Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Meek, we in the 30-Something Working Group generally try to make sure that the people that are able to listen to us, our colleagues, the Speaker, and anyone else within the sound of our voice, when we do these round robin conversations on the House floor we ask people not to take our word for it. We ask people to look at the third-party validators that we present on the floor and judge for themselves. We are presenting the facts here, not just making stuff up and talking in flowery sound bites. Let's look at today's editorial in USA Today. What they said today about the President's veto and what action Congress should take tomorrow is our view on the children's health program. Bush Gives Bogus Answers to the $83,000 Question. That is the headline on the editorial. In summary, the main quote which summarizes the body of their editorial is that, ``Bush's claim is misleading at best, simply wrong at worst. The House would do well to look past the President's deceptive rhetoric and override his veto.'' That is USA Today's editorial from today. We are going to cast this vote tomorrow, my friends, and people have a choice. When they swore to uphold the Constitution, at the same time we know that they made a commitment to their constituents to stand up for them; and that when you represent your constituents in government, you are supposed to do that and be there for people who don't have a voice. That is what this vote is about. It is who is for kids, and who stands with the President. It is very stark, very black and white.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And I actually don't know how many of those 365 days are weekends. So, you know, if you discount those, I can't really calculate the math that quickly, but just a couple hundred, right, couple hundred days, and we were in session for 89. It was a record low for the history of the Congresses. We were known as the do nothingest of do nothing Congresses. So I think the President needs to take a look at history, maybe open a history book, maybe open a book, and take a look at what actually goes on here in the 110th since Democrats took control versus what was going on for the last 12 years. We're about making sure that we get the America people's priorities in focus: children's health insurance; making sure that we can focus on alternative energy sources; making sure we can expand health care for more individuals; truly end America's addiction to foreign oil; recognize that global warming is a problem and not just say that it is and do nothing. We want to make sure that the future is really bright for the American people.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'm so glad that you brought this up, because as a member of the whip team, I was working this debt collection bill that we passed on the House floor today, and I was just equally as shocked as you were about how many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against this because here are the facts. Those private debt collection companies were costing us $70 million. We paid them $70 million of government funds to collect $20 million.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In helping to close us out, I do want to direct people to the charts and the other information that we have talked about here tonight. Our Web site can be reached by going to www.speaker.gov, and you will find the 30-something link right on that Web page, www.speaker.gov. I can only hope that the next time we meet, which will be the day before we cast that children's health insurance vote, to decide who is for kids and who is not, to override the President's veto, that we will be able to report that we have picked up those 15 Republicans who have found their way and would be willing to do right by our Nation's kids. It has been a pleasure to join you here this evening.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I also want to add my voice and sorrow that goes out to the Davis family. Mr. Meek, Mr. Murphy, this is also Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Since we know that our dear colleague, Mrs. Davis, succumbed to breast cancer after a valiant 2- year battle, I think it is important to note that we are in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer affects so many women from so many different walks of life, and it strikes every potential family, whether you're a Member of Congress, a maintenance worker, whether you're a scientist or someone from any walk of life. It is important that we focus our research and our effort, our dollars, our passion and our commitment to finding a cure for this horrendous disease. My prayers and thoughts go out to her family as well. Madam Speaker, that having been said, I do have to tell you that I go back to my district and have talked to lots of different groups at home and in various places around the country, and when I bring up the possibility of the fact that President Bush might, and then did, veto a bill that would expand access to health care to 10 million kids, people really look at me like we must be working with aliens from another planet. Really. The jaws drop open, the puzzled look on people's faces in the audiences that I speak in front of, when I tell them that most of the Republicans and this President are actually opposed to expanding access to children's health care. Now, they will say they are not. They have been saying, no, no, we support it. But words are pretty hollow when it comes to a mom or a dad whose child is suffering with a fever and they have no health insurance, which means they can't call up a doctor like we can and make an appointment to have a simple checkup or to get some antibiotics, and that they have to wait until their child is so sick, until that temperature climbs to about 104, 105, until you're ready to push the panic button, fly in your car, if you have a car, if you have a way to get yourself to the emergency room, to take your child to the emergency room to use it as your primary health care access. People get that this is simple: You are either for making sure that kids have health care, or you're not. The lame excuse that they use, Mr. Meek and Mr. Murphy, is that they try to tell people that this is covering kids whose parents can afford insurance already, or who are already covered. They actually say that there are people that will drop the health insurance that they are paying for privately now to sign up for SCHIP; that that is exactly what any right-minded parent would do, is drop comprehensive health care coverage that they already have so that they can hopefully qualify for and keep their child qualified for a health insurance program that is really targeted for kids who fall in the gap. Madam Speaker, not only is that completely wrong, it's a shell game designed to take away the focus that is clearly being shined on them right now, that shows that we are for children and they are not. That is the bottom line. It is very simple. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a simple choice coming up next Thursday, October 18. They can stand with the kids and make sure that kids who fall in the gap, who don't qualify for Medicaid, whose families aren't poor enough to qualify to get them Medicaid, and whose families can't afford to buy private health insurance, the gap of those kids in the middle, we need to make sure we cover them. It's the bottom line, Mr. Murphy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you happen to know what the average price of a house or of housing in your district is?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Again, for some more examples, Mr. Murphy, you came in the new freshman class or majority-makers who were committed to this campaign to come here and help move this country in a new direction. The new direction we have been talking about is eliminating the consistent examples of Republicans talking about being fiscally responsible but doing exactly the opposite. The next time we should bring the numbers of the votes to the floor on how many Republicans voted for the PAYGO rules and how many Democrats voted for it, how many Republicans voted against the amendment that closed the tax loophole that allowed American companies to hide how much they were supposed to pay in taxes by headquartering them in a different country even if they were really American companies doing business here. In that energy bill, we put a provision in that energy bill to make sure we could close that loophole. I would like to see numbers here on how many Republicans voted against it, allowing companies to skirt their responsibility. This is not about increasing taxes. That vote was about collecting the taxes that are due, that these companies owe. So no on PAYGO, no on closing tax loopholes, no on debt collection responsibility and leaving $50 million on the table. Who is fiscally responsible and who is just kidding?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There are different ways to talk about this issue. As a mom, I like to talk about it from the standpoint when I talk to other parents that there is pretty much nothing more basic, no more guttural reaction that a parent has than wanting to keep their child healthy. Everywhere I go when I talk to people, this is the most basic thing. It is as simple and as black and white and as big a no- brainer as most people have ever come across. A lot of the issues we deal with up here are complex. They are not black and white necessarily. There is a lot of gray. There is no gray on whether or not, if we can cover 10 million kids, we should. There is no gray for most folks. If that is the case, and I am certain that is the case in my liberal Democratic district, as opposed to conservative Republican districts or moderate Democrat/moderate Republican districts. I don't think there is any tinge of partisanship on the basic instinct that parents want to make sure they provide health care for their kids. But if that is not the priorities that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle share, what is? Well, I think a glance at this chart will demonstrate what their priorities are. This chart details 37 days in Iraq and what that would pay for if we were comparing it to what we could pay for to cover children's health care. One day in Iraq costs $330 million in funds that we appropriate. That would cover, over the 5 years that this children's health insurance program would authorize, 270,222 children. One week of paying for the war in Iraq costs $2.3 billion, which would cover 1,891,551 kids over the 5 years of this program. A month of the war in Iraq, which we are now in the sixth year, I believe, costs $10 billion, and that would cover 8,196,721 kids over the 5 years that we would authorize this program. And finally, over 37 days, which would be about 4\1/2\ months' worth of paying for Iraq in the 5-year program, $12.2 billion, it costs us for 37 days in Iraq, that would cover the 10 million kids this program would cover. So 10 million kids times 5. They have repeatedly voted to blindly follow President Bush, blindly follow President Bush on the war in Iraq, and now, except for 45 brave Republicans who understand that children come first, blindly follow him over a cliff and vote for $12.2 billion over 37 days in a given month and a week for the war in Iraq, and to continue it even though Americans want us to withdraw and refocus our efforts on homeland security here. And on top of that, choose to spend that money on a hopeless war as opposed to funding health care for 10 million kids. Who is for children and who is just kidding? I think the numbers demonstrate that it is clear. They have an opportunity to right the wrong that the President's veto pen established last week. Next Thursday they can vote to override it, and the American people have been speaking and need to continue to speak to their Members who voted wrong on this bill. We need 15 more Republicans. We are this close, 15 Republicans. Grow some courage, see the wizard, toughen that spine or grow one. Vote to override the President's veto and 10 million children get health care coverage.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Murphy, this process we are going through in trying to win over the 15 Republicans kind of reminds me of the lessons my parents taught me when I was a little kid. You would struggle, Madam Speaker, with what was really right from wrong and to understand the values that your parents were instilling. I know I did. I would ask my mom on tough questions: How am I going to know I did the right thing? What is the guidepost I should use? That is the kind of lessons parents teach their kids all the time. I remember so vividly my mom and dad telling me you have to be able to go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror and like what you see staring back at you. You have to know that your conscience is not going to gnaw at you. There are plenty of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will thump their chests and use a lot of bravado, false bravado, I would add, and say, I can live with myself. I am doing the right thing. But you know in your heart of hearts when you go to sleep at night and you are the only one in the room with yourself whether or not you have done the right thing. I am desperately hopeful they will listen to that inner voice, because you know your inner voice has to be telling you, if they truly have the values that they say they have as opposed to the ones that are reflected in many of their votes, that they will do the right thing, at least 15 of them, and vote to override the President's veto. We all remember the vivid picture that we had when history was made on January 4 this year when Speaker Pelosi was sworn in and handed the gavel with all of those children, the children of our colleagues and grandchildren, surrounding her at the roster. That was a very vivid picture, but that wasn't a photo op. That was a representation of what Speaker Pelosi has staked her speakership on. She dedicated her speakership to our Nation's children, and we are making our entire agenda about improving their lives and affecting and impacting their future. I mean at the end of the day, like I said a couple of minutes ago, and it bears repeating, this is a black-and-white issue. You vote to override the President's veto, you are for expanding access to health care for 10 million children. If you vote no, you are against it, period. There is no other way to define it. This is one of those things, Mr. Meek, the more they have to explain why they are doing what they are doing, the worse it gets for them. Again, I go back to standing in front of your constituents at a town hall meeting, and sometimes you look out at the faces that we represent and you hope you are winning the audience over. But on this issue, those puzzled expressions don't go away the more words that come out of our colleagues' mouths in explanation of why they can't support expanding access to health care for 10 million children.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Private.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I believe it's called the Tax Collection Responsibility Act.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will be glad to say it again. It's that shocking. We were paying private debt collection companies, instead of paying IRS employees a salary, to collect the debt that is owed in taxes from the people who have not been paying their taxes, $70 million to private debt collection companies to collect $20 million, and if we had spent the same $70 million, the statistics show that the track record of IRS employees paid the same amount of money would have collected $1.6 billion. $1.6 billion would have been collected by government employees working for the IRS who we have to presume are quite a bit more trustworthy with our constituents' private, personal information in this time of stolen identities and stolen funds from our constituents. The thing that strikes me as the most disturbing about this is that the Republicans talk this good game about being fiscally responsible and being the ones that are the stewards of the public's tax dollars, and then let's go down the list of where our votes and our leadership has been as Democrats under Speaker Pelosi and where theirs have been. There was this bill today. Do you have the numbers on how many Republicans voted against this bill today? Voted to continue the practice of spending $70 million to collect $20 million. 232 Democrat ``yes'' votes and 173 Republican ``no'' votes. Only 22 Republicans voted ``yes.'' I don't understand that. So maybe it's an isolated incident. Maybe it's isolated.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1721, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. I want to particularly thank Chairman Bobby Rush, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and Chairman John Dingell of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their incredible leadership and support on this legislation. Additionally, I would like to thank Ranking Member Barton, Congressman Wolf and Congressman Ramstad for their steadfast support of this legislation, as well as Ranking Member Stearns, my fellow Floridian. I also want to thank Safe Kids Worldwide for always being such a wonderful resource as this legislation became a reality. On June 15, 2002, the beautiful Graeme Baker, whose picture is in front of me, attended a pool party with her entire family; her mother, Nancy, and her four sisters. Everyone was having a great time swimming, when all of a sudden one of Nancy's daughters came running to tell her that Graeme was in the spa. Nancy ran to the edge of the spa, and all she saw was dark and bubbling water. Her daughter, frantically crying and pointing into the tub, insisted that Graeme was there. Nancy jumped into the spa and saw Graeme with her eyes pinched closed, her hair and limbs moving, with the current of water from all the jets on the side. Graeme was entrapped by the powerful suction of the drain spa and could not free herself. Nancy pulled and pulled with all her strength to help her daughter. It eventually took the strength of two adults to free Graeme from the spa. Sadly, it was too late; Graeme passed away in the hospital that afternoon. Following Graeme's death, Nancy and her father-in-law, former Secretary of State James Baker, became and still are tireless advocates for children's pool and spa safety. When I met Nancy, I was immediately taken by her tragic story of the loss of her daughter. As a fellow mother of twins, I was most affected by Nancy's incredible desire to ensure that what happened to Graeme did not happen to any other child. She has channeled all of her energy into raising the issue of pool and spa safety to a national audience. Her passion is an inspiration to me, and I am proud to sponsor this legislation in her daughter's name. The Baker family tragedy is a painful example of the need for national pool and spa safety legislation. We must implement national standards to replace the haphazard safety measures that allowed Graeme, and hundreds of children like her, to be lost in such nightmare scenarios. I am a mother of three young children, and I have talked about them on the floor many times relating to various pieces of legislation. And as any mother of young children will tell you, supervision does lapse. Supervision, when children are around water, is imperative. But as a mom of twins, as a mom of a 4-year-old, I can tell you that there are times when even the best parent, even the most vigilant parent lets a child slip out from under their view and they accidentally fall in the water. That has happened countless times. Let me just tell you what most parents' view in a survey was of supervising their children around water. While 94 percent of people report that they always actively supervise their children while swimming, closer examination indicates that parents often participate in a variety of distracting behaviors. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, one in five parents believes that a lifeguard is the main person responsible for supervising children in the water. Lifeguards are a key safety measure, but they supervise an average of 25 swimmers per lifeguard. They also report that 55 percent of parents thought there were circumstances in which it was okay for a child to swim without a buddy. Within this category, 31 percent said it was okay to leave a child unsupervised if he or she swam with a buddy; 29 percent thought it was okay if the child was an excellent swimmer; 23 percent thought it was okay if the child had several years of swimming lessons. I could stand here all day, and I would still not be able to adequately emphasize that parents must adequately supervise their children whenever they are in or near water. But we all know that supervision lapses. That is what this bill is designed to do. It is designed to encourage States to adopt swimming pool safety laws to ensure that suction drain entrapment, which occurs when a child passes over a swimming pool drain that has suction so strong that it holds them to the drain under water and either entangles their hair or even disembowels the child, that we can prevent this. Drowning is the second leading cause of preventable death in children 1 to 14 years old in this entire country. And even cold-weather States have hundreds of drownings every single year. We can stop this. We can encourage States through funding and through education programs to adopt swimming pool and spa safety laws. I urge the United States House of Representatives to adopt this legislation so that we can make sure that we end or dramatically reduce, at the very least, the likelihood of young children drowning needlessly in a swimming pool or spa.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It's just because when the facts don't meet their views, they make them up.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I mean, what we have tried to do in the 30 Something Working Group is to highlight, particularly when it comes to the domestic agenda of this caucus, what the other side, our good friends on the other side of the aisle's, decisions and the ramifications of those decisions and the impact that they will have. And we had 45 Republicans do the right thing on this SCHIP vote on this children's health insurance bill, and what we need them to do is cast the right decision again, vote to override the President's veto, and we need about 17 Republicans to come with us to realize that they made the wrong decision in voting against it so that we can make sure that we give access to children, not those who are already covered by private health insurance. The President has tried to spread the misperception that this program and this expansion is about taking kids off of private health insurance and putting them on government health insurance. That is totally false. What is actually happening is we are going to expand access to health insurance for children that don't currently have it, for children whose families fall in the gap between Medicaid and private health care. That's what the children's health insurance program has been all about, and we need to make sure that the members of this institution, of the United States House of Representatives, be the representative body that they were elected to be and do the right thing by our kids.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and just really briefly, I want to thank you and congratulate my colleagues for holding down the fort for the last hour and standing up for our Nation's children because it's just absolutely preposterous that the President vetoed an opportunity to expand access to health care for millions of children. And we are going to continue to fight to our last breath in the Democratic Caucus and try to override this veto so we can make sure that we do the right thing by our children. We will be here regularly week after week to make sure we stand up for people who need the most help.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of south Florida philanthropist, prominent attorney, and real estate developer, Herbert D. Katz. Mr. Katz was a well-known member of the community, involved with numerous causes and organizations. A longtime Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale resident, Mr. Katz graduated from Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in 1951, and Harvard Law School in 1954. From 1954-1957 he served in the U.S. Coast Guard, was appointed to be a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial in 1988 by President Reagan, was President of the Jewish Federation of Broward County from 1974-1976, and chaired the United Jewish Appeal's, UJA, Retirement Committee from 1986-1989. A highly recognized donor to numerous causes, especially in the Jewish community, Mr. Katz went on to support and serve on the boards of many philanthropic organizations including the Israel Education Fund of UJA, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and the American Friends of Hebrew University, just to name a few. He and his wife were instrumental in helping to finance the building in Davie, bearing their names, that houses the Jewish Federation of Broward County. They also established the coveted Herb and Ellie Katz Leadership Development Award, presented each year by the Jewish Federation of Broward County. In addition to his wife Eleanor, Mr. Katz is survived by 5 children-- Laura, Thomas, Sally, Walter and Daniel, and 8 grandchildren. This was a man whose presence will be greatly missed throughout south Florida.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes rolled until 6:30 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A list of these bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning-hour business and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday there will be no votes in the House. We expect to consider H.R. 2470, legislation dealing with contractors who commit crimes overseas; H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act; and a bill to provide tax relief for mortgage debt forgiveness in the event of foreclosures.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. As far as the gentleman's reference to the military quality of life bill at the beginning of your remarks, I will remind the gentleman that we did pass, in the military health care and veterans bill, the largest single increase in health care in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration. So we are certainly doing everything we can to expand access to health care and improve the quality of life of our military veterans. Referring to the gentleman's question about the trade adjustment act and Peru, I'll remind the gentleman that the Ways and Means Committee did conduct a markup this very week. We are fully engaged in working on the Peru trade agreement and will be working on the trade adjustment act simultaneously to the free trade agreement with Peru.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman will note that we did a lot of incredibly good work this week, passing the SCHIP bill, the Children's Health Insurance bill, passing the flood insurance bill off the floor this afternoon, passing the CR just yesterday. So there has been an incredible amount of good work done this week. And as far as the bills that you referenced, we will be planning to conference with the Senate as soon as they signify that they are ready to do that, and will be working diligently with them to bring those bills to the floor when the conference is complete and ready.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'd be happy to answer the gentleman's question. We are reviewing all of those bills and want to make sure that, obviously, the House is on equal footing with the Senate. And when we are ready to go to conference, we will certainly join them and make sure those bills are brought to the floor in as timely a fashion as possible.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to recognize City of North Miami Chief of Police, Linda Loizzo. Linda is a true trailblazer. She has served the North Miami Police Department for more than 33 years in a number of capacities: deputy chief, assistant chief of operations, major in charge of administrative services, commander in charge of the investigative division, and supervisor of several special support services units. Linda was the first woman promoted to the rank of sergeant, the first woman promoted to rank of lieutenant and major, and the first woman promoted to the rank of chief of police for the North Miami Beach Police Department. Chief Loizzo not only broke down walls in a male- dominated profession, but she also shattered and crumbled stereotypes for women in all professions, and particularly those in law enforcement. I congratulate Chief Loizzo on her retirement and thank her for her dedicated service to our community.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman and Mr. Bachus both for their support.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to engage in a colloquy. On the travel fairness language included in the bill, there are two provisions which I believe require additional work and which I hope the gentleman will be willing to work on with me as the bill progresses toward conference, the war exception and the impact on existing State laws. The first is the exception allowing denial or limitation of coverage for people traveling to areas under intense armed conflict. The current language uses the term ``ongoing military conflict''; however, this term is not defined in statute or any other legislation. We must make sure the language reflects the most accurate description of the conflict areas in question and not unintentionally include areas that do not rise to the definition of war zone. Secondly, on another point that I want to try to ask for the gentleman's assistance in conference is the issue of how this law will affect the States with similar laws. The current provision is silent on the issue of States with stronger travel fairness laws on the book, States such as Florida, Colorado, and Washington. As representatives of the Federal Government, Congress should not attempt to preempt State laws with Federal legislation when the State law provides greater protection. In other words, the Federal law should act as a floor, not as a ceiling, a base level of protection for the consumer. I would appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work to address these two issues in the conference.