Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. I just have come to the floor on behalf of the 30-something Working Group. As you know, and as the Members know, we work daily and weekly on issues that are facing the American people and also to not only inform Members of Congress but also allow the American people to get a closer glimpse of what is happening here in the Capitol dome and what is not happening here under the dome. I am proud to report that there were a couple of days, we only worked 3 days last week, or 4, to allow the minority party to have their retreat. During that time, Speaker Pelosi and a number of other chairmen traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit our troops and also our commanders in the field. I can share with you that the trip will be talked about a little further by the Speaker tomorrow, but it is very, very important because it is the number one thing that is facing the Nation right now, and that is war in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. Last week we spoke or talked here on the floor about the importance of the President's State of the Union, what was said and what was not said. There was some level of focus on the fact that Katrina was not mentioned not one time during the President's State of the Union, with me being from a hurricane State and representing a district that is constantly hit by hurricanes and natural disasters, just being one season away. Katrina, noted as one of the worst natural disasters of our time and one of the worst responses by this Federal Government, did not receive even a mention from the President of the United States. I can say that there are several Members here in Congress that continue to be concerned about Katrina and the area of housing and follow-through and preparedness on behalf of our first emergency responders, or that they have the tools to respond, but making sure that FEMA has the proper oversight to be able to carry out the tasks needed in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. One other thing I think is important to be able to identify is veterans were not pointed out in this State of the Union. Looking at Katrina and the State of the Union, we must come to grips with there are two hard realities. One, if we have a natural disaster or a planned terrorist attack that takes place in this country, is the Federal Government ready to respond, especially on behalf of the executive branch? That question is still left unanswered. At the same time, when we start looking at issues of veterans, looking at our troops, our men and women coming home, what will be the state of affairs on behalf of those veterans? I am saying all of this to line up the debate that is going to take place after this week when we pass the continuing resolution that will be on the floor on Wednesday of this week, of what is going to happen the following week after that when the President sends his budget to Congress. It is important within that budget to embrace some of the values of the American people and even legislation that we have filed in the 110th Congress and also that was filed in the 109th Congress. I think it is important, also, to outline the fact that Americans continue to disapprove of the direction that the President is heading in dealing with the troop escalation in Iraq. I will be looking forward to hearing more about the Speaker's trip not only tomorrow in her press conference but also when she shares not only with the Democratic Caucus but with this House of Representatives. And to see after the State of the Union, the President's polling numbers drop even to another low. What I understand from some reports, as low as 30, 28 percent. I know the President is not going to win a popularity contest, but I think it is important to be able to follow the will and desire of the American people and on behalf of the Congress. Also, I took the opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, before coming to the floor, to take a look at what congressional leaders are saying, not just on the Democratic side of the aisle but even on the Republican side of the aisle, and there is a great debate that is going on. I pull here the Congressional Daily AM, which pretty much any staffer or Member of Congress involved in the process here in Washington, D.C., can pick it up and find out what is going on throughout the whole week; and on a number of the issues that are going to face the President, some of his strongest supporters here in Congress are disagreeing with him at this point. I think this could only boil down to Members of Congress using common sense and standing up on behalf of their constituents, either it be an entire State, if you are a Senator, or Member of Congress that represents a district. I think it is important that we exercise those values. There will be an up-or-down vote on how the Senate feels about the troop escalation in Iraq; and I believe, reading here, that the Democratic leader, Mr. Reid, has said that that vote will be taken and that there will be a number of Republicans that are going to have to take that vote because there are going to be 21 seats to defend in the Senate in the 2008 elections. Now, saying that, Mr. Speaker and Members, this is not about politics. This is about standing up on behalf of the American people. I think Senator Webb said it best, Mr. Speaker and Members, that if the President doesn't want to lead us in the right direction, then we need to show him the way, something along those lines. And I think it is important on behalf of the men and women that are in harm's way now and the fact that we have oversight as the legislative body in this three- branch government that we exercise our rights in this. I want to read just a little bit here, continue from page 1 over to page 2: ``Warner's opposition to sending more troops was a heavy blow to the White House and administrative officials that hoped that the former Senate Armed Services chairman, one-time Navy Secretary would help convince colleagues to support the plan.'' I think it is important that the Senator and past chairman of that committee stand up on behalf of the American people in what is right, and I commend that on a bipartisan basis. I think the American people and Members here in the House know exactly where Democrats stand on this issue of making sure that we bring about the kind of oversight but at the same time not just standing by and saying, well, the President is Commander in Chief; and he is making all the decisions. I see my good friend, Congressman Murphy, is here. If this was left up to politics, then we would just stand back and allow the President to continue to do what he is doing, and then we could have Ground Hog Day all over again, as we had in November, Democrats continuing to gain power because of the lack of leadership on behalf of the Republican leadership to stand up to the President of the United States. But this is not about politics. This is about protecting the American people. This is about making sure that their will and desires are represented here in the people's House, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I am pretty sure in the Senate. And I am hoping that Democrats and Republicans will come together. As you know, Mr. Speaker and Members, here in the 30-Something Working Group, we embrace bipartisanship. We encourage bipartisanship. And the good thing about serving in an elected body is when you are right and you are on the side of the people, then you will return back to this body. If you are wrong, I used to play football down at Florida A&M, and we used to say the blind leading the blind and the two shall fall in the ditch. So I think it is important that if we know that the American people are looking for a new direction versus the same direction that the President was taking in the 109th and 108th Congress, the wrong direction as it relates to Iraq, then that is a decision that every Member of Congress has to make. Mr. Murphy, I am so happy that you are able to join us right now. I was just talking a little bit about what we finished off on last week. I talked about the fact that the Speaker was in theater, two theaters, in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. She just returned. She will be having a press conference tomorrow to talk about that a little more. The fact that on Wednesday we will be debating the continuing resolution and will be here on the floor. We will have a follow-up. The President's budget will be handed down, I think, February 5, and some of the things which were not mentioned in the State of the Union, Hurricane Katrina and the victims of Hurricane Katrina and those Gulf States and also veterans that were left out of the State of the Union speech, which is going to be the next major wave that this country is going to be facing. How we are going to deal with the influx of new veterans coming into the system? And you pretty much heard the rest when you joined us. But, welcome, and I yield to you.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. All I am going to do is do a close. I know we have the Web site and all, but I want to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz because I want to tell you, I am not from Connecticut, but if I was one of your constituents, I would vote for you. You are good. That is all I can say.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I was just saying if I was your constituent I would vote for you. It is good to have a Member of Congress that is as well informed into the issues that are facing the constituents and the American people. I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz because we are going to be closing out soon.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, will you yield for a moment? I was kind of paying attention to the room last night when the President said, ``Give my plan a chance to work.'' Now, if you kind of look on the gauge of who stands up for that or who claps for it, I can tell you that it was lukewarm on the Republican side, and definitely over here on the Democratic side it was more of the same. I mean, you made it to Congress, I made it back to Congress with a message that we were going to move in a new direction. And I believe that we will have a majority, and I am not just talking about a Democratic majority, if it comes down to a question, I know they had some action on the other side of the Capitol dome today, on this very issue of the escalation of the troops, and we have quotes here that will be on the 30-Something Web site I know, hopefully, by the end of the week of Senators, Representatives and others that have said just the contrary to what the President said last night. So I believe that there is some hope on the Iraq issue. Now, the Republican leadership is not necessarily there where we need them to be. And you heard me say once before that I am not upset with certain Members that are not following the will and the desire of the American people. The good thing about the U.S. House of Representatives is we are all up for reelection in 23, 24 months from now, and we have to be accountable. And if Members want to follow leadership, or whoever they think that is going to share with them how they should vote and what they should stand for on all these different issues, then I think it is important that they realize that we are going to have an election, and that you have got to go home, you have to explain why you voted for more of the same. I believe that we are getting to a head here. And the good thing about being in the majority is that we have the opportunity, we used to give speeches on this floor, Mr. Murphy, saying if we are blessed enough to have the opportunity to be in the majority to lead the American agenda, the American people, everyday Americans who wants accountability and who pray and look for bipartisanship, look for leadership, we will give it to them, and that is what we are going to have a chance to do. Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to point that out because that was an observation. And while I am speaking, if you want, I will yield to you so that we can drive this home, because we want to break this down because we don't want Members to go back to their districts and say, you know, I didn't understand that. We want individuals to be able to pull the Congressional Record and say, wow, how couldn't you understand it; it was mentioned 10 or 12 times in a given day on the reason why we were doing what we did.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, when you said 30-something-plus, you looked at me.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, it is an honor to be on the floor with Mr. Murphy and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Being in the majority brings about responsibility for all of us. So we have a lot to do. And Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the Democratic leadership, from the Speaker to the leader to the whip to the chair and the vice chair for allowing us to have this Special Order on the Democratic side. It was an honor addressing the House once again.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is an honor to come before the House once again. We have finished our work for the week, and a lot has happened, a lot has been said. As you know, the 30- Something Working Group, Mr. Murphy, and I are here today, my good friend from Connecticut. We are going to talk about some of the issues that have been discussed over the last 24 hours on the floor, some of the votes that we have taken, even as it relates to last week, some of the challenges that are facing the country. I know there will be other Members of the 30-Something Working Group that may be joining us this afternoon. I can tell you as we continue to move forward in this 110th Congress, there is a lot that the American people have to be proud of at some level of accomplishment as it relates to issues that are truly facing the American people. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to hear from the President of the United States. Some say that there was some issues that he brought to the table that are not new. He has mentioned some of these issues before. Alternative fuel, the issue of Iraq, talking about health care, still holding onto the issue of savings accounts that have been proposed in past State of the Unions but haven't been acted upon to even bring about real changes as relates to health care. The President talked about earmarks last night, Mr. Speaker. But it is interesting under the Republican-controlled Congress, that is when the earmarks were out of control. And it was under his watch and his party's watch. And now the President wants to be the chief, I guess, the chief person who says who gets an earmark and who does not get an earmark. Earmark reform was a part of the Democratic reform package, and was not even really given serious consideration until the Democrats took control of the Congress. The glaring issue as it relates to Iraq, and Mr. Murphy and I and Mr. Ryan were talking about this just yesterday, it is obvious that the American people voted for change in the last election, and that the President continues to march in the opposite direction of the American people. The American people are ready to go in a new direction. The President seems like he is ready to go and continue to keep going in the old direction. The new direction, redeployment of troops, working in a diplomatic way, following some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations of talking with Iran and Syria, and I would even add Turkey if we want to look at a diplomatic resolution to what is happening in the Middle East, making sure that our troops are safe, making sure that we take the training wheels off the Iraqi Government train, redeploy, diplomatic mission. The President seems to think that the answer is to have an escalation in troops. The American people are looking for escalation in the truth, not the troops. And also the President has spoken of giving him a chance for his plan to work. Well, I can tell you that the American people have given the President a lot of latitude as it relates to Iraq. I think it is important, I take from Senator Warner's, and I can talk, I have a number of quotes here on the escalation of troops from Senator Warner, the former chairman, who is a Republican, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I can also take from our colleagues who spoke after the President spoke yesterday and prior to his speech yesterday, that contradict or are going in a new direction as it relates to Iraq and what the American people called for, versus what they did not call for, more of the same. So hopefully, Mr. Murphy, we will talk a little bit about some of this today. There are some other issues, as it relates to the State of the Union speech, that we can get into, but I think it is important, we spent a lot of time yesterday talking about bipartisanship, we spent a lot of time yesterday saying the President had an opportunity, and we hoped that he would come and share with us, hold up issues such as the minimum wage that we passed overwhelmingly on this floor that he is ready to sign. We thought that he would come to the floor saying, I want to work with the leaders here in the House on the minority and majority side on passing real health care on behalf of millions of Americans that are without health care. Those things did not come out. I can say that the Americans, Mr. Speaker, that were pointed out yesterday in the gallery by the President, well-noted heroes and ``she- roes'' that were sitting up there, this State of the Union was about a state of the Union, and I can tell you, hearing last night's speech, we have a lot of work ahead of us, Democrats and Republicans. So I am excited about that opportunity. I yield to my good friend, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, before you leave, I just wanted to say before yielding to Ms. Wasserman Schultz that I am glad that you came to the floor, because you have been given voice in this. And I remember being a non-Member of Congress. You served with my mom; and I was in the senate, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I were serving in the Florida Senate. I remember you going out to the mike by the Cannon Building where C-SPAN had a camera rolling, and it was a press conference, and you went out along with a number of Members saying that it is wrong that we gave the President the authority to go to war; and that you have been a voice on this issue because you knew that this could possibly happen, the position that we are in now. I also want to add, since you said he didn't mention anything about Katrina, he didn't say anything about veterans. And I know you have been up front and on target on veteran benefits. We have many from Florida; I know Mr. Murphy has them from Connecticut. And I think that it is important that even though, Mr. Speaker, veterans were not mentioned, victims of Katrina weren't mentioned, we picked up on it. And we are going to make sure that we continue to do the things that we need to do. Thank you, Ms. Brown.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I would tell you right now, and Members, I think it is important that we look at this for what it is worth. If I was thinking of the Iraq issue solely as a political issue, it would be let us go to the floor, Mr. Murphy, and as we talk, we meet in the 30-something Working Group, let us not talk about the politics of the Iraq issue. If this was about maintaining the majority as it relates to politics, Mr. Speaker and Members, if this was about capturing the White House, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't come to the floor to talk about how we can work in a bipartisan way or come to the floor and promote leadership. And I think it is important that we promote leadership and move in this new direction and saying that we have to deal with the big issue of Iraq. I get members of local government and State government saying, Congressman, I need more money in my city. You cut the COPS program. Your Federal commitment as it relates to dollars for health care, for security, for the environment, they are not there like they used to be there. And we put parameters on ourselves because we told the American people what we would do, pay-as-we-go philosophy or principles that we already passed, and we have this war going on and we have young men and young women. You have a lot of Reservists that are there that are 40, 50 years old, that are away from their families 15 months at a pop. We come to Washington, D.C., most of us, our families are back in the district and we are here and we are missing for about 4 or 5 days, but we get to go back home at the end of the week, unlike those men and women when they board that chartered flight. When they go over to Kuwait or fly straight into Baghdad Airport or end up in Turkey at one of our staging bases there, or end up somewhere else as they feed into Iraq, they don't get the opportunity to say, Hey, kids, I am going to be back in a couple of weeks. So I think it is important that we look at this issue and treat it with the serious attention that it needs. So for the President to come here last night and say, give me an opportunity, give me an opportunity for my plan to work, well, let me tell you something. It is almost like looking in the refrigerator and seeing a carton of milk there and you take it out and open the carton and you say, wow, that milk is sour; let me put it back in, maybe it will be fresh tomorrow. That logic doesn't work. So it is important. And I am glad to see some of our Republican colleagues and many of our Democratic colleagues that are questioning the President, before he can even leave the Chamber, about the speech, what he did not say in the speech, that did November 7 happen? Did you hear it? At the press conference after the November election, he said, you know, I guess it did have something to do with Iraq. And some of the tough talk ended. And I just want to say if I can commend the President, he didn't come with the chest-beating that he usually does, but he did go back to scaring the American people. So I think it is important. There are issues we have to deal with. But I am on record, Mr. Speaker and Members, on the issue of being a leader, having the courage, and representing the people that have sent us to Washington, DC to be able to govern in this government. Give our men and women what they need in Iraq, but at the same time push forth diplomatic talks. At the same time make sure that we start not only discussion but redeployment of our troops more sooner than later, because that message would not only get to the Iraqi Government but also to the world community because we all play a role in this. I see my good friend from Florida. We have served together, and she is the chairwoman on the Rail Subcommittee under the Transportation Committee. I am so glad she has joined us. Mr. Murphy has had so much to say on this topic, and I am so glad you are here on the floor. I yield to Ms. Brown from Florida.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am going to yield to my friend from Connecticut here in one second. Great point. I am glad that you put a period at the end of that dot.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. The real issue here is, gentlemen, even before I have an opportunity to get a copy of the President's speech, Mr. Speaker, and even before our great Sergeant at Arms stands there and says, Madam Speaker, for the first time in the history of the country, the President of the United States, even before that happens, I guarantee you, gentlemen, that this health care proposal that the President has is going to end up being to the American middle-class taxpayer, a person that wants health care, money out of this pocket, taking money out of this pocket and putting it hopefully in the other, with some coming out to pay for it. There will be no real program that will benefit the middle class in achieving health care. It would have to almost be, Mr. Speaker, an atmosphere to where for a person to get a true benefit, they would probably have to go out and get a tax attorney to understand their opportunities, their lucky-ducky opportunities that we hear so much about here on Capitol Hill. I think it is important, Members, that we break this thing down before we leave Washington this week to make sure the American people know exactly the direction that the administration wants this Congress to move in, because there has to be a discussion. And it has to be open-ended, Mr. Murphy. He needs to say, Listen, I have this health care initiative; I would love to have a discussion with the Congress on how we can make this possible for the American people. Now, I can tell you right now, the superwealthy have an advocate in the administration in making their tax cuts permanent; I am talking about the superwealthy. I am talking about the folks who are not worried about if they are going to be able to get health care. They already have it. We are talking about those 47 million Americans that are stuck right now, and the thousands of small businesses that once provided a level of health care; but let's not make it so technical so that only a few can benefit. Some of the earned income tax credits are not taken advantage of, Members, because when you are punching in and punching out every day and you have to go pick up your kids, and if you have got to take them to the doctor, you are making a career decision, that is the reason why the emergency room is so convenient because the boss person doesn't want to let that working parent or parents off to be able to take care of his health care needs. So this is a huge issue. But at the same time, I think it is important, Members, that we keep in the frame here this issue of Iraq. It has to continue to surface; we have to deal with it; and the American people are counting on us to provide leadership. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I think it is important that we have a real discussion back and forth on this very issue. We talked about the President coming to the floor and hopefully bringing about and, well, promoting bipartisanship, coming to the floor and saying there are some good things that have happened here; you know, hey recognize the historical moment of having the first female Speaker in the history of the country; but secondly, dealing with some of the major issues. I understand, Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Iraq he is going to say what he says and says he sent the escalation troops. He is going to stick with it or my way or the highway. It is the wrong approach and it is going to inflame the American people and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Also, I would like to say, even when it comes down to the issue of the minimum wage, I know that the President has said, well, you know, I like the minimum wage but there are some things that I would like to do. That is fine, but as far as I am concerned, when it comes down to the bill, signing it, he needs to be overjoyed to sign it because that is what the American people want. It is not just Democrats. I mean, the American people want to see folks that are making $5.15 an hour to make $7.15 or greater because when they make more, the American people make more, salaried workers, because their pay is going to go up. I see Mr. Ryan has something there he is going to go a little further into it. Stem cell research, folks may have issues here and there, but the bottom line is the American people have spoken in many of these Senate races and many of these House races, and they have spoken because they want their loved ones to have a better chance in beating some of the terminal cancer that is out there right now and diseases that so many Americans are suffering through and their family members are trying to fight through those issues. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission, Mr. Speaker, why fight on the commas and the periods saying that, well, we believe that we are already doing that. Well, apparently you must not be doing it because the 9/11 Commission has given you Ds and Fs in those areas that you say that you are already doing it. So not just because we got to the cafeteria first we get an opportunity at the only oatmeal cookie that is left. It is the fact that we have to secure America. This goes beyond I thought of this first or I thought of this second. The American people said they want the full implementation of the 9/ 11 Commission, and that is what we gave them. The majority vote here in this House and will be a majority vote in the Senate and will have the opportunity to go to the White House and hopefully the President will implement those recommendations, it is to make America safer. It is not because it was not your original thought to do it, and I am hoping that he comes to the floor and embraces that on behalf of all of our safety. I do not think that I need to advise the President in any way, but I think that on behalf of all of us, if we are going to continue the spirit that we have started and bipartisanship and having the least friction as possible, especially on issues that we should not even be debating on, the issues that I have outlined, they are not even issues that are brand-new issues. These are issues that have been talked about in committee, talked about it in commissions, even as it relates to campaigns to get to Congress. The issue of the investment on Big Oil, the billions of dollars in subsidies, and now we have reversed and put them in the clean, renewable energy, that should not even be a debate. It should not even be, well, I agree with it or I don't agree with it. You should agree with it, because we need it more now than ever. One of the big issues now, Mr. Ryan, when it all boils down to redeployment of our troops in Iraq, all of this is a vicious circle of irresponsibility in the past, or a lack of responsibility, and making sure that we are able to carry out not only diplomatic responsibility, but legislative responsibility and oversight. I think the reason we have had the escalation in troops, Mr. Ryan, is prior to the lights being illuminated or the committee rooms being illuminated to have hearings on what we should do in Iraq, how we should work in a diplomatic way in Iraq, what kind of leadership should we have in Iraq, now that is happening with the confirmation of a new general to take over the command in Iraq. I think it is important, Mr. Ryan, that we move in the direction that we have been moving in, and that is in a bipartisan direction, that is in a direction that the supermajority of American people agree with. Let's get those things off the table. Let's start fine-tuning these issues of six in '06. I think some of the Republican leadership just has issues with the fact it is part of six in '06 and ``we have to be against it, because we didn't do it when we had the opportunity to do it.'' I can care less about what happened in the last Congress. I do care about what is happening in this Congress, Mr. Ryan, and what is happening in the future Congresses. Because when folks woke up at 7 o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday morning and voted for representation, they voted for leadership, they voted for bipartisanship, they voted for a Washington, D.C., especially under the Capitol dome, Americans coming together, because we are all Americans, coming together on behalf of the greater good. That is what they are counting on. That is what we should give them. The majority of the Members of the House should give that to them. When I am speaking of the majority members of the House, I am talking about Republicans too. I am talking about all of us coming together on their behalf. So, to hear these issues tonight, it is going to be very, very important. The President has a choice. If he wants to come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and continue to give the same speech that he has been giving in the past, it will be very, very unfortunate. But if he comes to the floor tonight talking about how he would like to work with the Democratic Congress and work with the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership, and the same thing over in the House and the Senate, work in a bipartisan way, if he used the words ``bipartisan Congress,'' I think he will be more successful in passing legislation that we can all come together on and that we do have an input in it, because we will have input in it, and we should not dig in and deny the American people of this great opportunity, Members, to see advancement in health care, to see some advancement in the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, and to see some level of advancement in having clean air for our children and renewable fuel here in America, investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East. I yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House, and I can share with you on this day of the State of the Union we all look forward to hearing what the President/Commander in Chief has to share not only with the country but the world, and we hope that he will bring words of wisdom and unity to the House floor. This will be the President's seventh opportunity coming to the floor to share with us the needs of the Nation. And I hope that he speaks on behalf of the entire Nation. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group has been coming to the floor for the last 3 years sharing with the Members about what was going on under the Capitol dome and what wasn't going on under the Capitol dome. And we come today in the spirit of bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, and I would also like to continue to highlight bipartisanship, because that is what the American people have called for and that is what we have delivered. And when I say ``we,'' I am saying a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives, and you can sprinkle in some Republican votes in achieving that. And I am glad that on a number of votes as relates to the Medicare prescription drug price negotiating, all Democrats on the floor voted for that, 24 Republicans voted for it, too. They voted with their constituents. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, just about all the Democrats on the floor voting on behalf, 216 with 37 Republicans joining us on that vote, it was 253, which is a good majority of the House voting in the affirmative. That is bipartisan. The Fair Minimum Wage Act, Mr. Speaker, that passed on January 10, which was a recorded vote, there were 315 yeas in the affirmative, all Democrats on the floor at that time voted for it, 82 Republicans joined Democrats in voting on that bill together, Mr. Speaker. Again, in the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which we all know, Mr. Speaker, was a bipartisan piece of work by individuals that were appointed by the President, the leadership, and the House and Senate at that time, with two bipartisan chairmen, one Republican and the vice chair was Democrat, all Democrats on the floor voted, 231, and 68 Republicans. That brought that vote to 299. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to move on and as we look at the student loan vote, as we look at a number of the votes that have come here to the floor, a great vote today as relates to pensions for those that step out of the line, Members of the House that step out of line and Members of the Senate, that their pensions will be on the line. Not one vote against that measure. In that spirit, I know, on behalf of the Democratic side of the aisle, the Speaker, majority leader, Democratic whip, the chairman of our caucus, the vice chair of our caucus, and other elected leadership within the Democratic Caucus are looking to continue this bipartisan spirit that we have adopted here. As you know, in the 109th Congress, Mr. Speaker, I used to always share with the Members that bipartisanship is only allowed if the majority allows it. I think that on some issues we will see issues where we won't be able to see eye to eye and there will be some partisan votes on this floor. That is just the reality of life here in Washington, D.C., but it should not be the rule. It should be the exception. And I want to commend all of those Members that are moving in a bipartisan spirit. Now, I must say the winds of bipartisanship are here on the floor. I am sad to report that on many of those votes the Republican leadership did not vote with the majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Republicans that did vote on those measures. I say this to promote a bipartisan spirit here when the State of the Union, when the President comes in and gives his speech tonight; when he comes to speak to the American people in the U.S. House, the U.S. Congress, Judiciary, all branches of the military that will be represented here tonight, Cabinet officers that will be represented here tonight, hopefully deliver a message that we can move forward as a unit, as all Americans, so something we can all grasp. I think it is important to move in that direction. Now, on our side of many of these issues, when I say ``our side,'' I am saying the Democratic side where we have talked about six in 2006, where Republicans have joined us in those efforts because they wanted to vote for it all along but their leadership would not allow them to do that. We want to continue. We want to lead by example. We want the American people to know that we are leading on behalf of the country, not just one side versus the other. We do not want to create that kind of environment; but when it has to take place, it has to take place. Tonight, Senator Webb, Virginia, will be delivering the Democratic response to the President, and I think it is important if we can see eye to eye on a policy in Iraq because right now, as you know, a number of the Senators on the other side of the Capitol dome have disagreed with the surge policy or with the escalation of troops policy that we have now that the President has stepped forward with. Many Members of the House on both sides of the aisle disagree with that policy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of Americans spoke not only to Democratic candidates but to Republican candidates about a solution in Iraq versus just identifying a problem and continuing to add on to the unfortunate situation of U.S. troops losing their lives in Iraq. I think it is also important for us to know that for us to work in a bipartisan way the President cannot continue to say, just because I have the power to deploy troops along with my advisers that I am going to do it. I think a level of responsibility has to kick in. Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a group earlier today, and I shared with them that the watch word for the 110th Congress should be ``responsibility,'' responsibility on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we can fight our way out of the record deficit that we have now and to be able to stick with our pay-as-we-go rules that we put in place; to make sure that we govern on behalf of all the American people need it be young or old, rich or poor; that we govern on behalf of Americans and not on behalf of the special interests; and to make sure that our children's children and we have safe, clean water, air to breath; and that we can provide health care. Now, saying all of that, it cannot be my way or the highway. Mr. Speaker, the President has put forth a commission to look at Social Security more than two times, and at the end of all of those commissions, the President has come back and said we need to privatize Social Security. That is a my-way-or-highway approach to governing. I think it is important that the President come to this floor tonight and the Congress respond in a way that we can work together, we can work together to make America better. We can work together to make sure that our troops in Iraq, hopefully more sooner than later, can be redeployed, and that we can call not only on the Iraqi Government but other countries throughout the world to take part in the security of that region. As long as we continue to have an escalation in troops without any questions asked, we are going to have problems. Now, I am glad to be joined here by my good colleague and friend from the great State of Ohio, Niles, Ohio, and we have spent many an hour on the floor here talking about these issues, but I was sharing with the Speaker and with the Members the fact when the President comes here tonight that it is important that it is a message that all Americans can embrace, that we deal with the serious issues so that we can get on with the work of the American people, because shortly after he gives his speech, he is going to send his budget to Capitol Hill, and that is going to have a lot to do with the way this Congress is going to function in this first session of the 110th Congress. Hopefully, we will be able to pass a budget that will work on behalf of the American people, but it cannot be a my-way-or-the-highway kind of approach that it has been in the past. That did not work well, even when his party had the majority here in the Congress. Imagine what will happen, and they do have the minority in this Congress. But we are willing, Mr. Speaker, to work in a bipartisan way to make sure we can get something done. I think that is very, very important. I think that is what the American people are asking for, and I yield to my friend.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it is very important, Mr. Ryan, to really talk about many of the issues that are facing the right here, right now Congress, right here, right now. Not, well, what we would like to do pie-in-the-sky. Something realistic. Mr. Murphy, I can tell you that it is very important that when we look at the issue of Iraq, that we have a real discussion. The President is going in the opposite direction of the American people at this point. I mean, in November, that is what happened. The President is moving in this direction, the American people are going in the opposite direction. He could be going this way, they are going that way. I mean, it is just that simple. I don't know who the advisers are in the White House or what have you, but when you have generals that have been in the field at the double digit numbers saying that we are headed in the wrong direction as it relates to the strategy that the administration has, you have Colin Powell. Goodness gracious, the Secretary of State, the former I guess two Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of the military, to say an escalation in troops in a civil war is a wrong thing to do. We have been saying in November and even now saying that the principal mission of our forces should be training of the Iraqi troops. Now, that is ``we are going to start training.'' Well, we have been saying that from the beginning. That is a strategy to redeploy hopefully one day. Not ``we will work it out sometime in the near future.'' The issue of the logistics and force protection and counterterrorism activities, those are the things that we should be involved in versus patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Patrolling the streets of Mosul. That should be the Iraqi force's responsibility right now. The beginning of phase, to be able to redeploy our troops, that has to happen. We have military bases, Mr. Ryan, we have been there. We have military bases that are the size of some U.S. cities in Iraq where troops can be trained, Iraqi troops can be trained, along with getting some of our allies to take part in that. So for us to have what we talk about so much here on this floor, a bipartisan approach towards some of these major, major issues, we are going to have to move in that direction. To try to make tax cuts permanent for the super wealthy, that is the opposite direction as it relates to being able to provide some sort of relief for the middle-class and small businesses in this country. We have already said, Mr. Murphy, that we are going to operate in a pay- as-you-go atmosphere. What does that mean? Mr. Ryan, you know how over the years we have said we want to break this down, Mr. Murphy, so that everyone can understand what we are talking about. That means if you are going to pay for something, if you are going to spend money, then you have to show how you are going to pay for it. Not just saying a chicken in the pot for everyone. Well, how much does it cost? That is not important, because we will just ask our country, we will just ask Japan, China, the U.K., the Caribbean, Taiwan, Korea, Canada and Germany and OPEC nations to pay that for us and we will just owe them. We don't have to pay it any time soon, but we will owe them. We will be indebted to countries even to countries that we have been with war with in the past.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think in light of bipartisanship, I know we split the hour, and I see my colleague on the Republican side is already here, in the light of bipartisanship, we will yield back our 10 minutes that we have left on our time to get off on a good note here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, let me just say that this piece of legislation is an outstanding bipartisan piece of work. I know that it has bipartisan support, something that is going to help the private sector and be able to help us move forward in securing America. I would like to thank my good friend Mr. Rogers for his outstanding work and also on the Republican side. We have had a great discussion. As you know, in the last Congress I was the ranking member on the oversight committee, and all of us that are involved in this bill have heard hours and hours of testimony on why this is important. Even going as far back as the 108th Congress in the select committee, we were hearing from members of the private sector, saying that we want to participate in protecting America, need it be bio or what have you, but we also do not want to end up losing our shirts in the process or giving away secrets. So I think this legislation is going to help us move forward. I hope it has a speedy process in the Senate. I look forward to coming to the floor later on to vote on this very good piece of legislation. I just wanted to come by and say, once again, this is another example on how we have and we are now working in a bipartisan way on behalf of securing America for future generations and this generation so that we can continue to move forward hand in hand. I want to thank the bill's sponsor from Rhode Island for bringing this legislation to the floor quickly, and also Mr. Thompson, the chairman of the committee, and ranking member of the committee on the Republican side for bringing this to the floor for speedy consideration. I rise today in strong support of this legislation. H.R. 599, the Support for Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies or ``SAFETY'' Act would provide greater incentive to US companies that develop and produce domestic, antiterrorism technologies and would better ensure the integrity of our national security. Congress enacted the SAFETY Act in 2002 to limit the liability of manufacturers of qualified, antiterrorism technologies. This was seen as an essential step to promote innovation in technology, and to ensure that our first responders received the very latest and best equipment. However, the methods used by the Department of Homeland Security to implement the original legislation were markedly slow and burdensome to applicants. This created disincentive to companies to participate in the program, and negated the original intent of the legislation. I raised this issue and others during a September 2006 joint hearing before the Homeland Security Subcommittees on Management, Integration, and Oversight and Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology. In that hearing, questions were raised addressing these issues; however, little was done in the closing days of the 109th to enact sufficient change. The Department did take positive steps to alleviate some of these issues, by issuing improved application ``kits'' and approving the final rule. Still more is needed, and H.R. 599 would be a significant step in that direction. Because procuring these vital technologies as they become available is imperative to national security, SAFETY Act certification must happen at the same time as production. To ensure that both our companies and our first responders are protected, this bill would require the Department to formalize the coordination between its procurement office and the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation. This would stand to greatly improve the efficiency of the program and the application process. Moreover, this bill would also ensure that sufficient staff be made available for reviewing applications. Delays in certification can dissuade companies from bringing life saving technology to market for long periods of time. The SAFETY Act, as it is named, is about the security of the American people. Improving this process will ensure that our Federal, State, and local authorities have the tools they need to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues, to support this bipartisan measure and to further strengthen our defense from terror.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we listen to the debate that is taking place here on this floor. Some of it is true; some of it is fiction. I think it is very important to understand that $14 billion is going to go into a place that is going to help us to be able to have the kind of energy we need in the future, to be able to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East. But I was just on the floor last night talking about something that the American people want even more than what we are doing here in this debate here on the floor, because a lot things are being said here, but they want bipartisanship, and they have had it over the last 2 weeks. And I think the Republican leadership is a little afraid of the fact that their Members are voting on behalf of the American people. So they want to stand in front of the door of the House and say how bad it is. But when the board lights up here, Members have a choice: do they want to vote on behalf of their constituents and making sure that we have the kind of future here in the United States, or do they want to vote on behalf of the special interests and the status quo for breaks to big oil companies that they didn't even ask for. I think we are moving in the right direction with this legislation. This is just the beginning of us working together in a bipartisan way, and I look forward to moving in that spirit, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Gifford Carl Ramsey, a fellow trooper and colleague in the Florida Highway Patrol. He died on January 10, 2007--a victim of cancer--and will be buried this Saturday, January 20, 2007, at Glendale Baptist Church in Miami-Dade County's Richmond Heights community. Born on January 16, 1959, to Gifford and Agatha Ramsey, he was affectionately called ``Spanky'' by those of his closest friends and teammates, who played on the football team at Florida A&M University. Awarded a full athletic scholarship, he led the Rattlers on the gridiron by winning two consecutive national football titles in 1977 and 1978, and was honored as Division I-AA and Black College All- American. Ever since I have known Trooper Ramsey as a member of the Florida Highway Patrol's 66th Recruit Class of 1982, he eminently served above and beyond the call of duty until his promotion to Sergeant in July 2006. He also volunteered as chaplain of the National Black State Trooper's Coalition and became the vice president of the Florida Coalition of Black State Troopers. Responding to an inner calling of consecrating his life to the service of God, he affirmed his vocation by accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Savior in 1988 and joined the congregation of Glendale Missionary Baptist Church under the tutelage of the late Reverend Joseph Coats, Sr. On January 20, 1993, he met his future wife, Lisa Smith of Philadelphia, PA, and married her a year later on July 9, 1994. Two children, Jarrett and Jayla, were born out of this happy union. Thereupon, he and his wife became partners in God's Vineyard, and in 2001, Trooper Gifford ``Spanky'' Ramsey was ordained a Deacon of Glendale Baptist Church. Blessed with an unenviable commonsense approach to life, he was also imbued with the rare wisdom of recognizing the strengths and limitations of the members of his congregation and those he served. Trooper Ramsey went about the duties of his profession, and he also became a missionary at home and abroad, serving a short-term tenure in Cape Town, South Africa. Trooper and Deacon Ramsey was my good friend, and I am deeply saddened by his passing. He was my mentor ever since I became a trooper in the Florida Highway Patrol in 1989. Indeed, he will be an indelible reminder of the noble commitment of public service, and the awesome power of his religious vocation to minister to the youth under the aegis of programs such as the Juvenile Justice Center Read Aloud Program, the Governor's Mentoring Initiative, Special Olympics Fundraising Events, Child Passenger Safety Details in both Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. His faith was deep and genuine, and his love for Glendale Baptist Church defined his dynamic friendship and understanding. No one who knew Trooper ``Spanky''--and being struck by his sunny disposition and optimism--went away not acknowledging the presence of a caring community leader. Like the God he faithfully served during the remaining years of his life, this trooper and gentleman came and lived among us that we may have life and have hope more abundantly. True to his faith, Reverend Ramsey would urge us to believe that his death does not represent an irrevocable finality, and he would assure us that he will live on in the good deeds he left behind. Indeed, no life could be more revered for having fulfilled his vocation as God's faithful steward. I will cherish the wonderful memories I have of his magnificent friendship.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise in sadness over the passing of William ``Bill'' Ferguson, who suffered a fatal car accident in Miami-Dade County last week. He was a wonderful person, highly educated, and highly motivated and his passing is a great loss for our community. His family and friends will memorialize him at a ``going home'' celebration to be held this Friday, January 19, 2007 at the historic Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Overtown. Mr. Ferguson was a brilliant attorney and counselor, and he was a consummate community activist. Bill Ferguson's work with Ms. Georgia Ayers's Alternative Program has helped hundreds of men and women become responsible citizens of our community. His work gave hope and courage to countless folks who had been marginalized by their experiences with crime and prison. Some may have given up on them, but Mr. Ferguson's knowledge of the law and his commitment to working with all individuals irrespective of past transgressions made all the difference in countless lives. At work, he was a real marvel to witness. He was born in November 6, 1946, to James Ferguson and Pauline Holland Ferguson. Having served his country with integrity in the U.S. Navy, he obtained his bachelor's degree in political science at Indiana State University in 1978. He went on to get his law degree from Texas Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1982 in Houston, TX. Not satisfied with his master's degree in law, he pursued another master's degree in counseling from Indiana State University, his alma mater. He moved to Miami in 1985 where he met Ms. Georgia Ayers, who introduced him to her innovative and award-winning Alternative Program. In his role as ``house attorney'' and psychologist-counselor, he went above and beyond the call of duty to reach out to needy clients. The collective testimony of praise and gratitude from people in our community is testimony to the utmost respect that people had for Bill Ferguson. His character and his dedication to helping the less fortunate members of our community defined his leadership. His word was his bond to those who dealt with him--not only in moments of triumphal exuberance in helping many a wayward youth, but also in his quest to transform their lives by the simple rules of good conduct and responsible citizenship. As we honor William ``Bill'' Ferguson, I will fondly remember this good man. Our pride in sharing his friendship is only exceeded by our deep gratitude for all that he has given to our community.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to verify that time check there. In the 58 minutes we have left, I just want to talk about a few of the bipartisan votes, and then we will talk about this whole 100-hours agenda. I was having a conversation before I came to the floor, and I was stopped by one of the outstanding staffers that are here. They said, Congressman, it is just interesting to see Democrats and Republicans voting together on major issues for a change. Today, Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on the College Student Relief Act, and I am proud to say that not only did we have every Democratic Member that was in attendance today voting for it, but we also had 124 Republicans that voted for it. This was to take the interest rates down from 6.8 to now 3.4, and it is going to help 5.5 million students be able to afford college. But I definitely love for my colleagues to chime in, because this is a good day of accomplishment whenever you can come to the floor and vote and be successful on something that you talk about when you are running for office; and now to see this legislative accomplishment in such a very short time is something that you should be excited about. I know that all our constituents are, too.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House once again. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the floor to share not only with the Members but also the American people the great things that are happening here under the Capitol dome and some things that Members should be informed of that could happen under the Capitol dome if we were able to work in a bipartisan way. But I am so happy, Mr. Speaker, today because we are on the floor today, and we have a number of issues that we want to share with not only Members but also the American people. I am excited about all these bipartisan votes that have been taking place over the last 90- something-odd hours that have taken place. I am glad to have good friends from all over the country. We are going to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) that is going to join us, and also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is going to join us tonight. I think it is important for us to really reflect on some of the things that have been happening. Mr. Speaker, if I may make an inquiry, how much time do we have, sir?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am glad just to echo what everyone else is saying about this outstanding day on the floor of the House of Representatives. The thing that I have been dwelling on in the last segment of the 30 Something Working Group is the fact that we have these bipartisan votes, but we still have the Republican leadership that is voting against, voting the opposite way of many of their colleagues in their caucus. I wouldn't say that the Republican Caucus are joining us, I would say that they are representing their constituents. And we talk about bipartisanship, my constituents talk about it. I know that all of our constituents would like to see it, because this vote, Mr. Speaker, today was for America, for America's future. It was for kids like these and others that were here on the opening day of the House. We are fighting on their behalf. And when we fight on their behalf, we fight on their parents' behalf, their grandparents' behalf. Because no matter what religion that one may practice, they want their children and grandchildren to have a better opportunity than what they have had. And with the whole devolution of taxation, Mr. Speaker, that was passing here with out-of-control spending here in Washington, D.C., sending a lack of funding to the States that they have to balance, many of us come from State legislatures, we know we have to balance. It is not like the Federal Government, they can put it on a credit card. One of our first actions that we took here on this House floor was to pass the pay-as-you-go rules, of saying that if you are going to spend money, then you have to show how you are going the pay for it, not just saying that we are going to borrow from foreign nations and allow them to own a part of the American apple pie. But today I want to talk about this vote again: 71 Republicans on that side voted against it. Amongst the Republican leadership, every last member of the Republican leadership voted against it. Mr. Speaker and Members, what is important here is the fact that this bipartisanship is what America has been waiting on. They have been waiting on it. Let's not do it as some sort of slogan. Living proof is the vote that took place here today on this floor. 124 Republicans voted on behalf of their constituents, not just the Republican leadership saying, well, we want you to vote this way, you know, don't worry about it. It is some mighty tall ladder to climb to say that, well, go back home and say I voted against interest rate cuts for your kid to go to school. I don't know, I wouldn't be back if I was to go home and tell my constituents I voted against it because it didn't happen fast enough in my opinion. Well, the Republican leadership and the Republican Congress on the other side last session took this money away from students and families, and raised the interest rate to give special interest tax breaks to the super, super, super plugged in here in Washington, D.C. the way it used to be. Now, today, we were like Robin Hood. Those Members that voted on behalf of their constituents and voted on behalf of America's future put their special interests love aside and said that we are going to vote on behalf of America's future. So I am excited about it. This is a day that educators and parents and grandparents who want to see their children educated will see this day as a momentous day. And I am speaking from proof, Mr. Speaker. My wife couldn't have gone to law school. She came from a family that they just didn't have the money to do it. If it wasn't for her being able to get student loans, this bill isn't going to be able to help her but it will help kids like her, and she is a judge today. She wouldn't be a judge if she obviously didn't get a law degree. So I think it is important that we give face and voice to this day because this is about the future of our country. Mr. Ryan, I will yield to you at this time.