Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, the first duty of the government is to protect its citizens, and I stand by Israel's right to defend herself against Hezbollah's aggression. This bipartisan resolution sends a powerful message that the United States Congress and the American people support our friend Israel at this critical hour. Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers was unprovoked. I call on the Governments of Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, who have influence over the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers, to secure their immediate and unconditional release. Hezbollah must be disarmed to prevent a similar conflict in the future. A simple cease-fire will not accomplish this goal. Any nation that refuses to act against terrorist networks simply stands as a willing accomplice. The actions of Hezbollah and the complicity of Syria and Iran demonstrate that former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was right when she said, ``Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.'' I strongly support this resolution and stand by Israel in her pursuit of peace and security. As an American mother, I wish that mothers around the world, Iranian, Syrian, and mothers universally, spend the time that I have spent talking to my twin 7-year-olds and will teach my almost 3-year-old girl, when she is old enough to understand, that we are all equal. We are all equal under the eyes of God. My 7-year-old daughter is here with me this week, and she asked me about what we are debating here tonight. She asked me, ``Mommy, why don't some people like us?'' And that question broke my heart, Madam Speaker, because the only answer I could give her was because we are Jewish and because we have different beliefs. Please let us not have another generation of our children grow up knowing hatred. Israel and her children need the world to stand with her in support of her right to defend herself and in support of peace.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, instead of changing course and moving us in a new direction, the Republicans want to continue to go in the direction that we are continuing, that Americans are so frustrated with. This very week they are going to focus on the politics of distraction because, as we shine a light on what is really going on, then the American people would become even more frustrated than they already are. Mr. Speaker, all of our charts in the 30 Something Working Group and the things we discussed tonight will be up on our Web site. People can log on to www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. We encourage the Members to take a look at all the things we have got up there, and I yield back to Mr. Meek to close us out.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So this was entirely theirs.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For 6 years.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, you know it would be nice if the American people supported this administration. It would be nice if the administration had a policy that the American people could support, or that in spite of the incredible lack of support for the American people, it would be nice if the administration actually showed that that mattered to them, instead of continuing down the path of ``staying the course'' and doing exactly as they think is right and to heck with what anyone else in America thinks. I mean, of course we care about our place in the world, and about the vision that we are viewed through, the lens we are viewed through. But I do not understand why the administration and why this President and this Republican leadership, our colleagues, do not seem to care or understand how the American people are viewing them. I mean, there are a number of issues I know you have gone over tonight, the minimum wage is one of them. I have been witnessing the hearings that have been taking place around the country on border security and the argument over whether border security or an earned path to citizenship is more important. And what I think has been extremely humorous is that the Republicans on the other side, the Members on the other side of the aisle, in the other body, adhering to the rules, Mr. Speaker, have taken to calling the McCain-Hagel, I think there is another Republican that is part of that legislation. It is two or three Republicans that are heading it up. And Martinez, our own Senator from Florida. But McCain, and Hagel and Martinez are heading up that legislation. Yet now they seem to be calling it, or attempting to call it the Reid- Kennedy bill or the Reid-Kennedy bill, neither of whom are sponsors of that legislation. So what they are trying to do is lead the American people, and if they say it enough times so that they believe it, that it is the Democrats that are taking the initiative on this immigration policy when it is clearly Republicans.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to. We went from 417 immigration enforcement actions against employers under President Clinton to 3. Three under President Bush in 2004.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not only am I aware of that, Mr. Delahunt, thank you for leading me right into that lovely chart that we have here, that graphically depicts the differences between border security and immigration under a Democratic administration versus border security under this Republican Bush administration. Let us peruse the numbers. The Republicans have been talking a good game about how important border security truly is to them, especially our colleagues here in the House. They have been beating that drum over and over again.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I tried to count to 417, the hour would end, and we wouldn't be able to say anything else. So I will move on to the next one. How about when we are talking about immigration fraud cases? If the Republicans are so committed to border security and making sure that we crack down on illegal immigrants and prevent the people who don't belong here and who are coming here the wrong way, then you would think that there would be many, many more cases under the Republicans than the Democrats. But in 1995, a year in which we had a Democratic President, there were 6,455 cases pursued against immigration fraud. Then you fast-forward to 2003 under the Bush administration, the Republican administration, a year in which supposedly you had an entirely Republican-controlled government, and the ability for them to actually pursue more than 6,455 cases. They pursued 1,389, a 78 percent drop.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. That is when you started to hear the drum beginning to beat, and beat very loudly.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Entirely within their control to crack down on border security, to hire more Border Patrol agents, enforcement actions against employers who hire illegal immigrants illegally. So let's take a look at the numbers. We use third party validators. By the way, it is a pleasure to join you here once again, my 30 Something colleagues. I apologize for not doing that initially when I began, just jumping in. But let us look at the average number of new border patrol agents added per year under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2000, versus the Bush administration between 2001 and 2005. Under President Clinton, 642 per year border patrol agents were added per year. And under President Bush they have added an average of 411. Now there is some real commitment to border security. How about we look at the INS, which is now CIS. But the INS fines for immigration enforcement, that is fines against employers who hired illegal immigrants illegally and have gotten caught. Okay. Under the Democratic administration in 1999, President Clinton was in office, there were 417 cases where INS fined employers for hiring, for getting caught hiring illegal immigrants. Guess how many there were in 2004, a year in which President Bush was in office?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I did, actually. I think we also have a graphic depiction of that. But really what this comes down to, Mr. Delahunt, is a clear indication of who is for immigration enforcement and border security, and who is just kidding; who is in favor of putting action behind the words, and who just speaks the words. There is one more statistic that was more difficult to graphically depict, so I will go through this last one, which is also important, because the Bush administration has touted that in its first 5 years, it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop in any 5-year period under the Clinton administration. So, you know, this is all just a lot of puffery, a whole lot of chest-pounding, which they seem to be really, really good at. But when you scratch below the surface, just a little bit, there is no depth, there is nothing there. And, clearly, the former House Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, the warrior, arguably the architect of the so-called Republican revolution, he has had a few things to say, as we talked about our 30-something hours on this. As recently as July 14th, which was 4 days ago, this was him commenting on the broken system in Washington. He said, Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current system is. When facing crises at home and abroad, he said, it is important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with this reality and not sitting around and waiting for Presidential leadership. Clearly when it comes to border security and immigration, there hasn't been a whole lot of Presidential leadership, not when it comes to action. He has been real good at talking.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what has been truly unbelievable. This leadership, our Republican colleagues, have just been totally willing to cede power, just give up the legislative authority that we have, and say, Mr. President, you take it, we are out. So Mr. Gingrich had something else to say just the other day. He said the correct answer is for the American people to just start firing people. I don't think he was talking about anything other than this fall during the elections, because they are not, they are clearly, they clearly do not have their priorities straight. They clearly only speak words and don't back them up with action. They clearly only bob their heads up and down like the bobble-head Republicans that they have been and rubber-stamp everything that the President asks them to do. There it is right there. There is the big old Republican rubber stamp which each of them has essentially wrapped their arms around and agreed to adhere to.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I am quite aware of that, they have been well within control of this institution for 12 years.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, today, when walking through the Capitol, I saw President Roosevelt's words inscribed on a wall. They stopped me in my tracks. He said, ``We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.'' These words should guide us in this debate. They were deemed so important that they are literally a part of the structure of our Nation's Capitol. The Voting Rights Act is the most important and successful civil rights law in our Nation's history. From poll taxes to literacy tests, States historically disenfranchised voters based on their race, their gender and educational background. While America exports democracy around the globe, we must not deny it here at home. Sadly, many Americans have lost faith in our electoral system. From the 2000 election in my home State of Florida, or Ohio in 2004, many Americans feel like some in their government don't want their vote to count. We must renew the Voting Rights Act to restore that lost faith. Some say the preclearance provisions are no longer needed, and they are wrong. Since 1982, the Department of Justice has made more than 1,000 objections to discriminatory changes in State and local voting laws. If the gentleman from Georgia's amendment is adopted, these 1,000 objections would never be considered. This amendment deserves to be defeated. All the amendments need to be defeated, and the Voting Rights Act should be adopted in full. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act because millions of Americans had been intentionally denied their equal right to vote. Some of my Republican friends also want to take away language assistance at the polls, and they speak the emotional rhetoric of anti- immigrant jingoism. But this bill isn't about illegal immigration--it is about Americans participating in their democracy. The overwhelming majority of those who receive language assistance at the polls are native-born, tax-paying American citizens. In 2004, there were 15 initiatives on Florida's ballot. This issue is not only about distinguishing Candidate A from Candidate B. The VRA ensures that citizens also understand these confusing ballot initiatives. In my district voters receive assistance in Spanish, Creole, and Seminole dialects. Instead of erecting more barriers to voting, we should identify ways to increase civic participation and make people more confident in their Government and their leaders. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill with no amendments.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, the King amendment is a vote in favor of discrimination against language minorities. This point was driven home by a Federal court in Osceola County, Florida, just a few weeks ago. Osceola County was purposefully denying voter registration and assistance opportunities to Spanish language voters, including a large Puerto Rican population. The Department of Justice sued and secured a consent decree requiring the county to comply with Federal law. In July 2002, Osceola County became covered by section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the county continued to neglect its duties under Federal law. The Federal court found just 2 weeks ago that there is considerable evidence to suggest that the county's institution and maintenance of an at-large voting system was motivated by a desire to dilute the vote of an emerging Hispanic population. Now, we are not talking about something that happened 40 years ago. This is just a few weeks ago now, in 2006. Eliminating section 203 will encourage jurisdictions to disenfranchise emerging language minorities, which will be compounded by depriving these taxpaying U.S. citizens of the assistance they need. Really, do you think that people who speak flawless English, who can't understand balloting initiatives that are complex, if they have a hard time, then what do you think someone who has English as a second language can do? Not very much without the assistance of section 203.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding, Mr. Delahunt, is it was Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez, Senator McCain. So how this became the Reid-Kennedy bill----

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, you have people in America who, the agony and the angst in the pit of their stomach that they have over their credit card debt and the things that they actually need, like the ability to fill up their gas tank, I mean, the churning that we know is going on inside of mothers and fathers across this country over how much debt they have versus what they have coming in. I guess that churning isn't going on on the Republican side. There doesn't appear to be any angst, there is no hand-wringing, there is no worrying about it. Where is the outrage? It is nonexistent. They just keep spending and spending and spending. The deficit keeps ballooning, and then they say, Yeah, the deficit isn't $423 billion, it is $300 billion. Well, it is just, it is too shocking for words. And then they have the nerve, Mr. Meek, to call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility. It is a joke.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe. Because depending on how high the price goes, you actually might not get all that back. But then let us look at the folks who make more than $1 million, you get enough money to buy a Hummer. Now, I don't know about you, but I really think, if we are going to pass tax cut legislation at all, if we are going to give tax dollars back to the people, first and foremost, let's eliminate the deficit. Do you keep passing--I mean, tax cuts are spending, Mr. Meek. It is not free. We don't just print more money. I just took my 7-year-old son to the Mint yesterday, and I watched them print the money. But the tour guide didn't tell us, ``You know, when we run out, we just print more.'' It doesn't work that way. They obviously didn't go to Econ 101; otherwise, they wouldn't think it was responsible to do what they have been doing.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what they were doing this week is saying, Wow, the deficit wasn't $423 billion, it was only $300 billion. Now, what is clear, and what USA Today is not letting the President get away with, is that they began by inflating the number that they said the deficit would be at, so that when what happened occurred, when they knew it would be much lower than that, it would look like an accomplishment. Well, if they are excited about a $300 billion deficit, then I really want to know what their definition of fiscal responsibility is, because that apparently for years has been the cornerstone of the Republican Party's platform, that they are fiscally responsible. A $300 billion deficit is fiscally responsible. And then on top of that they are passing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us? And this is how those tax cuts break out for folks? I mean, we just passed a tax reconciliation bill just a few weeks ago that, if you look at how it benefits people by their income, this is what it really boils down to: That tax cut bill, which virtually all the Republicans voted for, if you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, which is around minimum wage, the one that they haven't raised since 1997, you get about enough back to buy a Slurpee. If you make between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, somewhat more than minimum wage, you get enough back in that tax cut bill offered by the Republicans to buy a gallon of gas.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That makes me want to pull out another third- party validator, because this week we got to experience the exciting midyear opportunity to hear the President with his Republican leadership surrounding him to cheerlead the supposed success they have on the economy. Now, it would be one thing if we were standing up here as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek and Bill Delahunt and saying, well, that is a lot of baloney. Anyone in America looking at this economy and looking at this deficit would say, what is there to celebrate about? But it is not just us. This morning editorial page in USA Today had this to say about the midyear review of the economy that the administration just trotted out. They say, ``Forgive us if we don't break out the party hats. It is hard to get excited about an abysmally large deficit in the range of $300 billion that is somewhat less gargantuan than earlier predicted. Even accepting the administration's assurances that it does not purposefully overestimate the numbers in a Wall Street-like game of beating expectations, this habitual midyear crowing masks the seriousness of the Nation's bleak fiscal outlook.'' Well, if that doesn't say it, all right there in a nutshell, I don't know what does.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have another one. The Bush administration also has a worse record than the Clinton administration on pursuing immigration fraud cases. In 1995, during the Clinton administration, 6,455 immigration fraud cases were completed. In 2003, guess how many? One thousand three hundred eighty-nine, 78 percent fewer immigration fraud cases completed. And then if you take the statistics that they brag about, the Bush administration brags that in its first 5 years it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop from any 5- year period that you can demonstrate during the Clinton administration. So that is what I mean when I say they just put up the statistics that make them look good and leave out all the other relevant information.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I interrupt only because I want you to read the quote from the Republican majority leader about where he is and his conference is on the minimum wage increase.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have got to have a chart.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to get out the bloodhound.