Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know what my husband and I noticed the other day when we were filling up our tank? That the dimes, you know how when we were little kids and the pennies are what scrolled really fast when you were filling up your gas tank. Now it is the dimes that scroll as fast as the pennies used to. I mean, that is how much things have changed. So dimes, you know, 10 dimes, that is a dollar. Bye-bye, every 10 dimes, another dollar gone. And we have got to start moving energy policy, health care policy, the deficit in a new direction, which is what we would do with our innovation agenda. We would make sure that we commit to reaching energy independence through our midwestern, as opposed to the middle eastern dependence, through our ability to generate ethanol and invest in the research that would help us truly utilize ethanol as an energy resource.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless, of course, it involves their personal life.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because they care more about the special interests than they do about the people they represent. It is as simple as that. It is the only logical explanation.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really, what it boils down to is exactly what you are saying, it is that they are completely out of touch. And I just want to pull up this illustration. We have our third-party validators here that really help us demonstrate what we are talking about on the floor each night, Mr. Speaker. It is not information we are making up. It is not the Debbie Wasserman Schultz encyclopedia or the Tim Ryan dictionary. These are facts we are laying out in front of the American people so that they can decide whether they want to continue down the path the Republican leadership has taken them on or whether they want to go in a new direction. It is clear that the Republicans have made these decisions because they are out of touch. I mean, let us just look at the real economic changes under this administration, under President Bush and the Republican leadership, as opposed to the bogus one that they rolled out today with their economic midyear review. You can make numbers, as they have done, look as rosy as you would like, but this is the real deal. Let us be clear, the Majority Leader, Mr. Boehner, specifically said on June 20: ``I have been in this business for 25 years, and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.'' And he said that on June 20 of 2006. So let us take a walk down memory lane here. If you actually are in touch with what everyday Americans are dealing with, then you will know that, of course, since 1997, there has been no minimum wage increase. But if you look at the price of milk, the price of milk has gone up 24 percent. And if you actually shop in the supermarket, like I do, then you will know that the price of milk has steadily increased when you are trying to buy a gallon of it. How about the price of bread? That has gone up 25 percent. We are talking about staples that people actually pay for with their minimum wage increase, if they get one. Or don't get one. Let us take a look at the cost of a 4-year public college education. The cost of that has gone up 77 percent since 1997. Look at the cost of health insurance. That has gone up 97 percent. But no minimum wage increase in 9 years. How about the price of regular gas? That has gone up, as every working family knows, 136 percent. And while I am at it, I might as well pull out my little toy prop here, because I think it is illustrative. I think part of the problem is, it is clear by that chart that most Republicans obviously aren't dealing with these issues every day. They are not buying their own bread. They couldn't be; otherwise they would know that it has increased as much as it has. They are not buying their own gallons of milk. Maybe they have their household staff buy these things for them, or maybe they do it on the Internet. Or I am not sure what is going on. But when it comes to the price of a gallon of gas, this is an old- fashioned gas tank, or gas pump. I have just concluded that it is obvious that the Republicans have not done anything about gas prices, Mr. Ryan, because most of them clearly have not used their own gas pump to fill their own gas tanks since they looked like this. Because otherwise they would be more committed to, instead of doing the bidding of the oil industry by passing legislation that puts money, more and more millions and billions in their pockets, they would make sure we invested, truly invested in expanding our alternative energy resources, so that we could reduce the cost of a gallon of gas, and so that we could make sure that the Congress would focus on the issues that people in America really care about. But it is clear to me that they haven't used one of these for a really long time, and that is the reason they are so out of touch.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A personal reaction?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just think, at the end of the day, we need to stress that in November, when we have the opportunity to take the majority of this institution, we will move the country in a new direction. We will make sure that we make a commitment to reducing the deficit and reduce it. We will expand access to health care. We will actually invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly reduce gas prices. And we will make sure that the American people know that their Representatives are here for them and not for the special interests. Mr. Ryan.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Remember the error that was made by the Department of Health and Human Services in the Medicare and You handbook they sent out to all the Medicare beneficiaries? And when they recognized the error in information about the prescription drug program and advising people who were dual-eligible what kind and how comprehensive their benefits were going to be and how much they were going to have to pay for them, they refused to send out a correction. The only way they were going to make the real answers available was via the Internet or if people called and asked. Now, how is that a commitment to clarity, to making sure people can truly access the benefits that they are entitled to and that they do not pay more than they are supposed to?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And when people ask what the Democratic agenda is, that is it right there. That is what we would do.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And Republicans can't get away with saying all the things that we would do would cost money and build the deficit, because we would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule, the PAYGO rules, to ensure that we don't spend more money than we take in, which is how when President Clinton was in office we had a surplus and not a deficit.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So as Mr. Meek was saying, what we would do if we were in the majority, and hopefully the American people will give us that opportunity in November, we would make sure right at the get-go as Leader Pelosi, who will be Speaker Pelosi when we win back the majority, as she talks about, one of the first things that we will do the first week, raise the minimum wage. It hasn't happened since 1997, going on 9 years now. That is just pitiful. You have got people in America, 7 million people in America making $5.15 an hour. That is just an outrage. And we have got to make sure, that is the kind of issue that people need the Congress to deal with. I mean, in our home State we have had to address it inside the State of Florida. Because the Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 9 years, we have got to make sure as we take the country in a new direction, as Democrats would do, we would focus on fixing the ridiculous prescription drug plan that they passed for Medicare beneficiaries. We would make sure that the doughnut hole that provides this humongous gap that senior citizens are falling through after they reach I think about $2,500 in coverage for prescription drugs, they fall through that doughnut hole, and they literally have to spend several thousand dollars out of their own pocket before the part D prescription drug benefit picks back up. It also prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. We would make that change, and we would require the Federal Government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Literally, the difference between prohibition and requiring it, and just like they do in the VA right now, and save millions and millions of dollars. I mean, who was this bill for? If you want to make sure that there is a part D prescription drug benefit that benefits senior citizens, then people will vote for us. If they want to make sure that there is one that benefits the pharmaceutical industry, then people will vote for them.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But could you imagine, they actually rolled out an agenda that those items were at the top of the list. Because what they have to do is they have to try to distract the American people from their pitiful failure here, from their inability to get a handle on the deficit, from their inability to do anything about alternative energy exploration and reducing gas prices, about their inability to expand health care to more people, and their inability to develop any sort of plan to eventually get us out of this endless war in Iraq, and their inability to deal with domestic homeland security, border security, while protecting our American people here at home. They are real focused on protecting everybody else in the world and making sure that everybody else in the world's quality of life is in good shape. What about the folks here? No, instead they just want to spend a lot of time on the issues that are really none of their business, that are really just decisions that families make inside their own homes among family members.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And it is a privilege to join you and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Delahunt each night that we take the House floor and talk about the new direction that we as Democrats would take this country. Because what most people have seen in America recently is essentially the Republican leadership's efforts to engage in the politics of distraction, because they have to distract the American people from what is really going on here because the reality that is going on here is too painful to closely examine. I mean, they certainly can't hold up their wild success to the American people for examination and celebration because they haven't had any wild success. We are looking here at a record deficit, as you discussed, Mr. Meek. We are looking at record gas prices. We are looking at record numbers of Americans who are without health insurance. We are looking at record increases in the cost of health insurance, small business owners who are unable to continue to support their employees and provide them with health insurance benefits. And we are looking at a woeful inability on the part of the Republican administration and this leadership of this House to protect the homeland and focus on domestic homeland security. That is why they instead have focused on things like the Pledge of Allegiance and whether students are saying ``under God'' in school when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and they are focusing on amending the Constitution to prohibit flag burning or amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Now, each of us might have our own individual opinion on those matters, but when you go to Youngstown, Mr. Ryan, when you go to Miami, and when I go home to Broward County, I just don't hear, and I would bet you my last dollar that the vast majority of our Republican colleagues don't hear one, two, three, four, or five on the list any of those items. More likely, you have the father of four who leaves his house in the morning not worried about whether his son is going to be able to say ``under God: In the Pledge of Allegiance that day, but whether or not he is going to be able to afford the $55 it is going to cost him, at least, or around, to fill up his gas tank. And how about the mom whose son or daughter is fighting on our Nation's behalf in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think she is worried about whether Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? Because that is certainly a notion of patriotism. Or is she more likely praying every single day that her baby is going to come home to her? I would say it is more likely the latter. And those are the kinds of issues that people are addressing with us when we go home.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's break it down further, Mr. Meek. If that was not enough evidence, let's take a look at a Congressional Research Service report, which is an objective body which provides information to the Congress, both parties, totally objective entity, provided a memo to Senator Wyden last week, and that memo outlined the profits and revenue return for the oil companies from 1999 to now. And it demonstrated that the annual revenue return for eight oil companies increased from 2.88 percent in 1999 to 7.1 percent in 2005 while the return on shareholder equity went from 4.64 percent to almost 30 percent. Cash reserves for those same companies shot up from $9.5 million in 1999 to $57.8 million last year, and the capital investment that they made went from $32.8 million to $68.8 million in the same period. The bottom line is that when they say they are investing their revenue that they are generating into alternative oil exploration, it is baloney. It is absolutely not true. What they are doing is they are keeping their profits. They are holding onto their profits, and we are giving them the money by forgiving them royalty payments for the land that we are letting them drill for oil on. So who is for the American people and who is just kidding?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida. There are times in life when we must make difficult choices. The Bilirakis, Wasserman Schultz and others amendment will add 125 miles of protection and require the legislature to affirmatively vote to allow drilling closer than that distance. It adds protection to the Outer Continental Shelf coastline that we do not now enjoy. The choice in front of us on this amendment is do we squeeze our eyes shut tight, cross our fingers and pray that we will never have drilling off of our coastline or do we act now and ensure that we do not? I believe in controlling our own destiny. I want to know that there is 125 miles of protection that we do not now have off the eastern coastline. For those Members that are opposed to this bill, as I am, you can vote in good conscience for this amendment and ensure a significant amount of protection in the event that the bill passes. If this amendment does not pass and the bill does, then we are left with the possibility of having oil rigs within 50 miles of our coastline. That is an unacceptable option. We should act now to ensure that we have at least 125 miles of protection off the eastern coast in the Outer Continental Shelf. I urge the adoption of the Bilirakis-Wasserman Schultz amendment. There are times in life when we must make choices, some of them are easy and some of them are not. I firmly believe that as Members of Congress we have an obligation to protect people and the environment who have only our votes standing between them and devastating consequences. I am an opponent of oil drilling. I have never voted for drilling in my 14 years as a public servant. But as public servants we must use both our heart and our head when deciding what is best at any given moment in time. The underlying legislation would be harmful to our environment. Drilling 50 miles off our coast, which is possible under the Pombo legislation is irresponsible. We should be investing in alternative energy resources and truly breaking ourselves of the addiction to oil referenced in President Bush's State of the Union speech. But, we won't have that chance today and sadly, unless the tide turns in this body, I fear that we won't ever have that chance. I represent the cities of Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood and Miami Beach, from the ocean to the Everglades. Florida's coastline must be protected. Our economy depends on our number one industry--tourism, which brings in 86 million tourists annually, supports one million jobs and generates $56 billion. There is a lot at stake for Florida. That is why there are times in life when we must make difficult choices. The Bilirakis, Wasserman Schultz and others amendment will add 125 miles of protection and require the legislature to affirmatively vote to allow drilling closer than that distance. It adds protection to the Outer Continental Shelf coastline that we do not now enjoy. The choice in front of us on this amendment is do we squeeze our eyes shut tight, cross our fingers and pray that we'll never have drilling off of our coastline or do we act now and ensure that we don't? I believe in controlling our own destiny. I want to know that there is 125 miles of protection that we do not now have off the eastern coastline. For those Members that are opposed to this bill, as I am, you can vote in good conscience for this amendment and ensure a significant amount of protection in the event that the bill passes. If this amendment does not pass and the bill does, then we are left with the possibility of having oil rigs within 50 miles of our coastline. That is an unacceptable option. We should act now to ensure at least 125 miles of protection off the eastern coastline. At the end of the day, we are representatives of our communities and our States, but we are ultimately United States Representatives, charged with thinking about our whole country. In that role, we have an obligation to ensure that the legislative products we send out of this institution, with or without our votes contain the best content we can develop. That requires the courage to compromise. Henry Clay said it best, ``All legislation . . . is founded upon the principle of mutual concession--Let him who elevates himself above humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, ``I never will compromise''; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise.'' The coastline of the Unites States of America must have the maximum protection we can attain for her. The Bilirakis-Wasserman Schultz amendment does that. Is it perfection? No, but if we live for perfection, we risk failure. The failure to protect our environment as much as we can is not an option. This amendment provides that protection for in this legislation. Without it, our environment faces grave danger. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would just like to go back to energy prices and gas prices. Just to zero in on one of the things that is the most galling about the direction that the Republican Congress has taken us in, gas prices are up. I am one of those minivan moms. I have little kids and when I go home, I am going to dance class and soccer games and shuttling them all over my district. It is a lot of driving. With three kids, you have to have a large enough vehicle to fit the car seats and the stuff and the athletic equipment and the dance bags, and so minivans are an essential piece of life when you are a mom or dad with little kids. It costs like $55 to fill up the gas tank of a minivan. I have reached the conclusion that the only explanation for the continued direction that our Republican colleagues have taken us in when it comes to gas prices and refusing to deal with the energy crisis and refusing to adequately fund, if fund at all, alternative energy sources is because they obviously haven't filled their own tanks of gas since gas pumps looked like this. This is a replica of a gas pump from the 1950s or thereabouts. I truly believe they must not pump their own gas, or the last time they did, pumps looked like this or they would be feeling the pain. You cannot stand there for as long as you stand there for squeezing the pump and watching the tally click by, $10, $20, $30, $40, $50. You can't do that, even if you can afford it, without it being somewhat painful. Think about it, think about the mom or dad who is just barely making ends meet. They are barely making ends meet before gas went over $3 a gallon. When is enough enough? Where is the outrage? Where is the legislation? Where is the oversight? Why aren't they calling the CEOs of the oil companies and asking is it possible that they are not in collusion, that they are not conspiring to set prices the same. It is mind boggling. I don't understand why they don't care. That is clearly the message that is sent here. What we would do, we would make sure that we could, within 10 years, be independent of foreign oil by pursuing alternative energy research like ethanol. Brazil has done it. This is our innovation agenda. For anyone on the other side of the aisle who wants to continue to perpetuate the myth that Democrats have no agenda, here is a big piece of it in several colors, not just black and white. This innovation agenda includes a number of things, not the least of which is our ability to truly end our addiction to foreign oil which the President talked about in his State of the Union, and only talked about and did nothing to change it. Our innovation agenda would help us get there. It would also make sure that we give people universal access to broadband in 5 years. It also does a number of other things to take us in a new direction. I know I have focused specifically in on one part of the problem, but because that is something that people deal with every single day or every couple of days when their gas light goes on and their tank runs empty, and I know you both agree with me that it is something that we need to put the magnifying glass on.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will adopt you as a member. And we would like to remind the Members, Mr. Speaker, that all of the charts and documents that we have talked about tonight are on our Web site, housedemocrats.gov/30something.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Spratt and Ms. Brown. We are so glad to have you here with the 30-Something Working Group.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, you are just absolutely right, because what we are talking about is the direction that we would take this country in if we were given an opportunity, that we would expand access to health care and make sure the 46 million people who don't have it now, that far more, if not all of them, would have it; that we would truly invest in exploring alternative energy resources so that oil was not our only option; that we would make sure, and we committed. We had a town hall meeting with 30-somethings with Leader Pelosi and Ranking Member Miller, had a town hall meeting just the other day where we talked about that on the first day that we take the majority back in this House of Representatives and Leader Pelosi becomes Speaker Pelosi, we would halve the interest rate on federally subsidized loans, literally saving potential college kids thousands and thousands of dollars. But you know what? The attitude of the administration and the Republican leadership, Mr. Meek, you said you are sick and tired. I think people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And I think that Americans have reached that point. And it never ceases to amaze me what their leaders, what the Republican leaders actually say. I mean, that they say out loud; never mind the thoughts they harbor, because you know we will obviously never, we can only guess what those are. But what they say is unbelievable. A few days ago we sadly marked the death, we were talking about the war in Iraq and how they have no plan; that this is an interminable war that has no end in sight, no plan, no ability to phase ourselves out. The other day we marked the death of the 2,500th soldier, American soldier. And White House spokesman Tony Snow said this about that milestone. He said, ``It is a number, and every time there is one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something.'' Yeah. They want no more kids to die. They want no more of our American men and women to die needlessly without any possibility in the near future of knowing that they are coming home. A number? Sure. There are plenty of numbers that we could throw out there, the numbers that people care about beyond just 2,500 of our soldiers being lost. For example, 18,490 American troops were wounded in Iraq. And we have third-party validation for all of these. About 40,000 Iraqis have been killed, beyond the American troops. $8.8 billion. Here are some more numbers: $8.8 billion is the amount of Iraqi reconstruction funds the military has failed to account for, according to the Department of Defense's inspector general; 68 journalists killed in Iraq; 2.2 million Active Duty soldiers and veterans at risk of identity theft. Actually that is more. Now with the theft of the computer it is 26.5 million; 382 days since Vice President Cheney claimed the insurgency was in its last throes. Ask the parents of the two American soldiers that were kidnapped and killed by insurgents the other day if they think that the insurgency is in its last throes; 1,140 days since President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq; 37 million people living in poverty in the United States; 13 million children living in poverty in the United States; $8,375,365,051,008.48. That is the amount of the deficit, yet tomorrow we are going to consider an estate tax that benefits 5,000 people; 45.8 million Americans without health insurance, just to be exact; $16,000, which is the median debt of graduates of public colleges; $20,000 is the median debt of graduates of private colleges, yet after July 1, the interest rates for a college loan will be hiked up significantly, thanks to the Republicans' leadership here; $36 billion Exxon/Mobil's profits last year, more than any other corporation in history. Those are the numbers that the Republicans should find important.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wore the colors.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are calm today.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And tomorrow we are going to do more.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are going to take up the estate tax tomorrow, and as much of a deal as our Republican colleagues have made out of this, it benefits about 5,000 people in the country. I mean, 5,000 people. And they are making this such a high priority. It is going to cost over $200 billion, and this is what they think is a priority, as opposed to dealing with health care, gas prices, college costs, and housing costs. Yet another example is when they passed their tax reconciliation bill, their tax cut bill earlier this year. Just to give people an idea of what kind of benefit we truly doled out to most folks, if you made between $10,000 and $20,000, you would get enough back from the tax cut bill we passed earlier this year, enough back to buy a Slurpee. There are a whole lot of things that are a priority in my life and the lives of my constituents that I want to make sure that I can buy, my constituents want to be able to buy, and a Slurpee is not really mentioned in the letters written to me in my office. Now let's go down to the people making between $40,000 to $50,000 a year. That is a working family. They would get back enough to buy a gallon of gas. I think that probably most people would think if we are going to pass a tax cut measure, if we are going to really provide revenue and give folks back their hard earned tax dollars, it should be more than the value of a gallon of gas. But if you are fortunate enough to make more than $1 million, you get back the equivalent of a Hummer. Now that is something that most people could probably write home about. But how many people in America make more than $1 million.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My good friend Mr. Meek really illustrates the point that we have been trying to drive home for all the time that I have been here now, and for several years before my arrival with the beginnings of the 30- something Working Group, and that is that with the illustration that you just had up there, that literally we have racked up as much debt under this President than all the Presidents combined, all 42 before this President. That really is illustrative of the point we have been making; that America is truly going in the wrong direction, and that in order to right the ship, to start us on the path that Americans want us to be going down, we need to make sure that we elect Democrats in the fall that will no longer support the rubber-stamping that goes on in this institution on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Meek, I think what we try to do during our 30-something hour is show people what some of these more macroconcepts mean in terms of their daily lives. The economy, which the Republicans talk about so often, and actually, I guess, what it is, Mr. Ryan, is that they think that if they say it enough times, it will become true. I have heard so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, oh, the economy is great, the President said it, it is gangbusters, we are in the best shape we could possibly be in. Well, how is that possible if you have health care, gas, housing, and college costs that are all skyrocketing through the roof? I mean, the median family income has dropped every year of the Bush administration. The typical family is paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance, college tuition has gone up about 40 percent in real terms, gas prices have doubled to nearly $3 a gallon, housing is the least affordable it has been in 14 years, and real wages have been flat since 2001. And we have a chart that illustrates that graphically, but that is the economy that our constituents are living in. Now, maybe our Republican colleagues are living in some kind of alternative bizarro world. Is there an alternative universe that I am not aware of that perhaps some of them are living? Because this is what reality is: College tuition, up 40 percent under the Bush administration; gas prices up 47 percent; health care costs up 55 percent; and median household income down by 4 percent. That is good? I don't know. I bet if we looked up ``good'' in the dictionary it wouldn't reflect any of this reality. Just have a hunch that Webster wouldn't define ``good'' this way. It wouldn't look like that. So I want, and I know we all want, to move this country in a new direction, and we have an agenda that would do that; that would deal with the health care crisis that we are in with 46 million Americans without health insurance, people who have to go to the emergency room for their primary health care. We would make sure that we increase the minimum wage, which hasn't been done since 1997. I mean, that is just unbelievable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on a lighter note, it has been said that there is no ``I'' in ``teamwork.'' Indeed, a successful team beats with one heart. So, I rise today to congratulate the entire Miami Heat organization, Micky Arison, head coach Pat Riley, the Heat players and the entire Miami community for beating with one heart and winning the 2006 National Basketball Association championship. The Heat became only the third team in NBA history to win the final series after being down two to nothing. For four games in a row, they were too hot to handle. I know that I speak for Heat fans throughout south Florida and across the country when I say that the Heat could not have made us more proud last night. The entire Heat organization overcame a great deal of individual and collective adversity throughout the season. Yet despite doubters, they proved to have the hearts of champions. The Heat victory was a true tapestry, comprised of the youthful talent of Finals Most Valuable Player Dwayne Wade and the veteran leadership of Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O'Neal and Gary Payton. This team truly is 15 strong. Congratulations to the Heat fans in south Florida, who have patiently waited 18 years for a championship parade on Biscayne Boulevard. There are no fans more deserving.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have begun a proud tradition in south Florida, and we are looking forward to equaling over time the amazing success of the Boston Celtics. Having already experienced the joy of a national championship by the University of Florida Fighting Gators basketball team, basketball is alive and well in Florida. As you can see, we have some pretty good players down our way. But I want to jump off because Mr. Ryan did refer to the billions in debt, and you went through very eloquently, and I don't think people in America have a real idea, that is why I love that chart of the percentage of debt that each of those countries has of the United States. And when you graphically depict it across the entire country, it really, really drives the point home. But what I found, and I have a shorter tenure in Congress than you and Mr. Meek and Mr. Delahunt do, going from the State legislature where we were dealing with millions more often than billions with a ``b,'' people would tell me it is hard to get their mind around what a billion is. It is such a big number; it is hard to grasp. So I came up, along with my staff's help, with this chart to graphically illustrate what a billion is. When we are talking about billions in debt and the interest payments are in the billions and they dwarf other priorities like homeland security and funding for our veterans and education, how much is a billion? A billion hours ago, for example, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age. A billion seconds ago it was 1975, and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam. A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D. and the Chinese had first invented paper. If you take the definitions that the Republicans use when it comes to a billion, a billion dollars ago under the Republican leadership was only 3 hours and 32 minutes ago at the rate our government is currently spending money. So a billion used to be a really significant number that if you translate it into time was a very long time ago. But translated into time under Republican leadership, it was just a few hours ago.