Affirming the support of the United States for a strong and vital alliance with Thailand.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1495 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1495.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1495 provides for consideration of H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, under a closed rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill as amended. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the resolution allows for certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules to be considered the same day they are reported. The resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 3, 2010.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our country is facing enormous troubles like we have not seen since the Great Depression. At the national level, there is clear evidence that some of the actions that the Democratic Congress have taken are, in fact, working. The economy is again growing, and employers are starting once again to hire.

In 2009, we saw the Nation's GDP grow by 2.8 percent in the third quarter, representing the biggest 6-month turnaround in our economy since 1980. In each successive quarter, we have continued to see positive GDP growth. Since the end of 2009, we have created jobs every single month; and in the last 3 months alone, we have created an average of over 300,000 jobs per month. This is a dramatic change in direction from when President Obama took office and the economy had previously been shrinking at minus 5.4 percent and we were losing jobs at an average of 726,000 jobs per month under the Bush administration.

However, although our economic indicators continue to show that we are making significant progress towards recovery, this does not mean that we are out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination. We know that all too well in many pockets of the country, including my own district in the Central Valley of California, the recovery continues to lag well behind the national economic picture. In far too many areas of the country, businesses continue to shed payroll, job losses continue to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have not seen times like this since the Great Depression. These are extraordinary circumstances, and they call for extraordinary measures. Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle may say, what people who are struggling right now need is a hand up; and this Democratic Congress, despite all the obstacles from the other side of the aisle and the other body, will continue to reach out and try to assist Americans with that hand up.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5618 would retroactively restore the emergency unemployment compensation benefits and restore funding for the extended benefits program through the month of November of this year. It would also ensure that States do not cut the level of regular unemployment benefits when they receive these extended Federal benefits, and it would protect workers from having their benefits cut if they experience intermittent earnings which requalify them for regular State unemployment benefits. Without the sort of help provided by this bill, more people will lose their homes, fall behind on their bills and be unable to feed their families. There is a very real risk that the economic crisis could get worse, not better, if we pull the safety net out from under the 1.7 million Americans that are facing these economic conditions right now.

Mr. Speaker, never before in our history has Congress allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of households, including millions of American children across this great Nation simply because the other side of the aisle repeatedly can only say ``no.''

The current emergency unemployment compensation program began to phase out at the end of May, and many of those now losing benefits have only received 26 weeks of regular State-provided unemployment compensation or one of the first tiers of Federal benefits. This means individuals exhausting their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits are not eligible for emergency unemployment benefits at all. This bill will retroactively restore those benefits and continue them and the program through November.

Without this extension, as I said before, an estimated 1.7 million individuals who have lost their jobs will lose their unemployment benefits by July 3. Mr. Speaker, that's no way to celebrate America's independence holiday. This includes well over 300,000 people in California, where our unemployment level is over 12 percent, well above the national average of 9.3. In my own district, the unemployment rates are much higher than even that. In fact, we have numbers that are near the 20 percent mark; and I have in my district the fourth, fifth and sixth highest unemployment rates in my counties in the country.

Nearly every economist will tell you that cutting off unemployment benefits will undermine the economic recovery by suppressing consumer demand at a critical time when we should be enhancing it, and by exacerbating problems, like the home foreclosure crisis that plagues many areas of our country.

I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for bringing this bill forward and for his steadfast commitment to America's hardworking families. It is vitally important that we pass this bill and provide the much-needed help that our constituents need during these trying times.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentlelady and her party don't understand what's happening in Middle America. They don't appreciate what's happening to folks like in my district. They may not hang out in places like my family's bowling alley, where a person who loses their job, and 20 percent of my constituents are nearly out of work, there isn't jobs around every corner. She may have plenty of jobs in her home State. She may not have to worry about that for her constituents.

But in my world, Mr. Speaker, when someone who comes to our bowling alley loses their job, they have nothing else. They don't have the Wall Street bonuses. They don't have the big pension, retirement systems, and the big 401(k) set-aside. They don't have the situation that so many of us need.

We have to provide a safety net for these people, these hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I look at today's Hill newspaper and I look on page 31. And I oftentimes believe that cartoons and political satire speak much more clearly than the words that we can use in big long speeches. And in today's cartoon, although I can't say that it's very funny to the American people who are being affected by it, you see an American citizen bungee jumping off an unemployment benefit bridge. And the elephant in the cartoon, signifying the other party, snips the line as the American's jumping off. And the comment in the caption reads, ``Don't worry, I'm sure you will land on your feet.'' I think too oftentimes we have this situation where we just expect that Americans are going to land on their feet, and we don't care about those who get left behind. That's what my discussion was today.

The gentleman just referred to the President's comments in Wisconsin about Mr. Boehner. And I would just refer to those comments that Mr. Boehner equated the financial bill that we passed yesterday, the regulatory reform bill that so many Americans are yearning for, he said it was a nuclear weapon to be used on an ant. The problem was an ant. Well, my constituents certainly don't think they were ants until they started being walked over by Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my colleague from California by saying that the gentleman is once again talking about the long-term questions--whether we need tax cuts or whether we need to have more stimulus. All of those things are open to debate.

What is not open to debate is the fact that 1.7 million Americans today and over the next 3 days and over the last few weeks have lost their unemployment benefits. That is an emergency. That's why we have emergency spending provisions. We have to take care of those Americans who will not be able to feed their families, pay their mortgage payments. That's why we have an unemployment insurance compensation program, to protect those Americans when they find themselves in this kind of a situation.

We can have the other debates on other days. And we certainly have had and we will have. But on today's question of whether we're going to extend those benefits, we need to have the Republicans join us in supporting the American people, in supporting those out-of-work folks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to take this time to correct the statistics and the statements that we just heard from my colleague from North Carolina.

My colleague forgets that in the Clinton administration we created-- not ``we,'' because I wasn't here--but the Democrats and Mr. Clinton created 22 million new jobs for America.

Mr. Bush, when he took over, did not, in fact, inherit a recession. That recession happened after he was in office, and it was a severe one. We started to come out of that. Again, the Bush administration policies caused a second recession. When you look at Mr. Bush's term of office, there were some jobs created; but they were not private-sector jobs, as the gentlelady is so fond of talking about. In fact, if you look at the statistics, there were no new private-sector jobs created during the Bush administration. When Mr. Bush left office, he left a recession that was shedding 750,000-plus jobs a month.

When the good lady from North Carolina talks about the fact that there have been job losses during the Obama administration, many of those are the carryovers. You don't turn around the economy overnight. Mr. Obama can't flip a light switch and create the jobs overnight. It took time to get the policies in place to start bringing the country out of the Bush recession. In fact, in the last 3 months, we have averaged 300,000-plus jobs instead of losing 750,000 a month under the last few months of the Bush administration.

This rewriting of history, this total denial of the economic policies that got us into this mess, is something that, frankly, the American people understand very well. The 20 percent of the population which are unemployed in my district right now understand that very well. The 30 percent of my constituents who have lost their homes to foreclosure understand who got them into this situation. I think that we will, in fact, see a situation where the American people will judge what is going on here.

We will have to work hard to create more jobs in the future. As I said before, we are going to debate those policies. There have been discussions on tax cuts and on the stimulus. The statistics tell us that the average American has not paid this low of a percentage of his taxes in quite some time, since Mr. Truman was in office, I believe it is.

So I believe that there are significant facts that we need to set straight here, facts which represent a positive side of the ledger to my party and to the policies we are advocating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close today by discussing a little bit of what the gentlelady just talked about with regard to PAYGO. I'd like to point out that I'm quite sure that the gentlelady from North Carolina did not vote for the PAYGO resolution in the House rules that we passed at the beginning of this Congress, nor did she vote for statutory PAYGO. They have always talked about tax cuts as the answer to all of America's problems. We could take the tax cut to zero and my, wouldn't we pay for government well?

The reality is that they only want to pay for things that affect common folks--the common Americans that get up every day, put their shoes on, and just want a job to make a living and pay for their family, pay for their home, and earn a better life. They don't want to pay for the tax cuts for the Wall Street big shots. They never want to pay for that. They don't want the PAYGO rules to apply to them.

As I said before in this debate, I grew up in my parents' bowling alley. I saw firsthand what happened to those folks--those hardworking American folks that would come into my parents' establishment just wanting a little bit of fun on a Friday or Saturday night. I saw what happened when they lost their job. They lost their home, they couldn't feed their family. Families disbanded because of the stress and tension under those economic situations.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, for the most part, the financial regulatory reform bill. They were protecting their friends on Wall Street, the very people that got us into this calamity. Thirty percent of my constituents--around that--have lost their home to foreclosure because of the financial collapse that was caused by the greed on Wall Street. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to defend them. But, for the most part, they will not vote for emergency funding to put food on unemployed workers' tables or to allow them to keep their homes in this time of crisis. I say that it's not all of them because on June 29, 2010, 30 courageous Republicans voted with the Democrats--the 231 Democrats--to extend unemployment benefits and to protect those workers who have lost their job in this economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, I can't sit here today and tell you that every policy that we've put in place since Mr. Obama has been in place has worked as well as I'd like. Frankly, I've been critical on a number of issues that I thought the administration could have done a better job. But I will tell you that when it comes time to taking care of Americans who are in an emergency situation, who have lost their job for no fault of their own but for the fact that the economic situation was a tsunami that swamped them, it is our party who is standing up to make sure that those workers can survive for another day. And for those workers, this absolutely is an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, no one can legitimately doubt that the situation we face right now is an emergency for the American people who are unemployed. And until our economy is firmly on track and moving forward, I believe we must provide help for those unemployed workers to pay their bills and feed their families. If not, we risk falling further into a further economic crisis and we risk leaving way too many families behind.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my colleague from California for yielding time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this closed rule which rewrites H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provides martial law/same-day authority for any resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Saturday, July 3.

This bill has been rushed through Congress, avoiding committee action. When the Democrats, who are in charge, brought the bill up before the House for consideration on June 29, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority required for passage. There was bipartisan opposition to this bill.

But why are our colleagues rushing this through? The Senate is not meeting, except to honor Senator Byrd. They know the bill is going nowhere. They say ``extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures'' and that the economic crisis is going to get worse if we don't pass this. But this bill is going nowhere, and they know it. They want to be able to go home and say, We voted to extend unemployment benefits and that Republicans voted ``no.''

Well, Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would have supported it. But it is not. Instead, Democrats are relying on budgetary tricks to avoid their own PAYGO rules. They are waiting until the last minute to address important issues and labeling the cost as ``emergency spending'' so they don't have to account for it in terms of our spending rules.

Frankly, the need for this bill in the first place is a direct admission of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi policies because the many spending bills, which

have already been passed, have failed to create the jobs promised by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. So they're admitting by saying, We have to extend unemployment benefits, that all the spending has failed. Economists on both sides of the political spectrum are expressing concern over the fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Yesterday, CBO said, ``Our debt is now 62 percent of GDP, up 20 percent in 2 years''-- the 2 years when Democrats controlled all of Congress and had a Democratic President--and it's the ``highest since World War II.''

Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not far off.

Here are a few lines from an article written by John Goodman on June 28 entitled How Bad is Our Fiscal Crisis?

``Already, we've seen some local governments declare bankruptcy. Expect more of that. In the next several years I believe some very large cities are going to announce they cannot pay their bills. State governments will be next. Whereas local governments can declare bankruptcy, State governments can only default. A default by the State of California seems almost inevitable.

``But is it conceivable that the U.S. Government could default? Actually, yes. Every projection shows the gap between spending and tax revenues rising through time.

``Two years ago the first of the baby boomers started claiming early retirement under Social Security. Next year they'll start signing up for Medicare. Before they're through, 78 million people will quit working, quit paying taxes, quit contributing to our retirement system and start drawing benefits instead.''

That's the end of Mr. Goodman's quote.

The underlying bill adds $34 billion to our ever-increasing debt. When Democrats passed their only unemployment insurance extender bill that was offset by other spending cuts last November, the administration hailed it as a ``fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.''

The cost of extending the Democrats' unemployment insurance policy is growing because their failed stimulus bill has not created the promised jobs. Democrats predicted their trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus bill would create 3.7 million jobs. Instead, the debt has grown by $2 trillion, and nearly 3 million more private sector jobs have been eliminated since then.

Democrats promised unemployment would remain under 8 percent if their stimulus passed. Yet it remains stuck near 10 percent today. A total of 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed.

However, our colleagues keep spending and keep ignoring economic realities. That is totally irresponsible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California may have been trying to be a little humorous in his comments, but job loss in this economy is very serious business.

The American people are asking this Congress controlled by the Democrats, Where are the jobs?

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Our colleagues across the aisle are saying yes, what the American people want is to see jobs and they keep asking where are the jobs. We keep being told that these failed policies passed by this administration and this Congress

are going to produce jobs. That is not the case.

They like to tout the May employment report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which appears to be positive with the addition of 431,000 new jobs. However, 412,000 of those new positions are for temporary government census workers. In other words, 96 percent of May's job growth will be eliminated in just a few weeks. That's almost half of the jobs that my colleague from New Jersey wants to point out.

The June unemployment rate we believe, as my colleague from California said, will edge up to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent in May. But they keep bragging about how effective they've been at providing jobs.

The bottom line is, since February 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost in the private sector. The Federal Government has gained more than 590,000 jobs over the same period. I hate to tell you, but the government jobs don't provide a viable solution in helping get the economy back on its feet. Government jobs are supported by tax dollars, and that tax burden is ultimately borne by the entrepreneurs and small businesses that are the engines of economic growth. Further strain on these employers will not help facilitate a healthy economy over the long term.

Now, my colleague from New Jersey just talked about a myth that our colleagues continue to perpetuate, which is about how many jobs were lost in the Bush administration and about how many jobs were gained.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a piece by Keith Hennessey.

This is a fairly new Democratic claim about job creation. Our colleagues are really searching for ways to justify their terrible policies; but as Mr. Hennessey points out, the Democrats are picking their time frames very carefully. They ignore the 4 million jobs lost during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is, so far, 16 months old. What they don't point out is the fact that President Bush inherited a recession and that their statistics, again, are totally unfounded.

If you will look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey that was done in 2001 to mid-2003, you will see a steady employment decline, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost 4 years.

This is the chart put out by Keith Hennessey. He notes that, in the 46 months that we had job growth in the Bush administration, it is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S. More than 8 million jobs were created during this period. A mild recession began in late 2007--who was in charge of the Congress at that time? The Democrats. They always fail to mention that--followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama administration.

So this chart shows it very well, and it is very objective, Mr. Speaker. It isn't opinion on my part. It's the numbers. As I said, our colleagues are very, very selective in how they make the comparison.

[From Keith Hennessey.com, June 8, 2010]

The New Democratic Claim About Job Creation

A new claim about job creation appears to be bubbling up

through the Democratic ranks. Here is the clearest statement

of that claim, from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on

Stuart Varney's show:

On the pace that we're on, with job creation in the last

four months, if we continue on that pace, and all the leading

economists say that it is likely that we will, we will have

created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush

Presidency.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is picking her timeframes carefully,

in particular by ignoring the four million jobs lost during

the first 11 months of a Presidency that is so far 16 months

old.

Even today, after five straight months of job growth, three

million fewer people are working than when President Obama

took office. That's hardly something to brag about.

And looking just at last month's strong net increase of

431,000 jobs, we see that nine out of ten net new jobs were

temporary government jobs for census takers. We all hope the

pace of private job creation accelerates, but it's too soon

to declare this a strong and consistent employment recovery

or to project its trend into the rest of the year.

Let me point out one other chart that has been put together, and that is to compare the unemployment over time between administrations, or among administrations, using the average unemployment rate. You will see it is very low under President Johnson at 4.2 percent. Under President Eisenhower, 4.9 percent. The average under President Bush 43, 5.3 percent. The average under President Obama, 9.5 percent.

This is what the American people are interested in. They are asking: Where are the jobs? Why do the Obama administration and Pelosi policies continue to have us lose jobs? Unemployment is at almost 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is not we Republicans who are rewriting history. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I will point out once again that Republicans were in charge of the Congress during 6 of the 8 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and that is when we had the job growth--when Republicans were making the policy here. Mr. Obama did promise to create the jobs. He promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He made lots of promises. As far as I've been able to see, none of the good ones have been kept.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to help the long-term unemployed, but agree with the American people that new spending needs to be offset by cuts otherwise.

During the Rules Committee markup of the Democrats' H.R. 5618, Mr. Heller from Nevada offered a Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute which was not made in order by a vote of two to seven. This fiscally responsible alternative would have extended unemployment insurance, COBRA, and the current poverty guidelines until September 25th, and paid for it with unused funds from the failed stimulus bill.

Again, the bill before us extends Federal unemployment benefits only through November 2010 and is not paid for, adding its $34 billion price tag to our $13 trillion debt.

Democrats claim their bill satisfies their PAYGO requirements by declaring it is spending in an emergency. But that is simply an excuse for not paying for it. Let me tell you how an emergency is defined in their rules.

In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation includes, one, necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; two, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and not permanent, but rather temporary in nature.

We have known about this for a long time. This does not meet the criteria for emergency spending. Declaring it emergency spending is just a gimmick. It is a way to not have to comply with PAYGO. In fact, there are 160 spending programs already exempt from PAYGO or operating under special rules.

You know, just because our colleagues say that it is so, doesn't make it so. Saying that it is PAYGO compliant doesn't mean that there is an offset to it. So our colleagues are very clever in the way they say things.

President Obama said in February 2010, Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Both the President and our colleagues across the aisle are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They go out and announce that they are making something PAYGO compliant, but they don't. Rather than face facts and support sound economic policies like lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase the Nation's debt.

This is not the way to create jobs. The American people continue to ask the question, where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, this bill is not going to create the jobs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the President has said that every economist that has looked at his stimulus plan and all the plans that he has put forth agree with him.

But let me quote Carnegie Mellon economist Allan H. Meltzer, in an article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed June 30: Why Obamanomics Has Failed. ``The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The President and his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible. Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have, through their deeds and words, heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.''

Economists get it, Republicans get it, and the American people get it. It's high time the Democrats wake up to the fact that the stimulus isn't working as promised. We need to cut government spending, repeal nonsensical regulations, and lower taxes. We should not be passing this extension without an offset in spending.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Let's answer the question the American people are asking, Where are the jobs? Let's put in policies that really create jobs.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill, but it pains me to do so.

As the Record will reflect, I, and most of my colleagues in this body, have supported repeated extensions of unemployment benefits. And as I told my constituents yesterday, I was anxious to do so again.

American families are hurting. This economy is struggling in the aftermath of the worst recession in a quarter of a century. And as my colleague just suggested, this economy is also struggling in the midst of the failed economic policies of this administration and this Congress.

Millions of American families are struggling to make ends meet. Since the passage of the so-called stimulus bill, 2.6 million jobs have been lost, and unemployment hovers near 10 percent.

So I was anxious to be able to come to this floor before heading home for the Independence Day break, having supported an extension of unemployment benefits. But I rise in opposition because I think what the American people expect us to do is what they've been doing at kitchen tables and sitting around desks and small businesses and on family farms, and that is making the hard choices.

We can provide an extension of unemployment insurance benefits in this Congress, and we can make the decisions to pay for it. And I'm sure it is a mystery to millions of Americans that will be looking on as to why we didn't even try. This Democrat majority, after adopting so-called PAYGO rules, after hearing from so-called fiscal conservative Members of the Democrat majority early in this Congress about how we were going to pay for what we spent, has waived their own PAYGO rules to add $34 billion to the national debt. And I just have to think millions of Americans are asking why.

There are any number of actions that we could take, decisions we could make, reordering our priorities to provide for the families at the point of the need here.

The gentleman from Ohio just said that many of us in the minority were saying that we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits. We can afford it. But at my kitchen table when we say we can afford something, it means

we can afford to pay for it. Not just simply--when my wife comes to me and says, I want to make a major expenditure, I say can we afford it? That means can we pay for it. Here it just means getting out the credit card of our children and grandchildren and running up the national debt by $34 billion.

I also rise with a heavy heart in opposition to this bill because we are here extending unemployment benefits again because the economic policies of this administration and this Congress have failed. Would that the economic policies of the so-called stimulus had worked. The President said we needed to borrow about a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans a year-and-a-half ago or unemployment, he said, that was then 7.6 percent, would go over 8 percent. Now it's 10 percent on average around the country, and higher, as has been said, in many jurisdictions.

Remarkably, yesterday the President of the United States goes to Racine, Wisconsin, a place that has a 14 percent unemployment rate, and he made these comments. He said, Things just aren't as bad as they could have been. There could have been a catastrophe. And in that sense, the stimulus worked. The President of the United States yesterday in Racine, Wisconsin, said the stimulus worked. And then remarkably he went on to suggest that the Republican leader in Congress was out of touch.

It's mind-boggling that at a time when so many--I mean what would this administration and this majority say to a father who's been struggling to make ends meet, who has been borrowing money from family members to pay the mortgage because he can't find work? What would he say to the word of the President of the United States that ``the stimulus worked''? What would the single mother say who has been out of work persistently, who has applied for dozens and dozens of jobs, and has gone deeper and deeper in debt during these difficult times? What would she say to word that the stimulus worked?

The reality is that we have got to bring new ideas to bear on this economy. The American people know what's necessary to get this economy moving again. It's fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and it's fast-acting, across the board tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms.

What we hear from corporations across this country is that there is over $2 trillion in idled capital. We need to release the inherent power in this economy. We need to restore the confidence of capital markets in our commitment to fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. And we can do all of that today and meet the needs of families struggling with unemployment.

By passing a fiscally responsible extension of unemployment insurance, we would send a message that we get it. We know people are hurting, we know the policies aren't working, but we want to practice fiscal responsibility. And for heaven's sakes, let's stop saying the stimulus worked. Let's try some new ideas. Let's come together across this aisle and do what's necessary to get America working again.

I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for yielding me the time.

I would like to say that it's very sad and unfortunate that we are here. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that it's really unnecessary, really unnecessary for us to be here. Why? Because if we had 17 months ago put into

place a bipartisan vision for economic growth that was utilized very effectively by John F. Kennedy during the decade of the 1960s, and Ronald Reagan during the decade of the 1980s, that's why I call it bipartisan, I am convinced that we would in fact have attained what President Obama promised us would have happened with passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill.

You'll recall he said that if that measure passed, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent and that at this point we would be at an unemployment rate of somewhere around 7.4 percent.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from California is joining in managing of this rule, and he knows very well that we not only don't have a 7.4 percent unemployment rate, we not only don't have an 8 percent unemployment rate as was promised by the President, but we nationally have just under 10 percent unemployment. And tomorrow we're going to be getting numbers which, according to reports, are not going to be terribly positive.

But in our State of California and the area that my friend represents, the unemployment rate is far beyond that. The area I represent in southern California has unemployment in the Inland Empire of right around 14 percent. And I know that it's well in the double digits in the Central Valley of California.

So when I say it should be unnecessary for us to be here, Mr. Speaker, the reason I say it is that if we were to take the bipartisan John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model and use that for economic growth, we could have an unemployment rate which would be significantly less than we are facing today, and we could have a GDP growth rate which would be significantly higher.

Now, what is that model? That model, the one that worked, that actually doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during the 1960s and the 1980s, is one which is designed to bring about marginal tax rate reduction to encourage savings and productivity. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that we should be doing to avoid where we are today facing this continued extension of unemployment benefits.

The notion that somehow those of us who want to put into place pro- growth economic policies aren't concerned about those who are today in need of unemployment benefits is a preposterous argument because we believe very passionately that the level of compassion of a government should be based not on the number of people who have to draw unemployment benefits but based instead on the number of people who do not need to draw unemployment benefits.

That's why we found that over the past 17 months clearly the economic plan, which was put into place by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, is one that has not met up to what was promised. In fact, from my perspective, it's been an abject failure when you have an unemployment rate that nationally is nearly 2 percent greater than the level that we were promised.

I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opportunity that emerged from the discussion that took place last weekend at the G-20 meeting. That plan that the President--and I congratulate him for putting forward--calls for moving ahead in a lame duck session after renegotiating a U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement. And I look forward to working with my friend, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, on this just as soon as we are able to move forward with it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that if we were to take that vision of opening up markets when 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders and pass not only the U.S.-South Korea agreement but right here in this hemisphere, if we were to pass the Panama and Colombia agreements, which were negotiated before the South Korea agreement was put into place, we would have tens of millions of new consumers. In Colombia alone, 40 million consumers. American jobs could be created for Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool. Other great U.S. companies could create U.S. jobs.

And I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that we're able to put those kinds of pro-growth policies into place so we don't have to face what we're facing today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1321, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the political situation in Thailand be solved peacefully and through democratic means. I thank my colleague, Mr. -Faleomavaega, for introducing this important resolution.

Beginning in mid-March 2010, anti-government protestors occupied parts of Bangkok for nine weeks. Initially peaceful, the demonstrations and the response from the security forces became increasingly aggressive, eventually spiraling into urban warfare. Most of the protestors, known as the ``red shirts,'' are loyal to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted in a military coup in 2006. On May 3, 2010, the Thai Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, offered talks and proposed a ``reconciliation plan'' including an election on November 14, 2010 in an effort to end the political crisis that immobilized Bangkok and killed 88 people and wounded hundreds. Although the violence has subsided, the political divisions remain stark and the threat of more confrontation lingers. Continuous progress has been made on the Thai Government's reconciliation plan. A public forum was convened on June 17, 2010 as a brainstorming session on how to move the process forward. According to the Prime Minister, the views gathered during this public forum reflect visions for both the Thai people and society and were in line with those of the government. Two committees will be set up by the end of June. The first committee will focus on strategies and priorities for reform to be proposed to the government and the second will work on nation reform assembly which will serve as a channel for all sectors of society to put forward their views and proposals with help from academic works.

Thailand has been a long-time military ally and a significant trade and economic partner. Our close relationship and longstanding friendship with Thailand dates back to 1883 when the two countries signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Despite differences on Burma policy and human rights issues, shared economic and security interests have long provided the basis for U.S.-Thai cooperation. Thailand contributed troops and support for U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and was designated as a major non-NATO ally in December 2003. Thailand's airfields and ports play a particularly important role in U.S. global military strategy, including having served as the primary hub of the relief effort following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

As a major recipient of foreign direct investment, and with exports of goods accounting for over 70 percent of its GDP in 2007, Thailand's economy depends heavily on its trading partners. Economic relations with the United States are central to Thailand's outward-looking economic strategy. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. trade with Thailand in 2008 consisted of $9.1 billion in exports and $23.5 billion in imports. The State Department reports that although Japan is Thailand's biggest trading partner, the United States is currently Thailand's largest export market.

With more than 200,000 people tracing their ancestry to Thailand, our two nations share extensive social and cultural links.

We recognize that enormous challenges remain ahead. Thailand has a past of turbulence and turmoil--the country has experienced 18 coups in the past 77 years. I am hopeful that their continued progress can lead to an ever more fruitful economic and political relationship between the United States and Thailand, contributing to the well being and prosperity of both our nations.

The United States is hopeful that Thailand's political problems will be solved peacefully and through democratic needs. The United States supports the national reconciliation plan proposed by the Prime Minister which encompasses upholding the monarchy, instituting political reform, and eradicating injustice.