Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to join my 30-something colleagues, Mr. Meek and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Meek, you started talking about the travesty that was revealed by The Washington Post just before last weekend about what is going on at Walter Reed Medical Center and the campus and its facilities. I had the privilege of going to visit our men and women that are at Walter Reed who have come back from Iraq injured. Almost every soldier I met with was an amputee and went through a devastating experience, devastating injury. But the ward that they take you through, like this article says, is spit-polished and brand-spanking clean. There is not a shadow of what is described in this third-party validator, which is how we refer to our information that we bring out here to demonstrate the facts. I want to read just a paragraph from the article. I want to highlight some of the things, and we have been joined by our good friend Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania. This article hit me like a ton of bricks: ``Life beyond the hospital bed,'' and this is what is going on at Walter Reed that is not what they show us as Members of Congress and that they show the President and Vice President about what is going on at Walter Reed. ``Life beyond the hospital bed is a frustrating mountain of paperwork. The typical soldier is required to file 22 documents with eight different commands, most of them off post, to enter and exit the medical processing world, according to government investigators. Sixteen different information systems are used to process the forms, but few of them can communicate with one another. The Army's three personnel databases cannot read each other's files and can't interact with the separate pay system or the medical record keeping databases. The disappearance of necessary forms and records is the most common reason soldiers languish at Walter Reed longer than they should,'' and it goes on. That is just unbelievable. A mountain of red tape and bureaucracy is what our troops come back to the United States to and have to deal with. I thought we well established after 9/11 that interoperability and communication between systems was an obstacle that was intolerable. How could we allow this to happen and just let our veterans, who fought for us so valiantly, and the analogy I will make is while our troops might not come home, and thank good they are not coming home to the same reaction as our Vietnam veterans came home to, how is this not as bad? It is actually worse, in a way, because instead of just having to suffer the wrath of their fellow Americans, which was a travesty and certainly hurtful and harmful, instead they come home and suffer the wrath of their government, the benign wrath of their government. ``Benign'' meaning not specifically intended to harm, but it is like death by a thousand cuts.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Just to quickly help close us out, the bottom line is that our veterans come home and face devastating treatment from their government. We have outlined that tonight. We send them over there with equipment that in many cases is faulty. We are not adequately preparing them and giving them enough time to be well trained to do their best over there. And they are doing their level best given the assignment that we give them. We are not providing them with the resources, and we are not providing them with the equipment. And, fortunately, we have a Democratic Congress now that is not going to give this President a blank check any longer, not going to let him run roughshod over our duty to be a check and balance on the administration. And that is what the 30-something Working Group is designed to outline. We are going to make sure that we get the message out and that we help our colleagues and anyone who might also hear this conversation between us understand what is really going on. Mr. Murphy, I would yield to you to give out the Web site and Mr. Meek for closing.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for a question. It is somewhat rhetorical, but if you know the answer, feel free to tell me what it is. Do you know what percentage of the troops that are over in Iraq that we will have as a Nation once Great Britain pulls out?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to follow up on what you are saying and emphasize and demonstrate what we are doing to our best, and I do mean doing to our best and brightest once they have come back. You have been an eloquent champion of our veterans. I think it is important to recall a private conversation that you and I had on the floor during the run-up to the adoption of the supplemental. It happens that I am a member of the whip team, and you were my assignment that day. I had an opportunity to talk to you about whether we could count on your support for the supplemental and how important it was. Your answer, which was the appropriate answer, was, well, Debbie, the answer is no, unless you can assure me that there was an increase for veterans health care. Because at that moment, I could not assure you because I did not have the information at my fingertips, I had to get back to you and was proud to be able to report that we did provide a significant increase that we were able to bump up beyond the continuing resolution significantly the health care we are providing to our veterans. But it is to your constituents' credit and the veterans that you represent that you do that. But let us just go through some facts that we know. The percentage of Army servicemembers receiving medical retirement and permanent disability benefits back in 2001 was 10 percent. The percentage of the same Army servicemembers receiving medical retirement and permanent disability benefits in 2005 down to 3 percent. Army Reservists receiving medical retirement and permanent disability in 2001, 16 percent; same group in 2005, 5 percent. Let us go to the case backlog at the Veterans Administration on new benefit claims in fiscal year 2006. 400,000-case backup. This is from the Army Times, third party validator. Average length of time veterans wait before receiving monthly benefits, 6 months to 2 years. That was in the Los Angeles Times. The number of soldiers at Walter Reed navigating the medical and physical evaluation process since 2001 has doubled. The average length of time it takes for Army soldiers to convalesce and go through the military medical and physical evaluations, nine to 15\1/2\ months. The increase in the Army's physical disability caseload since 2001, 80 percent. The number of veterans from the global war on terror expected to enter the military and veterans health care systems in the coming years, 700,000. And I will just read the quote again from Candidate Bush: ``So let's get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted, and neglected, that's no criticism of the military; that is the criticism of a President and a Vice President and their record of neglect.'' Well, it sure is. And these statistics from the time that this President has been in the office are evidence of that. I would be happy to yield to one of the three gentlemen here.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. That is a very important and valid point. I want to read a quote, and that quote is this: ``So let's get something straight right now. To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that is no criticism of the military, that is a criticism of the President and Vice President and their record of neglect.'' Who do you think said that? I will tell you who said that, George W. Bush, as a candidate, said that on November 3, 2000, in an interview on CNN. I think it is pretty clear that he was right almost 7 years ago, and it is just sad that he didn't mean it. It is sad that he didn't actually do anything more than say those words instead of taking to heart what he supposedly believed at the time and making sure that it didn't happen when he became President. Clearly Walter Reed, the lack of body armor and preparation and training that we are sending, that we have been sending and he was willing to send our troops over to Iraq and Afghanistan without, is clearly still something that he is willing to do. Unfortunately, all the President has been is a candidate who spews words with really not too much meaning behind them. It looks like Mr. Altmire would like to say something.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring it back down a notch for a minute. On Tuesday, I had the privilege to spend time with some of our Nation's finest. I traveled to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and talked with some of our soldiers who dedicated their lives to protect our Nation and gave their hearts, souls and bodies to the cause of freedom. As I was driving out to the hospital, I reflected upon the changes in Iraq in the year-and-a-half since my first visit to Walter Reed. During that visit, IED was not a regular part of the American vocabulary, Mr. Speaker. Fatalities were shocking. The mounting death toll was disturbing. Today, there are insurgent attacks almost every day. Iraq has descended into a deadly civil war, and almost every American has become familiar with the term IED and the deadly impact they have on the young men and women that we send to fight for us in this war. The terms of war that my good friend from Indiana so well knows, the casualties, death, kidnappings, injuries, helicopter crashes, bombs, amputations, good-byes, sorrow and pain have all become commonplace. We hear that another helicopter was shot down or that three more soldiers died today in Iraq, and soon enough we become numb to the true impact that this war is having on our troops and their families. These young men and women represent true honor, courage and selflessness. They also represent the incalculable cost of the war, the price tag that is not mentioned, the lives, limbs, hopes and dreams. They are soldiers like a young man I met Tuesday who was travelling on foot with his convey when an IED exploded, and as he put it, blew him up. He had served in Iraq twice before, and on his third tour of duty, Mr. Speaker, he became a double amputee, lost his arm and leg. Clearly, his total experience will change him completely. Another young soldier was spending time with his family when I visited. He has a 6-year-old little boy who talked to me excitedly about how his daddy was finally going to come home forever after August. He, too, had two previous tours and fell severely ill this third time. Amazingly, this soldier hopes to go over and finish his tour with his company when he is better. As a mom of 7-year-old twins, my first thought when meeting this delightful little boy was that his dad had missed half his life so far, half his life. I could not help but worry that if we do not get it right soon in Iraq it will not be long before this little boy and my twins will be part of this conflict. And finally, there are soldiers like the young man who shared so much with me and who sincerely explained to me that he was actually glad that he was badly injured, as opposed to his gunner, because his gunner had a wife and kids and he did not want his buddy's family to have to look into his eyes like that. He told me he wants to run for office one day, and our Nation will be better for it. America's future depends upon this generation of Americans, but while they fight to protect our country, they are depending on us to protect them. They are counting on us, the United States Congress and this President, to have a plan, a strategy that gets us somewhere and to help get them home and not endlessly commit their lives and their families' lives to this war. So, Mr. Speaker, today I join an overwhelming majority of the American people, a bipartisan majority of Congress and some of the President's own military leaders to raise my voice and to be the voice of the constituents, the thousands of people who I represent in the 20th district of Florida, against escalating this war in Iraq. But more importantly, I raise my voice for my generation and for all the little boys and girls in America whose mommies and daddies are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for this country and for freedom. This President owes the American people, but more importantly, these brave troops, a strategy that makes sense, that will do the job and that will help get them home. The President's policy fails that 6-year- old little boy with a heart of gold and a smile that lights up the room who only wants his daddy to come home forever. I support this resolution because the explanation the President has given the American people is not good enough. I cannot help but think about the way this war is affecting not only my generation, Mr. Speaker, but the generations following mine. They, too, recognize the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are facing. Students from two schools in my district, Nob Hill Elementary and Silver Ridge Elementary, made Valentine's Day cards for the soldiers, and I got a chance to deliver them Tuesday during my visit to Walter Reed. One of these cards reads, the one right here: ``Thank you for protecting our country and me. You're the best. I would never have had the guts to fight with guns anyways. You are my hero. Forever and ever. Get well very, very soon.'' These young children recognize the service and sacrifice that these warriors are making. As Members of Congress, we owe them no less. It is our responsibility to provide for the common defense, and that includes vigorous debate, informed discussion and responsible public policy. I support this resolution because it does just that, and Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because the gentleman from Indiana knows better. It does not require words to question patriotism. We have had plenty of implication throughout this debate on this floor on the other side of the aisle, and death by a thousand cuts is the same as direct words. It is irresponsible and unconscionable that the other side of the aisle has questioned the patriotism of the Members who disagree. It is Congress' job to disagree. It is our role in the system of checks and balances, as our Founding Fathers envisioned them, unfortunately a role that was absent for the last 12 years.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank you for yielding. I was just taking my opportunity. You have had more than 45 minutes to an hour of your own time to discuss your own view, and each us would like that same opportunity. It is 12:40 in the morning. So I appreciate you yielding. I can tell you, as I just mentioned in my remarks, that it does not require express words. By implication, there are many Members on your side of the aisle who have questioned the patriotism of any of us who disagree with the President's policy. The President's policy is inappropriate, and it is Congress' role to question to engage in vigorous oversight. That is a role that was absent for the last 12 years, and that is why the American people elected Democrats to lead this chamber on November 7 and move this country in a new direction, which unfortunately you have neglected to do.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Does the gentleman not understand that when words are used, that they don't actually have to be exact words to suggest a particular opinion on the part of the Member? And do you really think that it is beyond question that any of the Members on your side of the aisle as they engaged in this discussion and debate did not question the patriotism of our Members? I mean, me thinks thou dost protest too much, as the gentleman stated earlier. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You collectively.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for roll-call vote No. 85, on agreeing to the Rogers amendment to H.R. 547, at 4:01 p.m. on February 8, 2007. If present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my good friends from Florida, Mr. Keller and Mr. Meek. It is my privilege to join with my colleagues in honoring the life and legacy of the Diaz-Balart family, and particularly Rafael Diaz-Balart, who distinguished himself not just in the Cuban House of Representatives, but by becoming a wonderful citizen of the United States of America and contributing his subsequent generations of his family to the history of the State of Florida and to the United States by lending his two grandsons to the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, across this country we have a wonderful history of naming institutions like law centers after our giants, and Florida is no exception. The Shepard Broad Law Center at Nova Southeastern University is named after a Florida giant. The University of Florida Law Center, the Holland Building, is named after a Florida giant. And now the law center at Florida International University will be named after a Cuban-American, a Florida giant, Rafael Diaz-Balart, and it is my privilege to join my colleagues in honoring his legacy and his life today.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That brings me back to my, you know, sort of private thoughts, when reviewing the budget proposal, and the changes in the SCHIP program formula, where are their values, where are their priorities? If you lay out the choices they had, they choose covering the formula and covering fewer kids. Perhaps it is that President Bush's daughters are grown now, or that they have always had health care coverage or that he grew up in a family that maybe didn't understand need. But there is something desperately wrong with the priorities and the values of this administration in terms of the direction they are moving in this country. That is why, at least fortunately now, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Murphy, we have some balance. We have the ability to exert Congress' role as a check and balance. We have the 30-something Working Group that can come to the floor each night and talk about those issues, talk about what is important to the American people, and the way we want to continue to move this country in the new direction that our constituents have asked for.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, naturally we should cut it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just actually if you are momentarily at a loss, I have the privilege of sitting on the House Appropriations Committee, as does Mr. Ryan, and we will have a chance to take this document apart pretty carefully, one of the things that I was reviewing as we received this today was just the continuous example that this administration provides in representing a policy in one way and doing something completely different. I mean, we have to be careful about the words we choose when we are on the House floor referring to the President, but I will point you to the section of the proposed budget that talks about how we finally are including at least some portion of the war budget inside the budget, instead of doing it all as emergency supplemental funding. So we have to give the President credit for at least including a portion of that in the budget. However, he actually does not have any funding for the war, assumes no funding for the war past the end of 2008. There is no funding in his proposed budget for 2009. I think probably everyone in this country would like nothing more than for us to be completely finished in this war in Iraq by that point, but that is not the track that we are on and it is not the track that the President has suggested that we are going to be on. So, there is a certain lack of clarity in terms of the distinction between what his budget represents and his rhetoric. They are not matching each other, and I think people see through that. We are fortunately now running this institution. So, through our accountability process, we can show the disparity between what the budget represents and what the actual policy implementation is.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of S-CHIP, the children's health insurance program, there is actually a proposal in this budget document that narrows who would be eligible for the children's health insurance program. Right now, I think the eligibility is twice that of the poverty level, and Secretary Leavitt just signed off on a formula that would narrow those children who could potentially be eligible for children's health insurance, I mean, at a time in our country when people are struggling to afford health care, when we have more and more people, especially children join the ranks of the uninsured, which means when you are sick, they cannot afford to go to the doctor and they use our emergency rooms as primary health care. Like I said, where are their values coming from?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my good friend from Ohio. What is more baffling is that it is bad enough that the President is, in this proposed budget, asking for more tax cuts for the wealthiest few, but what is more disheartening, deflating, insulting is that he is doing it on the backs of Medicaid recipients and Medicare beneficiaries. There is a $252 billion Medicare cut, a net $28 billion Medicaid cut in this budget. Yet still there are billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. I mean, how do you stand behind a podium at a press conference, how do you hold up this big, thick, hulking document and say that this is a representation of your values, of our country's values? Tax cuts for the wealthy and slashing health care for those who need it most and who can least afford it. I just honestly wonder every single day who raised these people. What were they talking about around their dinner table? It was obviously a different conversation than what was discussed around my dinner table. I come from not a poor background, not a wealthy background, but you know, I ate every night, we woke up and ate breakfast every day. Because I was comfortable in that regard and because my family was able to provide for us, we were taught around that dinner table that you took care of and gave back. In the Jewish religion, it is called Tikkun Olam. You give back to the community and help people who can least afford it, and this budget is the antithesis of that. This is give to the people who can best afford it and do it and take from the people who can afford it the least. I guess that is another example of why Democrats were successful across this country. Why both of my colleagues were successful in defeating Republican incumbents because the message was clear and they wanted a new direction.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think they should have their say. I really do. Going forward, when we hear legislation and get into the regular order, we have markups in committee hearings and legislation that Members file, we will do that. But we are still cleaning up their mess. The Six in '06 agenda is an agenda of the major issues that the American people voted for us to come here and do that we offered as amendments. We offered the minimum wage, we offered fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and through all of the other procedural attempts we made within the confines of their limiting us, we offered repealing the subsidies to the oil industry. We offered legislation and amendments that would have the student loan interest rate and make higher education access more affordable. And they said no. They said no, no, no, over and over and over again. Sorry, now it is our turn. It is time to implement the agenda that the American people asked us to. It is time to clean up their mess. Mr. Ryan, going forward, I am all for what Speaker Pelosi has said that we will do, which is give them the most bipartisan House of Representatives that history has ever seen. But the mess has to be cleaned up before we can do that.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, just the way you are going back and forth on the Republican's response to the process, you know, it is just really, gosh, I can't say what comes to mind. It is galling. It really is galling that they do have nerve to talk about process. Because just in my 2 years of experience, and certainly two wrongs don't make a wrong, but there is no second wrong here. I mean, in my experience in the last 2 years, and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, you have had more experience and more lengthy experience than I and Mr. Altmire and Mr. Murphy have had, but I recall votes being held open for 40 minutes to several hours to twist enough arms to get the votes. We, of course, haven't had to do that because not only do we get all of our Members to vote for our legislation, but we get a good chunk if not, and in one case, a majority of theirs. I remember being shut out, completely shut out on every major question over the last 2 years, no amendments allowed, no commentary except in a token way. And now they are whining about process? You know, the small point I wanted to make, and Mr. Altmire, you are a dad, you have young kids; I am a mom, I have young kids; Mr. Meek has young kids, and some day Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ryan, I am sure you will have young kids too. But you know, when your kids whine at you and complain about something that you know is just their immaturity, their wishing something could be the case, but when they get a little older they will realize that they were wrong? That is what this is.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the 30 Something Working Group appreciates the hour granted to us by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, I want to tell a little story because I am really pleased that you raised this issue, and that you have been the champion of ensuring that we don't, as we move through what is an unfortunate but necessary situation with this continuing resolution, I want to tell anyone listening a little story about an exchange that you and I had the other day on the House floor. I have the privilege of serving as a Chief Deputy Whip for the House Democratic Caucus, and you are one of my assignments. We divide the House Democratic Caucus members up into groups, and you are included among the Members that I am typically engaged in lobbying. And when I approached you about whether you were going to be supportive of the continuing resolution that we voted on today, your immediate response, which was the right one, was, well, not if we are cutting money for veterans. And I was really proud that you did that and that you were absolutely not going to move forward on your support for the continuing resolution unless you were able to get the information that you needed to ensure that, in fact, not only were we not cutting funding for veterans but, we in fact, increased funding for veterans. And so the notation in your hometown paper was apt and appropriate, and I commend you for your advocacy because that is what this is all about. The new direction that the American people demanded, that they chose on November 7 included selecting people like you to send to Washington to make sure that when there was no one standing up, we certainly were all standing up united as a minority; but that there were not enough people in this body standing up for veterans. On the contrary, as you just outlined through the charts in a chronological way, the Republicans and the Republican administration were doing the opposite, were actually making it more difficult for veterans to get the services that they need and that they were entitled to and that they deserved through their patriotism and devotion to this country. So I commend you on that. We were in a situation in adopting the continuing resolution today that was the result of the mess, as you said, that the Republicans handed us. I mean, how irresponsible to just not complete nine of the 11 appropriations bills. I sit on the House Appropriations Committee now. I am just at the beginning of that process, but it is mind boggling to me, how, really, I mean, the Constitution says the only thing we have to do, the only thing Congress has to do is pass the budget. And they didn't do it. They didn't do it because it is hard. It is difficult. You have to make tough decisions. And you know, right up in front of an election, where they were struggling as it was, they didn't want to make those difficult decisions. And we have a lot of our Members, some in tough districts that are going to have to go home and have to answer some difficult questions, because obviously, you know, we didn't like everything that we had to do. But if we didn't go forward and try to get to the 2008 budgetary process and make sure we could do right by the people in this country, then we would have been in an even worse mess. So kudos to you for standing up for veterans and for adding another voice on their behalf where there wasn't one before. And if the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) wanted to jump in I would be happy to yield to him.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, let me just jump in while the gentleman from Florida is listening, because one of the things I think it is important to point out is when we talk in the language of government, it is difficult for regular folks to understand what we are saying. So we are talking about the CR, the continuing resolution, the terminology that we deal with on a daily basis. But that is not what sort of every day folks understand. And the continuing resolution, it is important to point out, is the budget, the Federal budget that keeps the lights on. And people will recall a number of years ago when the Republican Congress decided that, in retaliation for who knows what, because they couldn't get the Clinton administration to agree to what they wanted, because they thought that brinksmanship was the most appropriate strategy, they shut the government down. People were furloughed. Government programs that were vitally important to different constituencies around the country came to a halt. What we have done is, and Chairman Obey has been the champion of this. What we have done is, not only have we made sure that that doesn't happen, because brinksmanship and engaging in irresponsible actions like that make no sense, we have made some difficult decisions. But we haven't made irrational decisions that would be harmful to people. For example, we could have passed a continuing resolution that simply adopted the 2006 spending levels, the same spending levels that we had in 2006 and just moved forward. But that would have resulted, as you pointed out for veterans, in some cuts. And in our discussion on the floor the other day, you pointed out that unless there were increases, essentially, because of inflation, because of the adjustments in cost of living that are necessary, and because there are simply more people, more service men and women who are in need, we would not have had the money we needed to meet the needs of veterans. But beyond that, let me just talk about what, because our good friends on the other side of the aisle are, of course, being critical that we didn't just pass a straight continuing resolution. Let's talk about what that would have done. Essentially, that would have jeopardized our national security. If we did that, if we simply passed the same level budget that we adopted in 2006, that would have resulted in thousands of layoffs, cuts for health care workers, cuts for members of the Armed Forces, cuts for veterans. For example, the Food Safety and Inspection Service would face a month of furloughs. Can you imagine a month of furloughs in the Food Safety and Inspection Service? That means that we could end up with rotting meat in supermarkets and people potentially buying them. Or let's not use language that is too strong. Questionable meat. I mean, if we don't make sure that we have our food inspected, then we are going to jeopardize people's health. That would have also resulted in the closure of 6,000 meat processing plants that could not have been inspected. The Federal Judiciary would have had to fire 2,500 workers. The Small Business Administration, and Mr. Meek, this is incredibly important to our area because how often we face natural disasters through hurricanes. But the Small Business Administration's disaster loan assistance program, which provides back up for FEMA's individual assistance program, that would have been run dry by the end of February. Now, given how many people are still suffering from the aftermath of Katrina and Rita and Wilma and the other hurricanes and the other natural disasters that have hit around this country, I just cannot imagine what the consequences would have been. Actually, I can imagine what the consequences would have been for millions of Americans. So we struck a balance here. We were being fiscally responsible, but at the same time, not hanging Americans out to dry without regard for their well-being. And that is what the Democratic Caucus's approach always is. You have to think about the fact that all of the decisions that we make here, Mr. Altmire and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Meek, affect real people. I have often thought over the time I have served in the Congress and in the State Legislature in Florida, in Florida, and I am not sure how far your State capital is in Connecticut from your home, Mr. Murphy, but Tallahassee is 450 miles from where I live. And I served in the State Legislature for 12 years. Mr. Meek, I think, served in the State Legislature for 10, between the House and the Senate. It is so easy, I mean, we are obviously even further away from our homes, I certainly am. But you are pretty far from your homes, too, making decisions in Washington. And it could be argued that it would be so easy to make decisions in a vacuum here. The people we affect, whose decisions that we make, who we affect, they can't come in this Chamber. They are not in the room with us. The folks in the gallery are that are watching, but it would be so easy to just forget that every decision, every vote, every time we put our card in that slot and our name lights up on the board ``yea'' or ``nay,'' the decision we make affects a human being. But you become desensitized to it. There is a danger that you could become desensitized to it. Certainly the Republican side of the aisle became desensitized to it. For years and years, they didn't think about the results, they didn't think about the consequences. Well, that is the balance the Democrats strike. Pragmatism with a healthy dose of thoughtfulness and compassion. That is what it is all about.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, I do know that we got an average of 62 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on the Six-in-'06 agenda on making sure that the Federal Government can negotiate for lower prices for the Medicare part D prescription drug plan; making sure that we fully implement the 9/11 Commission Report; making sure that we repeal the subsidies to the oil industry; making sure that we do the job that the people sent us here to do and that they spoke so strongly about through their vote on November 7. An average of 62 Republicans voted with us on each of those items.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is nerve is what it is. It is just pure unadulterated nerve. The American people see through this. They don't have any substance to talk about. They can only whine about process.