being nonpatriotic.
  And so I thank my colleagues for letting me present H.R. 4020 in 
conjunction with the recognition of article I. This bill was introduced 
today. I encourage my colleagues to sign on. We think that it has a 
very important statement as to the authority of the Congress and the 
responsibilities of the Congress to control a statute that it gave 
powers, and seemingly the President is not willing to acknowledge that 
the task and the job is well done on behalf of the United States 
Military in Iraq. We can do better, and I think the American people are 
waiting for the article I-ers to take charge so that we can get back on 
our agenda of serving the American public.
  I thank you for giving me the opportunity to join an important 
debate. I look forward to the article I pin.
  And finally, I hope that the American public will get it, knowing 
that the Congress has to have the authority to go forward on their 
behalf.
  This legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 
2007,'' recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in 
achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, 
encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration 
commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and 
provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation 
from a grateful nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq.
  As I have stated many times, ``when our heroic young men and women 
willingly sacrifice life or limb on the battlefield, the nation has a 
moral obligation to ensure that they are treated with respect and 
dignity. One reason we are the greatest nation in the world is because 
of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve 
to know that a grateful nation cares about them.''
  My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 
2007, H.R. 4020 pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and 
heroism of those who fought in Iraq in the following ways:
  A. Provides an express acknowledgment by the Congress that the 
objectives for which the AUMF resolution of 2002 authorized the use of 
force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States, 
which performed magnificently in battle;
  B. Recounts several notable achievements of the Armed Forces in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom;
  C. Authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
American people to observe a national day of celebration commemorating 
the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. This will help ensure that 
the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of other open-ended engagements 
like the Korean War, which is often called the ``Forgotten War'';
  D. Authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the Secretary 
of Defense to state and local governments to assist in defraying the 
costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' homecoming and 
commemoration activities and in creating appropriate memorials honoring 
those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the casualties in the 
Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural or economically 
depressed areas. The local governments are already facing substantial 
fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the necessary; and
  E. Creates a program and authorizes funds to be appropriated pursuant 
to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award to each veteran 
of the Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom a grant of $5,000 
to facilitate the transition to civilian life. We don't want veterans 
to end up homeless or unemployed or unable to take their kids on a 
vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus is but a small token of 
the affection the people of the United States have for those who risked 
their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom.
  Outside my office there is a poster board with the names and faces of 
those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing the 
uniform of our country. It is humbling to recognize how lucky we are to 
live in a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer 
knowing they may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice so that 
their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. The intent of my 
legislation is to pay fitting tribute to these great men and women and 
to let them know they will not be forgotten. I request and welcome your 
support in making this message heard.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. This is 
exactly what this Congress is doing. It's coming up with a lot of new 
ideas that need to be put out there, debated, discussed, and hopefully 
passed. And I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Article I himself, the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman, and I have a button for the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, and I look forward to giving it 
to her. I thank her for endorsing the type of emphasis that we're 
trying to place on this very important discussion of the balance of 
powers in this country.
  You know, there's another element to this whole question, a balance 
of powers, and it really is reflected in the debate over the SCHIP 
program. Because while we debate, on the one hand, the actual 
legislative powers and how we might enforce those through the courts 
and so forth, there's another competition going on, and it's the 
competition that goes on in the media and in the public dialogue. And 
here is where there is an inherent advantage for the executive branch. 
And I think part of the reason why, over the last few decades, the 
executive branch has been able to accumulate far more power than the 
Constitution and the Founding Fathers envisioned was because it is much 
easier for the President of the United States to use the bully pulpit, 
as we call it, and dominate time and the news media and the television, 
and it's much harder for the Congress to do that since we are a body 
comprising 535 men and women.

                              {time}  1915

  But what's interesting about it is that when you use the bully pulpit 
and when the President uses the bully pulpit, you hope that he uses it 
in an honest way, and, in fact, in this debate what we have seen is a 
performance that has actually been very insulting to the concept of a 
pulpit, I think, because what this President has done is used his bully 
pulpit, his media access, to deceive the American people about what we 
are doing and what he intends to do.
  For instance, he is constantly saying that the proposal, the 
legislation that we passed would enable families making $83,000 a year 
to access the SCHIP program. No families making $83,000 were authorized 
to make it or, in fact, ever found access to the SCHIP program. The 
only way that a family making more than double the poverty level can 
get entrance and access to the SCHIP program is if the executive branch 
gives them a waiver. In fact, the State of New York asked the President 
for a waiver. He declined it. So for him to then say under this program 
people making $83,000 would be eligible for SCHIP is not only not true, 
it is deceitfully dishonest. And, actually, if you talk about what he 
has done, he has the power, which we delegated to him, he has the power 
through the executive branch to waive some of these requirements.
  And that goes back to the interesting thing about this entire debate. 
In 2004 during the Presidential campaign, President Bush actually 
campaigned for an expansion of the SCHIP program. He loved the SCHIP 
program. He applauded it when he was Governor of Texas and he wanted to 
expand it. Now what does he do? Because it's not a Congress dominated 
by his party, he wants to change his perspective. He's changed his 
perspective as to whether the States should have waiving powers, which 
he wanted the States to have when the Congress was run by the 
Republicans. Now that Democrats control the Congress, he wants there to 
be Federal standards which he controls.

[[Page 28960]]

  So this is not just a battle of power internally in the Congress and 
through the courts but also one that we have to fight in the media. We 
are at a disadvantage, but I hope it is discussions like this and 
people who are not afraid to be outspoken and point out dishonesty and 
deceit when they see it that will help us even the playing field in 
terms of convincing the American people that not only does this 
Congress have the power, by virtue of article I, to make all 
legislative decisions, but it also has the moral foundation and the 
integrity to do what's right for the American people.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  We are down to our last couple of minutes, so I'm going to turn it 
over to Mr. Hodes and then Mr. Cohen if you want to wrap it up.
  Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Klein.
  What we are talking about here really is the moral compass of our 
Nation. We have a stark choice before us. There is a huge difference 
between what the President values and what the American people value.
  To the President and his allies, $190 billion for a failed war is a 
necessity, but $35 billion to give our kids access to doctors is some 
kind of extravagance. And that really talks about the values that are 
at play here. Are we going to value and speak up for the people of this 
country, or are we going to let the President assert values that we in 
this country don't agree with because we value kids?
  Now, there is a President, a former President who really said it best 
because we here in Congress are no longer simply going to enable this 
President to take power which should not be his. We are going to 
reassert, in these conversations and in our conduct, the power that 
rightfully belongs to the Congress and to the people. Because as 
Abraham Lincoln said, when we were engaged in the midst of a great 
civil war that was to determine the fate of this country, he talked 
about government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
  That's why we are here tonight. That is why we were sent to Congress. 
To reassert that this government is a government of the people, by the 
people, for the people. And while we are on this watch, it shall not 
perish, and we are going to stand up to this President and we are going 
to have some checks and balances in the United States of America.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Klein.
  I think when I first addressed this group and, Mr. Speaker, I 
mentioned how proud I was to be a Member of this body and this class, 
and I think the people who have listened to this discussion realize why 
I'm so proud to be a member of the class. The talent is here, as some 
people have State legislative experience, some come straight from the 
private sector, and each brings a different perspective but a concern 
for the people and a concern for change and direction of this country 
and for the middle class.
  Mr. Hodes talked about Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove not obeying the 
subpoena that was issued for them to come to testify before the 
Congress. This Congress is looking at having a contempt charge brought 
against them, which I think we should have done earlier. We need to 
have a contempt charge brought, and we need to have them be punished 
for their contempt of this Congress, which, in essence, is a contempt 
of the American people and a contempt of the Constitution and of all 
things good that the American people stand for.
  I am proud to be a member of this class, to support SCHIP, for health 
care for children and for all Americans.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank my colleagues for being here this 
evening.
  We do this once a week. We're looking forward to seeing you all next 
week and having this continuation of discussion. And, of course, we 
look forward to working with everyone in this country to make sure that 
we resolve and come to some successful conclusions on some of these 
issues that are so important to our country.

                          ____________________