Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And your point is very well taken. We had to use a procedural motion just to be able to get around there being an obstacle to the America COMPETES Act coming to the floor and being able to get a straight-up vote. And when it came right down to it, we were for it and most of them were against it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, a couple of years ago, when we would be out here each night with the 30-something Working Group, our symbol was the Republican rubber stamp that was emblematic of the philosophy of our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think we should take a walk down memory lane. Maybe we want to bring the rubber stamp back because it does appear that they have not shed those tendencies, and that's evidenced in the choice that Americans are going to have over the next few months. Let's go through some of those choices. You are talking about how important it is that we go back to making things in America, that we revitalize the economies that had manufacturing as the backbone of cities and towns throughout this country, throughout the Northeast and the Rust Belt and even--I don't even like the term ``Rust Belt'' because it implies something that's irretrievable. You know, once something is rusted out, your perception is it's not able to be regained. I know we don't believe that, and we believe in investing in the concept of making America and that it's more than just a concept, that we are going to put resources into making sure that when we have a choice that we choose to make sure that it's Americans that are doing the manufacturing for the things that we need here, and we are doing that by backing that up with action when it comes to our policy decisions as well. So are the Republicans. Their actions are vastly different than ours. We propose to close tax loopholes that allow outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas and use the savings to pay for hometown tax credits for small businesses to expand manufacturing jobs. And what do they do? They vote, ``they'' being the Republicans, vote 170-1, 170 Republicans voted ``no,'' to 1 that votes ``yes'' to protecting tax breaks for companies that shipped jobs overseas; 170-1 they voted to keep that tax loophole intact so that we could continue to allow companies to get tax breaks when they ship jobs overseas.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. Just to veer a little bit in a different direction towards, again, the choice that Americans are going to be facing, because your facts are stubborn things. You can run away from a lot of different things. Facts are just persistent in chasing you. They've been chasing the Republicans, those stubborn facts, for a long time. One of the facts is that Republicans are consistently on the record of voting against statutory pay-as-you-go legislation. Now, back in the Clinton administration when PAYGO was first established--and that was a tough, tough vote that Democrats led the way on, made sure happened under President Clinton's leadership--the country finished his Presidency with a record surplus, which was handed to President Bush and he promptly squandered in just a few short years. If you look at this chart, we will start back in the Reagan administration. And I want to start back in the Reagan administration because--walk with me down memory lane, shall we?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's take it one step further. It's not just bad enough, okay, to say they voted to protect the tax break. On top of that, 95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect those tax breaks, signed a pledge, put their name on the line and said, I am going to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. It's absolutely mind-boggling. We want to make sure that we protect companies and give tax breaks and incentivize companies that make decisions to create jobs here in the United States, in your district in New York, in your district in Ohio, in districts across this country. And they would rather have those jobs created in China and in other countries and boost up their economy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do, that's because I bleed orange and blue, and Mr. Ryan knows that, and I appreciate the recognition. And we're also joined by our good friend who has been a weekly staple of these important message hours where we're trying to communicate to our constituents and to people across the country and to our colleagues about the progress that we've been able to make that has been so significant and evident. One of the things that I wanted to highlight--Mr. Ryan, I'm not sure if you have gone over any of this--but I think an important chart that we usually begin with when we talk about the private sector that has been made, the private-sector employment increases over the past year and a half. And if you look December of 2007 all the way through to June of 2010, you can see the dramatic job losses that occurred during the Bush administration. The Bush administration ended right about here in January of 2009, and when President Obama took over, we at this point in the year passed the Recovery Act, the stimulus package that injected $787 billion into our economy, both in terms of an infusion of spending as well as tax cuts, 98 percent of Americans received a tax cut, mostly focused on tax cuts for small businesses and working families. And then at that point, that's when you see the job growth curve start to shift from almost 800,000 job losses a month in the month before President Bush left office and President Obama was inaugurated, then you begin starting to gain jobs to today where you look in June of 2010 where we have added jobs for six straight months, an average of 100,000 jobs per month, almost 600,000 jobs created this year alone. And if we keep on this pace, by the end of this year we will have created under President Obama's leadership and the Democratic leadership in this Congress more private-sector jobs in this year than the entire Bush presidency. I mean, that's just the facts, and it's an unbelievable fact. We have turned the economy around, and we've begun to go in the right direction. We have a long way to go but look at the other indicators. Look at the stock market. Look at the three straight quarters of growth in the GDP. Look at the 11 straight months of growth in the manufacturing sector. America has always been about making things. Mr. Tonko and Mr. Ryan are from communities where your constituents, the people that sent you here to represent them, they're used to rolling up their sleeves, doing a hard day's work for a hard day's pay and making stuff, and we want to make sure that we can get America back to work making things again. And that's why we have our Making it in America agenda that we're going to be talking about over the next few weeks as we enter the August recess period. And we're so pleased to be joined by our good friend Mr. Tonko, a new Member who has been doing a fantastic job.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, Democrats are committed to growing our economy and getting Americans back to work. We want to continue to support America's manufacturing workers by closing tax loopholes that outsource U.S. jobs overseas. These savings will pay for hometown tax credits for small businesses to expand American manufacturing jobs. The Democrats are boosting incentives to create American clean energy jobs and build state-of-the-art wind turbines, solar panels and other new technologies. We can pay for this by ending subsidies to big oil companies, government giveaways to companies that rake in millions of dollars. We are strengthening the rules that the U.S. Government and its contractors buy American, especially to build our transportation, energy and communications infrastructure. And we are telling foreign countries like China to honor fair trade principles or lose American business. In just over 1 year we have turned our economy around, going from losing nearly 800,000 jobs in the last month of the Bush administration to 6 straight months of private sector job growth totaling nearly 600,000 new private sector jobs created just this year. We are heading in the right direction and Democrats are going to ensure that U.S. manufacturing will continue to lead us into economic recovery. America will make things once again.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled, and my constituents are appalled, at the Republicans' disrespect and coldheartedness when it comes to extending unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans. Some Republican Members of Congress and candidates in their party have suggested that unemployment insurance makes Americans too lazy to work. One Republican Member of the House even asked, ``Is the government now creating hobos?'' Maybe my Republican colleagues don't understand how unemployment compensation works. You only qualify for unemployment if you were employed. Far from being a handout to someone who doesn't want to work, unemployment benefits are specifically designed for people who want to work but who can't currently find work. The Bush recession drove our economy off a cliff creating the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. As a result, millions of Americans lost their jobs. Nearly 800,000 Americans lost their jobs in the last month of the Bush administration alone. Those are the facts. Now we are beginning to recover from this near economic collapse. We've seen steady economic growth, including six straight months of private sector job growth, but there are still five unemployed Americans looking for work for every one job opening available. The continued Republican opposition to helping out-of-work Americans is preposterous. It flies in the face of history. Since 1959, Congress has never let extended unemployment benefits expire when unemployment is over 7.2 percent. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that we can't afford to help unemployed Americans, but where were they when they ran up the deficit by passing tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans? Where were they when, year after year, President Bush's budget did not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Mr. Speaker, analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. Moreover, economists agree that extending these benefits will create jobs and decrease the chances of slipping into a double-dip recession. So not only is it the right thing to do to help people who are temporarily out of work, it is also one of the best ways to stimulate local economies, from the very smallest towns to the very biggest cities. Let's do the right thing. Let's pass extended unemployment benefits.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Tonko, and I just wanted to add a couple of things and then I know Mr. Schauer will close us out. But one of the things that I think is important to note that we also have done--because deficits are really an issue and deficit spending is an issue--we, when we took the majority back, reestablished the PAYGO rules and then enshrined them in statute in this Congress to make sure that legislation that we pass is paid for, that we don't, like most families have to do, like every family I know, can't spend more than they take in. The Republicans let those rules which were originally adopted under the Clinton administration and resulted in the record surpluses that President Bush inherited, they let those rules lapse. Well, we reestablished them because when they let those rules lapse, that's when we ended up in a huge deficit situation. Because of that, we are able to, with the budget that we have adopted, cut the deficit in half over the next number of years and focus on deficit reduction while also making sure that we balance that with investments so that we can get our economy back on track. That's the difference between us and them, and I hate to say it like that, but, really, there hasn't been a more stark contrast in the choice that Americans have to make in this election, and I look forward to spending some more time on the floor talking with my colleagues about it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. And my colleague from Michigan, Mark Schauer, who's been holding down the fort here and who cares so passionately and so deeply about his district, about the people that he represents in Michigan, you have fought so hard to make sure that they have a voice because Americans are struggling, and you know that Americans are struggling. You're in the midst of an economic crisis in Michigan, as we all have been coming out of, and you're absolutely right when you talk about the fact that we have a choice. I mean, Americans in November are going to have a choice. We can go back to the agenda of the Republicans, which now is right there in blue and white, and where they clearly have said, making no bones about it, that they would take us back to the exact same agenda that they pursued before, which included focusing on tax cuts exclusively for the wealthiest Americans, not caring in the least about working families or the middle class or having an agenda that did anything for anyone in a working family or the middle class, focusing on making sure that we could only spend time worrying about the well-being of major corporations and leaving working families to twist in the wind. Or we can choose to continue to move in the new direction the Democrats have taken the country under President Obama's leadership, under the leadership of the Democrats here in the House and the Senate when we took the majority back in 2006 and ended the culture of corruption that literally hung over this capital under Republican leadership. We ended the focus exclusively on the wealthy and focused on trying to turn things around. President Obama on his first day in office inherited an economy where we were bleeding 700,000-plus jobs a month. And I'm not sure if Mr. Schauer talked about this, but we have now fast-forwarded a year and a half later and the economy is adding about 100,000 to 125,000 jobs a month. And if you look at manufacturing--and I know that's a particularly important area for Michigan. American workers are so proud and have always been so proud of the fact that we in America make things. We are the ones that make sure that machines run, that the manufacturing that is the proud tradition of the United States of America should continue. We have had 11 straight months of growth in the manufacturing sector under President Obama's leadership, under the policies, the economic decisionmaking that we've made since he took office, and that's incredibly important for Americans to understand. Because even though we have a long way to go, we've begun to turn the corner. We've begun to turn things around, and we need to continue to push hard to make sure that we can invest in infrastructure and balance those investments with tax cuts targeted to middle class and working families. Last year, in the Recovery Act, the economic stimulus that has been talked about so much in the last year, we invested $787 billion to make sure that we could create those jobs and invest in shovel-ready projects that were ready to go so that we could get people back to work who literally were left twisting in the wind after the Bush administration drove us into a ditch. And now you have the same people, the same people who drove us into the ditch in the first place are asking to get the keys back so that they can return to the exact same agenda that they pursued during the time that they were in charge. Why Americans would give them back the keys when they got us into this mess in the first place is beyond me, but that is what they are aggressively pursuing, nonetheless. This morning, a number of us on the House floor had an opportunity to talk about the approach of Social Security's birthday. We're approaching the 75th anniversary of Social Security, 75 years of making sure that Social Security provides the safety nets to Americans who are in their retirement years, making sure that they have something to fall back on, and making sure that they have the ability to make ends meet each and every day. And as Mr. Schauer so rightfully put it, under the exact same agenda that the Republicans pursued then, we would return to an effort--and they readily admit this, that we would return to their effort, which was first proposed by President Bush, to privatize Social Security. What privatizing Social Security means is allowing people to invest their Social Security in the stock market. Now, if you watched the volatility of the stock market over the last number of years, I shudder to think about how the seniors in my district, my seniors in south Florida, I shudder to think how they would be able to make ends meet over the last few years if their Social Security investments evaporated into oblivion after the stock market downturn. We had stock market downturn, then it went back up, then it went back down again. The stock market is not the place for funds that are there and designed to be a safety net. In my home State, 53 percent of seniors without Social Security would be living in poverty, and that's just simply unacceptable. If that's the agenda that the Republicans want to take us back to, then Americans need to know that that's the direction that they would go. I want to focus on some other comments because we should make sure that people know exactly what's being said on the other side so that when they make a decision on which direction they want to go, when they make a decision on which candidate for Congress, which Members they choose to have represent them, they should know what some of the Republican leadership on the other side has been saying. If you recall, we had a lot of commentary on the other side about the stimulus, about the economic Recovery Act; and I remember that Mr. Cantor, their Republican whip, I remember he actually has consistently said that the stimulus has not produced jobs. Now, I'm not sure what planet he's been living on, but one thing that has been very clear is that the economic Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, created millions of jobs. We wouldn't have been able to go from bleeding 700,000-plus jobs a month to adding about 100,000 private sector jobs a month without the investment that was made under the Democratic leadership. Now, in spite of the fact that Mr. Cantor has consistently said that the stimulus produced no jobs, that didn't prevent him from hosting a job fair with companies that received $52 million in his community to create jobs from the stimulus. He actually held a job fair at a Virginia high school with a number of private companies that were seeking to hire and who benefited from the funds in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So he's not the only one that has essentially tried to have it both ways, be opposed to the stimulus, vote against the stimulus, stated it didn't do anything, but then take credit in their community when the checks are being handed out and the celebrations were being had for the jobs that are created in the district by the economic Recovery Act. And, I mean, I don't want to directly call any of our colleagues hypocritical, but that type of action seems pretty hypocritical to me Mr. Tonko, and I'm really pleased that we're joined this evening by my good friend Mr. Tonko from New York who's joined us every week, week after week, to make sure that we can help America understand and talk to the American people about how this economy has turned around and how we have been able to create jobs, balance investments with tax cutting policy, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for his comments.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Social Security as it approaches its 75th anniversary. When FDR signed this historic legislation into law, he understood that the whims of Wall Street were sweeping many hardworking Americans into financial ruin. At the time, more than half of America's seniors lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Social Security changed all of that. Indeed, today, in my home State of Florida, 53 percent of seniors would be below the poverty line without Social Security. That hasn't stopped Republicans from wanting to end the guarantee of Social Security. In 2005, President Bush proposed privatizing Social Security, which would have cut benefits for 70 percent of retired Americans. Well, it's deja vu all over again. While President Bush may be gone, his plans live on. House Republicans are once again calling to privatize Social Security, and Medicare for good measure. We simply cannot risk tossing millions of seniors into poverty. Let us rededicate ourselves to Roosevelt's vision and to the economic security of all of our citizens and not throw our seniors out in the cold.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in protest of the Castro regime's intention to forcibly deport 52 political prisoners under the guise of release. Historically, the Castro regime has used political prisoners as pawns to extract international concessions and ease criticism. But as The Washington Post pointed out in their reporting on this story, this gesture does not represent fundamental political change. As more political dissidents die of hunger strikes in Cuba, we cannot allow this hollow gesture to blind us from the reality on the ground. In Cuba's authoritarian dictatorship, every dollar that flows into the country props up the Castro regime. In the meantime, Alan Gross of Potomac, Maryland, arrested for distributing cell phones and laptops to Cuba's tiny Jewish community, continues to sit in prison with no hope of release. A relationship with the United States must be earned. Banishing political dissidents from their homeland hardly meets that test. This cheap political trick is surely of no solace for Gross and others still in jail.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Given that you're from a State that is in the heart of the Manufacturing Belt, can you talk a little bit about what is going on in your district and the efforts that we're making here to create jobs and what kind of progress the recent surge in manufacturing has brought to communities in Pennsylvania?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You're absolutely right. Thank you so much for your leadership and for joining us this evening. To close us out in the hour, we have a duo from the great State of Pennsylvania. Both of them are freshmen. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania was particularly pleased, I know, when her colleague from Pennsylvania was elected recently in a special election because that made her not one of the most junior Members in the Chamber. Now he holds that title. But the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Mrs. Kathy Dahlkemper.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Davis. Really, I think it's so incredible. We had nine Members join us tonight for this hour. And we had the full philosophical spectrum--from the most conservative member of our caucus to the moderates to progressive members of our caucus. And that shows not only the big tent that we are in the Democratic Caucus but that we really are a reflection of America and American values, whether it's making sure that we can create jobs in rural America or the most urban core. It's absolutely critical.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Perriello, and thank you for your leadership in your district and the optimism and hope that you fight for every single day. You know, it really always boggles my mind how the Republicans wake up every morning, come to work and decide, I am going to be an obstructionist today. I think today I am going to figure out yet another way to say no. And rather than come to the table and work with us, because they need jobs in their districts too, instead, they vote no here, and then they do like the minority whip did just in the last week when he was home in his district. After voting no on the Recovery Act and being critical of the Recovery Act, he didn't have any problem showing up and taking credit for one of the projects funded by the Recovery Act in his district. I think Americans really see through that transparent attempt at hypocrisy. We are a party of genuine articles. We are Members who work hard every day to make sure that we can get it done for the American people and get this economy turned around. There is no one that works harder at that in rural America than my good friend Lincoln Davis from the great State of Tennessee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Stock up.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So what would be the urgent nature or last- minute ordering that would be done for key chains or hats? We know in 2020 we are going to need that. We know in 2030 we are going to need that.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because it's not like we don't know that we do the census every 10 years and that we are going to need promotional materials to promote the census.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, but can I ask you another question?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So it's exempted?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for another question. So essentially the screen printing that was done onto the item, they define that as substantially altering the actual piece.