Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When you are talking about your faith, my faith, I am a member of the Jewish faith, our faith talks about the spirit of Tikkun Olam and giving back to our community and thinking of those who are less fortunate. We are referring to the party that claims to corner the market on faith-based values. If you look at every aspect of their agenda, there is not a component of their agenda that has anything to do with what our faith traditions teach us or with values or with making sure that the least of us and the least among us are assisted. We are supposed to be their voice. If you had listened to the religious leaders who have come to this Capitol and talked about how abominable they think this proposal is, both the budget reconciliation bill and the tax cut package tomorrow is, then you would know that they do not have the moral high ground in this debate whatsoever.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When Mr. Murtha, who has taken each of us, no matter what generation of Member we are, has taken each of us under his wing, I know I have had an opportunity to learn from him and be mentored by him and I am not on Armed Services or Homeland Security or any of the committees of reference but yet he is still willing to sit down. What was the response on the other side of the aisle to Mr. Murtha's jump-starting this dialogue and doing what essentially the Nation has been begging for and that is to make sure that this body has a dialogue and has a debate and a discussion? To question Mr. Murtha's patriotism. That was their reaction. It wasn't, Gee, how can we sit down and hash out our differences. It wasn't, Well, we don't agree with you on redeployment. No matter how you feel about to what degree or how quickly we should withdraw the troops, there is no question that Mr. Murtha is a man with 37 years of experience in the Marines and 30 years in this body, having been the chair of the defense appropriations committee on which he is now the ranking member. That is what they do. They undermine and undercut and insidiously insult the patriotism of an unbelievable American like Jack Murtha, and it is outrageous. He deserves better and the country deserves better than where they have taken this debate.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And a culture of corruption.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. Unless you believe that the contracting and the culture of corruption and cronyism and incompetence is reserved for contracting only in the Iraq gulf coast region. We have a third-party validator, in the New York Times today, where in the gulf coast here we have Rosemary Barbour, the wife of the nephew of Haley Barbour, Mississippi's Governor and former Republican National Committee chairman, who now has apparently received $6.4 million in contracts by her company, and 10 separate contracts from FEMA or the General Services Administration without any bid. A no-bid contract.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That we have been talking about, then I do not know what that is. Did that contract have to be no bid? What made the wife of the nephew of the Governor, who is a former RNC chairman, who just also happens to have been a Republican Party activist, what made her the most qualified? Coincidentally? Coincidentally? Oh, gee, she just happens to be related to the Governor of Mississippi, who is the former RNC chairman and who happened to get a no-bid contract, 10 no-bid contracts for services that I would not deem emergency, that needed to not take the time we would like to require in terms of accountability for reviewing contracts and making sure it goes to the responsible bidder, the person who is going to provide that service in the most economical way. I know we are coming in on our last few minutes.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, like it is their piggy bank.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, Mr. Ryan, if we could point to some of these things and they could justifiably say these are anomalies, these are outlandish things that only happen on occasion, but, look: pages and pages. Look how thick this notebook is. I am not making this up.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The wife of the nephew of the Republican Governor of Mississippi, former RNC chairman, $6.4 million in contracts, 10 separate contracts from FEMA and the GSA that were no- bid, for services like providing laundry equipment, delivering tents, and maintaining showers for relief workers.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support and admiration for the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem, which will convene for their Annual Tribute Dinner on November 20th in New York. The American and International Societies for Yad Vashem are the development arms of Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, Israel. The American and International Societies for Yad Vashem provide a great service to the United States and the entire world. Through Yad Vashem's collection of testimonies from Holocaust survivors and families to the database of victims' names, they work to restore the dignity of those who perished and suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Through continuous documentation, Yad Vashem honors the lives and accomplishments of Holocaust survivors. Additionally, they develop educational programs to ensure that future generations never forget the lessons of the Holocaust. This past year, thanks to the help of development efforts by the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem, the museum celebrated the grand opening of the new Holocaust History Museum at Yad Vashem. This phenomenal museum uses technology and symbolism to convey the story of European Jewry during the Holocaust. This year's Annual Tribute Dinner will honor two outstanding couples who have impacted the lives of countless individuals across generations, Mindy and Ira Mitzner of Houston, Texas, and Marilyn and Barry Rubenstein of Brookville, New York. Through their tireless efforts, these couples have made remembering the Holocaust a sacred legacy. Their lives reflect the understanding that our society must heal and remember in order to prevent this catastrophe from repeating itself. I applaud the American and International Societies for Yad Vashem for their vital work in honoring the memory and legacy of Holocaust victims and survivors.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2669.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And we are 30-something by year.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And they protect themselves with the rules. They hide behind the rules.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In that vein, we actually have an e-mail from one of the folks out there in blogger land who wants us to talk about and ask the question, Mr. Speaker, are the rules that have been enacted for the operation of our U.S. House of Representatives constitutional? And if not, what is the remedy for that? There is a person from Vermont. Can a lawsuit be brought about legal or unconstitutional House rules? In other words, all Americans must have representation in their government, Mr. Speaker; and if Democrats are ignored because of House rules, not allowed hearings like the ones you are talking about, not allowed to offer an amendment on the House floor to legislation when we are duly elected in the same way, putting our pant legs on one at a time just like they do, or a skirt, like I do on occasion, because of House rules that give full power to a majority political party, half the country does not have representation in the day-to-day business of our own government. That is the bottom line. We are shut down. And this is not about whining. This is not about, gee, we cannot get in our say. This is about that we were duly elected just like every one of the other 434 Members of this body, and it is not like that in the U.S. Senate. In the U.S. Senate, the minority is treated with respect. It does not always go their way, but they can at least make an impact. It is truly enough. What is more unfortunate is how the Republican leadership in this Chamber misrepresents how the process works here, as if we are allowed to call hearings whenever we want to or have subpoena power in the Katrina committee that was created a few weeks ago. They really, consistently, at least since I have been here from the beginning of this year, if you recall during the Schiavo case, facts were not relevant. They just made it up if it suited their argument.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The bottom line is that every morning the President gets an intelligence document that we are not privy to. He gets massive amounts of intelligence that they do not widely distribute, even though we have security clearance, widely distribute to Members of Congress. So they were able to be, one would think, Mr. Speaker, selective in what they released to the Members of Congress when we were in the throes of making the decision about whether or not to support, and I was not here at that time, but when those of you that were here were in the throes of deciding whether to support the war. I just want to read this question that brought this all to mind. You have Mr. Lehman from Goshen, Indiana, who said to us, Since the Iraq war and tax breaks for the wealthy have devastated our Federal budget, why can't the Democrats invoke procedures to semi-close down Congress as this is an emergency situation which is affecting our national economy when the money could be better spent on domestic social programs including hurricane relief. Cut and strut. That is a really good point. If the American people are asking what are we doing in Iraq when we have so many needs here, when we have literally hundreds of thousands of people in our gulf coast twisting in the wind literally because we cannot get them the assistance they need, yet we are sending millions of dollars, billions of dollars as the gentleman from Ohio has detailed in the charts we have here in the last few weeks that we have been talking about this, the administration has literally chosen sending assistance, infrastructure rebuilding assistance, to the Iraqi people and we are not able to provide that for our own people. All the while, today, they may still be in the committee meeting now, our own Ways and Means Committee is marking up the tax reconciliation bill, $70 billion in tax reconciliation to supposedly balance out the budget deficit, the budget deficit reduction act which is a total misnomer that they could not pass last week. The reason that they could not pass it and the reason that it makes no sense is because if you are passing $70 billion in tax cuts and $50 billion in spending cuts, that still leaves $20 billion. That is the kind of thing that the people who are communicating with us are asking, just like Mr. Lehman from Indiana.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Both of my colleagues are absolutely right. The President has some nerve questioning our patriotism. That is what America is all about. I happen to be in the middle of reading Washington's biography. The Founding Fathers created this country so that there could be an opportunity for a vocal minority to express dissent. The farthest thing from their mind when they created this country was that opposition would be unpatriotic. Of course it is certainly understandable given the climate that the Republican leadership has created here where they do not allow or expect either members of their own party to disagree with them and certainly have structured the rules so that it is virtually impossible for us to voice disagreement or make a significant impact on the process once the process reaches here. Mr. Speaker, the people that have communicated with us have caused me to ask this question. Not only has the President called into question the patriotism of those of us who have questioned why we are still there and when are we going to have a plan to withdraw, but he has also implied that Democrats who have objected to the way we got into this war and the misrepresentation or misallocation of the facts that led us into this war, he has also suggested that those same Democrats saw the same intelligence that the President did. No, they did not. That is factually inaccurate.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe we need a glossary for Mr. Delahunt.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is really amazing, and I guess, you know, it would not be a surprise. It was an excellent suggestion on your part, Mr. Ryan; and we, I think, are trying to make our generational working group here innovative. I mean, I think we all, as individual Members of Congress basically make our highest priority the ability and desire for us to interact directly with our constituents. And the one place that we are generally not able to do that is on the floor when we are here debating the very issues that impact everyone in this country. We can interact fairly well with constituents in committee because they can obviously testify in front of us in committee meetings. We obviously interact with constituents in our offices. But once we are here, this is a very insular environment. This opportunity tonight for us to kick this off, 30-something Live, and interact with people who will be submitting questions to us online will be historic and exciting.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The only difference in your definition of 30- something is maybe it is 30-something by decade.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is not the last time we are going to do this. We are kicking this effort off. So even if we do not get to all the questions tonight, which with over 400 we obviously will not be able to in the 60 minutes, we will be doing this again.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, of course. The name of this legislation is the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I am a freshman and I do not know the rules in that book as well as the two of you or as well as some of my senior colleagues. So I wonder if there is anything in the book, the rules book, that says you cannot be inaccurate or misleading.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle taking issue or calling into question what we have been saying about what they would propose to do to our Nation's veterans. I did not notice them holding up anything in black and white that disproves what we are saying.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I did not notice.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He required all of the White House staff to take an ethics refresher course this week.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And their answer to the deficit that they have ballooned is to not just hurt veterans, but to hurt people just when they are on the cusp of being able to make a change and turn the corner in their life. There are $844 million in food stamp cuts in this bill. Now, I have heard some of our friends on the Republican side of the aisle argue that there is fraud in the food stamp program and that there are people who are collecting food stamps that do not deserve it or maybe we do not have as many people who need food stamps these days. Well, today, not yesterday, not 5 months ago, not a year ago, today, this is a picture of a line of 25,000 people, 25,000 people in Broward County where I am from, who lined up as early as 3:00 in the morning to sign up for food stamps following Hurricane Wilma. Now, I checked to make sure that I was being accurate when I came down here tonight. This food stamp application process is through the regular food stamp program, nothing special, no special appropriations, nothing from FEMA. This is 25,000 people, most of whom have never before applied for public assistance. Now, if the Republicans are going to say that there are not people in need and that it is more important to cut taxes for the wealthy then to provide for the people who are standing in this line, who have already been through so much, then really I guess we are serving with many who are serving in this Chamber without conscience.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let us just make sure people understand and the Speaker understands that we are not talking about made-up numbers here that we are just pulling out of thin air. In the Washington Post last Thursday, another third-party validator, they describe the cuts in this bill and they go on to say, The food stamp cuts in the House measure would knock nearly 300,000 people off nutritional assistance programs, including 70,000 legal immigrants, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is the office that we get our economic facts from. Those immigrants would lose their benefits because the House measure would require legal immigrants to live in the United States for 7 years before becoming eligible for receiving food stamps. About 40,000 children would lose eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches, the CBO estimated. The food stamp cuts, if approved, will especially affect 11 States, including Maryland, that use the changes in the food stamp law, approved with the President's support in 2002, to expand eligibility and to simplify the application process. Under the House measure that we will consider tomorrow, eligibility for food stamps would be tightened to exclude some recipients, get this, who qualify for nutritional support simply because they qualify for other antipoverty programs funded by the Federal welfare program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, not eliminate fraud, not eliminate people who are not supposed to be getting food stamps, but eliminate people who already qualify because they qualify for other poverty programs. And then today we have 25,000 more people in one county applying for the same program that we are going to cut 300,000 from tomorrow if this bill passes. Where is outrage? Where is the conscience? I want to know how our colleagues are going to sleep tonight knowing that they have to cast this vote tomorrow.