Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You talk about the quarterback, and let us continue the football analogy. If you have got the quarterback in the FEMA Director not having any ability to get things done, let us continue the football analogy and call Secretary Chertoff the coach, and the President the man in the front office. You have got both of those people who we cannot have any confidence in either. And I will take a less than left-leaning example here, an excerpt from Fox News Sunday, because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) talks about it not being intentional. The gentleman is right. It is not intentional. Their response was not intentional. It was just indifferent. The indifference is what is shocking. And you had Chris Wallace go through this exchange with Secretary Chertoff on Fox News Sunday this past Sunday. Mr. Wallace said, ``But Mr. Secretary, you know there are an awful lot of people around the country that are asking these questions and want to hear answers from you today. During the week, during this past week you seemed to minimize or not to know about a lot of problems on the ground in New Orleans. Let us watch some of those.'' And then he went on to show him some of the clips. And this was Secretary Chertoff's response: ``We are extremely pleased at the response that every element of the Federal Government, all of our Federal partners have made to this terrible tragedy. There have been isolated incidents of criminality. We have all seen pictures of looting.'' Then he goes on to say: ``I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the Convention Center who do not have food and water.'' Well, I can understand why, because yesterday when we had the briefing in this Chamber from most of the members of the Cabinet, you had one of the Secretary of Defense's military leaders stand up and say that the pictures we have all seen on TV are just like looking through a straw, that that does not show the full picture. We are looking through a straw, that they are extremely pleased with their response and it is going exceedingly well. So then he goes on to say, what Chris Wallace says: ``Mr. Secretary, how is it possible that you could not have not known on late Thursday, for instance, that there were thousands of people in the Convention Center who did not have food, who did not have water, who did not have security, when that was being reported on national television?'' Secretary Chertoff says: ``Well, Chris, you know, that is one of the issues we have to look at. I mean, we were in constant touch with what was going on in the field, getting information from State and local officials. As it happened on that very Thursday I was in a video conference with State officials and did not get any information about this. And one of the things we will look at is why in the middle of this emergent crisis there was a conflict in the information.'' You know, I can tell Secretary Chertoff why the State and local officials did not feel like they had to tell you that there were people at the Convention Center, because you could not turn on your TV and not see them dehydrating in front of your very eyes. How about the woman who had her dehydrated baby who she could not even wake up? I mean, I have a 2-year-old. God forbid that ever happened in my family. I can assure you that if it happened in the community that I represent, I have a hunch that the response would have been a little bit quicker because my constituents are not poor and they are not African American primarily. You know, you talk about the South, and obviously I am one of those Members that would be very protective of the South. But this could be a natural disaster in Detroit or in Wisconsin or name any State with a black community or a predominantly poor community, and there but for the grace of God go them. I mean, really. We are not here to point fingers. We are just here to point at what has been happening in front of our very eyes. And this has just got to stop. We do have to come up with solutions. We cannot hand out $50 billion to a person who is running the show like it is a circus, like he is the ring leader in a circus, and not a very good one. It is just inexcusable. We cannot ever let this happen again, and we have got to draw a line in the sand and say this far and no further.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that my thoughts and prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered as a result of the destruction of this devastating natural disaster. I represent South Florida, an area that is far too often in the cone of error of just about every hurricane that approaches the United States and also home to the last time a Category 5 storm hit a United States territory. As I speak here tonight, it is unclear how many people have been killed or will ultimately die as a result of this storm. What is clear is that America has received a wake-up call, and it came in the form of Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina calls into question our preparedness as a Nation to deal with any kind of major disaster, whether it is a natural disaster or a disaster resulting from a terrorist attack. This month marks the fourth anniversary of the September 11 attack on our Nation. Our country saw the devastation that could be caused by a terrorist attack, recognized our vulnerabilities and supposedly set about the task of protecting Americans as best we could from disaster. The administration knew about the vulnerabilities of the levees in New Orleans. They knew about the level of poverty that exists in the Gulf States that would hamper evacuation plans, and they should have known at a minimum the day before the hurricane hit that they would need more law enforcement, rescue, medical and evacuation personnel. And herein lies the problem: They knew about these problems as we know about many problems and vulnerabilities that exist throughout other cities nationwide, yet we have been slow to act to improve the situation. I represent a city, the City of Miami, which is the third poorest in the Nation. In prior years, local officials in New Orleans recommended a plan that would have cost $14 billion to reinforce the levee and pump system that keeps New Orleans safe. The State of Louisiana sent out a call for help that the project was too big, and they needed Federal assistance to even begin the project. And the pleas for help from State and local officials fell on deaf ears in the White House and Congress. Let us put the New Orleans levee construction into perspective. We spend over $1 billion a week on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we just handed out $14 billion to oil companies in President Bush's energy bill we passed this summer. What is the ultimate lesson of Katrina? The lesson is that the officials that were supposed to provide support, safety and security to the people in the Gulf States failed. The result was a situation where every emergency coordinator knew that disaster was imminent. However, the existing emergency infrastructure was not there to remove people from harm's way, and by doing so, it could have saved their lives. We cannot as local, State and Federal officials draw up plans, have a 1-day mock disaster drill, and then pat ourselves on the back and say our job is done here. The government is here to provide the infrastructure that is necessary to prevent deaths from imminent disaster and step in immediately afterwards to ensure that deaths do not result from the destruction caused by that disaster. I think that the response from the Federal Government fell far short of that standard. The lesson that Hurricane Katrina needs to have taught our government officials is that the current emergency management infrastructure could not handle a disaster the size of Katrina, and that we must streamline and reform our disaster preparedness and response. And we have to do it today. Our Nation's first priority should be to provide security, safety and infrastructure here at home. It is a disgrace that it took a disaster of such magnitude to bring light to the weaknesses of our system, and we must take the lessons learned to ensure that such catastrophes do not occur again. At the very least, we need not have our leaders respond in the fashion that the President and the Speaker of the House and a number of other leaders have in the last 10 days, indicating that perhaps they did not think New Orleans should be rebuilt and perhaps the people who did not get out of New Orleans made a bad decision. We need to think about the wherewithal that people in these communities had prior to the storm, and we need to give them that wherewithal to move forward and go on so we can rebuild New Orleans and make sure that we never have to stare down a hurricane the magnitude of Katrina and not be prepared as we were in this storm.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, my deepest condolences go to the victims of Hurricane Katrina who have lost their lives, their homes and their livelihoods. For many, it did not have to be this way. I represent south Florida, an area with a great deal of experience with hurricanes. Frankly, the planning and response efforts that I have seen from FEMA and the rest of the Federal Government leaves my confidence in our ability to respond to any kind of domestic disaster shaken and makes me fear for my constituents should a hurricane, or other disaster of this magnitude strike south Florida. There are some serious questions to be asked: Why with several days' notice about this storm, were more people not evacuated? Where was the plan to evacuate people who did not have the money or ability to evacuate themselves? When the size and strength of the storm was known, why wasn't a response team in place to go into affected areas immediately? Why was Federal funding to reinforce the levee system cut when it would have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars? And, given that this disaster was the first large scale test of the new Department of Homeland Security and their Federal Emergency Management Agency, does this new structure improve or hamper disaster prevention, response and relief? Yesterday morning, President Bush went onto NBC's Today Show and made the following statement: ``The critical thing was to get people out of there before the disaster. Some people chose not to obey that order. That was a mistake on their part.'' President Bush's statement shows a complete lack of understanding of, and insensitivity to, the plight facing so many American families today, or why those families died or are now suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The United States Census Bureau reports that in 2004 over 23 percent of the population of the city of New Orleans was living at or below the poverty level. The poverty level is $12,334 a year for a family of two, or $19,307 a year for a family of four. Mr. President, when a husband and wife only make $12,334 they very likely do not have a car, or money for gasoline, or even money for a bus fare to get out of town. It was not a mistake on their part, but rather Mr. President, a mistake on your part that you did not have a plan to evacuate these families from the path of imminent danger. One thing is very clear; poor planning, and a slow response to an imminent disaster has cost hundreds of people their lives and hundreds more will die if the Government does not significantly increase its response. Even today, there are over 200,000 National Guard troops that have not been called up to help in the relief efforts. Even today, the Navy's Hospital ship Comfort remains in Baltimore Harbor, and will not set sail for the Gulf until Saturday and will not reach the Gulf for a week after that. Our government must be better prepared to plan and respond to disasters of every kind in this country. But for right now, we must mobilize the incredible resources of the Federal Government and respond to this crisis in a manner that recognizes that people are dying as we speak because not enough has been done to help them.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Paul amendment and, in addition, in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3199 for several reasons. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, I watched as Members of Congress came together in a bipartisan effort to craft legislation which would, it was argued, strengthen law enforcement's hand in fighting terrorists. Americans from across the political spectrum were willing to sacrifice some of the freedoms we cherish to immediately address security concerns, with the understanding that many provisions would be revisited and the civil liberty protections that we all hold so dear would be addressed. But by making these provisions permanent, without mandatory congressional review, we placed the very democracy that we hold so dear in jeopardy. When restricting civil liberties, we should be extremely careful about forfeiting those freedoms without reviewing the ongoing need to continue to restrict them. In these contemporary times, it may be difficult for us to conceive of the barbarous proceedings of the Salem witch trials. Indeed, they continue to perplex and horrify those of us who came later. But imagine if those perceptions and resulting actions were somehow a permanent part of our society today without an opportunity for review as to their validity? If they were, under the PATRIOT Act's intrusive infringement on America's book purchases and library records, when the most recent episode in the Harry Potter Book series was released last Friday, we would have had hundreds of thousands of children ``burned at the stake.'' And I know this analogy might seem a bit extreme, but that is just how extreme things can become without proper checks and balances when restricting our civil liberties and freedoms, which is why we should support the Paul amendment, because true freedom of expression is an important thing to preserve. I am hopeful that when this legislation comes back from conference that we will have a product that we can all embrace, but today I will vote for freedom. I will support the Paul amendment and I will vote against final passage of this version of the bill.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, there are three things I want to add to augment the gentleman from Florida's comments. One of them is 30-something oriented. I noted when I went and spoke at Memorial Day services this year and Veterans' Day services on November 11 of last year, that every previous Veterans' Day and Memorial Day that I was able to participate in as an elected official prior to my time in the legislature, I was able to thank them. And generally the crowds that come to those events are older folks, senior citizens especially in Florida, veterans of many wars. I was able to say ``thank you'' from our generation, because prior to now, our generation is the first since before World War II that has never been called to war, that had never had the casualties that the generations before us had. And I was able to thank them for allowing us to stand on their shoulders and their sacrifice. But I cannot say that any more. I cannot say that any more, because, as was read tonight, the more than 1,500 names that we are in the process of reading, we could have a whole hour just on the Iraq war and our deep concerns over that. But to continue in the gentleman's thought process about health care for veterans, I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago and had an opportunity to visit with soldiers who had come back from Iraq and Afghanistan without their legs, hearing their stories, watching the pain etched in their face, and the dedication that they have. To the person, they wanted to go back, and their regret was they were not able to, they had to leave their comrades behind. These people are struggling to get the health care they need when they are still enlisted. At home in South Florida and across the country, our veterans, as the gentleman said, 6 months is not an exaggeration for how long our veterans have to wait to get their health care needs taken care of. Is that the thanks that we give them, the proud veterans that have served this country? We sound so soap-boxish, but your actions have to back up your words. It is really nice to stand on the floor and give a good speech and get all choked up, but what matters is how you cast that vote and what your light up on that board when they put it up there says, and you are either with them or against them. The Members that voted against those amendments that were offered in committee and on this floor and who opposed them, in spite of valiant speeches that were made on behalf of those veterans, should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have demonstrated here tonight, as we will in the future, that there are so many issues facing our generation, and we need to make sure that we take this country back in the right direction so that when our generation inherits the results of the decisions that we are making here, that we are not struggling to make sure that we can clean up the mess that was left for us.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida will continue to yield, if he does not mind my adding one more thing, like I said, I am a freshman. I was elected. I have been in Congress for 6 months. I really expected there to be a lot more collegiality in this body. The gentlemen are veterans, now, of this process. I have talked to my Republican freshmen colleagues on the other side. We all expected there to be more of an opportunity to work together, less rancor. It is sort of astonishing, and it is astonishing, I think, to the average American that we are still bickering about this and that we are all sharpening our elbows and digging in and going to our respective corners instead of acknowledging, like we are willing to do, that there is a problem with Social Security. It is not a crisis like the President has been portraying; but there is a problem, a long-term problem with Social Security, and we need to come together and make some changes. But, unfortunately, the leadership in this Congress, the Republican leadership, just wants to be right, or somehow if they say it enough times, perhaps they think that they will be right when the American people are clearly telling them they are not.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the two of us are from a State and from a region of a State where it would be expected that there would be deep, deep concern about the potential privatization of Social Security. Obviously, we have a disproportionately high percentage of senior citizens in my district and the gentleman from Florida's district. But like the gentleman from Ohio said, across all demographic groups, all regions of the country, there is no group that has wide or deep support for this concept, and that is because people are uncomfortable at every level with the explosion of the deficit and this proposal's potential to expand it even more. When I asked at my live town hall meetings whether people were confident enough in their own investment ability to be assured that their own investment decisions would carry them all the way through their entire retirement years, no one except for two people in three town hall meetings with more than 600 people in attendance, no one raised their hand, because look at the ebb and flow of the stock market; and this proposal is not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If people hit a bump in the road where one year the stock market is not going so well, it is whatever is left when they retire in that account with a proportionate cut in their Social Security benefits.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is wonderful to be here with the both of them, my two esteemed colleagues from the next generation in the United States Congress, and I have been able to listen to a little of what they have been saying on my way over here. A few weeks ago when we were talking about this before the latest version of the privatization scheme was put on the table, we were talking about how interesting it is that no matter how many times they are told no, they still keep coming back with the same concept, just a different version. And I know I analogized it is like when I speak to my children and they keep asking me and asking me if they can do something that I do not think they should do for one reason or another, whether it is not responsible or they are not old enough, and they try a lot of different versions of the same thing, and the answer is still no because I have carefully reviewed what they want to do, as their parent, and decided it is not the best timing right now or for whatever reason I have concluded it is not a good idea. It would be as if one's teenager came to them and said Mom, Dad, I really want to go to this party, and I want to stay out until 2 o'clock in the morning, and the parent said, no, that is not a good idea, and so they come back to them. This new proposal is like if one's teenager came back to them and said I still want to go to the party, but I promise I will be home by midnight. The whole idea was that they did not want them to go to the party in the first place. And after 60 days initially on the road trying to sell his privatization scheme to the American people and essentially they have rejected it and an additional 60-day effort where the more the President talks about this, the less people like it, it is mindboggling to me. And I am the sort of baby of the group of the three of us, I am a freshman, I was just elected. It is mindboggling to me that they do not want to come to the table now, as we have been asking them to do, and come up with a bipartisan solution. Privatization balloons the deficit. It cuts benefits; and yet every version of their proposal, the premise of it is to privatize Social Security, and that pulls the safety net out from future retirees and, quite honestly, from people who are about to retire. I actually had an electronic town hall meeting today at 4:30, which was amazing. We got tremendous feedback. But can I tell my colleagues that not one person who participated, and I had over 100 people participate live and 120 people signed on in advance of our beginning, and no one said, ``You really need to consider private accounts. We really want you to do this.'' I mean, it is time to sit down and put privatization aside, and like in 1983 when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others who were part of that group sat down and in a bipartisan way came up with a solution. It is time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on four amendments to H.R. 2863, Defense Appropriations for FY 2006, on Monday, June 20 due to a travel delay. I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Velazquez amendment; ``aye'' on agreeing to the DeFazio amendment; ``aye'' on agreeing to the Doggett amendment; and ``aye'' on agreeing to the Obey amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of arrogance, as a new Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Republican majority, I noticed, has become so arrogant that they are now attempting to silence even the opposition from the minority party, preventing us from giving any opposing testimony. The latest abuse comes from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. As the committee prepares to vote on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Chairman Sensenbrenner has conducted 12 hearings on the issue, but has refused to allow almost any testimony from those who oppose the PATRIOT Act or its provisions. Opposing testimony was allowed only after the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) used the rules of the committee to force the chairman to hold a hearing that included Democratic panelists. Clearly miffed by this action, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) scheduled the hearing for just 18 hours later on a Friday morning when the House was not even in session. And that is not the worst of it. During the actual hearing, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) rudely cut opposition voices off, and then abruptly and unilaterally concluded the hearing without a vote of the committee. After Democrats called a point of order, he gaveled the hearing to a close and left the room. When Democrats continued to voice their opposition, he turned the microphones off. When that did not stop them, he turned the lights off in the room. Mr. Speaker, when are Republicans going to realize that the minority voice is an important one?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, last week it was an honor to begin my new assignment as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. This Nation was founded on the principles of ensuring that the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. The display that I witnessed and experienced at our committee hearing last Friday was, honestly, the most egregious abuse of power witnessed in my 13 years of combined public service in three legislative bodies. This is a political institution, with individuals who feel passionately about their views, and this is an institution that runs on power. But my hope is that even when we disagree, we will treat each other with respect and dignity. Respect and dignity were nowhere to be found at that hearing last Friday, and it was a shame. I was particularly surprised and disappointed by the disposition demonstrated by the chairman during the hearing, and found it ironic that the Committee on the Judiciary, whose responsibilities include reviewing, safeguarding and upholding our Constitution, thought nothing of trampling the rights the minority's witnesses by severely limiting their opportunities to be heard. After 9/11, the vast majority of Americans were and remain willing today to give up some of our freedoms and civil liberties in order to keep us safe. When the USA PATRIOT Act was adopted by Congress, there were 16 provisions that were troubling enough to most Members that they were required to be reviewed by Congress before they could remain in law past this year. I think I share the views of many when I say that I may ultimately support all 16 provisions remaining in law. However, it did not seem too much to ask to thoroughly review those provisions, and not just hear a drastically lopsided set of witnesses called by the majority party. If we are going to restrict civil liberties in the name of national and homeland security, it is more important than ever to shine the light on these provisions and make sure they can withstand a rigorous test. Forfeiting civil liberties is not merely an inconvenience for our citizens. It must be a conscious decision, made with full disclosure and review and for good reason. If this forfeiture cannot withstand a review where proponents and opponents have their concerns aired, then our citizens cannot be expected to give up rights they were born with and for which our forefathers and foremothers so desperately fought. It is my hope that, like the other committee on which I serve, the Committee on Financial Services, which operates in an spirit of bipartisanship even on the most contentious of issues, that we can withstand the test, and this should be done without the abuse of power and trampling of democracy that we experienced last week.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for the time. Mr. Chairman, Pericles, a 5th century B.C. Athenian statesman, once said that ``freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.'' I rise today in support of this amendment and to speak on behalf of freedom. Librarians, booksellers, and everyday Americans across the country are deeply concerned about the chilling effect of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which clearly encourages individuals to self-censor their reading sources. USA Today in June of 2004 reported that an FBI agent actually went to a Washington State library branch and requested a list of people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. The librarian refused and informed the agent that he would have to go through legal channels before the names could be released. The FBI then served a subpoena to the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November of 2001. With government having the ability to easily obtain records of books that everyday Americans, our constituents, are borrowing, all of us forfeit the freedom to learn more. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act clearly gives the Federal Government an unwarranted amount of power. There must be a higher standard of suspicion to justify this invasion of privacy. This amendment only applies to the records that contain information about the books and reading materials that are checked out of the library or purchased from a bookstore. It is important to note that prior to September 11, law enforcement was able to arrest Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, via his library records. The authority already existed in law without the secrecy and overreach of section 215. The adage ``keep your friends close and your enemies closer'' can be upheld via the freedom to obtain knowledge about those who wish to do us harm. I urge my colleagues' support.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1996, a bill was proposed to the Broward County Legislative Delegation to annex all of the unincorporated area between Griffin Road to the north, Sheridan Street to the south, Flamingo Road to the east and SR 27 to the west, into the City of Pembroke Pines. Hundreds of citizens from that unincorporated area, known as the Southwest Ranches, packed the Delegation hearing in November of 1996, to protest this attempted takeover and to call for the right to form their own city. As a result of this grassroots effort, the State Legislature passed a bill during the 1997 legislative session, calling for a vote of the citizens of Southwest Ranches in March of 2000. In the summer of 1997, Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association members agreed to actively promote incorporation of a new city for the area and formed a political committee to explore this option. A feasibility committee was appointed to determine if a new city would be viable. On July 3, 1999, the SWRHA sponsored a parade and picnic to declare the area's independence. The bill was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1997, authorizing the vote in 2000 to determine if residents wanted to annex or form their own city. On March 14, 2000, residents voted overwhelmingly to form a new Town. The election to approve the Town's charter was held on June 6, 2000, and Council Members were elected on July 25, 2000. On that day, Southwest Ranches was officially in business. This year, we celebrate the Fifth Anniversary of the Town of Southwest Ranches and commemorate the preservation of the beautiful land and environment that its residents love so much.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I represent a district with a pretty sizable percentage of wealthy individuals. And when I am home, I cannot tell you the numbers of people who come up to me and say, you know, I would love to have a tax break, but I care about my children's education a lot more. I care about the Nation's financial and fiscal health a lot more. Keep your tax break. I barely felt it, and it really is not going to make that much difference in my life. Many, many people who are wealthy and qualify for those tax breaks understand where their priorities are and should be. It seems that only the administration and the leadership of this Congress does not have their priorities straight. I mean, even Mr. Obey, when we were considering the Defense Appropriations Bill in the last couple of weeks, when he offered an amendment to reduce the tax break for the wealthiest few Americans, I think it was half a percent. I think it was an incredibly small amount of money, just a little bit less of a tax break, that the wealthiest few would have received in order to expand the inspections, the percentage of inspections that we perform at our ports, for the cargo in ports, and that, even that amendment was rejected. We chose tax breaks for the wealthy over our homeland security. Now if that is not priorities being out of whack, then I do not know what is.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is not a lot more that can be said other than that I think that we need to continue to come to this floor every week and I can commit to you that I will join you and make sure that we can continue to highlight the direction that they are taking this country and the increased debt and the selection of the people who need the least over the people who need the most. And I am not talking about people who are struggling to make ends meet. You have average working families in America whose priorities include health care and quality education and just making sure that they can stay out of debt. And, instead, the wealthiest few are the priority of the leadership in this Congress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize enough, this is just another example of how the priorities here are out of whack. We had an opportunity a few weeks ago to visit our troops who were injured in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. These were young men, about a dozen of them, that I had an opportunity to visit, the most heart-wrenching stories, many of whom lost their limbs, mostly lost their legs, had their limbs obliterated, defended our country. Every single one of them said to me that all they wanted to do was to go back and they were so sorry to leave their buddies behind. These are people that when they become veterans we slap them with a disabled veterans tax. We say to them that for every dollar that they earn in disability payments, we are going to deduct a dollar from their pension. That is the reward we are giving them for serving our country and for becoming injured in the line of duty. Then we are saying to our members from the National Guard that unless you are within, I think it is, 90 or 180 days of being activated for duty, we are not going to pay for your health care. We do not provide health care to our members of National Guard who we know now are going to be activated at some point, who we know are giving up the salaries that they earn in their regular jobs, who are sometimes covered, sometimes not covered by health insurance at their regular jobs. But one of the things that members of the National Guard have to have to worry about is how to even pay for health care for themselves and their families. Yet we are still providing tax break after tax break for the wealthiest few Americans. I mean, it just is shocking that the top of the priority list is tax breaks and this trickle-down concept that does not ever seem to go away when it comes to the Republican leadership in this Congress, that if we give the tax breaks to the wealthiest few that somehow their investing and spending is going to flow down and help all the little people. We are at the point in our lives where we are real live grown-ups now. Has it worked in our lifetime? It still is not working, and we are still not providing for the people who really need the help, who are defending our country. Instead, we are taking money back from them. We talk about the death tax. We should be talking about the disabled veteran tax, because that is what we are doing to our veterans' pensions when they have been injured in the line of due, and it is absolutely unconscionable.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What happened?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad to be here; and I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi's) willingness to put this group together of the members of the 30-something, 10-year period. We each have a few more years to go. I want to piggyback on something you were just talking about related to the eligibility bar for financial aid. I can tell you just from personal experience all of the way back to when I was entering college and my parents were applying for financial aid for me; and the calculation, even back then, as to what we were eligible for and what the formula said that my parents could afford to pay and lay out that would come out of their pocket for college costs was unbelievable then. And now, with the changes in the financial aid formula today, I mean, even, I grew up in a middle-class family, you know, regular, average middle-class family, you know, not wealthy at all, parents who certainly did not live paycheck to paycheck but had a mortgage and car payments and credit card debt and, you know, pretty significant month- to-month bills. And none of that is taken into consideration when you calculate financial aid. I mean, those major expenses, other than your income, have nothing to do with the formula. So when they say, and back then the numbers were something like, my parents, based on their income, could be expected to pay $16,000 a year for my college education. Now, given all of the bills that they were struggling to pay for, there was no way. Now, fast forward to 2005; and the bar has been raised even higher. And add the credit card debt that has drastically increased, with the bar on the graph at a steep incline. You add that to parents' credit card debt, you have kids now who are starting out with credit card debt even in high school. I mean, that was unheard of when we were in high school. I mean, kids did not start college with credit card debt. They certainly did not begin having credit card debt as early as they do now, with credit card companies literally preying on brand-spanking-new college students with offers and, you know, kids who are willing to sign up to get a credit card just to get a cool t-shirt. These are students that are not financially sophisticated enough to make the kinds of decisions that they are going to have to make so that they will understand the ramifications for themselves financially for themselves down the road. And we have got to have policies that are going to be able to help them get along in the years to come.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They spent 1.8 on tax cuts.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You talk about financial literacy. You are absolutely right. What is happening now, number one, we are not setting the example at the top of the mountain. I mean, what we are doing here is adding to our deficit month after month, year after year. What kind of message are we sending to generations that are going to come behind us about the importance of minimizing your debt? I mean, we are deficit spending. So why would most Americans think that that is not a normal way, a responsible way to live? Most Americans, let me not overstate it, many, many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and they live right to their means. This is a society where, no, I cannot have that now because I cannot afford it right now, is not instilled in people from the time that they are young. That is why financial literacy is so important. We have a Financial Literacy Caucus. I am on the Financial Services Committee, and we have begun an effort, especially on the Democratic side, to try to educate generations coming up through life that at some point you have to decide what you can afford to have, and there has to be a now and a someday and not everything can be in the now. That is also a lesson that Congress and the President could learn, too: Not everything can be in the now. Sometimes we have to make some financial decisions that will say, well, it would be nice if we could afford that humongous tax break for the wealthiest few, but in order to be fiscally responsible we cannot have that now.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Florida student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Sarah Moeller of Davie was named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2005 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Sarah, an eighth-grader at St. Mark Catholic School, is being recognized for organizing a clothing drive to collect suits and nice dresses for struggling Haitian immigrants to wear on job interviews and for special occasions. Sarah was inspired when she heard the pastor of St. Joseph's Haitian Mission speak at her school. Her clothing drive, ``PASS Along Your Sunday Best'' collected 130 complete outfits, which Sarah would sort, wash, mend, press and hang on hangers for distribution to Haitian immigrants. When asked what she hoped her efforts would accomplish, Sarah said, ``I felt that in a small way I was bringing hope and happiness to people in need.'' In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Moeller are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought this young role model to our attention--The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The program seeks to impress upon youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past eight years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 170,000 youngsters participating since its inception. I heartily applaud Ms. Moeller for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly noteworthy in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Florida student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Jaclyn Einstein of Golden Beach was named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2005 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Jaclyn, a junior at University School, is being recognized for raising more than $6,000 for organ transplants in a fund-raising walkathon, as part of an ongoing, multi-year effort on her part to promote organ donation. Not only did Jaclyn raise money for organ donation programs, but she also organized an assembly at her high school to recruit other students to walk with her. Combined, the students raised $6,200 for the University of Miami Transplant Foundation, winning a cruise that she then donated to an 18-year-old heart transplant recipient. When asked what she hoped her efforts would accomplish, Jaclyn said, ``It is my hope, ultimately, that numerous individuals in need will benefit trom receiving an organ transplant through my efforts.'' In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Einstein are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought this young role model to our attention--The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The program seeks to impress upon youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past eight years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 170,000 youngsters participating since its inception. I heartily applaud Ms. Einstein for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly noteworthy in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.