[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[House]
[Pages 36005-36011]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellison). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to be here before the 
House once again. And a lot has been done and I'm so glad that we're 
here and 30-Something, once again, may be our last opportunity in this 
year of 2007. We appreciate the courage and the commitment by those of 
us that are in the majority. And we talked about a number of things 
that we would do and that has actually happened, Mr. Speaker. And a lot 
has happened this year, and, Mr. Speaker, I know that your constituents 
and others as it relates to Minnesota and what has taken place there 
and the tragedies that y'all have dealt with and how this Congress has 
responded to that tragedy of the bridge falling, and so many of your 
constituents are in recovery as we speak, and being from south Florida, 
hurricane ravaged area, we know what recovery means. And it's important 
for us to respond in a bipartisan way.
  But I can tell you, some of my colleagues that were on the floor just 
prior to me hitting the floor talking about earmarks, it's very 
interesting. I am, you know, it's one of those days, and I'm glad that 
I was able to make it to the floor and that we were able to take this 
hour, and we want to thank the majority leader and also the Speaker and 
the majority whip and our leadership as it relates to the Democratic 
Caucus and our vice Chair for getting here, because to talk about 
earmarks, it's very interesting because we've reduced earmarks by 40 
percent. I mean, that is something that the Republicans did not do over 
a number of years. You wouldn't even know who put an earmark in if it 
wasn't for the transparency that the Democratic Congress brought to 
this process.
  Now, I'm going to tell you right now, I'm very happy that I was 
elected to come to Congress and that I'm going to get the opportunity 
to go home and tell my constituents what I've done for them in 
Congress. That's what it's all about. Why are we here representing 600, 
700,000 individuals, Americans? To not only represent them here in 
Congress, but to also, quote, unquote, bring home the bacon on behalf 
of your constituency, to make sure that they have what they need, to 
make sure when a county commissioner or someone that sits on a parish 
board has an opportunity to come to their Member of Congress and say we 
need something from the Federal Government, meanwhile back here in 
Washington, DC, we have Republicans that have voted in the last five, 
or four Congresses for tax breaks for billionaires. Their name's not 
attached to it. We come here, we bring transparency, we bring 
accountability. We bring accountability to this process. And then they 
come to the floor with the audacity to say, well, you know, oh, these 
earmarks. Well, you know, I don't know, but I'm pretty proud of the 
fact that the city of Pembroke Park is able to do something about the 
water treatment that they've been yearning for, struggling city. I'm 
very proud that the city of

[[Page 36006]]

Miami is able to say thank you Congressman for representing us in the 
U.S. Congress.
  Meanwhile, the Republicans, for years and years and years, have been 
able, Mr. Ryan, to give tax breaks to the billionaires and 
gazillionaires. Here we are bringing government back to the people and 
being criticized by the other side of the aisle. So, Mr. Ryan, there's 
a lot that we have to talk about. This is a historic day. We passed 
energy independence and security act. That's a historic piece of 
legislation. And all our colleagues have in the minority to talk about, 
earmarks that have been reduced by 40 percent and have been highlighted 
by this Congress.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The thing is there's like hundreds of people on the other side of the 
aisle who are taking earmarks, who feel like that it's better that they 
make the decision for their own district as to where the money should 
be spent or some bureaucrat in Washington makes the decision as to 
where the money is spent. Somebody's spending the money. Now, it's 
either the elected Representative who's going to spend the money or 
it's going to be someone here in DC who's going to spend the money and 
has no idea of what the dynamics of the district are, what your long-
term economic development plans are, what the health and safety welfare 
needs are of your district.
  So I think it's best in a democracy for the elected Representative, 
who gets to have meetings in their office with different constituents, 
as to who will decide where this money is spent.
  Now, is the autism center in Youngstown, Ohio, pork? I got three-
hundred-and-some-thousand for that. Is the water line in a poor 
community to make sure that we have clean water, is that pork?
  I love it when the Members from the western part of the country come 
to the House floor and talk about all this government spending. You 
know, in California, in Arizona, there are congressional districts that 
would not even exist if it wasn't for a Federal investment. There are 
congressional districts that they're in a desert. How do you think the 
water gets from the Colorado River to your congressional district? 
Through osmosis? No. There is Federal investment that is invested in 
these different congressional districts, you know, the Colorado River 
Basin Project and all of these different projects that bring water to 
your district and your constituents.
  So I think it is absolutely absurd for people to come to the House 
floor, and we've done exactly what we said we were going to do. We made 
this process transparent. There's nobody here that thinks you should be 
able to hide something. So now when you make an investment or you claim 
an earmark, your name goes on it, and it says Rich Center for Autism in 
Youngstown, Ohio, at Youngstown State University, Congressman Tim Ryan, 
17th District.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy was running for office a year and 
some change ago, talking about if he gets to Congress what he would do 
for his constituents, that he would provide the kind of representation 
that they deserve, turn this saga of Iraq and that other issue of Iraq 
back to domestic priorities, bring home the bacon on behalf of the 
district and his constituents.
  I'm so glad that he's here tonight because we've been here three 
times. This is his first time. I'm glad that he's here because I want 
to know what's wrong. I mean, I just, Mr. Speaker, I personally want to 
know what's wrong with coming to Washington, DC, representing your 
constituents, and doing what you said you would do.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Fighting for kids with autism, fighting 
for teenage pregnancy programs, fighting for children's mental health, 
I mean, that's what's in these earmarks.
  Why is the so-called pork spending that I'm bringing back to the 
Fifth District? For a children's mental health program in Danbury, for 
an after-school program in Torrington, for a teenage pregnancy center 
New Britain. You know why? Because the Republican Congress, along with 
this President, for the last 6 years and the last 12 years have gutted 
every single one of those programs that helps poor kids, helps poor 
families, helps the disabled, that helps poor, the disadvantaged, the 
dispossessed, all of those programs that are just trying to give people 
a little bit of a leg up, trying to give them access to the apparatus 
of opportunity that all the rest of us have, were stolen out from 
underneath them.
  So guess what we're doing with these earmarks. We're going and 
funding basic social services to try to treat kids with autism, to try 
to cure children of a mental disease and mental disorder that they 
have. And we're forced to do that because we have been sitting through 
a Congress, and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek have been talking about it for 
several years, that has made a choice over the last several years, has 
made a choice to fund a whole bunch of tax cuts for people at the 
upper, upper echelon of the income scale and at the expense of all the 
people that we are now putting first again, the folks that are supposed 
to be helped by government, that is, middle-class, regular folks who, 
through no fault of their own, might have had a little opportunity 
stolen from them. We're going to try to help them out again here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The issue here is that the earmarks are a very 
small percentage of the Federal budget. All of these bills have been 
bipartisan. If you look at all of the appropriations bills that have 
passed out of the House, there has been a significant number of 
Republicans who have joined with the Democrats to make these 
investments, especially Members of the Appropriations Committee that 
have looked at these issues very carefully to make these investments in 
a bipartisan way.
  The energy bill, of which our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, 
have derided us and it's a Democratic this and a Democratic that, 314 
votes; 314 votes, which is 70 or 80 Republican Members of this body 
have joined with us to try to increase CAFE standards, make investments 
in alternative energy, make investments in the middle America and the 
Midwest. This is on a bipartisan basis.
  So it seems like those folks who come to the floor seem to be on the 
fringe level of the party that they're talking about these things. But 
I think it's important for us to talk about some of the investments 
that we have made here.
  There has been a significant shift in priorities. Now, we haven't 
come anywhere close to achieving what we have wanted to achieve since 
we have taken over. We don't have 60 votes in the Senate, and the 
Republicans have done a good job of blocking a lot of our legislation 
that we've tried to pass.
  The President has vetoed SCHIP, which is the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, that we wanted to provide 10 million middle-class 
kids with health care, and the President vetoed it twice. And the 
fringe Republicans, many have joined with us. Ray LaHood, Steve 
LaTourette, a lot of good Members of Congress have joined with us to 
try to override that veto, but the President was able to sustain it.
  So we asked to cover health care for 10 million kids, $35 billion 
over 5 years. President said we're spending too much money. Turned 
around within days and asked for $200 billion more for Iraq that we're 
going to borrow from China. And so some of the investments that we're 
trying to make, I think it's important for the American people to know 
what we have done.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Tell them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We've raised the minimum wage for the first time 
since 1997. We've cut student loan interest rates in half from 6.8 
percent to 3.4 percent, which will save and increase the Pell Grant by 
$1,000 over the next 4 or 5 years. We will save the average student or 
their parents, whoever's footing the bill, $4,400 over the course of 
their loan that they take out. Those are significant investments to the 
middle class. We're going to fix the AMT, which would come in and zap 
23 or 24 million people.

[[Page 36007]]

  But I think it's important that we share with the American people, 
Mr. Speaker, the investments that we have made here, that are different 
than what the President wanted us to do, and we can go through this.
  But medical research, $607 million above the President's request. 
That's a lot of money, $607 million to research Alzheimer's, cancer, 
Parkinson's and diabetes. Now, I think the American people want us to 
work together to try to fund some basic research.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is one of these moments at the 
end of the session, I mean we're like days from Christmas. We're still 
here in Washington, D.C. We've already started Hanukkah; Kwanzaa's on 
its way.
  I think it's very, very important for us to point at the fact that 
this Congress has worked harder than any other Congress in the history 
of the Republic. I mean, I'm not talking about coming in number two or 
coming in number three or coming in number four, but we've taken more 
rollcall votes in the history of the Republic.
  I think it's also very important, and I feel goose bumps by this 
whole thing. I pay attention to history. I also pay very close 
attention to the present. We're looking at a President right now that 
has made more veto threats than he's made in the last 5 years or 4 
years, what have you, that he's been President of the United States to 
this Democratic Congress. We're looking at the AMT. We're talking about 
individuals being able to file their taxes, and we said that we were 
going to pay for it. This President is saying that he doesn't want to 
pay for it, that he wants to borrow the money. But the bottom line is 
that we're going to be here to make sure that we pay for it in the long 
run, in the second half of this Congress.
  We're not going to allow the President to play this Congress as a 
fiddle. This President is talking about, Oh, well, I want Iraq funding 
a part of the appropriations bill that's going to pass and all. He has 
the veto pen. He also has 40 Republicans here in this Chamber to make 
sure that we don't override him on this issue of Iraq. We voted for 
appropriations for Afghanistan, and we had a number of Republicans that 
voted against it, some 200-plus. I don't feel in any way bad about the 
position that we've taken.
  I'm so glad Mr. Manatos is on our side. You know, our colleagues who 
came to the floor right before our hour. I sent upstairs for this chart 
to make sure that we enter this chart into the Record one more time. I 
think it's important that we look at the 42 Presidents before this 
President were only able to borrow $1.01 trillion. We're talking about 
the Great Depression. We're talking about World War I. We're talking 
about World War II. We're talking about Korea. We're talking about 
Vietnam. We're talking about Grenada; that's new. We're talking about a 
number of conflicts that have taken place. We're talking about economic 
downturns. We're talking about the S&L scandal. We're talking about a 
number of issues that have faced Americans over the years.
  This President, President Bush, along with his Republican minority, 
thank God, but enough to be able to cause trouble over in the Senate 
with this 60-vote phenomena that we've learned about in this 110th 
Congress with Republicans saying, Well, you know, we're going to use 
procedural rules to be able to hold up what the Democratic Congress 
would like to do in this Congress.
  This President was able to borrow $1.19 trillion. That number is 
higher now. This chart is not updated, but I think it's important for 
our Democrats, Independents, Republicans to know that we believe in 
fiscal responsibility here on this floor. We believe in the American 
way.
  We used to talk about our children paying this bill, but now we're 
talking about we are paying this bill, countries like China and others.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So I know Mr. Ryan is trying to get in the 
middle of this. He's always trying to get in the middle, and I'm just 
trying to make my point. I don't want you to take it personal. I'm just 
trying to make my point.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much.
  I think it's important, and I kind of feel like a Baptist preacher on 
the first Sunday. You want to be able to make your point, and you want 
to be able to climax, but Mr. Ryan comes in and gets in the way, but 
it's okay. He has a good point. He's a great American.
  I think it's important that we look at our responsibility right now 
and in the present for being able to stand up for those that have 
elected, woke up early one Tuesday for us, voting for representation, 
that we give voice to their cause and their need.
  I think it's also important, especially as it relates to the 
diversity of our caucus, need it be Blue Dogs, need it be moderate, 
need it be to the left or whatever the case may be, it represents 
America.
  I think the reason why Republicans voted for Democrats last time, 
Independents voted for Democrats last time, Democrats voted for 
Democrats last time is because they're looking for change. We're here 
to provide that kind of change, but we start looking at obstructionists 
here in Congress using procedural, using the rules of the House, using 
the rules of the Senate. The minority is protected in this process, 
standing in the schoolhouse door, if I may use that, of allowing us to 
stop from the report that we got today, November 13, or yesterday, 
November 13, total deaths in Iraq, 3,888; total numbers wounded in 
action and returned to duty, 15,832; total numbers wounded in action 
and not returning to duty, 12,829.

                              {time}  2145

  We pay attention to those numbers in the 30-Something group because 
the American people are paying attention to those numbers, and I think 
it's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to lift this issue 
up.
  So as we look at what we are facing right now, Members, there's 
nothing wrong with us representing our districts and being able to 
bring dollars back because this is something that has not happened over 
the years. We have been borrowing the money to be able to continue the 
war in Iraq. We have been borrowing the money as it relates to going 
after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We have been doing the things we 
need to do. But I think it's very important, Members, that we tell our 
story.
  Today a very historic piece of legislation passed this floor when we 
look at the Energy Independence and Security Act. And I think we should 
not allow this day to pass without talking about the courage of 
Democrats and Republicans passing this bill.
  I yield to Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Before the gentleman gets into the energy bill, Mr. 
Speaker, and we do have a lot to talk about because that's an historic 
vote that is going to change this country in the long term for the 
better, I did want to follow up on what the gentleman talked about 
earlier and was finishing his remarks that about the legacy that this 
Congress over the past 6 years has left for our children and our 
grandchildren, the legacy of debt. And I want to take a little walk 
down memory lane, and we have talked about this before, to think about 
what happened in the last 4 years of President Clinton's 
administration, where we had 4 consecutive years of budget surplus, a 
surplus that was forecast as far as the eye can see. In 10 years the 
estimated $5.5 trillion surplus, according to CBO, from 2001 through 
2010, that was the estimated surplus dollars that we were going to 
have. And you will recall back in the 2000 election between Governor 
Bush and Vice President Gore, what was the debate? The debate was what 
are we going to do with this surplus? We had this enormous surplus, 
$5.5 trillion. Are we going to pay down the debt? Are we going to shore 
up Social Security? Are we going to do tax cuts? Are we going to create 
new programs? Everyone had an idea. You know what? We're not having 
that debate anymore because instead of having 10 years of

[[Page 36008]]

budget surpluses, we have had 7 consecutive years of budget deficits, 
and those deficits are now forecast as far as the eye can see. And to 
make matters worse, the 10-year projection from 2001 to 2010 because of 
this administration is a $3.5 trillion deficit, $3.5 trillion dollars 
in the red. So that's a swing of almost $9 trillion. And I would 
suggest to my colleagues if you had said to an economist in 2001 at the 
beginning of this administration's first term, if you had said, how 
could you possibly come up with the scenario where we would have a $9 
trillion swing from positive to negative in the projection of having a 
surplus to a deficit? Is that even possible? And any economist you ask 
would say, no, it would be impossible to mismanage the economy to such 
an extent over just 7 years that you would have a $9 trillion swing. So 
I sat and listened to the group that came before us, a group that 
lectured us on fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Altmire, I think you just hit a point there.
  Mr. Ryan, the 30-Something Working Group, I can say, gentlemen, that 
we do our homework. As we talked about our colleagues on the minority 
side criticizing earmarks on the majority side, Mr. Ryan, would you 
please share with our illustrious support staff that we have here?
  Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why the 30-something group exists, so 
that we can, some may say, push back. We say tell the truth.
  I yield to Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, it's interesting that one of the gentlemen, 
Mr. Speaker, that was down here complaining about earmarks just minutes 
ago prior to our getting down here, and we are not here to play gotcha 
but we are here to reveal what has happened here, in this bill loaded 
with earmarks, loaded with all this pork, one of the gentlemen down 
here, Mr. Speaker, had requested 20 earmarks worth $38 million but 
turns around and comes to the House floor and is critical of the Rich 
Center for Autism in Youngstown and dam safety projects and after-
school programs and some of the other districts that are here and 
calling it pork and in one of the instances was trying to in some way 
disparage the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in his project that 
he had that was named after him and the same gentleman is now 
supportive of the Thomas Road Improvement Program that is now under way 
that his predecessor, Representative Bill Thomas, submitted with his 
own name on it for the project but yet comes down and is critical.
  So our point is not to play gotcha. Our point is to say that Members 
of Congress should be able to direct a certain amount, and it's only a 
small percentage of the budget. I don't even know if it's .5 percent of 
the entire budget.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Bill Thomas that used to be the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for us 
to note that that's the case.
  And, Mr. Ryan, I am going to kick it back to you and Mr. Murphy was 
very kind because it was his turn, but I am going to tell you Mr. 
Thomas ran the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Altmire, and meanwhile had 
something named after him. And for Members on the minority side to come 
to the floor and talk about present Members that are bringing home the 
resources on behalf of their constituents, I can see if one did not put 
in a request.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will yield, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have got more here. The gentleman from 
California, the previous gentleman, who just made fun of us for all the 
earmarks, had 20 earmarks worth $38 million and is supporting one now 
named after the former Chair of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Another gentleman down here that was from Michigan got press 
releases, and you will love this one, $3 million for an extended cold 
weather clothing system through the Army. He was just down here making 
fun of everybody, and he's requesting thermal underwear. And it's not 
funny because the reason we are here is to make sure that we are 
getting this all out. And for Members of Congress to come question the 
Rich Center for Autism. And I know Mr. Altmire has a lot of issues. We 
have all got issues.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the point is to make your 
case. If you want money for thermal underwear, come down and make your 
case in front of your colleagues. If you want money for autism, make 
your case. But the fact is you can't come down here and hold everyone 
else on one side of the aisle to a standard that you're not willing to 
hold yourselves to. It's a simple request here, Mr. Ryan, to be 
consistent. If you're going to be against earmarks, then be against 
them. But if you are going to make the case that there's waste and pork 
in the bill, sometimes you've got to look inward.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Altmire, I want to thank 
you first.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: let me tell you, as 
I was walking to the Chamber, I saw that the Speaker's vehicle was 
still here in the Capitol. I saw that the majority leader's vehicle was 
still here at the Capitol. This is now a little bit before 10 p.m. 
within the closing days of Congress. We have worked day in and day out. 
We are here away from our families, many of you away from your 
families, days before Christmas, to be able to work on behalf of the 
American people.
  I think it's important for us to understand that we would not even be 
having the discussion about who got what if it wasn't for the 
transparency that this Democratic Congress brought to this process 
first. So for Republicans to come to the floor and start talking about 
who got what, it never would have happened, Mr. Murphy, if it wasn't 
for what we have done. It never would have happened if it wasn't for 
your class and Mr. Altmire's class coming and saying we want 
transparency, that we want the American people to see what we are 
doing, that we want to take more rollcall votes than any other Congress 
in the history of the United States. We want ethics; we want 
responsibility; we want fiscal responsibility; we want to make sure 
that the Veterans Affairs get more money than they have ever had in 
history, the veterans health care system, in the history of the 
Republic.
  We want accountability as it relates to Iraq, and we want this 
President to know that this is not a rubber-stamp Congress. If it was 
not for you, Mr. Speaker, including yourself, asking for the kind of 
accountability the American people have been calling for, that have 
been yearning for, voting for and they finally got it, for the minority 
party to come to the floor and start criticizing things, where they 
make over 20-plus earmarks, to come to the floor and criticize, that's 
why I'm so glad, Tom and Tasha and Michael, that we are here tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we set the record straight.
  We talked about the hypocrisy of the democracy. This is a perfect 
example of what happens when things go unchecked. I am so glad that we 
exist. I'm so glad we have air within our bodies to be able to come to 
the floor.
  I yield to Mr. Altmire.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to 
speak out of turn.
  I have the high order of being asked to do the Speaker pro tempore 
duties beginning in a few minutes here, and I do greatly appreciate our 
friend and colleague, Mr. Ellison from Minnesota, for covering for me 
while I give these remarks, and then I am going to take the chair.
  The gentleman hit it right on the head. We would not be having this 
discussion were it not for this Congress on the very first day we were 
in session adding transparency to the earmark process. In the past we 
couldn't have this discussion because earmarks were put in in the dark 
of night. Earmarks

[[Page 36009]]

were not identified by sponsor. Earmarks were put in at each stage of 
the process unidentified. You didn't know where they came from. You 
didn't know the details of the earmarks.
  Now we are able to have a discussion, and every Member of Congress 
who has an earmark in the bill that we are going to pass this week and 
send to the President has the responsibility to justify those earmarks. 
And if the gentleman wants to justify his earmark for cold weather 
clothing, he's able to do so.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, let me just clarify what 
you're saying. In the past if somebody had come down to this floor and 
had spent an hour railing against the massive amount of earmarks in the 
bill, we wouldn't know that that person had requested some 20-odd 
earmarks in the bill. We wouldn't know unless we had these rules in 
place.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. That is absolutely correct. And you wouldn't be able to 
look at the final product, at the bill, and look at every single 
earmark in there. I think they said there were 9,000 earmarks in the 
omnibus bill that we were passing today compared to 16,000 total 
earmarks that were in the last Republican budget that was passed. I 
believe that was fiscal year 2006. And I am going to talk about why 
fiscal year 2007 didn't have any earmarks. But fiscal year 2006 had 
16,000 earmarks unidentified. We couldn't have this discussion. We 
couldn't come to the floor and talk about who put in these earmarks, 
who has to justify the merits of those earmarks. But we can have that 
discussion today because this Congress, on the very first day in 
session, one of the very first things we did, one of the very first 
votes that Mr. Murphy, Mr. Ellison, and myself cast as Members of 
Congress was to add transparency to the process, to shine the spotlight 
and add sunshine to the earmark process. So now we know.
  And I am more than willing to justify the money that I am sending 
back to my district to help stimulate the economy and create jobs in 
western Pennsylvania. I would assume that the speakers who came before 
us are willing to justify their earmarks in there. But don't come down 
to the floor and lecture us on whether or not there should be earmarks 
in the process.
  And if the gentleman would just allow me to finish, because I do have 
to take the chair, and again I thank Mr. Ellison.

                              {time}  2200

  In FY 2007, I think I said 2005 and 2006, FY 2007, the Republicans 
who controlled this House at the end of 2006 were unable to complete 
their work on nine of the 11 appropriations bills.
  Now, we heard some rhetoric in the group that came before us, and 
we've heard for the past several weeks, even months, about how we are 
not doing our duty because we're putting all these bills into an 
omnibus bill and sending it to the President before the end of the 
year. I want to take a walk down memory lane on this, too.
  One of the other first votes that Mr. Murphy, Mr. Ellison and myself 
took, our freshman class, was resolving those nine appropriation bills 
from last year that the Congress left to us. And that happened because 
after the elections that Congress said, You know what? We're taking our 
ball and going home. Forget it. We're not going to complete these nine 
bills. We're going to leave it for the next Congress. And that next 
Congress was this Congress. It was the Democratic-controlled Congress. 
And we finished all nine appropriations bills in a month. And those 
nine appropriations bills funding us right now, the current operations 
of the government, contain no earmarks, zero. So we went from 16,000 
earmarks the year before last to zero for those nine of 11 
appropriations bills that we have today.
  So, yes, the omnibus bill that we are passing this week does contain 
earmarks, but let's not forget the fact that the current year's budget, 
which we passed in this Congress, had no earmarks. And we were stuck 
with that right from the start, specifically because the previous 
Congress failed their job and left it for us to resolve.
  And at this point, I will yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Altmire, let me just take a quick 
guess, let me throw a hypothesis out there about why folks on the other 
side of the aisle and those that were talking tonight might be a little 
angry.
  Everyone gets passionate down here, but when Mr. Meeks talks, it's 
kind of like happy passionate. On the other side of the aisle it feels 
a little different. And listen, I would be too, I guess. And this is my 
guess, I would be, too, if I had spent decades building up a brand of 
my political party based around fiscal responsibility, and then, in the 
course of 1 year, in the course of 1 year the party that you tried to 
portray as the tax and spenders, the fiscal irresponsibles, that party, 
after having been in control of the Congress for less than a year, for 
the first time in 12 years does all of the fiscally responsible things 
that you couldn't do, passes a rule saying that every single bill that 
comes before this Congress has to be paid for. You can't pass anything 
on this floor that expands the deficit. First time that's happened 
since the Republicans took control of this Congress. That was Democrats 
that did that. Passes a balanced budget in 5 years, that's Democrats 
doing it. Leading a Congress that is shrinking, rather than expanding, 
the annual operating deficit of the Federal Government. That's 
Democrats; that's not Republicans.
  So, I guess I would be angry, too, if I was a Republican in this 
House and I looked at the party that I thought I joined, which was the 
fiscally responsible party, and found out that that mantle now lay on 
the other side of the aisle. So, that might explain something, Mr. 
Ryan. And I guess knowing that, maybe a little bit of it is 
justifiable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You know, obviously there have been situations 
decades ago where, you know, everyone was spending too much money. And 
for us to put in the PAYGO rules that say you've got to pay for every 
dime you spend one way or the other I think is a significant step in 
the right direction. Nobody here wants to continue what has happened 
over the last 6 years.
  And when you look at what's happened, over $3 trillion in debt has 
been borrowed from China, Japan and OPEC countries. Our friends on the 
other side, when they were in charge, raised the debt limit five times 
in order to go out and borrow more money. And we see the situation that 
we're in now. So we're trying to, slowly but surely, rein all of this 
in and make very strategic investments.
  And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that you can go to the Web sites for 
the Speaker and our caucus and what we're doing. We're making 
investments into alternative energy, research and development, so we 
can open up new sectors of the economy. We're making investments in 
education, saving the average family who takes out loans and utilizes 
the Pell Grants $4,400 over the course of that loan. That's a middle-
class tax cut. What we're going to do with the AMT, the alternative 
minimum tax, we're going to prevent 23 million people from getting a 
tax increase next year. And that's a middle-class tax cut. These are 
people making $50,000 to $75,000 a year. We're going to prevent that 
from happening.
  Significant steps in criminal justice. Cops on the beat. In 
communities like Youngstown, Ohio, the city doesn't have the tax base 
to keep hiring more and more cops, so it's harder to develop your 
economy if you don't have security. So, these are the kinds of 
investments that we're making.
  So, in closing, as we wrap things up, because I think we're going to 
wrap things up here in a minute, first, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
submit these two articles for the Record so that not only are these 
earmarks represented openly, as our rules have provided, but there are 
also press releases that some of our Members on the other side who have 
been on the floor detesting earmarks, their press releases can now be 
submitted for the Record.

           [From the Bakersfield Californian, July 11, 2007]

                       Get an Eyeful of Earmarks

       Earmark--a.k.a. ``pork barrel''--spending has almost as 
     dirty a reputation as its porcine namesake.

[[Page 36010]]

       Earmarks are items from a pot of money--$29 billion in 
     2006--from the $2.4 trillion federal budget that is set aside 
     from the complex federal appropriation process for 
     congressmen to dole out for specific projects in their 
     districts.
       There are two problems with earmarks:
       Some ideas are silly, flag-waving expenditures with little 
     widespread redeeming value.
       Good or bad, finding out what the money is for and who the 
     patron congress member is can be a nearly impossible task for 
     the public until it is too late to change the spending 
     outcome.
       That could be changing, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-
     Bakersfield, may be among the 34 of 435 members of Congress 
     who voluntarily released his list of requests in time for the 
     public to comment. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, has not.
       Early disclosure is the key element to any credibility 
     claim. With that in mind, why wouldn't everyone list their 
     proposed earmarks the way McCarthy has done?
       See the first bulleted item above. A good project gains 
     stature, but a stinker may, like Dracula, die a deserved 
     death when the light of day shines on it.
       Thus, disclosure has the potential benefit of increasing 
     the quality--and hence the justification--of earmarks.
       But can earmarks be justified at all?
       Yes. The federal budget process tends to look at the big 
     picture--after all, it is measured in trillions of dollars. 
     An earmark can focus on a small, highly localized need that 
     is easily overlooked in vast appropriation measures.
       McCarthy requested 20 earmarks worth $38 million for the 
     22nd district (Kern and San Luis Obispo counties) and another 
     $142 million for Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval 
     Air Weapons Center.
       He may not get any funds, but some examples include 
     $122,000 to help the Bakersfield Police Department deter gang 
     violence; $7 million for the Lake Isabella Dam safety 
     project; $500,000 for Cal State Bakersfield to help nursing 
     education.
       A classic example is the Thomas Road Improvement Program 
     now under way. In his final year in office, McCarthy's 
     predecessor, Rep. Bill Thomas, provided desperately needed 
     highway funding that otherwise would have been sucked up by 
     politically powerful Southern California and Bay Area 
     jurisdictions.
       Whether an earmark is good or bad is up to the individual 
     voter. But at least now you know what is being requested. (A 
     full list of McCarthy's requests was published in the July 1 
     Californian.)

   Walberg Secures House Approval of Funding for Biological Weapons 
                               Prevention

       Washington, August 16.--U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) 
     announced today that 2008 funding for Dexter Research Center, 
     Inc. was approved in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Bill that recently passed the House. The bill will now go to 
     the U.S. Senate to be voted on as part of the fiscal year 
     2008 Appropriations process.
       ``The Department of Defense must have the capability to 
     respond to chemical and biological attacks, and this 
     important project will increase the safety and security of 
     our men and women in uniform,'' Walberg said.
       With this funding, the Michigan company will help develop a 
     Total Perimeter Surveillance (TPS) system based on infrared 
     technology able to identify and trigger an immediate response 
     to chemical and biological attacks against Department of 
     Defense facilities.
       ``We are excited to have this opportunity to leverage our 
     science and manufacturing capabilities to help make our 
     national defense sites even more secure,'' said Robert Toth, 
     Jr., President of Dexter Research Center.
       Funding details:
       Dexter Research Center, Inc. (Washtenaw County) 
     $2,000,000--This project funding will go towards assisting in 
     the development of a Total Perimeter Surveillance (TPS) 
     system capable of identifying and responding to chemical and 
     biological attacks. The TPS solution, based on novel infrared 
     technology, can provide complete perimeter threat detection 
     and identification with sufficient advanced warning to 
     Department of Defense facilities to meet current threat 
     requirements.

        Walberg Secures House Approval of Funding for Sonobuoys

       Washington, August 13.--U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) 
     announced today that 2008 funding for sonobuoys, produced by 
     Sparton Electronics of Jackson, was approved in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Bill that recently 
     passed the House. The bill will now go to the U.S. Senate to 
     be voted on as part of the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations 
     process.
       ``Funding for sonobuoys, produced by Sparton Electronics, 
     is important for the security of our naval personnel and 
     Jackson County,'' Walberg said.
       Funding details:
       Sparton Electronics, (Jackson County) $2,500,000 increase--
     This project funding will go towards procurement of sonobuoys 
     for the Department of the Navy. The sonobuoy remains the 
     Navy's primary sensor for detection and localization of 
     submarines by air anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms. 
     Sonobuoys provide the only means to rapidly sanitize large 
     areas of water prior to fleet units arriving in the area.

   Walberg Secures House Approval of Funding for Peckham Industries 
                       Products Used by Military

       Washington, August 17.--U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) 
     announced today that 2008 funding for Peckham Industries was 
     approved in the Departments of Defense Appropriations Bill 
     that recently passed the House. The bill will now go to the 
     U.S. Senate to be voted on as part of the fiscal year 2008 
     Appropriations process.
       Peckham produces Fleece Insulating Liners, a Cold Weather 
     Layering System and a Multi Climate Protection System all 
     used by United States military personnel.
       ``These three projects greatly benefit our brave men and 
     women in uniform and Eaton County,'' Walberg said.
       ``It's a privilege to provide our soldiers with the 
     equipment they need,'' Peckham CEO/President Mitchell 
     Tomlinson said. ``These contracts represent much needed jobs 
     and opportunities created for persons with disabilities. 
     We're proud to continue providing the highest quality, high 
     performance cold weather gear available to our military.''
       Funding details:
       Peckham Industries, $3,000,000--This project will go 
     towards the production of Insulating Liners for Extended Cold 
     Weather Clothing System for the Department of the Army. This 
     product was created in direct response to soldiers' 
     complaints of bulkiness and lack of breathability in previous 
     attire.
       Peckham Industries, $3,000,000--This project will go 
     towards the production of a Cold Weather Layering System for 
     the United States Marine Corps. The CWLS is part of the 
     Marine Corps' Mountain and Cold Weather Clothing and 
     Equipment Program, which provides lightweight, durable combat 
     clothing that allows Marines to operate in all kinds of cold 
     weather environments.
       Peckham Industries, $2,500,000--This project will go 
     towards the production of a Multi Climate Protection System 
     (MCPS) for the Department of the Navy. The MCPS is a modular 
     ensemble that provides total performance by layering thermal 
     protection and shell garments.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I would just like to say, go to our Web site. 
Look at what we've done for K-12, student aid, rural development, the 
farm bill. All of the things that we've passed out of here have been 
investments, actually met the President's budget numbers, so it's just 
a shift in priorities.
  So, I'm saying I think we've made significant progress this year, and 
we hope to expand it next year.
  And with that, Mr. Meek, I yield back to you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Ryan, I want to thank you and Mr. 
Altmire, and also Mr. Murphy and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and others who 
have been very active in our 30-Something over the year. I want to 
thank those that are involved in preparing not only material that we 
meet on on a weekly basis, but also what we bring to the floor.
  I want to thank all of the staff and those that are involved, the 
Speaker's office, the majority leader and the whip's office, the 
majority whip and the Democratic leader, and also the Vice Chair for 
everything you do to make our 30-Something hour possible.
  I don't know if we'll have the opportunity to come to the floor 
tomorrow, which some project may be our last night on the floor, but we 
want to thank Mr. Michael and also Mr. Tom, Ms. Natasha and Mr. Adam 
and so many others that have spent time on this.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot done this Congress. We're going to 
be talking about it more. And like Mr. Ryan said, go onto 
www.speaker.gov to get information on 30-Something.
  I want to commend those Members of the minority party that voted with 
the majority party to be able to make it so for many of the things that 
Mr. Ryan has talked about.
  We look forward to the President's State of the Union that will be 
coming up in January. Many of, I'm pretty sure, his talking points will 
come from what has already been accomplished by this Democratic 
Congress or has been brought to the President by force because of the 
vote that we have here and the will of the American people.
  We know that this is the holiday time of the year, and we would like 
to also recognize not only the contributions of our religious 
communities out there, but also those that work within our charities 
that have made it so for

[[Page 36011]]

those to be able to not only have warm meals, but also to have gifts at 
this time of year.
  Also recognizing those Members that served in the first half of this 
Congress that did not make it to the second half of this Congress, 
those Members of this House and also the Senate that have moved on to a 
higher place. We ask for blessings for their families, and also for 
their loved ones that have been left behind. We try to provide the kind 
of representation that they tried to put forth on the Democratic and 
also the Republican side of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful, and all of us in the 30-Something 
are very grateful for coming to the floor.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, if you would yield for just a 
moment. I just wanted, on behalf of Mr. Altmire, who sits in the 
Speaker's chair today, to just thank you and Mr. Ryan for allowing two 
new guys into the 30-Something. This has been just a wonderful year for 
us, made even more wonderful by being able to be closer to the good 
graces and large brains of both you and Mr. Ryan. So, I mean that 
sincerely, by the way. You did not have to open up the 30-Something 
Group to both Mr. Altmire and myself and some of the others that have 
had the opportunity to come down and be part of these discussions that 
we've watched on TV for years before we came here. And I would like to 
extend our thanks to you and Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Murphy, we definitely appreciate it. 
And I'm going to take that part of the Congressional Record and put it 
in the foyer of my office here in Washington, also the large brains 
part, put it in the foyer. But if it wasn't for the support of our 
leadership allowing us to come to the floor. But also, I think, Mr. 
Speaker, those individuals that are in harm's way and their families, 
two wars going on, we appreciate their contributions.
  We appreciate those veterans, since we're giving what we call 
``shout- outs,'' giving those veterans that allow us to salute one 
flag, we appreciate them, those folks that put it on the line and some 
that did not make it.
  But we look forward to coming back in the second half of this 
Congress and finish the unfinished business. We want the American 
people to have faith in this House, have faith in this Senate, and also 
a level of respect for the Commander in Chief, that we're going to work 
this thing out here in Washington, D.C., on behalf of those that have 
sent us up here to represent them.
  I look forward to the second half of the Congress. I want to thank 
the staff, thank the folks in the Clerk's office for doing all that 
they've done, even the staff over in the minority office for sticking 
in there over many hours in this first half, because we have not only 
made history, but we have also put in more hours than any other 
Congress in the history of the Republic.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, we encourage people to go to www.speaker.gov, 
and we yield back the balance of our time.

                          ____________________