Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Hirono. You have been an incredible leader when it comes to the issues that are important to working families. I often think about the constituents that you represent. We make public policies so far away from the people that you represent; they need a strong voice all the more for that reason, and you have done an amazing job representing them. It's a pleasure and an honor to serve with you here.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, to continue on with the highlighting of the Week of the Young Child, there are statistics that are incredibly important, and I will go through some of those this evening. But more important than the statistics and the studies are the stories. And I can tell you, as a mom with young children, who I probably will talk about quite a bit this evening, you don't need studies, you don't need statistics to be able to see the progress that your child makes when they go through a preschool, when they go through a childcare program. And you can see their brain literally working like sponges, absorbing the information and processing it and turning it into useful information. And I can tell you that I've seen my children, my four-and-a-half-year-old is still in pre-K and is just about to enter Kindergarten next year. And I've watched her learn her ABCs, she can count to 100, she knows every color, every shape. And had she not had an opportunity to go to a wonderful preschool program to learn those things, yes, I could have spent time with her and taught her those things, but given that I work full-time, and when I think about the hundreds of thousands, millions of parents who have to struggle with that choice, and then an administration that callously cuts those programs or flat funds them so that fewer, not more, parents have access to Head Start and child care, it's just absolutely unconscionable. I wonder if they have a soul. I wonder if there is anyone in the White House that has a soul and that has a heart. Because surely those kinds of decisions are only made by heartless people. I am so glad to be joined by the gentlewoman from New York, a wonderful Member, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. And I am glad that she has also joined me tonight. Before I turn it over to her, I want to highlight a story of Jennifer from Chicago because, like I said, highlighting the stories as opposed to the studies and the stats is what really shows you the kind of impact that the policy decisions that we make up here when it comes to funding child care programs and Head Start adequately, that's what really matters. I want to talk about Jennifer from Chicago, who was profiled in a news story on Marketplace radio. Jennifer works as a receptionist at a real estate company. She is a single mom working full-time and going to school part-time. And so many people will hear their own story in Jennifer's story. Jennifer was doing all she could to improve her life and the life of her daughter. In fact, even though Jennifer was working full-time, raising her daughter on her own and going to school part-time, she impressed her boss so much with her work that she was given a small raise. And then, Jennifer ran into a big problem. With the raise that she got, she could no longer qualify for assistance with the Illinois child care program that she had been using. She literally had such a dramatic shift in what she had to pay for her daughter's child care, it went from $2,000 to $9,000 a year just by that small increase in her salary, and that small increase in her salary caused the $9,000 that she then had to pay, that was 40 percent of her salary, just from the small raise that she got. Her only option at that point was to send her 5-year-old daughter to live with the girl's father a couple of hours away in Indiana. So she had to either give up her job or give up her daughter. But if she gave up her job, she wouldn't be able to care for her daughter, Mr. Speaker. So obviously this is a situation that was not working. So Jennifer, this is just so sad, she had to go back to her boss and actually ask him for a demotion. She had to ask him to cut her pay by about $100 per paycheck so that she could be eligible for the subsidized child care again so that she could get her daughter back. That was the choice that she was faced with, and it was just awful. I can't even imagine. That meant that her income would again qualify for the child care assistance, and then she immediately applied for it. So the transition from paying a copayment to paying the full cost of care is what Illinois Action for Children calls ``the cliff.'' People like Jennifer, they fall off the cliff. And we actually penalize people like Jennifer who work hard to try to get ahead. We tell them no, you can't work your way up. We can't continue to hold these people back. We have got to make sure that we help these people pursue these dreams, advance themselves, be able to improve the quality of their children's education, improve their own lot in life and their family's lot in life, not give them a choice between giving up their children or pursuing a better opportunity in life. And Ms. Clarke, the National Women's Law Center says that only one in seven U.S. children are eligible for Federal child care help; only one in seven of those kids get it. And in the view of the National Women's Law Center, all these programs for Head Start and child care have never been fully funded by the Federal Government. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman. Thank you for joining us today.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, you made a reference to your mom and the wonderful quality of care that she provided to the children that she cared for over the years. And then, of course, she made hiring decisions as she moved up the ladder and became a child care director. Your comments about your mom's involvement with improving the lives of children in those programs made me think about finding the information on providers' salaries because it is horrendous that we are actually cutting the funding for these programs for the kids themselves and that only one in seven kids are eligible. But listen to the statistics about how much the providers, the teachers, are actually paid: The average Head Start teacher's salary, and, now, that's Head Start, not child care. We are talking about two separate programs here tonight so that people understand me because these acronyms get thrown around a whole lot in Washington. We have the Head Start program, which is the high-quality education program that subsidizes and provides high- quality preschool education for young kids who are income eligible, and then there's the Child Care and Development Block Grant program, which is a subsidized child care program that is funded around the States and there's a Federal-State match for. So the average Head Start teacher's salary varies by the teacher's education. So if you have what's called a child development associate's, which is the first rung on the ladder in terms of an education credential, not a certified teacher but you have a lot of hours of course work that you've taken, an average Head Start teacher with a CDA gets paid about $21,000. If you have an associate's degree, so now you've got a 2-year college degree, you get $22,500. If you have a baccalaureate degree, that is a full-blown college degree, you make about $27,000 in the Head Start program. Now, the average teacher's salary, who also get hired with a baccalaureate degree, is about $48,000, $49,000. So a Head Start teacher, depending on their education credential, makes between $21,000 and $27,000 a year. I mean that is just unbelievable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, what I think has been really interesting is observing the struggle that military leaders underneath General Petraeus have been going through in trying to be good soldiers and toe the party line about not being ready to withdraw and for us to leave those 140,000 troops indefinitely in Iraq, which is the decision that was clearly made before General Petraeus came to testify this week. But when they're asked specific questions about the impact on our troops, the truth comes through in their statements. General Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff: ``Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it . . . lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families.'' And we're not talking about retired commanders or retired military leaders, who some people might suggest are retired for a reason. We're talking about the people who are currently fully engaged in our efforts over there. Lieutenant General Benjamin Mixon, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific: ``We are going to have to change our strategy in Iraq to reduce the numbers of troops and thereby reduce the rotations and increase the dwell time that we get back here at home.'' That was January 27. Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G1: `` . . . I should mention that it's clear that the increase in suicide, as well as other measures that we track very, very closely, are a reflection of the amount of stress that's on the force.'' And, finally, Brigadier General Michael Linnington, Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Infantry Center: ``Money is not the issue . . . They want an opportunity to catch their breath before deploying again and to have some control over their futures. They're tired and their families are tired.'' We have got to reach a point where we focus on the things that we know we need to focus on, like Afghanistan, for example. We have shifted. When we went to war in Iraq originally with the stated notion of pursuing the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly Saddam Hussein had that he clearly never had, we shifted our attention and our focus away from Afghanistan, where we clearly were succeeding, where we clearly had the world community behind us and fully engaged, where we had the American people's full commitment. And when we did that, when we shifted our attention away from Afghanistan and focused on Iraq, we lost tremendous ground in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, said: ``So should we be in a position where more troops are removed from Iraq, the possibility of sending additional troops to Afghanistan, where we need them, clearly, certainly it's a possibility. But it's really going to be based on the availability of troops. We don't have troops, particularly in Brigade Combat Team size, sitting on the shelf, ready to go.'' The military is obviously stretched incredibly thin. And when I talk to constituents and groups of folks, I'll tell you that I represent a large section of the Jewish community in my State, and I am constantly being asked by members of the Jewish community leadership, What about Iran and what if we face an increasing threat from Iran? What are we going to do then, Debbie? And my honest answer is, Well, we are spread so thin militarily now that it would be incredibly difficult for us to continue our efforts in Iraq, for us to maintain and not lose ground in Afghanistan, and also pursue the possibility of staving off a significant threat from Iran. And, again, that's not something that I'm saying. That's something that is backed up by military leaders. I mean it's been 2,399 days, Madam Speaker, since the September 11 attacks, 2,399 days, and Osama bin Laden still remains free. We have gone backwards in Afghanistan since we left and shifted our focus. In July of 2007, a de-classified version of a National Intelligence Estimate on the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland concluded that al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the border area with Pakistan has regained its strength over the last few years and has now reached the strength it had before 9/11. We have put ourselves in jeopardy. The administration and this President talks about the war on terror, the supposed war on terror, and how committed we are to it and how we have to fight terror in every corner of the world. Well, it is incredibly disturbing that a National Intelligence Estimate, not a progressive think tank and not the critics of the administration but our own National Intelligence Estimate on the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, concluded that al Qaeda in Afghanistan has reached its strength that it had before 9/11. The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, testified in February that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and his government control just one-third of the country now, Madam Speaker. The remaining majority is under control of either the Taliban or local tribes. We have got to make sure that we refocus our energy and our effort on the priorities of the American people. I know our Democratic leadership, under the leadership of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is focused and determined to move an agenda that is going to improve this Nation's economy. The economic stimulus package that she was able to negotiate with Leader Boehner to try to inject some stimulus into this economy, checks that are going to be coming to Americans very, very soon, those are the kinds of efforts and energy that we need to be putting in to deal with the crisis situation that Americans are facing. Not continue to insist, as the administration does, that they are right and we are wrong. Not continue to say that we need to keep the same troop strength that we have where we made absolutely no progress between now and before the surge. Basically it's almost as if we have run in place. It's just incredibly frustrating. So, Madam Speaker, I'm going to end where I began. And that is to say, the toll that this war has taken on the individual troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on their families, on Americans, where our administration's priorities are not focused on what they should be, which should be improving our economy and making sure that we can reduce the deficit and get our fiscal house in order and make sure that Americans have access to health care and aren't having their homes foreclosed on and the skyrocketing cost of housing, and the list just goes on and on. But at the same time, we're taking care of the needs of the people in Iraq. They have a budget surplus. Their housing needs are being taken care of. Their children's schooling is being taken care of. Yet we still have the same 140,000 troops that the administration has committed to leaving in Iraq, as opposed to trying to bring these troops home and end this hopeless war that has not made progress. And at the end of the day, as Mr. Ryan stated, we need to ensure that the Iraqi troops can stand on their own and that they don't believe for generations to come that we are going to carry them throughout history. At some point we have to let them go and stand on their own, and we have reached that time. With that, Madam Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity in the 30- Something Working Group that the Speaker has given us to talk about the issues that are important to the American people and to our generation and from our generation's perspectives. We hope that the people who have heard this presentation tonight will go to the Speaker's Web site and click on the 30-Something Working Group address. The charts that we have shown tonight are on that Web site, and they can feel free to e- mail us and contact us with any questions they have.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good job on my name pronunciation. I have a hard time with it too. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to begin the 30-Something Working Group's special order hour tonight. Speaker Pelosi has given us the privilege to come to the floor night after night to talk about the issues that are important to the American people, from our generation's perspective. And it is something that we have appreciated for a number of years because we've had an opportunity to engage the next generation of Americans, who clearly are yearning for their government to be responsive to them, to have their confidence in their government restored. And tonight what we want to focus on, particularly because General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came to Capitol Hill this week to talk about the so-called progress, or lack thereof, which is a better expression, in the war in Iraq, we felt it was important to highlight tonight the absolute cost of the war in Iraq and the toll that it is taking on, not just our military troops, but their families and on America as a whole. And I think there is no more telling statement that could be made than the one that was made by General Petraeus himself in response to Senator Evan Bayh's question, or comment, that there was much ambiguity in Iraq. And General Petraeus conceded that point. General Petraeus stated this week, in fact I believe it was today, that in Iraq we haven't turned any corners; we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator, he said, referencing President Bush and former Vietnam-era General William Westmoreland's famous phrases. It is clear that we have made virtually no progress, and that the only things that we are celebrating at this point is that there has been a reduction in violence. I wonder what that has brought us. What has that brought Americans? Well, let's go through what the so-called progress in Iraq that was described by General Petraeus today and this week, what that's brought us. We spend about $339 million in Iraq every single day, Madam Speaker. $339 million. And I'd like to go through the actual monetary costs of the war in a little bit. But let me just talk about what $339 million would get us and the investments that we could make in America, domestically, in the event that we were not hopelessly mired in this war in Iraq. $339 million would get us 2,060 more Border Patrol agents that could be hired to protect our borders for a year. 18,000 more students could receive Pell Grants to help them attend college for a year with $339 million. 48,000 homeless veterans could be provided with a place to live for a year. 317,000 more children could receive every recommended vaccination for a year. 955,000 families could get help with their energy bills through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, that's the LIHEAP program, for a year. Nearly 480,000 women, infants and children could receive nutritional help with the WIC program for a year. 2.6 million Americans without adequate health insurance could have access to medical and dental care at community health centers for a year for $339 million. More than 100 local communities could make improvements to their drinking water with help from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for a year. I could continue on and on, Madam Speaker, listing all the important investments that we could and should be making, were we not spending $339 million in Iraq every day. Now, let me just make that comparison again. I'm talking $339 million that we're spending in Iraq every day, and the list I just went through details what $339 million would buy for a year. Now, I went home to my district a couple of weeks ago when we went into recess and talked to my constituents, had a lot of interaction with them. And you know, what was amazing was how top of mind the economy is. We're less than a week from the April 15 tax deadline, and I'm sure that there are folks out there tonight that are sitting and doing their taxes while trying to figure out how they're going to write that check when they're done, and wondering how they're going to take their child to the doctor if they don't have health insurance, wondering how they're going to make sure that they can put food on the table and fill their gas tank, because now that gas is over $3 a gallon, really over $3.30 a gallon, it boggles the mind of my constituents and I know the constituents of virtually every Member, no matter what party we represent, that we are actually still, 5 years later, in Iraq, with an administration that just doesn't seem to get it; that doesn't seem to be willing to recognize that it is time to bring our troops home; that we have taken too great a toll. The question that my constituents and that Americans are asking is, how much is too much? At what point do we say the cost is too great? I think you have to take a look at the toll that this is taking on military families. If we're not going to say that the investments we can't make because we're spending so much money in Iraq are worth the cost, then let's look at what the military leadership is saying about the toll that this war is taking on our troops. An Army study of mental health, and this is from an article a couple of days ago, April 6 in the New York Times, an Army study of mental health showed that 27 percent of noncommissioned officers, a critically important group, on their third or fourth tour, exhibited symptoms commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorders. That figure is far higher than the roughly 12 percent who exhibit those symptoms after one tour, and the 18\1/2\ percent who develop the disorders after a second deployment, according to the study which was conducted by the Army Surgeon General's mental health advisory team. So we're not talking about organizations conducting studies examining the mental health of our troops that are outside the military process. We're talking about military organizations that are saying that the strain on our troops mentally has really reached a breaking point. We have combat troops that have been sent to Iraq for a third and fourth time, where more than one in four, more than one in four, show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers' mental health. There is an increasing alarm about the mental health of our troops and, at some point, something has to give. Again, when do we say enough is enough? When do we say that we have to make sure that we can focus on the needs here in the United States of America? We are struggling with an economy that is at its breaking point. Yet, the economy in Iraq seems to be thriving. The Iraqi government is actually dealing with a budget surplus, and we are facing a deficit. There's something wrong with that picture, Madam Speaker. Let me just, I really want to turn, I think people should be given a really clear picture about the monetary cost that we are dealing with when it comes to this war, this ongoing and continuous war in Iraq. This is from our nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report, the Cost of Iraq War Rising. Here's the breakdown of what we're spending in Iraq per year, per month, per week, per day, per hour, per minute and per second. If you take a look at the number per year, the amount per year that we are spending in Iraq, we're spending $123.6 billion per year. Now, that's a hard number to maybe get your mind around. Billions and millions of dollars are very big numbers that most people aren't dealing with every day in their daily life. So let's go down to the monthly expenditure that we're making here. That amounts to $10.3 billion. But if we want to drill down a little bit further and deal with the weekly and daily expenditures, weekly, we're spending $2,376,923,077. Per day we're spending almost $339 million, as I described a few minutes ago. But hourly, this is really the number, Madam Speaker, that I think will hit home with virtually all Americans. We are spending, hourly, in Iraq, and this is, again, third-party validator, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report on the cost of the Iraq war and its rising cost. Per hour we are spending $14,109,589 in Iraq. I don't think it's necessary for me to go down to the minute and the second. I think the point is well made. $14 million an hour. I mean, that is just unbelievable. How many is too much? When do we say that the toll that this is taking on our troops is just beyond our capacity? Since the start of the war in Iraq, we have had 4,013 brave American men and women in uniform that have been killed. We have an estimated almost 30,000 servicemembers that have been wounded in Iraq, and as of March 1, more than 31,300 have been treated for noncombat injuries and illness. According, again, to the Army's own mental health advisory team, soldiers who are on their second, third, and fourth deployments report low morale, more mental health problems, and more stress-related work problems. Now, Madam Speaker, these numbers right here really sent chills down my spine. An estimated three-quarters of a million troops have been discharged since the war in Iraq began, many of whom have had compromised mental and physical health. An estimated 260,000 have been treated at veterans' health facilities, nearly 100,000 have been diagnosed as having mental health conditions, and an additional 200,000 have received some level of care from walk-in facilities. That is just unbelievable. I can tell you that I have been to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to visit our wounded troops that have come back from Iraq. I've told this story during the 30-Something Working Group in the past. I will tell it again because really, as a mom with young kids, it was so disturbing to me. I walked into this young soldier's room to talk to him about his injury and to talk to him about what he went through, and his wife and his 6-year-old little boy were in there with him. And I had a nice chance to chat with the little boy. He was very exuberant and excited. It was really a lovely conversation. He was so excited. His dad had just come back from his third tour in Iraq, each of a year. Now remember, this little boy was 6 years old, and the father was telling me he had a stress-related mental health injury, and the father was telling me about how he was supposed to be finished with his tour in August, was still hoping to go back, by the way, which is amazing because these troops that represent the United States of America are just absolutely so committed and so patriotic, and really, I just so admire their bravery. But what the little boy said when I had a chance to talk to him, he said he was so excited, my daddy is coming home after August. And when he said that, it occurred to me that this little boy being 6 and his father having been through three 1-year deployments in Iraq, this father had missed half of his son's life. Half of his son's life. That just was mind-boggling to me being a mom of 8-year-old twins and a 4- year-old. I just can't even imagine. I have children close to that age, and I can't imagine having missed half their life. I mean, that just takes a toll on families. It takes a toll on marriage. Madam Speaker, even the time that myself and other parents serving in Congress here are away from our families, I know the toll that it takes on my husband when I'm here just working in Washington and not with him and leaving my kids with him to make sure that he gets them bathed and gets their dinner and the homework is done and all of the things that have to be done on a daily basis with families. It takes a toll that I am here and not with him to help him do that. Add the stress of your family member being thousands of miles across the world in a war zone, in a war situation, not knowing whether they're going to ever come back, the not knowing when they're going to come back because the military keeps extending these tours of duty, keeps sending them back, does not give them enough rest in between the tours of duty. The Army, over the last several years, has extended the rest, extended the tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months, Madam Speaker, so now we are beyond a year for deployments. And General Petraeus said we may be able, by the end of the summer to pull back the length of the deployments from 15 months to 12 months, but we're still going to be at 140,000 troops once we draw down the amount of the surge. That means there is no difference, Madam Speaker, between where we are now and where we were before the start of the surge. How do you call that progress? Someone is using a different dictionary than I am if that's progress. I mean, the dictionary that I use to define ``progress'' says that we see improvement, that the quality of life improves, that there's a light at the end of the tunnel, which General Petraeus clearly said we do not see right now. I want to just quote, and in the 30-Something Working Group, we try to use third-party validators. So it is not just our words that we use to demonstrate the statements that we are making; we try to back up our words with evidence. So let me talk about the cost to military families from military leaders' perspective. General George Casey said recently on March 26 in the Wall Street Journal that 15-month-long deployments are impacting on their families, it's impacting on their mental health. We just can't keep going at the rate that we're going. General Richard Cody, the Army vice chief of staff: Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families, testing the resolve of our all-volunteer force like never before. Let's go down to what retired Admiral William Fallon, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command said: I will certainly tell you that I think our troops are in need of a change in the deployment cycle. We've had too many, from my experience, of several of our key segments of the troop population, senior NCOs, mid- to junior officers, on multiple rotations. He said, I look at my commanders, and some of them have logged more months in Iraq in the last decade than they have at home by a significant amount. Can you imagine? More months in Iraq over the last 10 years than they have at home. Imagine the cost, the toll that that takes on their families. Let us go beyond the toll on families. It is pretty clear that we have had a dramatic increase in the cost of fuel and the cost of a barrel of oil just during our time in the last 5 years in the Middle East. We have gone from gas prices being a little more than $1, about $1.26 or so, to now gas prices being well over $3.30 and expected this summer to reach $4 or more. I can tell you that I am a minivan mom, Madam Speaker, and I regularly drive my kids around our community and car pool with the best of them. The last time I filled up my tank, which was last week, it cost $65. Now, the last time I talked about how much it cost me to fill up my tank, and Mr. Ryan remembers this, I really feel like this is 30- Something redux. I mean, really. It's deja vu all over again. You could roll back the tape to 2, 3 years ago when we were talking about the cost of the war in Iraq and the impact, and we are basically saying the exact same thing. It is just unbelievable. But the last time I talked on the floor, spoke on the floor about how much it cost me to fill up my minivan, it was about $55. And that's really only been about a year since the last time we talked about the impact of oil prices. And what the leaders that look and examine this information have said is that any time we have extended involvement in the Middle East, you see a dramatic rise in oil prices that coincide with that. The price of gas and the price of oil, in this environment and in this economy, is just devastating to American families. So you have extensions of impact and extensions of costs beyond just the toll that it takes on the troops themselves, the toll that it takes on their families. There's a toll on America. There's a toll on society. I mean, it's so disconcerting and it's so disheartening to listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to just be in utter denial. I mean, they just keep saying the same thing over and over. And we've been talking about the cost of this war, and I'm so glad to be joined by my good friend, Congressman Tim Ryan from the great State of Ohio who I have shared many an opportunity to speak on the floor about the things that Americans care about in the 30-Something Working Group. It's just shocking that the administration is continuing to expect more of the same and to have there be more of the same and to expect a different result. There really is, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. A lot of us are saying, it's time, that it is time to begin the drawdown, to begin to bring our troops home. Many of us that believe it is time to begin the troop withdrawal, we're not talking about precipitous withdrawal. Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to, you know, they're really excellent at using strong language and scare tactics. And it's always interesting to listen to them try to exaggerate beyond all reasonable proportion what it is we're saying instead of actually listening to what we're saying. It would be nice if they would also listen to their own constituents because I have a feeling that they're not hearing anything different than what we're hearing when we go home, particularly when they are staring down the following facts: Nearly 1.7 million U.S. troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since September 2001; 1.7 million U.S. troops. That's 1.7 million different individuals. More than 599,000 have been deployed more than once. More than 782,000 servicemembers, Mr. Ryan, have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan that are parents with one or more children. Forty percent have been deployed more than once. Nearly 35,000 troops have been separated from their children for four or more deployments. And Mr. Ryan, I talked a little bit about that 6-year-old boy that I met when I went to Walter Reed whose dad had missed half his life. And I also talked about the toll that those separations from their families take on the parent who is gone, but particularly on the parent who is home, holding the fort down, making sure that they can move their children's lives and their lives forward by themselves and the stress that that brings on a family and on a marriage. The statistics that we know about say that, according to the Center for American Progress, 20 percent of marriages of deployed troops are headed for a divorce right now based on a survey done by the Center for American Progress. According to a report, again by the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team, work-related problems due to stress, mental health problems and marital separations generally increase with each subsequent month of the deployment. So the length of these deployments is taking its toll on families. An estimated 2,100 troops tried to commit suicide or injure themselves last year, which is up from 350 in 2002. That's an astronomical jump. I mean, we've got the facts right under our noses. When do we say that we care about these troops as people, not as fighters, not as defenders of America, but as people? And when do we recognize that there is a limit to their ability to hold down their lives and to be able to return to a quality of life that they had before they left? The insensitivity is mind boggling, and the refusal of this administration to recognize that there is a cost and a toll that is being taken on these families, on the individual troops, on the United States of America and on our economy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think it's clear, and you're absolutely right, I think it's clear that the time has come. And this is not just our opinion, but it's clear that Americans believe that the time has come to shift our focus to the dire situation that we have with our economy. And I can tell you, anecdotally, when I went home to my district during our recess, I had town hall meeting, and I do at least one town hall meeting every recess; when I did this last one, I actually, Mr. Ryan, had to bring Iraq up myself, otherwise the entire focus of the questions and the comments from my constituents would have been the economy. I actually had to affirmatively talk about the war in Iraq. And there was significant responsiveness on the part of my constituents, who agreed, it is long past time to bring the troops home. But really, at the top of their mind right now is the economy. And just to illustrate that point, there was a new poll done recently by the New York Times, a CBS poll that showed 89 percent of those surveyed believe the cost of the war has contributed a lot or some to the United States' economic problems. When they were asked, from what you know, how much do you think the cost of the war in Iraq has contributed to the U.S. economic problem, a lot, some, not much, or not at all, 66 percent of people who responded to this survey said that it has affected the economy a lot. And add 22 percent more to make 88 percent who believe that it has affected the economy even at all. Now, this week obviously it was a big deal that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were coming to testify in front of Congress on the progress, or lack thereof, that has been made. There were lots of newspaper headlines with pictures of the general testifying, a plea from Petraeus in the Washington Post, and ``Petraeus Urges Halt in Weighing New Cut in Force'' in the New York Times. The Washington Times, ``Petraeus Warns of Iraq Backslide.'' ``Iraq Troop Levels Left Open'' in USA Today. But arguably, the newspaper in America that most closely focuses on the economy and on the financial health of our Nation is the Wall Street Journal. This is today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Ryan. There is absolutely no headlines, nothing on the front page, any article related to General Petraeus's testimony. There is a little tiny entry under ``What's News'' that says ``Petraeus recommended that U.S. troop withdrawals be halted indefinitely this summer, warning that security gains in Iraq are fragile.'' I mean, that's the priority that the Wall Street Journal places on the economy versus the war in Iraq, where every other article, ``Bush to Expand Help on Mortgages,'' ``Subprime Lenders Failure Sparks Lawsuit Against Wall Street Banks,'' those are the things that we should be focusing, like a laser beam, our attention on because our constituents are suffering. There are folks that I represent who are having their homes foreclosed on that in a million years these middle class folks would never have been in that situation financially if we were not focused somewhere halfway across the world as opposed to getting our fiscal house in order here in the United States of America. And if folks don't believe what we're saying here, let's use the third-party validators that we always use, Mr. Ryan. I will quote Robert Reischauer, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, also a respected institution here that is nonpartisan. He said, contrary to the notion that war spending bolsters the economy, he said recently that the ``domestic benefits of war spending have been muted because spending is stimulating economies elsewhere, not the least being the economies of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.'' I alluded to these numbers earlier, and now I've found them in my notes, the price of oil and the direct correlation to our involvement in the Middle East and the skyrocketing cost of oil. The price of oil has skyrocketed since the Iraq war began. The national average price per gallon of regular gasoline before the start of the Iraq war was $1.73. Today, it's $3.34 cents, which is an increase of more than 93 percent. And this is predictable. In March 2003, Sung Won Sohn, then an economist for Wells Fargo Bank, not exactly a progressive think tank, noted that ``any time there is conflict in the Middle East, oil prices hit record figures.'' And he warned that the longer the war lasted, the higher prices would go. We can't take higher prices for gas than we're facing now. We already expect this summer for them to go over $4. When is enough going to be enough?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I began my service in Congress fighting for the right to privacy. Above all else, Americans' ability to communicate without the fear of having the government tap their phones, listen to their conversations or intercept their private communication is a right that just cannot be discarded. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle have said if an American is not communicating with a terrorist, then they have nothing to fear. The manner in which the administration has conducted the warrantless surveillance program has undermined our citizens' confidence in the bedrock belief that we live in a free country where we do not live in constant fear of the government looking over our shoulder. This is a cherished right that has been arrogantly cast aside by an administration run amok. After a careful review of both classified and unclassified materials concerning the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, I, like so many of my Judiciary Committee colleagues, concluded that the immunity that is proposed by the administration is unnecessary and goes too far. We must be vigilant when protecting our citizens' right to privacy. It is a rare, unique, and important right that we cannot allow to be subjected to death by a thousand cuts. If the administration has its way and this right falls, what is next? We must stand in the breach and make sure that Americans' right to privacy is preserved. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as Members of a coequal branch of government to issue these contempt citations to members of the Bush administration who clearly feel that they are above the law. Last year, when the Judiciary Committee was legitimately investigating the political purge of U.S. attorneys and conducting oversight into the politicization of the Justice Department, administration officials not only failed to turn over key documents after receiving subpoenas, they didn't even bother to show up to testify. Madam Speaker, I am deeply frustrated by this administration's continued stonewalling and, frankly, the contempt that it has shown for Congress. As our former Republican colleague Congressman Mickey Edwards told our committee, the administration's actions have been outrageous and it continues to erode the separation of powers. I applaud Chairman Conyers' patience and his many attempts to resolve this situation short of the manner in which we will today, but I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say enough is enough.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, with the death of Congressman Tom Lantos, the world lost an inspiring leader who dedicated his life to religious freedom and human rights. Now, it has been noted that Tom was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, and I think it's important to note that with the sun setting on this generation of Americans, he will very likely remain the only Holocaust survivor to have served here. His leadership and guidance served as the moral conscience of America's commitment to protecting human rights. He lived the concept of ``never again,'' and he stood against persecution all over the globe. For me, I would like to get a little bit personal myself. As a newer Member of Congress, I can tell you that since I got here, Tom Lantos always made me feel like my grandfather was looking out for me. He always had a word of encouragement, always made me feel good about myself. If I felt a little shaky, I could turn to Tom, and he would tell me, ``Honey, it's okay. Go out and just do your best. You are going to do great.'' He would always offer those words of encouragement. So that was really an incredible feeling to have that kind of support. As a young Jewish American, I can tell you that we all believed that Representative Lantos served as a role model for what we want public service to be. His dedication to lifting up oppressed people throughout the world serves as our personal inspiration. And I know that his service was a tremendous source of pride for the Jewish community across this country and for his constituents. I, and countless others, feel a deep sense of loss in his passing, but we take solace in the knowledge that the world is a better place because of this great individual.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield for a second?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that's the direction we are going to continue to go in, because that line in the sand that you referred to, we have got to draw one. And the place that we draw it is a real commitment to making sure that we move back into a surplus situation like we were in before this administration took us to hell in a handbasket. I mean, let's take a look at the deterioration that our budget has gone through over the last number of years. We had a situation where the budget has deteriorated by $8.8 trillion under Republican policies. In the 2001 fiscal year, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Literally leading into President Bush taking office, we were in a $5.6 trillion surplus. Now, over the time of this administration, which is approaching 7\1/ 2\, almost 8 years, we have gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3.2 trillion deficit. Now, if there is anyplace that I think that this Democratic majority will draw a line in the sand, it's here, so that we can make sure we take our established policies and adopt a budget and a plan and a blueprint to get us back to a surplus situation.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. And let's detail some of those facts, because the mythology that you just laid out, which is that it's Republicans that are fiscally responsible and that it's Democrats that cause debt, let's take the reality of the Bush administration's responsibility and stewardship of our fiscal house over the last several years. This administration, under President Bush's leadership, is responsible for the five biggest deficits in American history. Now, there was a whole lot of talk, Mr. Altmire, as you recall over the last year or so, from this administration about how they were going to get us out of debt over the next 4 or 5 years. Right? Well, the third highest deficit that exists is proposed in the budget document that President Bush submitted to the Congress on Monday at $407 billion. The only two higher deficits that were projected were last fiscal year and in fiscal year 2004, when it was $413 billion. We're going in the wrong direction.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Put the chart back up because I think it's important to note that when we began using this chart, it was actually at $1.03 trillion and the bar was a little bit lower. Now, here on this chart it's 1.19, and it's really $1.33 trillion in foreign debt. The bar is up to the President's chin. It's actually, the 1.33 I think is up to his lips. He's about to drown in the debt right here on this chart. So we really need to make sure, I mean, there are deficits and there is debt, both are significant, both are important, and both really hamper our long-term security. When we talk about the need for homeland security, economic security for Americans is equally as important. If we can't rely on our government and our leadership in the government to make sure that we make responsible fiscal decisions like we did when we reinstituted the PAYGO rules, when we made sure that the bills that we pass here are paid for and that we, going forward, aren't going to cause more debt and more deficits and saddle that burden of debt on future generations, that's what fiscal responsibility is all about; that's what financial security is about. Every single day Americans have to make sure that they don't spend more money than they take in, and we have families across the country who make sacrifices in order to be able to do that. They know they're in trouble if they go in the opposite direction. This administration has spent like drunken sailors and really, to be honest with you, treated the resources that we have like it's Monopoly money, like it's not real, like it grows on trees. I mean, I guess once you get into the trillions, Mr. Murphy, that's a hard concept to grasp, $3 trillion.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'm glad you asked that question, Mr. Altmire, because some of these concepts are hard to grasp. I know they're hard for me to get my mind around sometimes. Like I said, $3 trillion, which is the budget that this President proposed this year, and $407 billion in deficit. On top of that, a $1.33 billion foreign debt; that is money that we owe to foreign governments. Let's look at just who it is that we owe this money to: $644.3 billion of that is owed to Japan. China, almost $250 billion, China, through 11/05. And then China now, $350 billion. Great Britain and the U.K., $240 billion. The Caribbean, right nearby, our neighbors very close by, we owe $68 billion to them; $63 billion to Taiwan. The OPEC nations, where we're trying to move in the direction of weaning ourselves off our dependence on foreign oil, the nice words that the President put in his State of the Union a couple of years ago that we all heard, well, $100 billion of our debt is owed to the OPEC nations. $70 billion to Korea, $53.9 billion to Hong Kong, and $52.5 billion to Germany. So we have a lot of our debt spread all over the world. And we're supposed to be the strongest and most vibrant Nation in the entire world, and we have a lot of hands all over us world-wide. And it is not a good situation to be in. It's a tenuous situation to be in, and it's fiscally irresponsible. And we've got to make sure, and we're committed as Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, to move us in the right direction and get us out of that debt.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And sisterhood.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That's exactly right. And it's important to show this debt and the impact of it in different ways because different people think and look at things through a different prism. So the second highest line item in the budget that he submitted was the interest on the debt. And as you can see, like Mr. Altmire pointed out, we're at about $240 billion, which is the net interest that we're paying on that debt. Now, expressed comparatively to the other things that we believe are incredibly important in terms of improving the quality of life of people in America and moving this country in a new direction, which is what we were committed to doing when we took over the majority and that we promised the American people that we would do, so we are at $240 billion in net interest on the debt. That is as compared to what we spend on education, what the President proposes to spend on education, which is at about, let's say, a little less than $50 billion, a little bit less than that for spending on veterans health care, and then a little bit less than that on homeland security. Now, what's mind-boggling is, if you listen to this administration and to this President and to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would think that the most important thing on the planet to them is homeland security and making sure that we provide adequate funding for homeland security. Well, if you take education, veterans health care, and homeland security combined, combined those items don't equal the payment of interest on the national debt. I mean who is for homeland security and who just talks? I mean you have to back up words with action. We do all this right out in the open. People can see where the priorities are because, as the Speaker always talks about, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Altmire, the Speaker always talks about how the budget is an expression of our values. And we are going to show the American people the difference in our values as Democratic Members of Congress, who are the leaders of this coequal branch of government, versus the expression of values that President Bush put forward on Monday, which clearly are dramatically different than the priorities of the American people.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I could just reclaim my time for one second because different people would have different definitions of ``slash.'' So since we know actually by what percentage he slashed it, let's underscore. The Department of Homeland Security State responder grants that he slashed, he slashed by 78 percent. So we're not talking about just a little nick here. We're talking about cutting the legs out from under a program that provides assistance for homeland security efforts locally, not just for New York and Los Angeles and the places with big tall buildings, but places all over this country which have vulnerable sites that any wise, smart-minded terrorist would love to catch a community sleeping that doesn't have a coordinated effort and a plan to make sure that they can take care of their community and ward off a potential terrorist attack, which could happen anywhere.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, can I ask you a question? Because you were going through the details of the cuts that the President has proposed in his budget that he submitted for fiscal year 2009 on Monday. There was a program that was first implemented and proposed and funded by Congress but proposed by President Clinton called the COPS program, which put 100,000 police officers on the street and made sure that we had first responders, police officers, on the streets, patrolling our communities, making sure that the streets of America were safe. And how much did President Bush propose for the COPS program in his fiscal year 2009 budget?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. All the while with the President's continuing to insist that we make the tax cuts permanent, that we extend permanent tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, to cut more of our ability to make sure that we can fund first responder grants for communities across this country, and all the while having a $407 billion deficit and a $1.33 trillion debt. I don't know. In my dictionary, fiscal responsibility, that doesn't meet any of the definitions in the dictionary that I use. Maybe the dictionary in bizarro world. Maybe there's some opposite universe. I remember when I watched Star Trek, there was a bizarro world, opposite universe episode, and everything that was one way in one universe was the opposite way in the opposite universe. Maybe that's what it is. Maybe that aisle right there, maybe that side of the Chamber is actually a parallel universe, and so everything we believe is the opposite on that side. That's what it is. I figured it out.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, I have to compliment you because the people of western Pennsylvania, when they made a decision to elect you, sent a champion for our Nation's veterans to this institution. Since day one, I don't remember a day that has gone by that I have not heard you talk about the plight of our veterans and the importance of not forgetting them, and making sure that we are going to appropriately fund and adequately fund their health care needs, provide for their needs when they come back from their service to our country and continue to take care of them in the variety of ways that we should instead of forgetting them like so much dirty laundry and make sure that they don't get left behind. It is another example of the new direction that the people of America wanted. And when they elected you, that is exactly what you have delivered to them. And I know your constituents really appreciate it. You mentioned the lecture, which is a good description for what the State of the Union was last week that we got from President Bush, and Mr. Murphy, I would like to say our caucus chairman, Rahm Emanuel, did a good comparison, or timeline, of where we were at the start of the administration almost 8 years ago and where we are now. He did a press conference and talked about, gave a speech, a really good speech on the floor and just showed where we were at the start and where we are now. So, Mr. Murphy, I know you have some of the information in front of you, as well, just to walk people through where we were then, at the beginning of this administration. At the beginning of this administration, we started with a record $5.6 trillion surplus when President Clinton left office. And President Bush will be leaving behind, Mr. Murphy?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And at the beginning of the Bush administration, Mr. Altmire, we were on track to pay down all of our publicly held debt. All of it. I am not sure if you have the chart in front of you right there; but, Mr. Murphy, we were on track to pay down all of our publicly held debt. And what is the Bush administration leaving behind?