Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Our difficulty on this subcommittee is to prioritize these essential projects, and Open World, given its odd fit in the legislative branch, presents a major challenge for us.

I have always pushed Open World to increase its fund-raising from nongovernmental sources.

The Open World Leadership Center's request of $10 million is equal to the fiscal year 2012 level, which is somewhat surprising, given the fiscal difficulties that we are having.

They're cutting the seniors that they deliver meals to back by one meal a day because of the sequester cuts.

Because it has always been done that way.

Assuming the sequester remains in place and we are not able to replace it with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that is more reasonable, what do you think you are going to need for overtime in fiscal year 2014 with the current door…

Obviously, a lot of people have been frustrated, naturally, by the door closures and the longer lines that are the results of sequestration.

Just be straight with me.

I mentioned in my opening that I was told in 2011 that the radio modernization program project was on schedule to be completed in spring of 2012.

We are nearly 12 years past 9/11, with a problem that we identified as needing urgent correction still incomplete.

We have got to come up with another word for that. No one knows what the heck that means.

Can I ask you a question?

There was great support, bipartisan support, to fund the project.

Congratulations to your team, working with the Metro Police, in getting all that sorted out.

I want to publicly thank you and all of your members for what you do for keeping us safe.

So was that an attempt for you to give the House standing after the fact?

Was the creation of the leadership group, was its purpose originally, or has it ever been used in the way that the Republican leadership has chosen to use it, wherein the Department of Justice declines to continue defending a particular…

But just because there hasn't been any challenge doesn't mean that it was a right or that we had the authority as the House of Representatives to intervene.

So since this was a rules change in the 113th, and based on your answer, what gave you standing to defend DOMA during the 112th Congress?

The House rules package passed in January 2013 authorized the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress to act as the successor...

But is it realistic to say that fall of 2013 is no longer realistic?

So in that same line of questioning, the budget request for the House highlights a change that we made to Federal workers benefits.

But was the language in the House rules in the 113th Congress specifically referring to DOMA in response to the Court's questioning of whether the House had standing in the case?

And obviously in a buyout situation we are targeting the most experienced staff who make the most money.

Hopefully you won't have to.