Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. As you can see, BP, Chevron, Shell, Conoco, and Exxon-Mobil.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, can I ask you a question?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, 2002.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You asked why we were unable to vote on the budget. It is simple. Finally, finally, it obviously became clear to many of our Republican colleagues because we were all unified on the Democratic side, there was not going to be a single Democratic vote for this budget because we are not going to put a vote up for increasing the deficit or maintaining the deficit or increasing our national debt. We are not going to put a vote up on that board that makes drastic cuts in education or cuts in veterans health care. We are not going to put a vote up on that board that fails to protect the environment. This Republican budget would have done all of those things. I have been here 15 months. I am a freshmen. This is my first year. I just completed my first year in Congress, and finally someone found a conscience on the other side of the aisle. Finally, it was not that they just put that bill out there and you saw enough arms being twisted and the board being held open long enough so they could wrench the votes that they needed.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have been talking about the pay-as-you-go needs that we have here. Because we are the 30-something Working Group, what we try to do really often is explain the multi generational impact that these fiscal policies and decisions have. Let's take a look at the economic impact on college students, Mr. Meek. We are talking about, in this chart, you have the average tuition and fees, which is this line here that has gone up and up and up. Yet, the Pell Grant average award has remained completely flat. The maximum award has also remained completely flat and doesn't even come anywhere close to meeting the needs that the students who are trying to attend college and who are struggling to get a higher education need the two to coincide. There is an impact seniors, an impact on college students. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, absolutely.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And when you are dealing with the facts staring you in the face like that, then even their former leader, the chief architect of what was then called the Republican revolution that began in 1994 and the run up to the 1994 election, when he begins to use ``us'' and ``they'' terminology, then you know they have really made some serious mistakes. They, the Republican leadership here has really made some serious mistakes. And let's just go through what former Speaker Gingrich has said about what they are doing. He cited a series of blunders. Our third party validator for this evening is the Knight Ridder news papers. And Speaker Gingrich was quoted in their papers on Friday, March 31, 2006. He cited a series of blunders under Republican rule, from failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to mismanagement of the war in Iraq. He said, the government has squandered billions of dollars in Iraq. But that is not all he said. He also noted that a congressional watchdog agency, and I will note that I can recall watching Speaker Gingrich on the House floor a number of times, and when he was in the minority, would cite the congressional watchdog either when the facts helped him, and then when he was in the majority, disparaging what the congressional watchdog that he was referring to said, depending on which side he felt like taking. But in this case he noted that a congressional watchdog agency recently smuggled a truck carrying nuclear material in the country to test security. He said, why isn't the President pounding on the table? Why isn't he sending up 16 reform bills? And that is the lack of outrage that we have talked about here on the House floor in the 30-something Working Group. Where is the outrage? I mean, if we have nuclear material being smuggled into this country, and no one knows it, where is their outrage? Where is the oversight? Where is the committee hearing? Another thing he said, here is where he calls them ``they''. In the same article, he says, they are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that can't function. Now, if the architect of the Republican revolution is calling the Republican leadership and the rank and file here ``they'', then I think it is clear that it is time for a change. It is time that we restore the PAYGO rules. It is time that we restore some fiscal responsibility. It is time that we make sure that actions match words. The American people, in each of their families, they struggle to spend only what they have.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Lest people think that the increases we are talking about are small and insignificant, let's go through the kind of numbers that we are talking about and the increases we are referring to. The Republicans have increased the debt limit by $3 trillion since 2002. That is since 2002. This is 2006. In 2002 they increased it by $450 billion. In 2003, May of 2003, by another $984 billion. In November of 2004, the month I was elected, another $800 billion. Now, where is the planning? I mean, what is going on? They are spending like drunken sailors. That is what is going. They have no self-control. Let's go to March 2006, which was just last month. $781 billion. And you know it would be nice if we could have some transparency and some clarity and honesty in this Chamber, which would mean that we would have had a straight up or down vote on the debt limit. But this last time it was tucked into legislation. I bet you most Members, I can assure you, most Members had no idea that the increase in the debt limit was in there. They do everything, the Republican leadership does everything possible to avoid us taking a straight up or down vote because, oh, my God, I mean, if they have to go home and face the families that they represent, who every day are struggling, Mr. Ryan, to make ends meet and not run up debt on their credit cards, and not spend more than they take in, well, it is a little tough to face your constituents when you don't do that with their money. There is no regard here for the use of the American taxpayers dollars because it apparently doesn't matter to the Republican leadership here that we are spending more than we have. Clearly, it is baffling. It really is. And this is the party, supposedly, at least in name only, of fiscal responsibility, of smaller government, of reducing spending.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's just look at the record here. What we are talking about and what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been faced with is going home for the next 2 weeks and looking their constituents in the eye and having to tell them if this budget had gone forward and they had supported it, that they would be supportive of the five largest deficits in history. The top-ranking deficit in history was in 2004 when we had a $412 billion deficit. Number two was in 2003 when we had a $378 billion deficit. Number three was 2006, the current year, when we had a $372 billion deficit. The fourth largest year is 2007, still a $348 billion deficit. And the fifth largest deficit, 2005, the year that just ended, with a $318 billion deficit. Now these numbers jump all over the board, but if you go in order, the deficit is going in the wrong direction. 2006 is when you had the third highest deficit in history. If, like the President said he was committed and his Republican leadership was committed to cutting the deficit in half, I don't know. It does not appear like it does. Is 318 half of 412? Are any of these numbers half of any other number here? I am not very good at math, but not the math I am familiar with. Now let us look at the debt limit because we have also been careening every year towards the debt ceiling. You have held up letter after letter after letter from Secretary Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury who begs us, who was begging us recently to please increase the debt limit so the United States of America does not default on its loans, the loans that you were just outlining that cover the country. Can you pull those up?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. I too want to join my colleagues tonight in thanking you for putting this together because one of the things that we have been trying to do over the last several months as Democrats in the House of Representatives is roll out our vision for the direction that America should go in. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans today believe that we are going in the wrong direction, and in terms of homeland security and protecting our Nation's borders, that is one of the number one priorities. And what I would like to talk a little bit about tonight is an issue that is extremely important, given that my State is a peninsula, and that is port security, because I represent the people of Florida's 20th district, which is south Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood and Miami Beach. My district borders two ports, Port Everglades and the Port of Miami, and they both serve as a gateway to millions of tons of cargo and people every year. In 2005, in fact, almost 5.8 million tons of goods came into the United States through the Port of Miami. Nationally, though, only 6 percent of cargo is screened. That is a shocking statistic. That means that just in the Port of Miami alone, over 5.4 tons of goods were left uninspected before they entered our supply chain. That is just an unbelievably alarming statistic. The administration claims to have cargo security programs, such as the automated targeting system, that mitigate any threat, according to them, that the remaining 94 percent of cargo entering our country without physical inspection may pose. However, the Government Accountability Office, a third party validator, recently released a report showing shortfalls in these systems. Multiple deadlines have been missed, and key controls are still not in place to ensure the adequate implementation of such programs. These facts were true when the Bush administration approved the sale of operations at six major U.S. ports, including the Port of Miami, to the United Arab Emirates. That agreement, had it gone through, outsourced American security to a country with a spotty record in fighting terrorism and one that is currently participating in an illegal economic boycott of the State of Israel. Responsibility for America's security should not go to the highest bidder. History has shown that friends of the United States truly come and go. Thirty years ago Iran was our ally, and 20 years ago Iraq was our ally. Given the current gaps in port security, we are placing far too much trust in port terminal operators beholden to foreign nations. The companies have access to America's classified security operations. And I can tell you, having toured the Port of Miami, I can at least transmit to you that at the Port of Miami the people who run the terminals, they run their own internal security, and they have intimate knowledge of the security operations in the rest of the port. So far the divestiture announcement from DPW appears to be nothing more than a diversion that was designed to deflect attention away from this outsourcing of American port security. The current level of vulnerability at our ports is simply unacceptable. Three years ago, the Coast Guard said that they needed $7.2 billion for port security measures. But the majority in this Congress, the Republicans, have only allowed for the allotment of $910 million since September 11, 2001. When it comes to our national security and the safety and defense of our homeland, we should be focused on policy, not politics. We should be pursuing legislation to protect our Nation's ports and remedy the systemic weaknesses that facilitated this deal in the first place. As the Nation's legislators and lawmakers, it is our responsibility and duty to keep America safe, and the Republican administration and Congress is not accomplishing this objective. Before I close, I want to share with you yet another alarming statistic. And I notice that when you began your remarks you referred to the removal of shoes as we go through our magnetometers in our Nation's airports. When I went to the Port of Miami, the staff there talked to me about the disparity in port security versus airport security. In the last 5 years, since 9/11, we have spent, this Republican Congress has spent $18 billion more on airport security, which is a good thing. But comparatively they have spent less than $700 million on port security. Essentially we have rested the sum total of our increase in national security on taking our shoes off as we go through the magnetometer. That is about the only thing that most people could say they noticed was a difference between before 9/11 and post-9/11 national security. Again, I commend you on your effort to pull us together tonight.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, violence against women is on the rise in this country. Sadly, young women have increasingly become victims of violence and domestic abuse in episodes on college campuses and in communities across America. One-third of teens report some form of abuse in their romantic relationships. Forty percent of teenage girls report knowing a peer who has been hit by a boyfriend. These are our daughters, our sisters, our friends and our neighbors. The idea that our society is still struggling to cope with such violence is simply unacceptable. We must do more. Yet the Republican majority's budget resolution mirrors the President's budget suggestion to cut funding for Violence Against Women Programs by $19.5 million dollars--cutting the very programs that prevent domestic violence and aid survivors. These programs are our first line of defense for battered women across the country--and too often, sadly--our last line of defense. It is time to get our fiscal house and priorities in order. We must carefully consider the message we send to domestic violence survivors by cutting funding intended as a lifeline in their most vulnerable hour.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know what else we want as Democrats? We just want the Congress to do what American families all across this country do. They only pay for what they have money to pay for. They pay as they go. Now, there are a lot of families, unfortunately in this country that get themselves into trouble. They run up debt on their credit cards. They end up spending a lifetime hand wringing over how much debt they have because they have paid for luxuries on credit that they didn't have revenue in their household coming in to cover. That is what we are doing here. And there is no end in sight.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to give one quick statistic. Here is another third-party validator, the Tax Policy Center. And here is the startling contrast between the tax cuts that Mr. Rothman was talking about that go to the wealthiest few and what the tax cuts have provided for the average working family in middle income America. In 2006, according to the Tax Policy Center, millionaires received an average tax cut of $111,550, while the middle-class American received a tax cut of $750. When I asked in my town hall meetings, and I represent a pretty middle-income, even middle to upper-middle income district, I have a lot of wealthy communities and a lot of upper-middle class communities and some middle to lower-middle income communities, no matter what kind of room, other than the wealthiest few, that I ask people to raise their hands to tell me whether they got money in their pocket from the Bush tax cuts, maybe in rooms full of several hundred people I will get two or three people that raise their hand. If this tax relief was benefiting a wide swath of Americans, the broad spectrum of Americans of varied income, in a district like mine you would get more than three hands.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What you are pointing out is there are consequences to the fiscal recklessness. That is what I have observed for the last 15 months. It is just fiscal recklessness. The most glaring consequence is right here in front of us with what Mr. Ryan talked about that happened in a town in his district. Twelve hundred jobs gone. Seven point two million Americans today remain unemployed with an additional 4.2 million who want a job but who are not counted among the unemployed. Since this President took office, the economy has posted only 15 months of job gains that have 150,000 or more. That is just the number of jobs that we need to keep up with population growth. But the most telling, which is the one that is evidenced by what happened in the town in your district, Mr. Ryan, is that there are now 1.3 million more unemployed private sector workers than in January, 2001. The long-term unemployment rate, people who are unemployed for more than 26 weeks, has nearly doubled since that time. And the manufacturing jobs that we have lost literally have reached 2.9 million since 2001. There are day-to-day policy implications that affect people's lives that result from the fiscal recklessness. There are consequences. The Republican economic disaster is hurting real people.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that is because we did not come here to just sit idly by and not express the outrage that our constituents communicate to us when we go home. The chart that you had up there a minute ago, Mr. Ryan, the one with the blue background that says ``Borrow and spend Republican Congress,'' that really says it all because what Mr. Rothman said earlier is that our critics, Democratic critics, like to throw around that Democrats are supportive of class warfare, and I am not going to repeat their message. I am going to make sure that we get across like we do every single night here in the 30-Something Working Group that what is going on here in Washington is a borrow and spend Republican Congress. And it is not true just because we are here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives saying it is true. We have third-party validators that say it is true. USA Today on Monday, April 3, 2006, headline: ``Growth in Federal Spending Unchecked.'' The borrow and spend Republican Congress. A USA Today editorial on February 21 of this year, the title of it was ``Who's Spending Big Now? The party of `small government.' '' ``Tax cuts, they say, force hard decisions and restrain reckless spending. The last time we looked, though, Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. They are the spenders. In fact, since they took control in 2001, they have increased spending by an average of nearly 7.5 percent a year, more than double the rate in the last 5 years of Clinton-era budgets.'' Now, what we talk about on this floor every night is the difference between words and actions. They can say that they are the party of small government and more personal responsibility and the claptrap that they like to throw around that are just words.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is important to note that this is a matter of priorities. What is sad, and I am the least senior among the five of us, and what I have found the most sad since joining the Congress and joining you all last year, is how far astray we have come from when President Clinton was in office. When President Clinton was in office and I was in my state legislature in Florida, what I watched Congress debate was what we were going to spend the surplus on. Were we going to use the surplus that we had at that time to shore up Social Security? Were we going to shore up Medicare? We didn't have a deficit. We had a surplus. And Mr. Meek, I think it would be a good idea for you to get back to really describing the scope of the foreign debt that we have here, because we got you mid map. But we really need to make sure that people understand the stark contrast between what we were able to debate during the Clinton administration and what we are forced to debate now. So I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because I want to illuminate what you just said because actually, we put our action where our words are, because it is not just that we said that we should drop those tax cuts by just a little bit and make sure we could fund port security. Here is the third party validation that we always talk about. On June 18, 2004, there was an amendment by Representative Dave Obey, who is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee that Mr. Rothman sits on. He offered an amendment to increase port and container security by $400 million. Republicans refused to allow consideration of that amendment. October 7, 2004 an amendment offered by Representatives Obey and Sabo and Senator Byrd that would have increased funding to enhance port security by $150 million. Republicans defeated this amendment along party lines. September 29, 2005, just last fall, there was an amendment which Representatives Obey, Sabo and Senator Byrd, again, to increase funding for port and container security by $300 million; all of these proposing to drop the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans by just a small amount of money. The House Conferees, led by the Republicans, defeated this amendment along party lines. And March 2, 2006, Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats to bring the King-Thompson Dubai port deal bill to the floor, which would have expedited procedures to ensure a congressional vote on the Dubai port deal bill sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. And Republicans voted against that 197-216. So who is for port security?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, be happy to yield.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too support H.J. Resolution 82 to reappoint Alan G. Spoon of Massachusetts for a new 6-year term as a citizen regent of the Smithsonian Institution. I want to mention that my colleague, the Hon. Congressman Barney Frank, joins me in the support of this resolution as well. Alan Spoon was previously appointed to the Board of Regents by Congress in 2000. He is a member of the executive committee of the board and chairman of the Finance and Investment Committee. As was mentioned, Mr. Spoon is the managing partner of Polaris Venture Partners, an investment company, and was previously president of The Washington Post Company. Prior to that experience, Mr. Spoon also served as president of Newsweek magazine, an impressive accomplishment. He also brings previous experience to the Smithsonian as a member of the National Museum of Natural History's advisory board. I believe the Smithsonian will continue to benefit from Alan Spoon's financial, marketing, and management background and continuing experience on the Board of Regents. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 82 so that this joint resolution can be signed into law before the May meeting of the Smithsonian regents. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise in support of House Joint Resolution 81 to appoint Dr. Phillip Frost of Florida for a 6-year term as a citizen regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Frost, who is a medical doctor, is a noted collector of American abstract art and a philanthropist, who, since 1987, as was mentioned, has served as the chairman of the board and CEO of the IVAX Corporation, which develops and markets pharmaceutical products. Dr. Frost and his wife, Patricia, gave their 113-piece collection of American abstract art to the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 1986. In another major philanthropic donation, they previously gave a $33 million gift to the University of Miami for its school of music. Subsequently, the school of music was named after Dr. Frost and his wife, Patricia. Dr. Frost's broad background in medicine, science, business, and culture will be a valuable asset to the Smithsonian. And, Madam Speaker, just as a personal aside, I have a personal relationship with Dr. Phil Frost. He is a renowned philanthropic contributor both in the community in south Florida and across this country. I have worked with him on several projects and also would like to note his deep commitment and involvement in the Jewish community in south Florida, and I am privileged to be able to stand before this House today and ask unanimous support for this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 81 so that this joint resolution can be signed into law before the May meeting of the Smithsonian regents.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No question about it. I want to follow up on something that the gentlewoman from Texas focused on, because a lot of people in America, even I have a hard time getting my mind around what a billion and a trillion is. It is hard to think about it in everyday terms. So we had it boiled down in very convenient chart form to help illustrate what a billion is. For example, a billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age. A billion minutes ago, it was 104 AD, and the Chinese first invented paper. A billion seconds ago, it was 1975, and the last American troops had just pulled out of Vietnam. All of those things, a very long time ago. A billion is a big, big number, clearly, measured in terms of time. But a billion dollars ago, under this administration and this Republican Congressional leadership, was only 3 hours and 32 minutes ago at the rate that our government currently spends money. That is astonishing. That is what it means when you think about what a billion means under this Republican leadership.