Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, do you know what that is called? That is called taking from the needy and giving to the greedy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But do not worry because last week President Bush rode in on his white steed to the rescue of the American people and addressed the culture of corruption and cronyism and lack of competence that is going on and emanating from the White House.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, yes, do not worry. White House staff attendance is mandatory for anyone holding any level of security clearance.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. This is a 4-hour class that actually I think it is being given this week by White House counsel Harriet Miers' office, who, of course, we know has been doing such a bang-up job at guiding the White House through their ethical morass.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He has multiple titles, actually. I know that he has more than just that one title. And the President has not dismissed him or asked him to step aside.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. One hundred thirty years.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Deputy chief of staff.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. While you are on the rule, about an hour ago, the Rules Committee reported a rule which are the directions that are given to the House for legislation that we consider each day. The Rules Committee gives us the parameters under which we can operate and act on each bill. So, the rule for tomorrow that has come out on a party-line vote for this budget reconciliation bill tomorrow, is called a closed rule. You may be asking, well, what is a closed rule, what does that mean? A lot of the terms we use in Washington are cryptic. A closed rule means that no one can offer any amendments to this bill. We will have, using the term that people have heard so often, an up-or-down vote on this budget reconciliation bill. A short time ago, I recall that one of the distinguished members of the Rules Committee was discussing with us how open the process is and how much input we as Democrats in the minority party have had in the process and how many amendments we have been able to get in and have considered. This document, this bill, that we are considering tomorrow is perhaps the most important piece of legislation which will have the most far- reaching impact of almost anything that we are going to consider in this Congress: $844 million in food stamps, eliminating 300,000 people off of food stamp rolls, cutting child care, $17.5 billion in financial assistance to college students. The list goes on and on, and the Republican leadership, because we have got to call it like it is, created a closed rule so that we cannot offer any changes to that bill tomorrow, none. That is the democracy.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Could I ask a question?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think it is always helpful for us to provide information to people who do not really know much about this process here. It is kind of arcane. Maybe you could help describe for people who are wondering about the process, we have to name each piece of legislation, so that it is descriptive for the membership.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ideally, it is actually supposed to define what we are doing.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, is that an opportunity for us to amend the bill or change it?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What does that let us do?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I ask you another question on that point. In the time that you have been here, which is 3 years now, has a motion to recommit ever passed out of the House of Representatives since you have been here?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So they never send a bill back to committee even if something may be wrong with it?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to elaborate on what my colleague is saying, because some people might think that this is unusual and that it is a rare occurrence that they would close a bill and not allow us to offer any amendments. This is just my first year, but I wanted to just check on what the Republican leadership's track record is in terms of allowing us the input that they say they so desperately want us to provide. There have been about 85 bills, as of last Thursday, which was November 3, 85 bills that we have considered on this floor that were amendable. There are lots of bills we consider that are under what is called the suspension calendar, and we vote those up or down. Those are the noncontroversial bills. But 85 bills. Of the 85 bills that were potentially amendable, 38 of them were given restrictive rules where there were severe limitations on the amendments that were allowed to be offered. Severe. Fifteen of those bills were closed, like the one that we are considering tomorrow, meaning no additional amendments were allowed. No amendments at all were allowed. Plus three additional closed rules that were included in another bill. Now, there have been, of the 85, 12 open rules, meaning anyone can offer an amendment, but 11 of those were appropriations bills, spending bills, which we always are allowed to offer amendments to. So what it boils down to, and 10 were conference reports and 10 were procedural. But what that boils down to is that since I was elected and have served in Congress 11 months, we have had one bill, one substantive bill, that had an open rule, one where we could offer any idea we wanted. Now, my colleague from Florida talked earlier about how we all put our pant legs on one at a time. And I wear pants and sometimes I wear skirts, and sometimes I wear pajamas. I might be bringing those tomorrow because we are not sure how long we are going to be here and how long they are going to hold that vote open until they get their way. But we were also all elected by the same number of people, or we certainly represent the same number of people, the same 633,000 people. But we are not all treated equally in this Chamber, because on our side of the aisle we are not allowed to provide the input that they say they want us to provide. I actually just want to, if you do not mind, tell a little story, because we should demonstrate what is going on here in this bill tomorrow. Gene Sperling, who was at one time President Clinton's top economic adviser, he compared this budget and the cutting in the budget to cutting only peanut butter. I will share this story with you. Imagine the following: The father of a financially stretched family decides to live it up. He leases three fully loaded Hummer H1s for the bargain price of $9,750 a month, almost $10,000. As the family's financial situation deteriorates, the father calls the family together for a belt- tightening discussion. He holds up a jar of Whole Foods chunky peanut butter and says, Do you realize we are spending $4.49 on this? We could be saving $2.04 if we bought Skippy Peanut Butter for only $2.45. His teenage son responds, like, Dad, man, why are you busting on us about two bucks on peanut butter when you are spending like almost $10,000 a month on cars? Then the father responds, Do not change the subject. We are talking about peanut butter. Well, that is essentially what the leadership is saying by giving tax cuts to millionaires and the greedy, their cronies, and cutting programs for veterans, children, and the poor who are the needy. They are basically saying, We need to talk about the peanut butter, that is all that matters to us. In some of the time we have left, we should let people know just exactly what the conscience vote is tomorrow, so that people know when we all go to sleep tonight just who is going to be able to wake up and look at themselves in the mirror and hold their head up high. We are being asked tomorrow to vote to cut $844 million from food stamps. They say there is fraud in the food stamp program and that we need to reduce waste. Well, I held up this picture earlier tonight, and I will hold it up again, because I think it is very descriptive. There is the picture of the 25,000 people who lined up in Broward County today to apply for food stamps after getting hit by Hurricane Wilma. They started lining up at 3 a.m. They did not line up for emergency funding.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And this does not come from FEMA money. This is not the emergency funding. This comes right out of the food stamp program. We have cuts in child care. We have cuts that would prevent us from ensuring that deadbeat dads are pursued. There is a $4.9 billion cut from child support programs. As a result, parents will receive $7.1 billion, as the chart points out, less in child support over 5 years and $21.3 billion less over 10 years. There is a $577 million cut from foster care. Now, I know there are colleagues of mine on the other side of the aisle who are just bristling at that possibility. They do not want to make it so that families cannot take children in.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is real.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They will not have a choice.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank my colleague. And there is good news in all of this sadness. And that is the best word I can apply to this piece of garbage that we are going to consider tomorrow. There is good news, because the voters get it. They know this country should be turned around and moved in a new direction, and they sent a very strong message yesterday. We had a number of elections across this country yesterday, and in every single one that rose and fell on issues like these, who won? The Democrats won. We will have a Democratic governor of Virginia, we will have a Democratic governor of New Jersey. All eight initiatives in California that would have abused the process, abused democracy, that would have harmed people had they passed in California, which were initiated by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, were repudiated by the voters of California. All eight were defeated. So it is very clear that the American people are rejecting their agenda and want to go in a new direction.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually has to reduce the deficit.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why would you want to do that?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What does that mean?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, let us just give them the benefit of doubt. Let us say we did not think the President should fire him. We do, but let us say, why has the President not suspended him at least until he called upon even the White House council to do an internal investigation? They are really good at copping to internal investigations and not allowing independent investigations of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing. But he has not even suggested that his duties should be suspended so that you can clear the cloud away.