Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of the winds of change, you should have seen, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, the wind behind our flight that our two colleagues that represent the State of New Hampshire had when they immediately left the room during the immigration hearings that we held. The Judiciary Committee had those immigration hearings across the country. I attended one of them in New Hampshire, and it was one of those road shows where, again, the Republicans tried to represent a whole lot of rhetoric about what their record really is on border security and homeland security and there is no reality to back it up. So we brought reality, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meehan and I, as members of the Judiciary Committee, went to that hearing, and we brought the record of our two colleagues from the State of New Hampshire and showed how ten different times while they were there in the room professing to their constituents that they were moderates on immigration reform and that they supported balance, we confronted their constituents with the reality of their record in a nice big lifesize form. And it was really interesting that the flight that they took out of the room following our putting that record up on the table and our asking, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, and myself asking our good colleagues to say why they were saying one thing in the room at home when the reality of their record in Washington was completely different. And we had the facts, the third-party validator to back it up, which is the Congressional Record. And, of course, they had nothing to say other than, well, we supported the homeland security bill that had border security funding. And that is very nice but clearly that is inadequate. That is not doing the job. Otherwise our good friend Mr. Sensenbrenner wouldn't be pursuing legislation to make 11 million people felons and really not addressing the problem either. But the reality of their record confronts their rhetoric over and over again. Let us take a walk down memory lane, shall we? We have the rhetoric versus the reality on the war in Iraq and on the reality of their record on the War on Terror, which is different than the war in Iraq. Let us look at what was said way back before we actually went in and invaded Iraq. The rhetoric then was that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and posed an imminent threat to the United States. President Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati on October 8, 2002, that ``America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Saddam Hussein is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.'' Well, the reality was that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. ``Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear weapons program in 1991 following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.'' And that was the Iraq Survey Group's final report, key findings, from October 6, 2004. How about the rhetoric on Iraq's link to al Qaeda? Because the justification for war, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, as you know, has evolved over time. When they could no longer use that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was developing a nuclear weapon, when that didn't work anymore because there was no proof and there were reports that said there was no proof that that was the case, they moved on to trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda. And this was what Secretary Rice said on Larry King Live on CNN on February 5, 2003. She said, ``There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection . . . And the most important thing for Americans and for the entire world to remember is that the potential marriage of weapons of mass destruction with terrorism is everyone's worst nightmare and you have, with Saddam Hussein, both a terrorist link and an insistence on having weapons of mass destruction which he could easily transfer at any time to one of his terrorist associations.'' That is what Secretary Rice said on February 5, 2003. Here was the reality: No evidence of operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. ``After a lengthy investigation, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States . . . reported finding no evidence of a `collaborative operational relationship' between the two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.'' And that was the Washington Post report on October 25, 2004. And last week we had the United States Senate Intelligence Committee release a report that also concluded there was absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, on the contrary. Saddam Hussein had intense animosity for Osama bin Laden and there was absolutely no connection. Let us look at the prewar intelligence.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And our rubber stamp Republican colleagues on other side of the aisle.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Meek, as we close out and before we go to Mr. Ryan, I want to conclude by saying what a privilege it is to serve with the both of you and Mr. Delahunt and that the leader has given us this opportunity. I hope that 5 years from now when, after November 7th of this year, we are given an opportunity I am hopeful to run this institution, that on September 11th, 5 years hence, when we get asked the same question that I was asked yesterday, are we safer, that because we have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations and the other attempts that we have made to improve our homeland security, that we will be able to confidently answer that question, ``yes.'' And I think the saddest thing and the way I would conclude my remarks tonight, the saddest thing I reflected upon yesterday was that there was so much opportunity that we had after 9/1\1/2\001. The country was so incredibly unified. Automobiles around this country on every highway had two American flags on either side of the windshield; you had universal unity. And this administration squandered that unity, and the road is littered with the missed opportunities. And it is just, really, sad isn't even a strong enough word. Mr. Ryan, I yield to you so you can talk about the Web site.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. Apparently, the only one who is still insisting that there was a link is the President and the rubber stamp colleagues that he has managed to collect here in this Chamber. Here is more rhetoric: The Bush administration says that they didn't manipulate prewar intelligence. They argued that they did not try to fit the facts around what they intended to do in terms of their invasion in Iraq. So what they said, and this is Vice President Cheney now that I am quoting, he said, ``What is not legitimate, and what I will say again is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by some U.S. Senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence.'' And Vice President Cheney said that on November 21 of 2005. Here is the reality: Former State Department official questioned the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was the former Chief of Staff to President Bush's first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, here is what he said: ``After looking back at it, doing research over the last year or 2, and my time in the State Department, there is no doubt in my mind that certain members of the Bush administration did, in fact, politicize the intelligence.'' And he said that on CNN on March 17 of 2006. Now, you know, I was raised to tell the truth, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek. I was raised that you should back up commentary and back up commitment with action, and that seems to be totally absent. Our colleagues' ability on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the administration, seems completely absent when it comes to backing up words with action, when it comes to protecting our borders and homeland security commitment. And for some reason they insist, and, Mr. Meek, you have said this over and over, on the philosophy of maybe if we repeat it enough times, people will believe it. Maybe if we stamp our foot enough times, it will be true. Well, that does not work when my kids want to get me to do what they want, when they continually repeat what they want me to do over and over again and the answer is still no. And it does not work with the administration. It shouldn't work unless you are a Republican Member of Congress and you do whatever it is that the administration tells you to do. Well, it is time for a new direction, and that is what we offer to the American people. We will actually back up our words with action.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Democratic leader for the opportunity to spend some time talking about the new direction for America. We yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, there is no question.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me tell you, at least it didn't take me long to break the code, because my whole formative life, the formative years of my life, that picture would never have occurred. Every day in the news you heard about the death toll and how these two countries were locked in the heat of battle. Remember, Saddam Hussein was Sunni, and the leadership of Iran was Shiite. It could have been hundreds, if not thousands of years of religious conflict. You know the expression, I am reminded of the expression, which isn't a nice expression but I have certainly heard it used, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Well, that picture is the result of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is what that picture is right there. Of course, the leadership of Iraq now is Shiite. So we have actually destabilized, and I am not just saying this as Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opinion, the middle eastern experts on terrorism and on middle eastern history have actually said that what we did hear, what the Bush administration's policies resulted in, is a destabilization. Because previously you had a balance of power with Sunnis in charge in Iraq, Shiites in charge in Iran, essentially to oversimplify it, and now you have almost complete domination by Shiites. So you are having a region that is descending into civil war, I mean, they are there. We don't really have to wring our hands too much moreover whether or not they are in the middle of a civil war and we are immersed in the middle of their civil war.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So now we can see, very graphically and specifically and factually, who is for enhancing our borders and protecting our homeland security and who just talks about it. So, Mr. Meek, what we would do is we have a real security agenda, a real security agenda that we have proposed in the mandatory process that has been rejected by our Republican colleagues and that we will implement once we control the Congress after November 7. Here are some of the things that we would do: We would provide first responders with the equipment and the training that they need and the resources that they need to respond to a terrorist attack, and we would not have to hear when we go home from our local first responders that they have to choose between training and general, normal emergency response. I mean this is our real security agenda right here. It is available on our Web site. Anyone can access it. It also will be available in Spanish. Actually, it is available in Spanish, as we speak. In addition to that, we would push for stronger transportation and critical infrastructure that is required for security planning and support. We have got to have our security personnel able to move around and be able to actually get to the places that security needs to be enhanced. We would secure the border for real. We would fund it. We would put the Border Patrol agents on the border. We wouldn't need to call out the National Guard to provide additional border security because we would actually pay for it because we have our priorities straight. We would work to strengthen the intelligence community and its ability to share information. Mr. Meek, what blew my mind, and you are the ranking member on the Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security; so you know this better than anyone, we do not have that interoperability communication. We still do not have the ability of all first responders to talk to each other. That is something else I learned yesterday. We would make sure that happens. That was a 9/11 recommendation, one of the Ds and Fs that the Republicans were given for not implementing the 9/11 recommendations. We would make sure that the war on terror was fought where it belongs. And there are many more ways in which we would implement a real security agenda. And, Mr. Ryan, we are glad you are here and welcome back to you as well.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is he a Republican or a Democrat?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They are so tough on the border, Mr. Delahunt.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is the Prime Minister of Iraq.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. About a third less than was added under the Clinton Democratic administration. How about INS, which is now called CIS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service fines for immigration enforcement, meaning that they would go out and actually fine employers for hiring illegal immigrants and pursuing the hiring of illegal immigrants. Under the Clinton administration in 1999, there were 417 employers fined for immigration violations.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They talk tough but action is absent. When President Clinton was in office, the average number of new Border Patrol agents added every year was 642. And from 2001 to 2005, the Bush administration added 411, aided by the Republican Congress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for helping me clarify that definition. ``They'' is the Republican majority, who controls everything here and has the ability to do any of this at a moment's notice but instead has actually rejected our proposals to tighten homeland security and fund homeland security. We have been fighting for port security while Republicans have been voting against it. Here are the date-by-date instances in which we have proposed additional funding for port security and, unanimously, the Republicans have rejected it on a party-line vote, time after time: September 17, 2003; June 9, 2004. You could keep going. June 18, 2004; October 7, 2004. These are all instances. September 29, 2005; March 2, 2006. All of these going down on party-line votes. And there are others. I mean, look, I had to use three boards just to show you just a handful of the times that we have proposed enhanced port security and border security and they rejected it, ``they'' being the Republicans as defined by the dictionary written by Newt Gingrich. Now, let us look at border security, Mr. Delahunt. They claim to be the ones that are tough on border security, that they want immigration reform that is going to secure our borders first. Let us take a walk down memory lane where the Democratic administration under President Clinton was in terms of securing our borders and being committed to that versus the Bush administration. Let us look at the average number of new Border Patrol agents added per year. We passed a bill out of here that would make felons of all 11 million illegal immigrants here, and supposedly they would, I guess, deport themselves at that point, and they talk about how important it is for us to add border security agents. Well, that is really nice, except that the little problem is that the facts get in the way when it comes to who is committed to doing that.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In 2000, after 417 being brought in 1999, there were only three.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Three.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. And we are not done there. I am going to go on and then bring it in for a landing, and yield to either Mr. Ryan or Mr. Meek. But 78 percent fewer completed immigration fraud cases. When you are investigating immigration fraud as to whether or not someone belongs here, whether they have actually legally applied for residency, permanent or otherwise, for a green card, the number of cases that were pursued that were fraud cases in 1995, and, Mr. Ryan, who was President in 1995?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And was Bill Clinton a Republican or a Democrat?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, that is what I thought. How about in 2003? In 2003, after 6,455 immigration fraud cases were pursued under the Clinton Democratic administration, 1,389 in 2003 were pursued. And, Mr. Ryan, who was President in 2003?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, David Lawrence, Jr. is a 20-year veteran of the newspaper business, serving in many capacities including positions as the editor of the Charlotte Observer, the publisher and executive editor of the Detroit Free Press, and the publisher of the Miami Herald which, under his leadership, won five Pulitzer Prizes for investigative reporting, meritorious public service, editorial cartooning and local news reporting. David Lawrence, Jr. has been awarded eleven honorary doctoral degrees and has received numerous awards for his writing, including the First Amendment Award from the Scripps Howard Foundation and the Inter American Press Association Commentary Award. After his retirement from The Miami Herald in 1999, David Lawrence, Jr. left the newspaper business entirely and focused his attention on child advocacy and early childhood education initiatives. His service in support of these efforts include his roles as Chairman of the Children's Trust, President of The Early Childhood Initiative, Chairman of the Florida Partnership for School Readiness, Chairman of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection, and member of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation and the Foundation for Child Development. His legacy of education and service to the community will continue at the David Lawrence, Jr. K-8 Center, a Miami-Dade County Public School for 1,600 students across from the north campus of Florida International University in North Miami, Florida. Mr. Lawrence, Jr.'s work exemplifies the contributions of so many South Floridians who work tirelessly to strengthen our community. My sincerest gratitude to a great journalist, philanthropist and my constituent, David Lawrence, Jr.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer does not discriminate based on health care coverage. Statistics tell us that one in seven American women will develop breast cancer; yet no one ever expects these things. No one plans or prepares to be diagnosed with breast cancer. No one preemptively investigates their health insurance coverage in the event that they require a mastectomy or a lumpectomy. Suddenly these women, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, are faced not only with a terrible, deadly diagnosis but with unnerving treatment decisions. I am a cosponsor of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act to ensure one thing: that women don't have to worry about their health insurance plan during this terrifying experience. This is the law in Florida, and it should be the law of the land. While serving in the Florida legislature, I passed similar legislation, and my commitment has not wavered. This bill mandates that women be covered for a 48-hour hospital stay after a mastectomy and a 24-hour stay for a lumpectomy. What is more, it ensures full coverage for follow-up care. Asking anyone coping with a deadly disease to lose sleep over health insurance is outrageous. As a public servant, I believe I have a responsibility to stand up on this issue so that women facing this trying ordeal can focus on what really matters: their family, their faith, and their future.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, I am a Brownie Troop leader.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is absolutely right, and we are here because it is imperative that we move this country in a new direction. Americans are begging us to take us off the course we are on now. It is such a privilege to be here with you. We have been good friends for more than a dozen years now. It is just a privilege to share a community with you, to share constituents who really have been clamoring not just in south Florida where we live but all across the country. You and I travel the country talking to Americans in so many places, and it does not matter. What I found and I know you have, too, it does not matter what walk of life they come from. It does not matter whether they are wealthy or middle class or lower income. No one that I have spoken to says, Debbie, yes, yes, you know, let us keep it right the way we are going, you know, just keep going in the same direction because everything is great. It is almost laughable to say that. The minimum wage is a perfect thing to highlight in terms of the example that we need to throw out there to show where our priorities would be if we were in control, and we know we are not, versus where the Republicans' priorities are. We try to use third party validators so it is not just the Kendrick Meek, Tim Ryan, Bill Delahunt, Debbie Wasserman Schultz show. We want to make sure we use legitimate references to demonstrate and back up the things we say. Many time what we talk about here can seem like inside baseball. The terminology we use can seem a little esoteric so we try to boil it down for folks. Let us take the minimum wage. You talked about the minimum wage historically and what it means in terms of real dollars today. Let us talk about the minimum wage and the fact that it has not been raised in 9 years, what that impact is on the average family in terms of the difference of what things cost in the last 9 years. So, if you take a look at this chart, this is what real economic change under President Bush has been like. While we have not increased the minimum wage since 1997, as you referred to a few minutes ago, there are plenty of things that have increased in cost. Over on the left-hand part of the chart, the minimum wage has not increased at all, yet whole milk has increased 24 percent since 1997. Bread, 25 percent. A 4-year public college education has increased 77 percent. Health insurance has increased 97 percent, and that is if you can even get it because there are 46 million Americans that do not have health insurance and millions of small business employers who have dropped their insurance coverage for their employees because it has reached the point of unaffordability, with upwards of 15 percent increases every single year. Let us look at the price of regular gas. It has gone up, while the minimum wage has not, 136 percent. And so what does that mean? Sometimes people cannot get their mind around percentages and what those mean. So let us take a look at what Americans are paying for in terms of gas prices. The Americans now are paying 100 percent more for gas than when President Bush first took office, and he has the nerve to stand in this chamber and to give speeches across this country talking about how he thinks that America is addicted to foreign oil and we need to get a handle on how we are going to expand alternative energy resources. Really? With what funding? Where is the initiative? Where is the proposal? Where is the legislation? Because all of it just gets rubber stamped here. When we propose any of those things as a solution as a Democrats, what do Republicans do? They vote ``no.'' No, no, Mr. President; yes, Mr. President. Just the bobblehead Republicans do whatever is asked of them, and it is certainly not to expand the opportunity to invest in the Midwest in terms of our energy resources versus the Mideast. So, if you look at the price of a gallon of gas, when President Bush began his term, January 20, 2001, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.45 and today, it is $3.01. Now, what I attribute that to, and what I attribute the seeming indifference on the part of the Republicans and their leadership here towards this problem, it has got to be because there is no other explanation that they are not filling their own gas tank. It has really got to be that they are not the ones that are actually putting the gas in their car themselves because, if they were, they would realize that now, instead of pennies, remember when we were younger and our parents would fill the gas tank and the fastest number that scrolled on the gas tank itself was a penny? Well, now, it is dimes because that is how much prices have increased in terms of gas. The only thing I can think of, Mr. Speaker, that I can attribute the indifference of Republicans towards the energy crisis and the gas prices that Americans are facing is that they have not filled their cars with gas since gas pumps looked like this. This is a gas pump or at least an example of a gas pump and what one looked like in the 1950s, and perhaps it is just that it was so long ago that they filled their gas tanks themselves. I am not sure who is filling their gas tanks. Maybe they all have drivers. They really only focus on the needs of the wealthy. So perhaps people are driving them around. That really, for me, is the only explanation. I really fail to understand why they continue to allow oil companies the ability to not pay royalties to the Federal Government in exchange for utilizing our oil reserves, the ability and the right to drill into the ocean floor and draw up oil that is on land owned by the Federal Government. They are supposed to pay subsidies and royalties. We have passed legislation on at least two occasions since I have been here, and I am only a freshman, that have essentially forgiven those royalties and given mutli-millions of dollars back to the oil companies and into the pockets of the CEOs and the wealthiest few people. It is absolutely mindboggling to me. We, as Democrats, have the priorities of the American people straight. We understand that we need to move the country in a new direction, Mr. Speaker. We need to make sure that we expand access to health care. We want to make sure that we actually invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly, within 10 years, become independent of foreign oil resources and invest in the Midwest instead of in the Middle East. We want to make sure that we can get a handle on this deficit. You and I have young children, and right now, if we stay the course and continue in the direction that this President and this Republican leadership has taken us in, our children and our children's children will be saddled with the deficit and the Nation's debt that this President has mired us in, all by himself, and by his Republican rubber stamp colleagues that we work in this chamber with. If something is not done, our children, I fear for the world that they grow up in, not just in terms of foreign policy but in terms of domestic policy. What is going to happen to our kids when they grow up in a world where we are underfunding education, where they do not have access to health insurance, where gas prices are so out of control and there is no mass transit for them to use as an alternative so that they can get to work? What are they going to do in a world where the deficit is continuing to skyrocket and we are going further and further in debt to other countries? What are they going to do? Hopefully, we are going to be able to get this country back on track after the November elections. I yield to my friend.