Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to interject on that point. Because the funny thing, ironically funny, about what you are talking about, where we have an average of 62 Republicans supporting the Six in '06 agenda and 57 supporting the continuing resolutions appropriations bill today, the last 2 years, our experience, Mr. Ryan's, Mr. Meek's and my experience, is watching the Republican leadership wrench our colleagues's arms behind their back; and, in many cases, new Members replaced those Members. Those Members caved. Those Members either didn't vote their conscience. We used to talk about, in the 30-something hour, about how it seemed they checked their consciences and their beliefs and their constituents' beliefs at the door. They would come here and allow themselves to be influenced by their leadership and vote differently in some cases than they publicly said they would vote. I think that actually happened with your predecessor, Mr. Murphy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Two things that we did not mention that were also part of the Six in '06 agenda were ethics reform and the PAYGO rules. Mr. Altmire, I know you have been a supporter of both of those things. We had a culture of corruption hanging over this institution and over this Capitol, and we were able to adopt some ethics rules that make sure that we can restore the American people's confidence in their government again. That is what our freshman class on the Democratic side ran on. One of the issues that they ran on was making sure that they could inspire their constituents to believe in what we are doing here again.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think your comments are a good segue to where we should close which is that the Congress has now finally reasserted our constitutional role to be a check, a check and a balance over the other branches of government, particularly over the executive branch in which that authority and oversight was completely ceded over the last 12 years. I sit on the House Judiciary Committee. We had an oversight committee today on the presidential signing statement where the President, this President in particular more than any other President combined, has issued signing statements, his opinion and his interpretation of legislation which is really the judicial branch's responsibility, that he would just choose not to implement or implement in the way that he wanted to, a particular section of law, wholly inappropriate. Congress is back in our appropriate role, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about our Web site, but first to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, and it is. The other day I walked into the Chamber, Mr. Murphy, from that end of the room, and I noticed that there is a really huge, huge dictionary on the Republican's side of the Chamber which, quite honestly, it doesn't appear has gotten that much use on their side of the aisle, because words like accountability and oversight and checks and balances, and the things that have been with us through American history, maybe they tore the pages out that had those definitions or maybe they just chose to ignore them or just skipped over those pages when they were using it because, obviously we have a dictionary on the floor for a reason, but now, Mr. Meek, just in great detail went over the number of different hearings that we will be engaging in to exercise the oversight and the accountability that the American people badly are seeking that has just been nonexistent. And, Mr. Meek, I want to touch just quickly on one particular bit of oversight that we are going to be engaging in on Wednesday. I have the privilege of sitting on the House Judiciary Committee, and we will be holding our first hearing of the 110th Congress on Presidential signing statements. Now, that is something that we really haven't had a chance to talk about too much on the floor during 30-something, but I would like to explore it down the road a little bit, especially after we hold this hearing. Most of the American people, I think, don't realize that what this President has done, and other Presidents, many Presidents have exercised this option, the constitutionality of which I think is somewhat troubling. But this President has used Presidential signing statements more than any other Presidents combined. He has added more than 700 signing statements to legislation that we have adopted in both Houses of Congress. And what he does is he adds a note essentially to the bottom of the bill or to the margin of the bill next to a section that he doesn't agree with and he says: ``I either reserve the right to not enforce this section or to interpret this section in this way.'' I mean, literally taking authority for the executive branch that I believe the Founding Fathers didn't envision. I mean, he did that with the PATRIOT Act, he did that with a number of significant pieces of legislation, Mr. Meek, and it is really, really troubling. The executive branch in the Constitution does not have the right to interpret legislation. That is not their job. It is the Judiciary's responsibility to interpret legislation; it is the administration's job to execute what is laid before them by the Congress. Now, he certainly has the right to veto legislation that he doesn't agree with, but he doesn't have a line item veto; he doesn't have a line item veto in the budget, and he can't X out a portion of a bill that he doesn't like. And we are going to be holding a hearing on Wednesday, and we will have the Department of Justice representatives there to question very carefully where they think they get this legislative authority, and reassert Congress's role in oversight in this one area and in many others, as you detailed. I guess we are in the wrapping-it-up stage, because that is when the Web site chart comes out. I will be happy to yield to our good friend and freshman colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you to my good friend from Youngstown, Ohio. You know, your comments sort of bring to mind that our good friends on the other side of the aisle want to have their cake and eat it, too. They were the ones responsible for putting us in this situation where we have to adopt a continuing resolution that is essentially continuation funding that in order to put a finger in the dike and make sure that things don't get any worse and that we can begin the process for the 2008 budget and getting our fiscal house in order. It was them that only were able to pass two out of all of the spending bills that were in their hopper. It was them that left us this mess. And now, you know, you will see over the next couple of days, Mr. Murphy, our good friends on the other side of the aisle actually stand up and criticize their own budget, which is what the CR is. They will try to put our colleagues on our side of the aisle who were just elected, who, you know, campaigned against fiscal irresponsibility in a box and make it seem like somehow this continuing resolution is what we crafted when we are in a situation where it is shut down the government or pass the simplest, most effective way of getting us across the finish line so that we can move on and really address the concerns that we talked about during our 30-Something hours in the 109th Congress, which was that we are in the worst financial shape that we have been in in decades, that we have a foreign debt that is more combined than any of the 42 previous presidents combined. And yet they will try to have their cake and eat it, too, criticize us on their budget that we are going to have to continue but, at the same time, not claim responsibility for it. It is really going to be shocking. So it is something that I think it is important that we talk about and that we lay out there. Because, you know, this process, the appropriations process is one of the most inside baseball, nitty- gritty, intricate things that we do, and there are Members that have been here for years, and I am just, as a new member of the Appropriations Committee, you know, even though I am chairing a subcommittee, I still have a significant learning curve. So explaining it to the people that we represent, while they are watching it all unfold on TV, is really somewhat difficult. So it is critical that people understand that. I actually talked to some of our colleagues on the floor tonight when we were talking about the CR and, you know, all lamenting that we are not able to craft a bill that we would all love to support with the increases that the veterans deserve and the increases that are deserving in education, that are critical in terms of education and health care and health and human services and housing. I mean, those are all programs that Democrats have campaigned on and fought for. But because we have colleagues that spent like drunken sailors, that had no regard for the fiscal house that we are now charged with putting back in order, we find ourselves having to cinch the belt as tight as possible just so that we can get through and start making things right. I think each of our colleagues, particularly the freshmen like you, Mr. Murphy, are going to have an important task of going back to your constituents and explaining that we have got to be responsible here first. Give us an opportunity to get through the mess that we were left and then we can really show you what we can do. Be happy to yield.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What we talked about night after night here and what our colleagues and our leadership have all talked about, we have all been singing off the same song sheet, that we have to make sure that we handle the Federal budget just like folks struggle in America to handle their household budget every single day, not to spend more than you take in. There are families all across America, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan, that have to make really difficult decisions. Would they like to go and buy a new wardrobe for their children? Would they like to get the car completely overhauled? Definitely important and certainly would improve their quality of life, but they can't make those decisions if the money is not coming in in order to cover those expenses. So at a certain point, if you don't stop the bleeding, if you don't make those fiscally difficult decisions, then it just gets worse. We could have been, you know, we could have played right into their hands, which is, I am sure, what they expected us to do, which was what they always accused us of being tax-and-spend liberals and that we were going to just give away the store and that we were going to satisfy every interest group that is in the column of supporters that we have. But, instead, what we did is we stuck to our principles. We stuck to what we talked about was important to the American people, not spending more than you take in and particularly not caving to what would be politically expedient, which was the tax cuts, as you referred to, Mr. Murphy, for people who don't need them. Because what they like to conveniently leave out is that they only count, you know, there are only certain things that they count in the ledger. They only count the things in the ledger that are actually things you can put down as I spent this much money on this particular program. But they fail to actually account for the tax cuts that pull money out off the ledger, which makes it so that there is not that revenue available to fund the needs, and that adds to the deficit itself. They also don't include Social Security and Medicare when it comes to the whole appropriation process. All of that is off budget. They don't like to count the supplemental bills that they pass. All of that is off budget. So it is just, you know, we are going to get back to being up front and honest with the American people in our budgeting process, and we are going to get our fiscal house in order.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are going to be the Congress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I see Mr. Meek is ready to jump in here. But we are going to be the Congress and exercise our role, our accountability, our oversight, and be the legislative branch instead of the administration lap dog. Because that is what this body was for the last 6 years certainly. When President Clinton was in office, it was the opposite. It was, let's see what we can do to torture the administration and make it impossible for them to get what they wanted done and wanted to accomplish. Then, of course, President Bush comes into office and it is like they all lost their hands. They lost their hands, they checked their brains at the Chamber door, and it was whatever this administration wanted. And there is a new leadership in this institution and 32 new Members, all of whom came here to step up to the plate and ask the difficult questions and exercise this body's constitutional role, constitutional authority granted to us by the Founding Fathers, which hopefully at some point our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remember as well. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually, not to be the teacher exercising oversight over the freshman, but probably give out our e-mail address, too, so people know where they can contact us.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Brown. And I am so pleased to join my 30-Something colleagues here this afternoon, our newest 30- Something colleague from Connecticut Chris Murphy. With our new-found responsibility, I have been a little tied up the last couple times we have had this Special Order hour, so I am really pleased to be able to be with you. And we have some fresh blood and some new dynamics that we will engage in. It will be really fun to work with you and banter a little bit. But I will tell you that this being the day after the President's State of the Union Address, Mr. Murphy, I was particularly disturbed listening to the President. The privilege that we have here in this House, and it was yours for the first time last night, and I remember 2 years ago, I am just 2 years ahead of you in this process, and I remember the feeling that I had sitting in this Chamber and the awesome responsibility that I felt on my shoulders being this far from the President and having the chance to listen to him deliver that address, and the expectation that I had as a representative of my constituents, that the expectation that he would say something more than words. And last year, if you recall, you were in your State legislature when he delivered last year's State of the Union. He talked about the need to end America's addiction to foreign oil, and subsequently that turned out to just be words because he ended up proposing in his budget, and they actually enacted, a cut in the energy legislation, that this Republican leadership that is no longer in charge here, they actually cut the funding to alternative energy, exploring alternative energy resources. Now, last night he says the same thing in a different way. And we are just to the point, why should we expect that there is meaning and action coming down the pipe behind the words? On the war in Iraq, I know I have heard from my constituents, and it is just shocking that after the response from the voters on November 7, that this President would not get the message that the American people were sending him. They want a new direction. They want to move the troops from a combat focus to a training focus, get the Iraqi troops to stand up on their own so that that country can take care of itself. So it is just shocking the lack of understanding of his priorities and where he is on the issues that are most important to people. On health care, the health care priorities. There are 47 million people in this country, 3\1/2\ million in Florida, that don't have health insurance. And his solution to that problem is a tax deduction, a tiny tax deduction that he thinks will spur people who benefit from it to take that money and buy health insurance. That just shows a callous indifference. And you are an expert in health care; that was your focus. That shows a callous indifference to what the problems that the uninsured and underinsured are really facing. You are probably familiar with the death spiral created by insurance companies where they cordoned off the people who are the most sick. Some States have adopted guaranteed-issue policies and modified community rating like we did in Florida so that there were only a few things that were taken into consideration when rates were set. But for the most part that is not what people are able to get when buying health insurance. So the sickest of the sick get cordoned off into a group; that group is priced out of the market, and then they don't have the ability to afford that health insurance. A simple tax deduction is not going to make health insurance accessible and affordable for that group of people. It is just unbelievable, Mr. Murphy. And I fail to understand why this President only seems to keep his own counsel. It is just really unbelievable. So I will yield to you or to Mr. Meek, but that was my feeling and my reaction in listening last night. And when I talked to our radio stations in south Florida this morning, I know the feedback that our radio hosts were getting was similar.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then she looked at me.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. One of the things that I think is important for the Members and other folks to know is we did this 30-something hour night after night in the minority for the last several years, and we want folks to know that we are not just shutting down and becoming complacent and resting on our laurels now that we are in the majority because there continues to be a need for accountability, as the State of the Union address demonstrated last night. We are going to assert Congress's oversight role, reestablish the system of checks and balances that was totally absent the last number of years. We are going to use the 30-something Working Group forum to be able to do that and also talk about what Democrats are going to do, implement our agenda, talk about the priorities of the American people. I am so thrilled that we have expanded our ranks and that we have an opportunity to interact and dialogue with you. I can tell you that on election night on November 7, I was cheering very loud that you were coming to join us in the 110th. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Murphy and he is going to give the Web site out and we will be ready to shut down.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second on that point? Because on the health care issue specifically, the gentlewoman from Florida talked about being supportive of universal health care. And, I mean, I am supportive of expanding access to health care to everyone as well. But our good friends on the other side of the aisle like to use that as a bogeyman for us and imply that that means socialized medicine, and that we want to implement this single- payer system that is going to be government top-down health care. There are ways to expand access to health care to large populations, to almost everybody who is uninsured, and then we only have to work hard towards ensuring that last phase of the population. We can expand access to health care for all children by expanding the SCHIP program. We can expand access to health care to more older Americans by simply expanding the Medicare program and letting people from 50 to 64 years old buy into that program. Those are bills that were filed when we were in the minority and that will be filed again and that we will have an opportunity to able to pursue now that we are past the 100-hour agenda. So just you having come just out of the State legislature and being a health care expert, I would just love to hear your thoughts about that.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 39, the Wasserman Schultz-Stearns resolution commending the University of Florida Fighting Gators for their victory in the 2006 Bowl Championship Series and for winning the national college football title. Madam Speaker, after a hard-fought football season, the Florida Gators proved victorious on January 8 with a dazzling 41-14 triumph over the Ohio State University Buckeyes. While many critics expressed doubt about the Gators' chances for victory, Florida's Congressional Delegation and all of the students, alumni and friends in the Gator Nation stood by the Orange and Blue. Led by senior quarterback Chris Leak, the MVP of the game, and Florida's impenetrable defense, Florida Gators dominated the game when the stakes were the highest. This season, as Florida's football program celebrated its 100th anniversary, the University of Florida made history by winning national titles in both men's basketball and football in the same season. Congressman Stearns and I would like to extend special congratulations to Florida's head coach, Urban Meyer, who trained this football team to be the best in the country. The Florida players, coaches, faculty, students and alumni all pulled together with hard work and dedication to help the team win. All of the student athletes are shining stars for the University, and deserve our highest praise. The Gator Nation's academic reputation is stellar, our sports teams are number one, and our fans are like none other. Madam Speaker, it is great to be a Florida Gator.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We want to thank the people in the chamber for listening, and encourage people to come to our Web site www.speaker.gov/30something, and we also look forward to having a graphic so we don't all have to make sure we remember the Web site. Thank you.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know our good friend from Rhode Island wants to talk about H.R. 3, which we will be considering tomorrow. But the Iraq Study Group, which you briefly touched on a few minutes ago. It is amazing how that just almost has faded into oblivion; that their recommendations, the number of months they worked, the expertise that was put together, led by former Secretary of State Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton, very well respected. Nowhere in their recommendations, am I right, was there an escalation of troops. Was there any indication in the Iraq Study Group, who arguably is the finest group of experts that could have been put together to make recommendations, nowhere in there was an escalation of troops. At least from what I noticed, and you can correct me if I am wrong, the President essentially just dismissed their recommendation and moved on and went in the direction that he chose to go. I would like to take this opportunity to yield to my good friend, to our good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island, because we are dealing with an important piece of legislation tomorrow that has already been put on the President's desk once. And as part of the new direction for our Six in 2006 agenda, we are going to put it on his desk again, because maybe he will get it right a second time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is right.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you to my good friend. Before you are excused, though, I do want to tell you, you were so kind in your words about the three of us and you have been so helpful to us over the last 2 years and joining us here night after night on the floor. But, quite honestly, I really want to commend you on your eloquence and your commitment on this issue in particular. You have been one of the key leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus. You have kept this caucus focused on those issues that are incredibly important. As my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, indicated in his remarks earlier, one of the major reasons that we were returned to the majority of this institution is because of how strongly people feel about the situation with the war in Iraq. And so thank you very much for helping with that effort. With that having been said, one of the things that I think that is going to be important in about an hour from now for the American people to note when the President makes his remarks to the Nation is that what we heard the President say repeatedly, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, over and over again over the last several years, was that his strategy was going to be tied to the advice from his military leaders; that he was going to listen to the generals; that he was going to take a page from their book, take their lead, use whatever expression is applicable. But I guess he was just kidding, or maybe he was just saying that he meant that until he wasn't hearing what he wanted to hear. Because at the point that his belief in the direction that we should be going in Iraq departed or parted company with the advice of his military leadership, that is the point that he decided to stop listening to them. We have now shifted the military leadership in Iraq. And I certainly realize that, particularly in a democracy, there is going to be a wide range of opinions even among military leaders. But the current military leadership that President Bush has brought in does support the strategy and the direction that he is planning on taking America tonight and in this war on Iraq. And it is just astonishing that this continues the pattern of this administration, where they ask their questions, or make statements and pursue a goal, an agenda and surround themselves only with people who agree with them. I just, one of the things that I know we are going to hear from the President tonight is a caution that victory, if we achieve it, won't be similar to other military victories. He will talk about, as opposed to the Mission Accomplished banner that was emblazoned over his head on the deck of a battleship, he will caution us tonight apparently that that is not what victory will look like if we ever achieve it in Iraq. It will not be perfect, and that the outcome will not be traditional. Well, it sure will not. It is hard to imagine that we are ever going to achieve a semblance of victory. One of the things that we intend on doing as Democrats and aggressively doing is holding this administration accountable. The question has been asked repeatedly by commentators and by our friends on the other side of the aisle. There has been a question mark about whether or not Democrats will have the nerve to actually address the issue of funding these additional troops. And Speaker Pelosi has talked about how we absolutely are committed and will continue to be supportive with funding and every other measure of support for the troops that are there. There is no question we would never pull the rug out from under the troops that are there fighting on behalf of America and fighting on behalf of democracy. But we absolutely should question this strategy, which is completely contrary to the goals and desires of the American people, and which is contrary to the advice of the military leadership. There is no question, I believe there is no question about Democrats' nerve; no question about whether we plan on holding the administration accountable, which hasn't occurred in years. There has been, like you said, no opportunity to question the administration's choices and direction on Iraq; no opportunity to actually cast a vote on whether this new direction would receive and was worthy of funding. I truly believe that is an opportunity that we will be having and that we should have and that we should accept, because the American people elected us to make bold decisions and make sure that we can move this country in a new direction, domestically and in terms of our foreign and military policy. I look forward to finally being able to reassert this institution, the United States House of Representatives' role in the system of checks and balances, because the unitary philosophy the executive branch in this administration supports is wholly contrary to the Constitution.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On the edge of our seat.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I hate when that happens.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And hope.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And I want to go back to the minimum wage for just a second, because this is the second day now that we have had the opportunity to watch Speaker Pelosi preside over our legislation that is passing out of the House of Representatives with the speed that we want, which should demonstrate to the American people that we share their priorities. Yesterday was H.R. 1. Today was H.R. 2. And one of the things that, combined with the Six in 2006 agenda and our commitment to move this country in a new direction, that she committed to on our behalf was bipartisanship and making sure that this is the most inclusive bipartisan House of Representatives in history. And what I thought was the most emblematic of that and that was really telling of the difference between the way we are running this institution versus the way the Republican leadership ran it is that I looked up on that board with the vote tally at the end, and this is the first opportunity that we have had in the time that I have been here, in 10 years, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) indicated, the first opportunity we have had to have a straight up-or-down, clean vote on the minimum wage. The first chance. Before, we had to go through all this rigmarole and shenanigans, and we had to do motions to recommit and use procedural moves in both the Appropriations Committee and on this floor to get remotely close to a vote on the minimum wage. And you know how in the last Congress, in the 109th, when we would come on the floor as the 30-Something Working Group and we would lament the antics of the Republican leadership and the arm-twisting that they did, and even on those procedural motions where we were trying to get a vote even close to the minimum wage, they would wrench the arms of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle behind their backs and make them vote ``no.'' Well, what was the vote today? That vote on H.R. 2, on the minimum wage, there were 201 Members more that voted ``yes'' than voted ``no''. There was a 201 vote difference. Now, we have fewer than a 201 vote margin here. We are in the majority, but our majority is about 30 or 32. It is not 201. So look at what bipartisanship and inclusiveness does. And when you are finally allowed a free vote, a straight up-or- down vote on the American people's priorities, we had a huge bipartisan margin to increase the minimum wage. And that is beautiful. That is what democracy is all about. Now, without violating rules and directly addressing the Speaker, it is so refreshing to see my good friend from Florida in the Chair tonight, and that is about as close as I will come to naming the gentleman from Florida, but I really was so gratified to watch us begin to go through the Six in 2006 agenda and finally deal with the priorities of the American people. Lastly, Mr. Delahunt, I want to thank you for your kind words. The thing that makes me so humble and proud and excited about the opportunity that I have to chair a subcommittee in appropriations is, if you recall, Speaker Pelosi last week, when she took the gavel from the gentleman from Ohio, she talked about how she was able to bust through the marble ceiling. And the wonderful thing about Speaker Pelosi is that when she did it, like the leader that she is, she took other people with her. She didn't just bust through it for herself. Her busting through the marble ceiling gave so many of us, the diversity of this caucus, an opportunity to be a participant in making the world a better place for the American people.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, we really don't.