Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We could do something crazy like collect the royalties from the oil industry and invest it on alternative energy sources like those. We could fund this plan backwards and forwards with the money we did not make them pay us. That is what is so outrageous

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to close with an observation that what has been frustrating to me is that there is no outrage on that side. Everything we are laying out is factual. We are not making it up. So why does the Republican head only appear to go one way, up and down? Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to do whatever you say. Sure, Mr. President. No problem. It would be nice if they had some joints that made their heads go in this direction and their voices could be lifted up against what is going on here. But, sadly, that doesn't happen.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But then we are cutting 17,000 troops out of the National Guard.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is like I could just close my eyes, and listening to the Republicans, point fingers and call names at us, I could just close my eyes and it is like I am listening to my twin 7- year-olds fight with each other: Yes, they are; no, they don't; yes, they are; no, they don't. That is all they are----

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are acknowledging, we are calling on the carpet the Republican leadership for plunging us into the most debt we have ever been in and piling it up in record time to boot. We are borrowing and spiraling downward into tremendous debt to other nations, and then, on top of that, we are giving away our oil drilling rights that we are normally paid royalties for by the oil and gas industry. Last year, we passed two bills that basically give away those rights for free. We give them to the oil industry, and subsequently, several months later, they make more profits than any corporation in American history. What would we do in the alternative? Finally, finally, there is leadership that is willing to step forward and adopt and propose an Innovation Agenda that would pledge to make us energy independent within 10 years. Our energizing American plan that was put together by the Democratic House working group that gets more specific than our Innovation Agenda. It talks about how we would increase production of American-made biofuels, using our cellulosic sources such as switch grass, producing ethanol through corn and possibly even through sugar cane, investing in research and development to improve the use of renewable energy. These are the commitments that Democrats would make. So, Mr. Speaker, when people on the other side of the aisle throw out that Democrats do not have an agenda, well, here is a piece of it, Mr. Ryan just had a piece of it. There are three stacks of notebook, none of which are full of empty paper, Mr. Speaker, that outline our homeland security proposal, our domestic security proposals, our energy plan. These are the things that we would address from day one when we are in charge of this Chamber. We would eliminate the corruption. We would make sure that this Chamber is run in a bipartisan way, as Leader Pelosi indicated just last week. We would adopt democracy once again in the United States House of Representatives which, quite honestly, is something I have not seen since the first day I got here, and it is really depressing.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. The three things I just want to hit on that are on all in that same theme: Last week, we passed a budget led by the Republican leadership here that just continues down that same path of irresponsible priorities; $6 billion cut to Homeland Security over 5 years; $488 million in 2007 alone. Cut the Army National Guard by 17,000 troops. The National Guard, which, if we all recall, the President just talked about deploying to the border, to our Mexican-American border to assist States in border security. On top of that, we are also deploying them to Iraq and Afghanistan. How thin can we spread them? And then on top of that, we are cutting the number of troops we give them. It cut funding for equipment for firefighters and police; $6 billion cut to veterans' services over 5 years. It tripled health care fees for veterans for TRICARE. Let's fast forward to the tax reconciliation bill, which is the tax cuts that we made permanent under the Republican leadership's insistence. Let's talk about what that tax cut meant for real people. The tax bill that was signed this week by the President had Americans who made $20,000 a year, they get $2, $2 in their tax break. And when I stand at a town hall meeting and ask folks to raise their hands, Mr. Meek, to let me know, who is it among you who have actually received money in your pocket from the tax breaks that President Bush and the Republican leadership have handed out over the last number of years, in a room full of several hundred people, maybe I get two or three hands. Maybe. Now, if these tax cuts are targeted like Democrats would design to working families and to people who really needed that money and would actually put it back into the economy so that could revitalize the economy, like buying big ticket items like refrigerators and televisions and other things that would inject cash into the economy instead of investing it, which is what the wealthiest among us would do, then I could understand letting us make those tax cuts permanent all day long, but unfortunately, we do not have any of those tax cuts. We have tax cuts that puts $2 back in the pockets of people who make $20,000, and Americans who make $40,000, they get a whopping $16, but Americans who make more than $1 million get a thousand times that. They get $42,000. They get to go out and buy a Hummer. They can buy a Hummer. That is how much money someone who makes $1 million gets back, a Hummer, a Mercedes, a Suburban, a gas guzzler, and you cannot buy one of those with $2. Then let us add insult to injury, and last week there were comments made in this Chamber on this floor that people who make $40,000 a year do not pay taxes. I mean, come on. Do you know anyone that does not pay taxes that makes $40,000?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is just out of touch. That is my point.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been listening to both of you banter back and forth about gas prices, and what I hear in both of your voices is your desire to get to the core of what we obviously are all baffled about which is why. I mean, why over the last 15 to 20 years has there not been an effort, and let us say in the last dozen years, has there not been an effort to make a real commitment to fix this, to head this off at the pass, to make sure that our constituents are not consistently having to pay, for the foreseeable future, if not forever, more than $3 a gallon for gas? I guess because I am the newest among the three of us I have reached the conclusion that obviously the Republicans do not have the joints that they need on the side of their neck because their heads do not appear to go this way. They only go this way, like this bobblehead elephant. Apparently, they only know how to say yes, Mr. Speaker; yes, Mr. President; yes, CEO of oil companies; I am happy to do your bidding in whatever it is that you like. Their necks, unlike ours, don't appear to go horizontal, or side to side. Because if they did, then their voting record would reflect ours and the values of the American people a lot more closely, and they would not have voted in favor of the energy bill they put forward last summer, when they held the vote open for 40 straight minutes to ensure they could twist enough arms to get the bill to pass and give away the subsidies and the oil leasing rights that we own as a United States Government. And instead of collecting the royalties from the oil companies, we gave them away and allowed them to drill essentially for free, or to drastically reduce the rate. That action and the lack of a commitment to funding alternative energy research and the cozy relationship that the Bush administration has with the Saudis and with the OPEC leaders, that is what has caused us to be in the mess that we are in. And you don't see any commitment on the part of the Republican leadership here to make any significant change. The only place you see an effort to make a significant change and take this country in a new direction on oil prices and gas prices is through the Democratic agenda, the innovation agenda, where we pledged, when we rolled out our innovation agenda under Leader Pelosi's leadership, to become energy independent within 10 years. And that is possible through the use of ethanol. I just saw the gentleman who made that presentation to our caucus on CNN the other night for a solid hour, and he literally outlined how it was possible for us to begin to make a commitment in agriculture through corn, which we are already doing in the Midwest, in your area, Mr. Ryan, but also it could be done in my area with sugar cane, in Louisiana and in the mid northwest with sugar beets. I mean, it is possible for us to really make an effort to invest in ethanol. Brazil did it. Brazil is now completely independent of foreign oil. They manufacture vehicles that run on ethanol. They have hybrid and ethanol-only automobiles. That is something that is entirely possible in this country within 10 years. Unfortunately, the heads of the Members on this side of the aisle only go one way.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I actually should have mentioned something else. You are a Midwesterner, but we have coastlines in both of our districts in Florida, and obviously the United States is surrounded by coastline. What was the answer to our long-term and short-term energy needs that the Republicans put forward the other day? I mean, fortunately, we pieced together enough Members to defeat it, but that was to bring oil drilling and natural gas drilling within three miles of the coast of this country. And it is understandable that a lot of our Midwestern colleagues voted to do that, because they are desperate to make sure that something happens and there is some movement on this. But had our Republican colleagues had a little foresight, had they actually had any interest in not, for lack of a better term, no, I won't use that expression, had they had any interest in not continuing to give significant assistance to the oil industry, then they would have not needed to make that short-term, shortsighted last-ditch effort solution to prevent minivan moms like me from having to pay $55 in filling up their gas tanks, which is what I just did the other day when I was driving my kids around.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When I ask people in my district in town hall meetings to raise their hand and show me how many have benefited and got money in their pocket from the tax cut legislation, out of several hundred, I get two maybe three hands; that is preposterous. Here is the kicker: Americans making more than a million dollars a year get a thousand times what people making $40,000 get. They get $42,000. We have a graphic that we can show that means that they can buy a Hummer. That is essentially, they are basically being given the equivalent of a Hummer. Let me just conclude by adding on to what Mr. Gingrich has said because he also said some things very recently. On May 14, on Meet the Press, Mr. Gingrich said: I think we have to confront the fact that on a variety of fronts, we are not getting the performance we want. The people in charge have an obligation to deliver. When you learn that maybe as much as $16 billion of the $18 billion that we sent to Baghdad for economic purposes was not spent effectively, you know something has to change. When you look at Katrina and you realize that we, the United States Government, paid $1.75 to a general contractor who paid 75 cents to a contractor who paid 35 cents to a subcontractor, who paid 10 cents to put the blue tarp on what was temporary roofing, then you know something has to change. The leader from the 1994 Republican revolution says something has to change. Change is not going from Republican to Republican. It is going from Republican to Democrat so we can take this country in the direction that we really should be going, and so that the next generation of Americans are going to have an America that they can grow up and believe in.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I actually think you are being presumptuous because you touched a nerve when you said you think the Republicans lost touch along the way at some point. That presumes that they were ever in touch because when we listen to remarks on the floor of this House where commentary is made that, for example, people who make $40,000 a year do not pay taxes, when you know you pay upwards of $50 to fill up a gas tank, you scratch your head and wonder, who pumps their gas? When you cannot determine whether they know what the cost of groceries are, are they shopping for food? Who is talking to them in their districts? Are they driven around in limousines? Because all of the indicators, their desire to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, all of the indicators are there that they really are that out of touch. I mean, just to have it stated on the floor of this House that people who make $40,000 do not pay taxes, that is just unbelievable. But then just take the tax cut bill, the rubber-stamp Republican Congress, literally and the walk down memory lane that we have been going through turned the projected $5.6 trillion record surplus into a record deficit of $3.2 trillion. The President has quadrupled our debt held by China. The tax bill that was signed, Americans making $20,000 annually get $2 and Americans making $40,000 get $16.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, what we always try to do here on the 30-something time is to help people understand that we are not just offering our own opinions. And I think it would be helpful to illuminate for folks and for the Members, Mr. Speaker, just exactly what has gone down here in this Chamber and the opportunities that the Republicans have literally just cast aside. Let us take a walk down the energy memory lane in the last several months, just since I have been here. Ninety-eight percent of House Republicans voted to let the oil companies keep their exorbitant profits. This was the week of April 28. The vote was on April 27, excuse me. And what they did was, the House Republicans rejected a Democratic effort to accept Senate provisions in the tax bill that would have removed $5 billion worth of subsidies and tax loopholes for large oil companies. In other words, they would have removed the subsidies and tax loopholes worth $5 billion to oil companies, but House Republicans refused to do that. Ninety-eight percent of them voted to do that. Again, I don't think your rubber stamp is big enough, Mr. Meek. Let's talk about price gouging. It is really interesting. Before I came here, I was at home for a little while and I was watching CNN and saw a Senate colleague, to stay within the House rules, commenting at a hearing on oil prices. This was a Senate Republican, and he was using very tough talk and grilling the oil companies that were before him. Essentially, the announcer, the commentator on CNN, was talking about how this particular individual had previously never been in favor of legislation and had voted against every opportunity to rein in the oil industry and to try to bring some sanity to the direction that we are moving in terms of our energy policy. But literally I watched him say it, he said to the oil industry representative that the American people were getting a little bit cranky and tired of this, and that he was getting ready to do something serious. What, I don't know, but if we have reached the point where even someone who has never voted to regulate the oil and gas industry is considering doing that, then you know that the American people have reached their breaking point. Because in terms of price gouging, it has been a totally different story. The Republican leadership in either 57chamber has never supported adopting price gouging legislation. In September 2005, Democrats proposed legislation to establish a Federal ban, this was a Democratic proposal, a Federal ban on price gouging for oil, gasoline and other petroleum products during national emergencies; provide civil and criminal penalties for price gouging; ban market manipulation; and require greater transparency in oil and gasoline markets. This was supported by a majority in the Senate, but it was blocked by Republicans in the House. And that vote took place on November 17, 2005. So there has never been an interest. In fact, there has been a specific interest in continuing to prop up the oil company profits. We have third-party validator after third-party validator that back this up, so this is not the Debbie, Tim and Kendrick show where we are spewing our opinions. There are facts to back up the things we are saying. We are hopeful that the American people understand who is for true energy independence and moving this country in the right direction and who is just kidding.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more painful than a senseless death, particularly when a child's life is cut short. As parents, we do everything we can to protect them. We keep them in car seats protected by seat belts and air bags. We watch what they eat and lock cabinets and plug outlets. We put safety knobs on exterior doors and put gates up at the top of the stairs and around swimming pools. We give them curfews and cell phones so we know where they are and when they'll be home. We teach them right from wrong and we impart our values. And when they are older, we have no other choice but to hope for the best. We hope that all of the cajouling and caring, crying and cradling, helped them become the best grownups, parents, citizens, professionals, but most of all, we want to help our children to be the best people that they can become. After all of that planning, preparing, protecting and sometimes panicking, most of us are blessed with the fact that our children do become adults. So much of our children's lives are beyond our control, including their safety, yet we do everything within our power to protect them. But what parent in God's name would expect their child to be killed in a terrorist attack? Blown up by a suicide bomber at an outdoor cafe? How does one guard against that? What product is made to shield them from explosives strapped to the body of a madman determined to destroy an entire people? How do we teach our children that some parents raise their children with this hatred embedded inside their heart? How, if we want to raise our children as tolerant, understanding, open-minded individuals, do we teach them to look out for certain people who may want to do them harm, without painting an entire people with the same broad brush? Naturally, we teach them that they should be cautious about strangers in general, wary of people who act in a certain way. Mr. Speaker, I ask this question today because the other day, Tuesday afternoon, I attended the funeral of a young boy, just 16 years old. He was a constituent of mine who lived in the same town where my family and I live. When I got home, I explained to my two older children where I had been. As inquisitive little ones, they asked how the boy died. And I can still taste the bile in my mouth, Mr. Speaker, when I had to explain that this young boy in our hometown was killed by a bomb that blew up near where he was sitting in a cafe in Israel. I had to explain to my twin 7-year-olds that there are some people in the world who have so much hate in their hearts and who don't believe that the Jewish people should have our homeland, Israel, that they will do anything, including bombing innocent people to try to destroy us. Mr. Speaker, I could not bring myself to explain that the bombs were strapped to the bomber's body as they were detonated. Thankfully, that was beyond their comprehension, because it was beyond my ability to explain to their young, innocent minds. Daniel Wultz was sitting at an outdoor cafe with his father in Tel Aviv during Passover. A suicide bomber detonated a bomb strapped to his body, which injured Daniel's father and critically injured Daniel. Daniel lost his leg in the explosion, and, despite severe injuries, emerged from a comatose state and went through several surgeries with many more in front of him. He lived for a month, but succumbed to his injuries on May 14th. Daniel Wultz was eulogized by his family and friends on Tuesday. He was described as a beautiful young man with a big heart, someone who always did the right thing, who stood up for others, and had a big, beautiful smile. I listened to his Rabbi, Rabbi Yisroel Spalter, talk about officiating at Daniel's Bar Mitzvah. I listened to how proud Daniel was of that accomplishment and how his Judaism had become so much more important to him recently. I listened to Daniel's best friend and aunts talk about what a righteous person Daniel was, describing how he was always there for his friends and how he taught younger kids basketball and waited with them when their parents were late. I listened to Daniel's sister talk about how painful it was to lose her beloved brother and how badly they all wanted him to remain with the family and the struggle they were going through with God, who obviously needed him more. But the most difficult was listening to Daniel's father's angst- ridden voice, wishing that he could have protected his one and only son, and describing that he knew his son's beautiful body ultimately protected him. Mr. Speaker, as a Jew, as a Member of Congress, as an American, but, more than anything, as a mother, I rise this evening to honor the memory of Daniel Wultz and to ask my colleagues to join me in condemning in the strongest possible way the ongoing cowardly terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent victims in Israel and throughout the world. As Golda Meir once said, ``Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.'' Hate is a weapon from which there is no safe haven.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentlewoman, and I rise in support of the Putnam-Capps bipartisan amendment which strikes the Peterson language that would allow for drilling just 3 miles off our shoreline. Members, let us put this in perspective. Imagine yourself on the west steps of the United States Capitol admiring the view of our Nation's Capitol, taking in the scenery and enjoying the environment. Now imagine yourself gazing towards the Kennedy Center, and just beyond the Kennedy Center, right there in the middle of the Potomac River, you see a big old oil rig. It is not quite as appealing any more, is it? Now, I know that we are not going to be drilling for gas or oil in the Potomac River, but I paint this scenario for a reason. That distance from the Capitol to just beyond the Kennedy Center is the same distance that Mr. Peterson is proposing we place natural gas rigs off our Nation's beaches. There are drastic and devastating environmental and economic repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor so close to our beaches, for my own State of Florida and for the rest of the Nation. For example, the uncontrollable discharges of mud, rock, and minerals that come with piercing a hole into our Earth would be devastating for our near-shore activities. Now, for our colleagues that feel they need to vote for something, anything, to be able to say they are trying to address gas prices, I have a reminder: cars don't run on natural gas. People who are now paying upwards of $50 to fill their gas tanks, this amendment, if we leave it in place, will do nothing to change that. Gas prices will still be astronomically high. And to address the issue of oil rigs off our shoreline put there by Cuba and China, do we want to emulate the actions of nations like Cuba and China? Do we want the Florida straits dotted with oil rigs? I think not, and I think most Americans would also agree. I urge my colleagues to protect the coast of the United States and vote ``yes'' for the bipartisan Putnam-Capps amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe it is.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know, maybe they watch Star Trek.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe they live in an alternative universe, bizarre world.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a slap in the face, and, really, a bigger and bigger percentage of the population is being engulfed by the struggle just to make ends meet. Let us go to number 4.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is no end in sight. No end in sight to the rising gas prices. What will happen with number 7, where we have a 12.7 percent poverty rate that is on the rise and 5.4 million more people who have fallen into poverty. That number is going to get bigger. It is costs like these that send people into poverty. You have number 6 here that talks about the Consumer Confidence Board's index. Its expectation index is the lowest it has been in 3 years. Number 5, Congressional Republicans defeated a Democratic amendment recently to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. If the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be $8.88 right now. It hasn't been increased since 1997. That is 9 years ago. 9 years? I mean, if you are a person who is living on the minimum wage, struggling to pay, to fill your gas tank, struggling to put food on the table, you have no health insurance, do you really want the Bush administration and the Republican leadership to tell you how great the economy is? Do you believe them?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. These are the consequences.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not be able to get to work. How do people who are living paycheck to paycheck factor in $53, $56 into their weekly budget? And we have shown those charts, before too, and we can again. When your bottom line gas tank, filling-the-gas-tank cost goes from $20-something to $50-something every time you fill up, and people who have to drive any distance, I mean, we are from an urban community, a suburban community, as are both of you. You just cannot zip around these communities in 2 seconds. You have to drive to get to most places. We are going to get to a point where people will lose their jobs because they will not be able to get to their jobs. Mr. Ryan, let us just digress for a second and show what is going on.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, when I have to pay $56 to fill up the gas tank in my minivan, believe me, you are right. It is not just the poor.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are right.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, Number 7. Thirty-seven million Americans are living in poverty. We have a 12.7 percent poverty rate, which is on the rise, and 5.4 million people have fallen into poverty since the beginning of the Bush administration, 5.4 million people. You know, if they are going to talk about who is doing better, it is the wealthiest that are doing better. Their income is on the rise. Their life is getting better. Their lives are improving and their outlook is more rosy. The poor are getting poorer. Number 6.