[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 664-670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530

              THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP: THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come before the 
House once again. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group comes to 
the floor to share issues that are before the Congress not only with 
many of our colleagues but also with the American people.
  But at this time, Madam Speaker, I am going to yield to Congresswoman 
Moore.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so much, Representative.
  I rise, Madam Speaker, to memorialize another of my constituents, 
Private First Class Keith Lloyd, who died of wounds suffered when the 
vehicle he was in struck a roadside bomb in Iraq at the tender age of 
26 on January 12.
  He was born in Milwaukee. He went to elementary school in Milwaukee 
prior to his family moving to Oak Creek and then to South Milwaukee. 
Lloyd graduated from South Milwaukee High School in my district in 2000 
and worked in a number of retail stores. He also took courses at 
Milwaukee Area Technical College in Oak Creek and ITT Technical 
Institute in Milwaukee.
  According to media reports, as a teen, Private First Class Lloyd was 
not crazy about high school, but he never shirked the responsibility 
that came with it. After graduation he wasn't quite sure what career 
path to take, like many high school graduates, including myself.
  Finally, as a young man, he decided to follow the path of his younger 
brother, who had just completed a tour of duty in Iraq with the United 
States Army. According to his sister Christine, he was looking for 
direction. He wanted to make something of himself and thought the Army 
was a good place to do that. He enlisted in March 2007, and, indeed, he 
made much of his life and paid the ultimate price for us, his fellow 
Americans.
  This was a young man who did not want to sit on the bench and let 
life pass him by.
  His sister also noted that he had a big heart and would do anything 
for anybody.
  Private First Class Lloyd deployed to Iraq in November as a member of 
the 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment based in Fort Hood, 
Texas.
  Yesterday Private First Class Lloyd was laid to rest at Good Hope 
Cemetery in Milwaukee.
  Madam Speaker, I wish to express my deepest sympathy and condolences 
to the family of Private First Class Lloyd today: his sister, 
Christine; brother Thomas; his mom, Cynthia Allam; his dad and 
stepmother, Gary and Joanne Lloyd; sister Cora Lloyd; and brothers 
Kraig, Gary, and Joshua Lloyd.
  These men certainly made the lives of those around them better day by 
day and exemplified the character and qualities that enrich our 
communities and our Nation. This is indeed a sad day for the Nation. 
While as the Bible says, ``each heart knows its own grief'' and I 
cannot possibly understand the grief their families are going through 
today, I offer this timely tribute today to express the gratitude of a 
Nation and my condolences on their loss.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Ms. Moore. And I can 
tell you anytime we get a chance to come to the floor and honor our 
patriots is always a day that the Congress should yield and pay respect 
to not only that individual but also the family.
  Madam Speaker, I think it's important we start to look at what the 
Congress is facing right now and the American people are facing right 
now as it relates to the economy. The news has been for the last 5 to 
10 days the economy, stimulating the economy, and it is very important 
that we do so. And as you know, many news accounts have shown the 
President, also the Speaker of the House, and the Democratic leader in 
the Senate meeting. You have also seen meetings with the Republican 
leadership and Democratic leadership here in the Congress. The American 
people are counting on us working in a bipartisan way, and I just want 
to make sure that all Members know that this is nothing new for the 
Democratic House of Representatives, especially the majority of 
Democrats that are here, because we came in saying we wanted to work in 
a bipartisan way. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I went back and 
pulled out a chart because so many times here in the 30-Something 
Working Group it's important that we share with the Members what we 
have already done and what we can do. And I will use this chart all the 
way up to today.
  Many of these acts took place in the first session of the 110th 
Congress, and it was the first time, with your help, Madam Speaker, we 
were able to take the majority of the House:
  Implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, H.R. 1, passed 
with 299 Democratic votes with 68 Republican votes. Raising the minimum 
wage, H.R. 2, passed 315 with 82 Republican votes. The funding for 
enhanced stem cell research passed 253 with 37 Republican votes. Making 
prescription drugs more affordable, H.R. 4, passed 255 with 24 
Republican votes. And cutting student loan interest rates in half, H.R. 
5, passed this House of course with

[[Page 665]]

Democratic votes, all the Democratic votes, 356 with 124 Republicans 
voting with Democrats on that bill in a bipartisan way. And also 
creating long-term energy initiatives, H.R. 6, which passed 264 votes 
with 36 of those votes being Republican votes.
  That's bipartisanship. Those are major pieces of legislation, Madam 
Speaker. This is nothing new to the Democratic majority.
  I think it's also important to point to just today here on this floor 
maybe about 2 hours ago, Democrats and Republicans voted to override 
the President's veto, and that vote was a bipartisan vote, not enough 
to stop the President from stopping us from doing what the American 
people wanted us to do. A bipartisan vote, 265, and that vote was a 
very important vote. We had 43 Republicans voting with us on that.
  I think it's important, Madam Speaker, as we start to move forth on 
this whole economic stimulus discussion that we continue to work in a 
bipartisan way, but we're going to need more bipartisanship. Democrats 
are there at the line ready to do it. And I have a document here that's 
very easy for any Member to get a copy of that was prepared by the 
office of the majority leader on June 5 of 2007: ``House Democrats' 
bipartisanship leads to progress.'' And I also would ask all of my 
Republican colleagues to grab a copy of it. But I think that it's 
important that we reflect back on this document to really pay attention 
to what we have already done and what we can do. But we don't want to 
end up getting ourselves in a situation where we start deal breaking. 
When I say ``deal breaking,'' we know that the President and we know 
that the majority leader has met and we know that the Speaker has met 
at the White House just recently, just yesterday, and they have been 
meeting and talking on the telephone. As you know, we try to break this 
down as much as we can. We also know that in the House, we have had a 
Democratic economic forum, which was December 7, closing out last year. 
This whole economic stimulus discussion and effort did not start when 
it started hitting headlines. We were already out there on these 
issues. Ongoing discussion between House leaders and Secretary Paulson, 
who is the Secretary of the Department of Treasury, that has been going 
on. So many dates, too many to note here on this chart. A Democratic 
leadership letter to the President dated the 11th of this month. Also 
the Speaker has met with the Federal Reserve Chairman on January 14 and 
also the Democratic leadership meeting with Republican leaders on 
January 16. And those discussions continue to go on, some that are 
documented, some that are undocumented. A Democratic leadership meeting 
with Republican leaders again the following day. We also had a 
Democratic and Republican leadership meeting with the Treasury 
Secretary that took place on January 22, just a day ago. Also a 
Democratic and Republican leadership meeting with the President that I 
mentioned a little earlier.
  We're going to continue to pay attention to this bipartisanship, and 
when I say ``we,'' I mean those of us in the 30-something Working 
Group, because I think it should be encouraged. We have always talk 
about it. I, being a creature of two previous Congresses, always said 
that bipartisanship can only be achieved when the majority allows it to 
happen. We have a Democratic majority now that is allowing it to 
happen. If we start talking and going back and forth on retail 
politics, the only people that are going to lose are the American 
people, and I'm not in the business of seeing that happen.
  I think it's important also to know that there will be statements 
made and we have to make sure that we clear those statements up so that 
we don't have misunderstandings and we start going off into another 
direction on this whole effort of bipartisanship. I'm saying that and I 
came to the floor with that theme here today because it's important. If 
folks want to prove the differences between the two parties, find 
another way to do it, not necessarily on this economic stimulus package 
because so many Americans, Democrat, Republican, independent, those 
that can't even vote yet, those individuals that are dealing with the 
muddiness of life, that don't have what they need to make ends meet, 
and our economy is not in the posture for us to play games for several 
months to come going back and forth. So as much as we can as Members of 
the House, we need to meet. We need to understand one another. When we 
misunderstand one another, we need to meet again to make sure that we 
can work together, something that everyone talks about during the 
election season that they want to go to Washington, DC and work in a 
bipartisan way. I don't care where you are, if your district is 89 
percent Republican or 89 percent Democrat or what have you, 
independent, Green Party, you name it. You don't want to run on the 
platform that I'm going to Washington, DC to be a partisan. You don't 
run on that platform. You run on the platform that you're going to 
bring people together, that you're going to work across the aisle to 
get the job done for your constituents.

                              {time}  1545

  So I think it is very, very important, Madam Speaker, to put those 
words into action.
  And what I am seeing here and what I have seen, Madam Speaker, of the 
last 4 to 5 days have been what one may see in a piece of campaign 
literature or what one may see when someone speaks on television about 
how they are going to do things better if they get an opportunity to do 
it. You have that opportunity. Don't let that opportunity slip through 
your fingers when others try to derail the process.
  Today, I can say that what took place was an effort, and we tried to 
override the President on the children's health insurance bill, we may 
say the State Children's Health Insurance program. I think it is 
important with the 42 Republicans that voted along with Democrats, 218 
Democrats voted in affirmative, it wasn't enough to override the 
President, but it was a part of trying to take some of the burden off 
American families, because those families that are hurting right now, 
we know that health care cost is a huge issue when you start looking at 
how we are going to move this ball forward and how we are going to help 
American families.
  There are a number of organizations that are in support of the State 
insurance plan, what we call SCHIP, that are in support of this great 
piece of legislation. You have the AARP. You have the American Medical 
Association. You have Catholic Health Association, and Families U.S.A., 
along with a host of other organizations that I could spend 30 minutes 
on the floor reading every last one of them off. But that is not going 
to make a difference right now for this debate or the action that we 
were going to take, that hopefully we wanted to take place a couple of 
hours ago, to be able to allow children that are in need of health care 
insurance. We were denied that opportunity, and I can't say that the 
Republicans stopped us. I can say that 42 Republicans did what they had 
to do to be able to stimulate this, not only this economy, putting more 
dollars into the pockets, very few dollars into the pockets of 
Americans so that they don't have to spend those dollars in providing 
health care to kids that happen to be born into financially challenged 
families, and that would have been a way to assist them. But there were 
a number of Republicans that voted against the legislation that denied 
us from having that opportunity.
  But I have hope, Madam Speaker, that before this 110th Congress is 
out we will be able to provide that level of health care. We talked 
about universal health care. Starting with our children first is very, 
very imperative for us to be able to head in that direction.
  As we start dealing with the issues, when we move to the Senate, we 
have rule 22, that you have to have 60 Senators to be able to bring 
anything to the floor in an appropriate way or to be able to 
procedurally get it there. I think it is important because I am trying 
to look down the road because I have been down this road before. We get 
that warm and fuzzy feeling in our heart and start believing what we 
are

[[Page 666]]

reading and start saying, Wow, this is unbelievable. People are working 
together and we are actually going to move something through the 
process. Republicans are happy. Democrats are happy. And then we run 
into a handful of Senators, and the Senate may very well say, Well, we 
are not happy. And the reason why we are not happy is that I want to 
make sure that I can make some of the tax cuts that have been put out 
there now that are not right put into the moment, because that is what 
this is about.
  This stimulus package is not about stimulating the economy 8 months 
from now. It is about stimulating the economy right now. And it's 
important that we get it to the target audience that is going to help 
us do that. And so I think that any other great ideas that may come out 
of, independently of the bipartisan discussion that has been going on 
for almost double-digit days now will be counterproductive to us moving 
this piece of legislation forward. We know that when we come to final 
rest on this legislation, we know a lot of things are on the table that 
are going to create right-now jobs, that are going to create right-now 
investment, and it is going to be able to get into the hands of 
Americans that are going to spend those dollars to be able to jump-
start our economy, to be able to bring it out of the, quote, unquote, I 
don't want to use the ``R'' word, but the recession that folks are 
talking about and that economic indicators some feel we are in, some 
feel we are not. We have some individuals saying technically we may be 
in one.
  The bottom line is the economy is not what it needs to be to be able 
to continue the United States of being in the position that we are in 
right now, well, in a better position, a position we have been in the 
past, of being not only the largest economy in the world as it relates 
to a nation but also being very strong and very vibrant.
  We know that we can get in these very high altitude conversations of 
saying that it is important for us to be able to have trade, it is 
important for us to see small business start-ups, it is important for 
American people to be able to buy things at an affordable cost. But it 
is also important for us to pass this economic stimulus package within 
days, not weeks, not months. So I want to make sure, speaking to all of 
my colleagues here in the House, that we move with the spirit of saying 
that we are going to deal with the target audience that we are trying 
to reach right now, and that we are going to do it in a way that is 
bipartisan and that we won't have any last-minute legislative Hail 
Marys or amendments or procedural maneuvers that will stop us from 
achieving the goal of carrying out at least one major act at a time of 
urgency on behalf of the American people. We have done it before with 
other major pieces of legislation, but this economic stimulus 
legislation is very, very, very important.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I think that as we start to look at this, because 
I want to make sure the Members are able to communicate not only with 
the 30-Something Working Group but also with me independently, or any 
staff or what have you that wish to do so, can be reached at 
[email protected]. The reason why I give that Web site 
out, Madam Speaker, we have to call it out when we see it. It is almost 
like we are in the football season right now, and there is a lot of 
replays, and some of the replays are called within the last 2 minutes 
from the officials' box in what you may call the sweet area in a 
football stadium. And I think it is important that if you see this kind 
of activity that will derail this bipartisan spirit that we have right 
now, we need to call it out. We need to be able to say that that is 
going to be counterproductive. We already know that the agenda in 
trying to continue the tax cuts that were brought about under President 
Bush, and I believe the President is in the position of saying we don't 
need that part of tax legislation to be a part of this stimulus 
package, that is for another date, that is for us to deal with, that is 
for us to hash through in the Ways and Means Committee, which I am 
proud to be a member of, that is another day's debate. It is not a 
debate on this economic stimulus package that we are going to hopefully 
bring to the floor within days. I want to be able to head that off so 
that we don't have to waste the American people's time to really get 
into this issue of another debate as it relates to the tax issue. So I 
think it is important as we continue to move through this process that 
Members communicate with Members because a lot of folks say, well, it 
is just a lack of communication of the reason why we are not able to be 
successful in pushing some of these issues forward.
  I can also shed light on another issue, Madam Speaker, and that issue 
is the fact that we have a number of different tracks that are taking 
place here in the House and also in this Congress. The campaign spirit 
that is out there right now amongst the Presidential candidates, 
Democrat and Republican, and what we do here, that spirit, the spirit 
that we have here in the House may very well be broken based on what 
someone may say, and many of those individuals are Members of Congress, 
may say as it relates to their plans. Making those political statements 
here on the floor through legislation or trying to push into an 
economic stimulus package because someone said it on the campaign trail 
and for them to be able to say, well, that was just introduced, you 
know, in the, in this discussion, may be counterproductive if it is not 
within the spirit of what we are trying to do here.
  I also would like to share a statement that was made a little earlier 
today as we start talking about that spirit, and the Republican leader 
said, I hope that Democrats are not looking to give nontaxpayers 
rebates or what have you or incentives. I want to just clear it up. I 
am assuming that he is not speaking of those individuals that are 
paying payroll taxes, because they are. So many individuals, they don't 
have to pay because they pay so much in payroll tax, and we do have 
that. And also when we talk about a targeted audience, that targeted 
audience is the audience that will put the money into the economy 
versus saying, Well, I have received this rebate check, or, I have 
received some sort of incentive that will change my economic attitude 
towards spending, so I am going to go put it over here and invest it to 
deal with it at another time and another day. That won't be the kind of 
investment that will help us move this economy forward. I think it is 
important for us to pay attention to that, and just because someone is 
what I define as financially challenged, means that they cannot 
participate in what we are trying to do in stimulating this economy 
because we need them and we need them to keep this economy moving.
  I am glad to see that the spirit of the majority, of Chairman Rangel, 
who put out a statement today, the economic stimulus package, must help 
lower and middle-income families, I don't think there is anything wrong 
with that statement, and I think that it is within the spirit of what 
we are talking about here. Mr. Rangel goes on to say that the intent of 
the economic stimulus package has not yet been written, but everything 
remains on the table; however, I would like to respond to suggestions 
that various Republican leaders have made to prevent the stimulus 
package from reaching hardworking families. I think that it is also 
important that as we look at that, as we look at that statement there, 
again, we are looking at responding, and we are looking at working 
within the spirit of this legislation that we are communicating.
  Many times things are said, like I mentioned here earlier, like the 
Republican leader mentioned that he was concerned about that it is 
important to put it in black and white so that everyone can understand. 
I know, I know my Republican colleagues want to make sure these tax 
cuts meet lower and middle-class families. I hope that I am not proven 
wrong as it relates to any vote that may happen in committee or any 
vote that may happen here on this floor. But it is important that we 
put these statements out there and for it to be able to reach these 
hardworking families who work from paycheck to paycheck and make 
contributions to

[[Page 667]]

Social Security and Medicare, as Mr. Rangel goes on to say, or who may 
have recently lost their jobs, any argument on this issue that will be 
equally met with vigorous discussion as it relates to tax incentives to 
businesses.
  Now, here is another piece as we start to look at this very issue, 
dealing with businesses and dealing with individuals. The backbone of 
our economy are small businesses, and I guarantee you that small 
businesses will be a part of this economic stimulus package. But at the 
same time, let's not leave back in the dust those Americans that we 
know that will pump dollars into the economy and we know that have been 
paying payroll taxes and we know that have been paying into Social 
Security. So when we look at that, let's make sure that we work in a 
bipartisan way and that we understand each other.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage rapid response. I encourage Members to 
say, Well, if this is the way I feel, I am going to say the way I feel, 
but at the same time, be able to receive that answer or, at the same 
time, continue to meet.
  This chart I pulled out earlier, Madam Speaker, twice on this chart, 
and we will have it every time we come to the floor in the 30-Something 
Working Group, Democratic leadership meeting with Republican leaders, 
1/16 of this month, Democratic leaders meeting with Republican leaders, 
1/17. If they met in the a.m. and p.m., I would like to even put that 
down because I think it is important that we have that. Goodness 
gracious, if we were able to pull together this package in a way that 
American people will see that folks are actually talking daily in a 
meaningful talk, not just shooting shots over the bow of the ship, 
meaningful talk, hopefully we will be able to resolve issues like the 
impasse that we have had on the issue of health care, the impasse that 
we have had on the issue of Iraq and other various important issues 
that have come before this Congress.

                              {time}  1600

  This should be encouraged. I'm a Democrat. I enjoy being in the 
majority. And I hope that we are in the majority for as long as the sun 
rises in the East and sets in the West. I hope that happens.
  But as long as we are in the majority, it doesn't mean that we can't 
also have that same spirit towards bipartisanship, and that's 
important. Because I have been in the minority before, and I know how 
it feels. I know how it feels when you can't get a bill agendaed in a 
certainty; you can't get a bill agendaed in the committee or you can't 
get your amendment heard on the floor. I know how that feels.
  But I think it's very, very important that as we look at these very 
important issues that are facing our Nation, that we use that 
bipartisanship in a way that we haven't used it in the past. And we 
have passed bills in a bipartisan way, as I said a little earlier in 
the hour, but do it in a way that it will be a jaw drop for the 
American people. They'll say, wow, this is interesting how they came 
together and made this happen without trying to make a political stand.
  I think that from what I'm reading and what I'm seeing, it seems like 
the President is on board. It seems like the Speaker is on board, seems 
like the majority leader is on board. It even seems like the minority 
leaders in both chambers are on board.
  So as we look at rule XXII over in the Senate and we look at the 60 
vote, the procedural piece that has to happen before you get to bring 
in any bill before the Senate, that that spirit lives within those 
Republican Members that will help us get to that 60.
  When I say ``us,'' it's only 51 Democrats in the Senate, but let's 
continue to pay very close attention to it.
  Mr. Ryan, I'm so glad to see you all the way from Niles, Ohio. We 
know the Republicans will be going to a retreat this week. So we have 
an opportunity to work off line and do some work and get back to the 
district and do some great things. But this whole issue about economic 
stimulus, I tell my friends, when I come to the floor, even when you're 
not here, I make reference to what I have seen in your district, what 
is happening in your district and how important this bill is for Ohio 
just as important as it is for Florida.
  I yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think what is happening now 
highlights a lot of what has already been going on in a lot of areas 
around the country. I think when you start to look and see people are 
talking about the downturn in the economy and jobs and what is 
happening now: Unemployment rate going up, people not having the 
disposable income. When you look at a lot of areas, and it is not just 
Niles, Ohio. It is not just Youngstown, Ohio. It is not just Akron, 
Ohio. It is in Des Moines, Iowa. It is in Waterloo, Iowa. It is in 
Detroit, Michigan. It is in all of the industrial Midwest where, quite 
frankly, globalization has had a negative impact on a lot of the 
communities there.
  So this stimulus package, I think, as you have been talking about 
over the past 30, 35 minutes or so, it needs to be targeted to those 
families that are going to spend the money to stimulate the economy, 
those small businesses, I think, that are going to reinvest back 
whether it's in a machine shop in Streetsborough, Ohio, or wherever the 
case may be. But make that money available.
  But I think it's also important for us to talk about what we've been 
doing since we've been in the majority to affect the long-term growth 
of the economy. And I think, you know, one of the past Federal 
chairman's said that they're just too many bubbles, you know. That was 
the problem that we have had here.
  We had the tech bubble in the 1990s and the low interest rates and 
the housing bubble, and now we are looking at that bubble bursting.
  Just to give you an example on how this ripples throughout the 
economy, we have an aluminum extrusion manufacturer in Gerard, Ohio, 
300 pretty high-paying jobs that's going to close down because they 
supply the aluminum for the housing market, not commercial but the 
housing side.
  So this downturn, this bubble busting has this ripple effect 
throughout the economy, and that's why I think you see us in the 
position that we are in today.
  But if you look at what we are doing long term, for long-term 
stimulus, what we've tried to do with stem cell research here in the 
Congress, that opens up whole new vistas of opportunity in the health 
care field. That opens up opportunity for research and development in a 
growing field.
  If you look at what we are trying to do with alternative energy, you 
will see that these investments that we are making into the research 
and development of a lot of these alternative energy technologies, 
those are investments that are going to yield great benefits for us, 
because long term, you know, someone has got to make the windmill. 
Someone's got to make the hydraulics for the windmill. Someone's got to 
make the blades. These things need to be trucked around. These 
components need to be assembled.
  That is a direct investment once this technology is purchased or at 
least improved and able to produce some sufficient amount of energy, 
that's going to be American manufacturing. If you look at solar panels, 
that could be a potential opportunity for American manufacturing.
  So before I kick it back to you, it's important that we recognize 
some of these long-term investments that we are making here. And one of 
the ones that we saw, if you were looking at some of the economic 
indicators from the summertime when the wage was passed and 
implemented, there was actually an increase in consumer spending. It 
shouldn't be much of a surprise because if you put more money in the 
pockets of these folks, that's what happens.
  Finally, before I give it back to you, it's important to recognize 
for the American people that this stimulus package, what we are seeing 
here is going to stimulate the economy, is what we have been arguing 
about here since President Bush came in with his lopsided tax cuts for 
the top 1 percent.
  Now, if you give somebody who makes millions and millions of dollars

[[Page 668]]

a year--and God bless you if you do. We want you to make money. We are 
not against you. We understand the importance of people investing in 
business in our country. But that person is not going to take a couple 
hundred thousand dollars that they get in a tax cut and go out and 
spend it. What are they going to spend it on? When you have that money, 
you have everything that you need. You are not going to go out and say, 
``Well, I got a couple hundred thousand dollar tax cut. I'm going to go 
out and buy a new pair of shoes now.''
  You have everything that you need. So that cut does not have the 
economic stimulus, and if it is getting invested, let's be honest. That 
is getting invested in Asia. If you are looking to make money and put 
it in the market or you are looking to buy a particular stock, you are 
going into a certain area, and it would behoove you to put that money 
somewhere in Asia.
  So, having said that, the tax philosophy that we have here that you 
should give middle class tax cuts to folks, if it stimulates the 
economy now, if it is good for the economy now, it should be a good 
fiscal policy.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It's still good seeing an appropriator speak in 
tax language, talking about tax issues. So it's good to see it. I just 
wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate you, just in general.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you, even though I talk about 
appropriations all the time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know you talk about appropriations all the time, 
especially when you are trying to get money from appropriations for 
very important projects and investments in your district. In Hollywood 
and Miami, there are a lot of needs there.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And my constituents surely appreciate the help 
and assistance because they pay enough taxes, and we're up here making 
sure that if they pay their fair share, they get their fair share back.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They should get some back. You are exactly right.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I know you have water projects there and 
education projects there. You have energy projects there.
  If we are going to have the kind of development that we have, the 
economic development that lifts up all congressional districts, we have 
to make all of those investments.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You're right. You're right.
  I was talking earlier before you walked in on cloture. I believe it's 
called cloture in the Senate, and it's an old French word for closure. 
You hear it all the time, but you don't necessarily know the meaning of 
it. It sounds like it was something as it relates to clothes, but 
that's what it means in English pretty much.
  And I think that when we look at this issue and the fact that we 
always get to the point where even when we get our act together here in 
the House, it's either one or two Chambers. It's either the House or 
the Senate.
  Let's look at the SCHIP override. The Senate has a veto-proof vote in 
the Senate: 68 Senators voting in the affirmative for SCHIP.
  In the House, we fall short. I think here in the House that we may 
very well have the kind of bipartisanship we need to get this economic 
stimulus package passed. But in the Senate, I'm concerned. I'm very 
concerned because you have 51 Democrats and you are going to need 9 
Republican Senators, and I'm hoping, just hoping, that we are able to 
get the nine for it to be true bipartisanship. So that means the 
Republican leader is just as important as the Democratic leader, and we 
are trying to move this process through.
  And I think that we need to pay very close attention, and also pay 
attention to what is being said in the Senate, what's being said here 
in the House because this piece of legislation is too important. I 
don't think that Democrats can hang their hat and say, ``We passed the 
legislation to stimulate the economy.'' I don't think the Republicans 
can say it without saying Democrats, vice versa. So I think that is 
important that we pay attention. And I keep saying that because I know 
that in this building, and we are talking about the 500-plus Members of 
Congress and all of our great ideas that we may have, coming to the 
table with an amendment or making a procedural move through any one of 
the said committees could very well derail this spirit that we have.
  We have a war that's going on in Iraq. As of today, we have 3,929 
individuals that have lost their lives in Iraq, and we have had a 
number of them wounded in action, 15,996. And we have those families 
that are living in this economy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the latest report is 650,000 Iraqis who have 
been killed as well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is correct. So we have a number of loss of 
life.
  The point I'm trying to make here is that we even have numbers for 
Afghanistan and what is happening there, and we just had an Armed 
Services meeting a little earlier today, and there is discussion. One 
of the witnesses, a lieutenant general, said, ``Well, the Afghans are 
saying what, Americans, will you leave us?'' Well, this is a big 
question when we talk about spending, we talk about the economy.
  Let me draw this picture here. You go to dinner with your friends and 
there's six of you, and the bill comes out to like, I don't know, 4- or 
$500. You have been there for a couple of hours, of course ordering 
several appetizers and ice tea and an entree, and it comes up to $600. 
Do you spend the time of divvying up the bill and collecting the money, 
or do you always have to get up and say, ``I have it. I'll take care of 
it?'' You know what I'm talking about?
  That's what America has been saying to every conflict we have ever 
had. Afghanistan, for what needs to happen there, do we always have to 
be the people there who say, ``I got it?''
  The euro is doing a lot better than the dollar right now, and there's 
a separation between NATO and EU, and they have their own account and 
they're making investments.
  Afghanistan is the gateway to narcotics, illegal drugs into Europe. 
And so the fact that I know that they're playing a role already, but 
I'm saying that even a greater role, we are in it because of terrorism. 
We are in it. Madam Speaker knows exactly what I'm talking about. We 
are in it not only in the terrorist end, terrorism, trying to prevent 
terrorism not only in the world, but also domestically.

                              {time}  1615

  But I think it is important that the EU plays a greater role. There 
is going to be three reports released, from what we were told in 
committee today, and the next 10 days dealing with that variation.
  I shared those two scenarios just to say that as we start looking at 
the bipartisanship spirit that we have, the bipartisanship spirit that 
we have and continue to build on, we have to do it in all economic 
issues, because we can talk about the war, and the two wars that are 
going on, it has a lot to do with economics that we are facing or the 
problems that we are having here in this country as it relates to our 
own economy because of the debt that we are spending, or that we are 
paying down on, and it is continuing to build.
  It is continuing to build, even though we have spent several hours 
here on this floor talking about if you are going to spend it, you have 
got to pay for it. Then we find ourselves in a situation where we are 
pushed up in a corner of the wall where the American people have to pay 
for the fact that we are unable to work in a bipartisan way to get the 
job done in the time we should get it done before it becomes a crisis 
situation.
  So this bipartisanship is just a lot bigger than just a word. You can 
just say I am bipartisan. It is bigger than that. It has a lot to do 
with how much we pay for something. It is almost like a plane ticket. I 
am breaking it down because I want to make sure, because here in 
Washington we have big, lofty terms and using acronyms. It is like a 
plane ticket. If you have to buy a plane ticket, and you buy it on the 
day of

[[Page 669]]

travel, you are going to pay more than you would have paid 30 days in 
advance or 2 weeks in advance or a 7-days-in-advance ticket.
  Without bipartisanship, we find ourselves buying the ticket hours 
before the flight when it is imperative that we get on the flight, when 
we could have gotten on it cheaper and even probably better seating 
with a 30-day-in-advance or a 60-day-in-advance.
  As we look at this, we have to not only clip, but we have to pay 
attention. I am asking all the Members to pay attention to it, because 
we pay more when we fight on these issues that must happen here in this 
country on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The point, too, is the decisions that you make, I 
think, and so articulately explained here, the decisions that you make 
have long- term ramifications. If you make bad decisions, as we have 
seen, now, regardless of where you were on the war, what your position 
was before it started, or when it started or how your vote was, we now 
have to calculate and figure out $1.3 trillion was spent on this war 
that we elected to go into that now has been proven time and time again 
that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Hussein did not have 
weapons of mass destruction.
  As policymakers, we need to look back and evaluate whether or not 
this was a good decision; $1.3 trillion at the end of next year, or at 
the end of this year will have been spent on this war. We look all 
across our country, and has it helped reduce gas prices? No. Has it 
helped create stability around the world? No. Did it decrease the 
number of terrorists around the world? No. It actually increased the 
number, and every intelligence report from all over the world will tell 
us that.
  We need to understand that as we make these decisions, whether it is 
on the stimulus package, whether it is on our Tax Code, whether it is 
on the investments that we are going to make in this country, these are 
big decisions, because the ramifications are pretty big when you look 5 
or 6 years down the line and could be as costly when you get into an 
elective war as $1.3 trillion.
  These are the kinds of decisions that we are making here, and I think 
it is very important for us to recognize, as we make them, that these 
have long-term ramifications. The tax cuts, you combine the war and the 
tax cuts. When our friends were in charge of this body for 6 years, 
since President Bush was in, and President Bush was President, a 
Republican-controlled House and Senate, $3 trillion was borrowed from 
the Chinese, the Japanese, to increase our debt. So our debt went up by 
$3 trillion. They raised the debt limit five times. So when you combine 
the Bush tax cuts with the war, some very immature policy decisions 
were made.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The bottom line is, you have your back up 
against the wall, you have to make a decision, you have to do it now.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Now.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You can't wait. You can't throw it off to the 
side. You can't, say, sling-shot in the end for a win. You can't do any 
of that kind of stuff. You have to do it in a very responsible way.
  Again, if we keep saying it, if I look at the Congressional Record 
tomorrow and see bipartisanship, bipartisanship, and even more 
bipartisanship, that is fine with me, because it is almost like 
McDonald's. I mean, I feel like going and getting a number 3 after a 
football game because I have seen it eight times. I really think I 
actually like certain things at McDonald's, which I do. You can just 
look at me and tell.
  But I think it's important that we continue to talk about what's 
happening right now and what the President has to say when he comes and 
walks down this aisle next week, I believe, when he comes in here to 
come talk to us about what's going to happen in this economic stimulus 
package, what's going to happen as it relates to the two wars going on, 
what's going to happen as it relates to health care. This opportunity 
that we have now, 10 days of discussion, bipartisanship, he stepped off 
the plane from the Middle East and had bipartisanship stamped on his 
lapel saying we have got to get this going. We have to make it happen 
even though there was a letter that the Speaker and the majority leader 
wrote him on 1/11 of this month saying, What's the plan? This is what 
we want to do. We have to stimulate the economy. Let's do it.
  We had our economic summit on 12/7 of last year, having deep 
discussions as Democrats on this very issue. I think it is important, 
the President comes down. He has to almost give the speech of his life, 
but guess what? Action has to follow it. This reminds me, Mr. Ryan, I 
think we were both State senators at this time, when the planes hit the 
Twin Towers, the plane hit the Pentagon and one went down in 
Pennsylvania, that spirit that we had then when people were willing and 
looking for leadership on the issue of how we are going to come back 
together as Americans and how we are going to pick this country back 
up. We have this opportunity.
  The President has this opportunity to lead. This is his last year in 
office. We have Republicans and Democrats that have an opportunity to 
change the opinion of the American people on how we can work together.
  So in this last half of this 110th Congress where we are talking 
about bipartisanship, and I am just saying talking about it, let's show 
them some real action. We came together on economic stimulus. We came 
together on this issue of Iraq. This discussion that I am hearing the 
President, I want to go and have this kind of bilateral discussion and 
sign a piece of paper and lock our hands on Iraq for years to come, is 
not bipartisanship. There has to be some discussion in Congress on 
that.
  It is important that as we start looking at Afghanistan and what we 
are going to do there, I think it is very important that the President 
can use that in a bipartisan way. So if we are going to make a deal, 
let's make a deal on bipartisan agreements as we move from this point 
on. This is the talk of the year that a lot of folks have made New 
Year's resolutions. I don't know. Maybe the President said, I am 
willing to be bipartisan, and he talked about it during his original 
campaign. I am not a divider. I bring people together. I make sure that 
folks worked together, I mean, united. I mean, that was the word that 
he used.
  I think that if we want to do that, then we are going to have to do 
it in a way that does an even better job than we did in the first half 
of the session. We can't paint a clearer picture on how important this 
is.
  In closing, Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you if you would, we still have 
time, a few minutes, if you would, and our colleagues, you see these 
ideas, that is how they come, being drafted or being mentioned, or 
something outside of the bipartisan discussions that have been going on 
that is here on this chart, and you are not bubbling your great idea to 
your leadership, and your leadership is not putting it on the table, 
and I see your leadership, Democrat or Republican, then it is going to 
derail what the American people want. That is an opportunity to 
stimulate the economy and stimulate the family economy and to make sure 
that we can remain strong and prosperous.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You mentioned bipartisanship. I think, as we are 
closing out here and as we had the vote today on the SCHIP bill, that 
it's important for us to recognize how far away the President is from 
bipartisanship on some of these issues. Here we have the SCHIP, State 
Children's Health Insurance bill. This was a program that was started 
by Newt Gingrich and President Clinton to invest money into the health 
of poor and middle-class kids. The program was $35 billion over 5 
years. It passed this House in a bipartisan way with many, many, many 
Republican votes, mostly Democratic, but many Republican.
  The President vetoed this bill twice. So a bipartisan bill drafted by 
Newt Gingrich, signed into law by President Clinton is vetoed a couple 
of times by President Bush. His reason is it costs too much money. It's 
$35 billion over 5 years.
  This is the same President that raised the debt limit five times and 
ran

[[Page 670]]

up $3 trillion in debt and turns around days later and asks for another 
$200 billion in Iraq, but he doesn't have and doesn't see the sense in 
the investment of $35 billion over 5 years for kids' health care. So 
when you hear ``bipartisan,'' you have got to be skeptical.
  Now I want to kick it to who we very affectionately refer to as our 
``mother'' here in Congress, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who, I know I saw 
her on TV at the Presidential debate the other night, Madam Speaker, 
and I think Mr. Meek, and you were there too, that it seems like Mrs. 
Jones may have gotten more TV time than Hillary Clinton got during the 
Presidential debate.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I don't know whether I did or not. I wanted to 
come to the floor and say how proud I am of my ``sons,'' Kendrick and 
Tim. Actually, they are not my sons, but I call them that anyway.
  But I come here and look, and I have Anna and Mary who are visiting 
the House floor today, and these two young women are examples of how 
important SCHIP could be to the children of America. I am so glad they 
had a chance to join me with one of my good friends, Robin. We serve on 
a couple of committees together, and this is what we talk about, 
bipartisan action on the floor of the House.
  Ladies, thank you so much for coming to visit with me. I will take 
this pink sweater and this red ribbon and I will look gorgeous.
  But I am glad to join my colleagues here on the floor of the House as 
we talk about the economic stimulus, because the people of Ohio need a 
stimulus. They need jobs, they need health care, and they need jobs 
that make real money. They need to be saved from these mortgage brokers 
who have hurt them deeply.
  I recognize my ``sons,'' of whom I am so very proud.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Jones. Being a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, we talk about the economy. I 
know that we will have a lot to do and say about that, and we talked 
about a bipartisan spirit. But we have, I think, like 2 more minutes 
left. But if you want to share anything as it relates to the economy 
that you would like to share with us, you can.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I will recognize each of you. Thank you very 
much.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mrs. Jones.
  We want to encourage the Members and also anyone who is watching us 
here on the floor, the 30-Something Democrats at 
[email protected] and www.speaker.gov/30something. You 
said something that I think is very, very important in this debate.
  We are not here drinking the tea. I mean, we are not here saying, Oh, 
let's just all link up together and flowers falling from the ceiling 
and all and that we are working in a bipartisan way. What we are doing 
is saying that we are working like the American people would like for 
us to work on this very important issue. We are hoping that the 
President continues to do what he is doing as it relates to talking to 
Democratic leaders and real-time, Democratic leaders speaking with the 
President, Republican and Democratic leaders in the Congress continuing 
to work together in real-time, meeting day after day, morning and 
evening, so that we can put together a work product so that we can all 
work for it and get it out to the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think you have done a great job today, Mr. Meek, 
and I just want to say how proud I am to come down here with you and 
make these points and listen to you break down the issues of the day 
where you are putting the cookie on the bottom shelf.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, days like this you just have to plow 
through it.
  With that, Madam Speaker, it has been an honor to address the House.

                          ____________________