Floor Statements

Offered by: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Sec. 419. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to purchase any flag of the United States of America

for use by the Federal Government that is not wholly produced

in the United States from articles, materials, or supplies

100 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured in

the United States.

Offered by: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following new section:

Offered by: Mr. Grayson

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chair, the U.S. House of Representative has passed a bill called the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 1062). Congress intended with this legislation to ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission consider the costs and benefits of its regulatory apparatus, and further intended for this legislation to protect investors and improve capital formation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Republicans on the other side of the aisle to stop faking it. We have a bill here that deems this, deems that, and deems the other thing.

This is a bill that deems that the Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act is deemed approved. It's not.

This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act are deemed satisfied and opinion deemed issued. They're not.

This is a bill that says that the required right-of-way and temporary use permit under the Mineral Leasing Act is deemed issued. Not.

This is a bill that says that the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are deemed approved and issued. Not.

Why are we doing this? While we're at it, why don't we deem a balanced budget? Why don't we deem full employment? Why don't we deem world peace?

It's farcical. It's a violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution. It's not our job to deem things. It's our job to pass laws of general application, not favors to foreign oil companies.

And having been lectured endlessly by the other side about the profundity of earmarks, we come across a bill here where, in fact, it's an earmark for a foreign oil corporation. We are issuing to a foreign oil corporation a right-of-way that's valued at millions and millions of dollars when the other side tells us they're not in favor of earmarks.

Stop the hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

May 21, 2013.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Yes.

I rise today to address H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, and my resolution raising a question of privilege regarding the matter.

Please note that this is a privileged motion and therefore outside the scope of the Rules Committee's jurisdiction regarding ``the order of business of the House'' under rule X. Rather, this is a question of privilege ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings'' pursuant to rule IX. It is not invoked to ``effect a change in the rules or their interpretation'' as prescribed by House Rules and Manual at page 420.

Consideration of this bill exceeds ``the rights of the House collectively'' and brings into question the ``dignity and the integrity of the proceedings'' of the House of Representatives under House rule IX because, first, it is unconstitutional, and second, it is an earmark.

I presented this matter to the full House in H. Res. 225 as a question of privilege last night, and I noticed the question immediately following the only vote series of the day.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX of the House you must now make your determination as to whether or not this is an appropriate ``question of privilege'' and hold a vote on the resolution offered before the House. Before that happens, I would like to address the two claims I have made against the bill

offered by the gentleman from Nebraska, and then I will outline the reasons why I feel you should find in favor of my question of privilege.

H.R. 3 is unconstitutional. ``The Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws.''

The above is taken from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bowsher v. Synar. The bill before us violates this principle. Congress creates the laws, and it's up to the Executive to execute the laws.

Under section 3 of this bill, however, ``the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011'' and ``the Presidential permit required for the pipeline described in the application filed on May 4, 2012''----

I believe I have. May I continue?

Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I think they are inextricably entwined. I don't see how I can do one without the other.

May I continue?

``by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. to the Department of State as supplemented to include the Nebraska reroute evaluated in the Final Evaluation Report issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in January 2013 and approved by the Nebraska Governor'' shall ``be considered or deemed to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act.'' This is a clear attempt by this body to execute the law of the land, and that is proscribed by the Constitution.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the Executive must execute the laws. H.R. 3 runs afoul of this requirement. The Supreme Court held in Bowsher v. Synar that interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ``execution of the law,'' and that's exactly what is being proposed here and forbidden by the Constitution.

The exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that affect application of statute----

Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of whether I'm willing to. As I indicated before, the two are inextricably linked.

I understand that. But I don't think that the Chair can properly be informed of that question without the material that I'm providing to the Chair right now.

Thank you.

The Supreme Court held in Bowsher v. Synar that ``interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of `execution' of the law,'' and that's exactly what is being proposed here.

The exercise of judgment in the bill before us concerning facts that affect application of statute constitutes execution of the law. It is an unconstitutional act that this body should not entertain. It violates separation of powers and violates the principle underlying the prohibition of bills of attainder.

Statements are deemed by this bill to be in compliance with laws the Executive has been tasked with executing--the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA, and the National Historic Preservation Act. If you see section 3 of H.R. 3, it's referenced there. This is an impermissible execution of the law.

Congress, through this bill, is attempting to apply the facts of the Keystone XL pipeline environmental impact statement to the body of law and deciding that they comply. This is unconstitutional and brings into question the ``dignity and the integrity of proceedings'' of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the last words that I just said were that this offends the ``dignity and the integrity of the proceedings'' of the House. This relates directly to the matter before the Chair.

May I proceed?

Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I just said.

May I proceed?

Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe you can properly do that without being fully informed as to the facts here.

May I proceed?

Apparently, we are no longer satisfied with writing the laws. We have now taken it upon ourselves to execute them as well. This discredits the institution, not only within the Federal Government-- complicating our constitutional relationship with both the executive and the judicial branches--but also in the eyes of the American people. We must not allow the House to be degraded this way.

Even when the facts of the bill are examined, this measure fails. The bill states that the environmental impact statement satisfies NEPA. That environmental impact statement, however, was for a different project--the Keystone XL Pipeline as proposed in 2009, a pipeline that would have terminated in the Gulf Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall not

consider H.R. 3, the ``Northern Route Approval Act'' because:

(1) it violates Rule XXI of the House, and (2) it affects the

dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House since

it is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 676.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill attempting to secure our nation's cyber-systems and networks from attack. This bill expands the authority of private entities and the federal government to share specified threat information and intelligence with one another. It is intended to grant authority for the government and private industry to share cyber-threat information and intelligence only in a manner consistent with the need for individual citizens to have reasonable expectations of privacy. The right of a citizen to remain ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'' is unaltered. This bill largely pertains to network security, and nothing in the bill precludes or alters the requirement that the government secure a warrant before engaging in searches or seizures of information that would otherwise reasonably be expected to remain private.

With respect to those provisions pertaining to the federal government's use of information shared with it under the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (``CISPA''), the intent of Congress is as follows:

The only information the federal government may receive under CISPA that it heretofore was not permitted to access under law is ``cyber threat information'' (Section 3(b)).

``Cyber threat information'' is defined narrowly in section 3(g)(4) as ``information directly pertaining to'' any of the following:

(1) A vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity or utility.

(2) A threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or utility or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network.

(3) Efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity or utility.

(4) Efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity or utility, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity or utility.

Therefore, if the actions of a user of any system or network do not expose a vulnerability; pose a threat to integrity, confidentiality, or availability; attempt to deny access, degrade, disrupt, or destroy; or attempt to gain unauthorized access, then none of the user's information, or information pertaining to the user, or information that could possibly identify the user may be shared with the federal government under authority granted by CISPA. Each of these categories must be construed as narrowly as possible in order to protect the constitutional right of citizens to privacy, and provide effect to the term ``directly.''

Restated, the use of a system or network alone does not permit any entity to share any information of a user, or pertaining to the user, unless it is currently allowed to do so under another law. The terms ``vulnerability,'' ``threat,'' ``efforts'' and ``unauthorized access'' all are to be construed narrowly, and are limited to cybyersecurity threats.

Further, the government cannot use that which it cannot receive.

Under this Act, should any entity share information with the federal government that is not ``cyber threat information,'' e.g., information pertaining to normal or permissible use, identifying information, etc., then the federal government must notify the entity sharing the information of its error (Section 3(c)(5)), shall not retain the information (Section 3(c)(6)), and shall not use the information (Section 3(c)(6)).

The federal government may use ``cyber threat information'' shared with it only:

(1) for cybersecurity purposes,

(2) for the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes,

(3) for the protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm and the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving such danger of death or serious bodily harm,

(4) for the protection of minors from

(a) child pornography,

(b) any risk of sexual exploitation, and

(c) serious threats to the physical safety of minors, including kidnapping and trafficking, and

(5) for the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving 4(a) through (c) above, and

(6) any crime referred to in section 2258A(a)(2) of title 18 of the United States Code (knowingly failing to report information pertaining to sexual exploitation and other abuses of children--including obscene visual representations of such acts). (Section 3(c)(6) and Section 3(c)(1)).

The term ``danger of death or serious bodily harm'' is limited to acts of domestic terrorism as defined in the criminal code (18 U.S.C. Section 23331(5)).

CISPA does not allow the federal government access to new information based upon the points described above, but only access to existing information. Moreover, it limits the use of appropriately shared ``cyber threat information'' solely to the purposes and crimes defined.

``Cybersecurity Purpose'' is defined in section 3(g)(8) as ``ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network'' from vulnerability; threats to integrity, confidentiality, or availability; attempts to deny access, degrade, disrupt, or destroy; or attempts to gain unauthorized access. It is a narrow subset of the term ``cyber threat information.''

``Cybersecurity Crimes'' is defined in section 3(g)(6) and are those crimes under federal or state law pertaining to misuse of systems or networks, as well as any federal computer crime. Only statutes limited to the misuse of computers fall within this scope.

CISPA places an ``Affirmative Search Restriction'' on the federal government in section 3(c)(2)--``The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with [it] . . . for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in'' points 1 through 6, above. In order to respect the Constitutional right to privacy, this provision should be construed as broadly as possible.

The only new authority CISPA creates with respect to searches is as follows:

(1) Cyber threat information (which is narrowly defined, and for almost every American ensures that the sharing of their information, or information pertaining to them, is disallowed) must be appropriately shared as discussed in section 3(b).

(2) The federal government may affirmatively search shared cyber threat information only for:

(a) Cybersecurity purposes (which, as defined, is a threshold that must be satisfied prior to the information is even being shared with the government in the first instance).

(b) Computer crimes which are already codified.

(c) And only enumerated crimes pertaining to sexual exploitation and other abuses of children.

No search of information may be performed without satisfying the requirements of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in CISPA is meant to eliminate or even curtail the requirement in all applicable cases to obtain a warrant.

If information is not cyber threat information, (1) the government may not have it under CISPA (Section 3(c)(6)), and (2) must obtain a warrant to search it (Section 3(c)(2)). The information of, pertaining to, or identifying any American who is using a network or system in a way that comports with the terms and conditions of a user agreement is unequivocally not cyber threat information. Any search of such information requires a warrant.

Library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, tax return records, educational records, and medical records are not records that satisfy the definition of ``cyber threat information'' under CISPA. Section 3(c)(4) explicitly bars the federal government from using these records under CISPA. This provision is to be construed liberally, and this list is not exclusive.

Pursuant to section 3(d)(1), the federal government may be held liable for any use of information shared with it that is not cyber threat information. This is an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, and is intended to be broad.

And finally, CISPA, in accordance with section 3(f)(7) does not authorize any intelligence agency to engage in surveillance of any American citizen. Such action clearly would be a violation of Constitutional rights; and actionable through a private right of action.

Mr. Speaker, each of the points addressed above are important. They are important to understanding the narrow scope of this law, the ways in which the federal government is prohibited from acting, and the ways in which American citizens' information remains protected and unavailable to the federal government. CISPA should be interpreted narrowly as written, and as such, it is not a document that provides sweeping new authority to the federal government either to receive or use cyber information of the general American public. In case of doubt, the letter and spirit of the body of law surrounding the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our rights to liberty and privacy prevails.

Mr. Speaker, these statements and findings are made in support of the ``Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.''

In determining that it is time to raise the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour and index it to inflation, Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since 1968, the minimum wage has lost nearly one-third of its value. Had it kept pace with inflation since then, the federal minimum wage would be $10.67 today.

(2) Given that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, more than thirty million low-wage workers are making less today than low-wage workers did 45 years ago in 1968.

(3) As the cost of living increased in the past several decades, the reduced purchasing power of the minimum wage has made it more difficult for low-wage workers to pay for basic necessities such as housing, transportation, food, and healthcare.

(I) Housing prices have nearly doubled; the median value of owner- occupied properties has increased by about 80 percent between 1970 and 2009.

(II) The cost of a gallon of motor vehicle gasoline has increased more than 60 percent from 1978 to 2012 according to U.S. Energy Information data.

(III) The average cost of health insurance premiums has skyrocketed. According to U.S. Census figures, from 1990 to 2009, health insurance costs per capita have more than doubled, increasing 102 percent. The average annual cost of employer-sponsored family health insurance premiums increased 89 percent from 1999 to 2011. Workers bore more of that load, with the average worker contribution toward employer- sponsored health insurance increasing by 94 percent. On top of this, an increasing number of medical expenses and services are not paid for by health insurance, resulting in dramatically increasing out-of-pocket expenses--27 percent from 1996 to 2009--for families.

(IV) Since just 1994, the average cost for a family of four to provide food for the family has increased about 10 percent, according to figures from the USDA's monthly estimates of food plans.

(4) The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, $15,080 annually, does not even meet the U.S. Census Bureau's poverty threshold for a family of two or the Department of Health and Human Service's poverty guidelines for a family of two, both of which are above $15,000 per year.

(5) Worker productivity has more than doubled since the 1960s, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics' data, yet all that low-wage workers have received for their effort is the declining value of the minimum wage.

(6) The failure of Congress to make sure that the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation has exacerbated income inequality in this country and placed the American Dream out of reach for many hard-working low- wage workers in this country. At the same time that the minimum wage has lost nearly one-third of its value, the average income of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has skyrocketed. The threshold for a family's annual income to be considered in the top 1 percent of taxpayers increased from about $75,000 in 1968 to over $1 million in 2011. Adjusting for inflation, the annual income of the top one percent has more than doubled in that time, increasing 110 percent. Just before the recent financial crisis, the incomes of the top one percent had nearly tripled from 1968 to 2007, increasing by 196 percent.

(7) The top 100 highest paid CEOs all made over $15 million last year. The highest paid CEO made over $131 million in 2012, the equivalent of almost $63,000 per hour--$10,000 more than the median annual household income in the United States.

(8) Though the United States economy has begun to recover from the recent financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still 7.7 percent and there still remain 28.6 million unemployed or underemployed. Raising the minimum wage would help stimulate the economy and create jobs.

(I) Raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would give a raise to more than 30 million workers, add a net increase of over $30 billion in economic activity, and create more than 140,000 new jobs.

(II) According to a Chicago Federal Reserve study, for every dollar increase to the hourly pay of a minimum wage worker, the result is $2,800 in new spending from that worker's household over the year.

(9) Two-thirds of low-wage workers are employed by large, profitable corporations.

(10) Many large, multi-national corporations pay higher minimum wages in Canada and Europe, and still remain profitable.

(11) Without raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, it becomes more likely

that low-wage workers will fall further into poverty and be more reliant on government services like food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, and the earned income tax credit. These government services are paid for by the taxpayers and other small businesses. In this sense, many small businesses that already pay their employees more than the federal minimum wage end up subsidizing the profitability of their large corporate competitors. This is a perversion of capitalism. Raising the minimum wage would not put small businesses like this at a competitive disadvantage, but could in fact help them. For instance, according to the MO Healthnet Employer Report, in Missouri during the first quarter of 2011 (the most recent data) the total cost to the state of the 50 employers whose employees rely most heavily on Medicaid was about $43.5 million. According to data from the state Department of Job and Family Services, the State of Ohio paid $111.5 million in 2007 for Medicaid costs for workers and their dependents at 50 employers statewide.

(12) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. A greater proportion of minimum wage workers are black (15 percent) or Hispanic (20.2 percent) than of the population as a whole (13.1 percent black, and 16.7 percent Hispanic).

(13) The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages when compared with other Western, industrialized countries. Australia's minimum wage is more than double the minimum wage in the United States--at about $16 per hour. Of ten countries with minimum wages higher than the United States', eight of them have unemployment rates lower than ours, based on the most recent data available.

(14) Poll after poll has shown that about 70 percent of the American public supports increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 76--Approving the Journal, 77--H. Con. Res. 18, and 78--H. Con. Res. 19.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' I was absent because of a flight problem.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I want to share something with the Representative from Wisconsin and with the Chair.

We labor here under an awful barrier, and that barrier is this: we are required to actually be original. I sometimes am unable to carry that burden, and I found something this Saturday that I think was so important, so well written, so profound that I am going to yield to an article that I read on Saturday in the Huffington Post, written by Jason Linkins and Zach Carter, called ``Dow Jones Hits `Record High' Thanks to Strong Performances from Smoke,

Mirrors Sectors.'' I'd like to share that with the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chair, and with anyone else who just might happen to be listening right now.

The article reads as follows:

This week, amid the hullabaloo over President Barack

Obama's Deficit Dinner Diplomacy and Senator Rand Paul's 13-

hour filibuster-cum-dissertation on drone strikes and civil

liberties, financial news-watchers touted a milestone in

their lives of Market Worship. We speak, of course, of the

Dow Jones Industrial Average, which on Tuesday hit an ``all-

time high'' of 14,253. The good times rolled steadily on

through the week, and the Dow closed Friday at 14,397.

Of course, the notion that these were ``record'' highs was

not, strictly speaking, true. As Jeff Cox at CNBC pointed

out, ``In inflation-adjusted dollars, the Dow would need to

hit 15,731 to break the record.'' Nevertheless, the exciting

new ordinal number sitting on the stock market index set off

a chorus of hallelujahs. After all, this was the highest mark

it had hit since October 2007. (Of course, if we recall

correctly, that was right around the time that all of our

more recent tragic economic events began to occur.)

The fluctuations of the Dow are typically pored over by the

media in the same way that ancient oracles pierced through

the entrails of birds, seeking for whatever path might lead

to the most prosperity. And in the world of politics,

partisans on both sides are quick to point to the Dow as

generic confirmation that their policies are working as long

as the story suits their narrative anyway.

And these narratives can get wild and weird and wooly

quickly. Seemingly within moments of the Dow's peak, ``Dow

36,000'' author James Glassman was on the pages of Bloomberg

View, taking credit for this and crowing about how his old,

failed predictions were well on the way to coming true.

Of course, as Jonathan Chait points out, Glassman has to

toss out the entire underlying thesis of ``Dow 36,000.'' (He

and coauthor Kevin Hassett ``theorized that the stock market,

circa 1999, was being so undervalued that it would have been

at 36,000 in the days ahead of the massive tech-bubble burst

as opposed to theorizing that ``someday, maybe the Dow would

hit 36,000. Probably. You know, just watch'') in order to

claim vindication now.

Former Reagan domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett just

called Glassman a ``nitwit'' and left it at that.

All of which leads to an obvious point: although we

recognize that the long-term trend of the stock market is

that it has an overall upward trajectory--punctuated in

snapshots by the susurrations of the greed/fear cycle--it is

nevertheless catnip for a lot of wild-eyed prognosticators,

and the over-reliance of using the stock market as evidence

of economic recovery, or the proof of economic fundamentals,

is acute.

So what does it say about the Dow that it could hit this

dizzying new height--impressive by any measure in any era,

post-crash or otherwise--at a time when the overall global

economic outlook is so dismal and the domestic recovery is

barely felt by the citizens who sacrificed their capital to

save the world from calamity?

It says that we should be gravely concerned. It says that

we have a two-tiered economy, one where profits flow and

another where risks lurk. It says that a lot of people are

being left behind, and if October 2007 is any guide, it says

that this display of prosperity may simply be an illusion.

The distribution of the stock market's largesse has been

the most un-egalitarian aspect of American economics for

years. A full 50 percent of all capital gains go not to the

richest 1 percent of Americans, but to the richest 0.1

percent, according to The Washington Post.

But the stock market's persistent upward climb since the

spring of 2009 has revealed another massive disparity: the

multinational corporate machinery that generates stock gains

has become unmoored from the economic reality in which the

majority of Americans live and die.

The Dow hit its peak this week amid a host of gloomy global

economic forecasts. Back in January, the World Bank ``sharply

reduced its estimate of global economic growth in 2013,

projecting that the downturn in Europe and the United States'

fiscal problems will continue to weigh on investment and

spending.'' The World Bank's take on U.S. growth was

similarly dismal--its 1.9 percent forecast for the coming

year was less than the most pessimistic estimates of our own

Federal Reserve.

There's no end in sight for the austerity orgy that's

exacerbating Eurozone pain, despite the fact that the EU

projects that their economy, ``which generates nearly a fifth

of global output, will shrink 0.3 percent in 2013.''

(Analysts are currently divided on whether or not China is

also experiencing a slowdown at the moment as well.)

Closer to home, we received a gentle boost from this

month's employment numbers: 236,000 jobs were created this

past month, pending after-the-fact revisions in the months to

come, which is closer to the ideal in terms of keeping ahead

of labor market growth and finally digging out of the post-

crash hole. The overall unemployment rate has subsequently

dropped to 7.7 percent. But these numbers can mask a bevy of

problems. As Matt Yglesias points out, the situation for the

long-term unemployed is becoming a bona fide crisis that

calls for ``targeted interventions.''

And even if the unemployment number continues to drop,

there's a real concern over what sort of jobs are being added

back to the economy. Will they be the quality jobs that put

those entering those jobs and reentering those jobs into the

labor force on a sustainable path to household prosperity? Or

is everyone heading to a future of toil in Amazon shipping

warehouses? It's worth being fretful, because many of those

who will be entering the job market for the first time will

be carrying student loans out of a period of sky-high college

tuition, which taken as a whole may form the backbone of the

next great financial crisis.

Even as the economy has tipped and trended in the direction

of what we might normally call--nominally call--``recovery,''

the answer to the question ``Who has recovered?'' reveals

some stark contrast.

As the University of California, Berkeley economics

professor Emmanuel Saez calculated, losses in average family

income during the Great Recession were felt across the board.

Average real income per family declined by 17 percent. And

the top income earners took it on the chin a little harder.

As the bottom 99 percent experienced a 12 percent drop in

average income, the uppermost percentile's income fell by 36

percent. As Saez reports, ``The sharp fall in top incomes is

explained primarily by the collapse of realized capital gains

due to the stock market crash.''

Of course, the top 1 percent, nevertheless, were largely

sheltered from the stresses that afflicted the most

vulnerable, as you would expect. What you, perhaps, didn't

expect was how the recovery distributed itself across the

same groups.

From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew

modestly by 1.7 percent, but the gains were very uneven. Top

1 percent incomes grew by 11.2 percent while bottom 99

percent incomes shrunk by 0.4 percent. Hence, the top 1

percent captured not 100 percent, but 121 percent of the

income gains in the first 2 years of the recovery. From 2009

to 2010, the top 1 percent grew fast and then stagnated from

2010 to 2011. The bottom 99 percent stagnated both from 2009

to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, the top 1 percent

income will likely surge due to booming stock prices, as well

as the re-timing of income to avoid the higher 2013 top tax

rates. The bottom 99 percent will likely grow much more

modestly than top incomes from 2011 to 2012.

This suggests that the Great Recession has only depressed

top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the

dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place

since the 1970s.

Much of the economic recovery is simply an increase in the

value of financial assets--stocks and bonds. And most people

just don't own stocks. In 2011, only 21 percent of American

adults even had a 401(k) retirement account, according to a

HuffPost analysis of data from the Investment Company

Institute. Only 52 percent of all adults older than 65

receive money from financial assets at all, with half of that

set receiving less than $1,260 a year, according to the

Pension Rights Center.

Growth that everyone relies on, like that of home values

and wages, has been sluggish. At the end of 2012, the S&P/

Case-Shiller Home Price Indices were roughly where they were

at the beginning of 2009 (which was roughly where they were

in the fall of 2003).

And even as the stock market hits this celebrated peak, the

wages that average Americans are bringing home to, you know,

``put food on their family,'' as George W. Bush famously

said, those are plunging into a trough, despite measurable

gains in overall productivity.

In fact, as Robert Reich points out, the way those

productivity gains are being achieved leaves out workers

altogether, and they are coming about as a result of actions

taken by policymakers:

``Corporations have been investing in technology rather

than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for

such investments. They get no such tax benefits for improving

the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can

now do more with fewer people on their payrolls. That means

higher profits.''

Reich adds:

``Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of

most workers, allowing corporations to keep wages low. Public

policies that might otherwise reduce unemployment, a new WPA

or CCC to hire the long-term unemployed, major investments in

the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, have been rejected in

favor of austerity economics. This also means higher profits,

at least in the short run.''

In other words, the labor force is being squeezed for the

very last drop of productivity, because employers know that

they're holding all the cards. If the economy were

approaching full employment, discontented or overworked

employees would have options and leverage. Right now, they

don't. If you've got a job, you need to hang on to it for

dear life. That's an environment for scraping out survival,

not the economic mobility we rightly celebrate during boom

years.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Dow is hitting

this peak at a time when everyone in the world knows that the

debate over sequestration--whose cuts have awesome recession-

generating powers--has gone

into vapor-lock, with the GOP refusing to compromise on

raising revenues, through the very tax reform proposals that

formed the basis of the party's recent Presidential campaign.

Everyone has been warned about the consequences of

sequestration. It's just that corporate America currently has

the fortunate position of being able to greet the news with a

shrug, as The New York Times reported this week:

``With $85 billion in automatic cuts taking effect between

now and September 30 as part of the so-called Federal budget

sequestration, some experts warn that economic growth will be

reduced by at least half a percentage point. But although

experts estimate that sequestration could cost the country

about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to

substantially reduce corporate profits, or seriously threaten

the recent rally in the stock markets.''

``It's minimal,'' said Savita Subramanian, head of United

States equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America

Merrill Lynch. Overall, the sequester could reduce earnings

at the biggest companies by just over 1 percent, she said,

adding, ``the market wants more austerity.''

Well, if that's true, the market is going to love the dire,

short-term consequences that the sequestration is going to

bring to many Americans closer to the ground level of the

economy. Reich rounds up those who will be hit hardest and

most immediately. One hundred and twenty-five thousand people

are going to lose their rental subsidies. Ten thousand more

will be cut off from similar subsidies intended to assist

Americans living in rural areas. One hundred thousand people

face getting kicked out of emergency homeless shelters, and

cuts are coming to unemployment insurance, title I education

programs, Head Start, and antihunger subsidies.

It's not like those who bid on the stock market can't grasp

the looming disaster. They're just completely unconcerned. As

you may recall, the market didn't exactly take to its

fainting couch as the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' loomed,

either, despite dire warnings of a market spasm.

That's what carting off 121 percent of an economic recovery

will do for a person safely ensconced atop the income ladder.

Fittingly, even as the sequestration's hammer is poised to

come down, The Wall Street Journal reports that the market

for luxury goods is booming. The newspaper characterizes this

as evidence of economic robustness, connecting ``the economy

has bounced back from recession'' to ``as a result, wealthy

Americans are spending freely on expensive clothing,

accessories, jewelry and beauty products.''

The Wall Street Journal quotes HSBC luxury-goods analyst

Antoine Belge thusly: ``Trends in luxury consumption in the

United States have continued to outperform overall consumer

trends.'' This is actually evidence that you and most people

you know are getting left far behind in the post-crash

economy.

The average participant in the overall American economy

isn't fooled by any of this. They well know what Matt

Phillips pointed out at Quartz, that household incomes

``haven't gone anywhere but down.'' As Phillips relates,

``Real median U.S. household income--that's ``real'' as in

``adjusted for inflation''--was $50,054 in 2011, the most

recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. That's 8

percent lower than the 2007 peak of $54,489.''

He goes on to show that consumer expectations strike a

serious contrast from the mood within the Dow Jones revival

tent.

We are led then, inevitably, to a conclusion that we all

feel but no one says aloud.

And, by the way, that's my job, to say all the things that we all feel but no one says aloud.

The American middle class, in other words, no longer lives

in a financial economy. But the gold-standard economic

metrics that we hold out as the key measurements of

prosperity, the economy of Wall Street, of gross domestic

product figures, of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, is

purely, purely financial.

For the time being, you can assume that you and everyone

you care about is screwed. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Pura Delgado Andino, a shining example of leadership and inspiration to us all. Mrs. Delgado's distinguished career in community advocacy deserves our acknowledgement.

Mrs. Delgado was born in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico on February 2, 1931. At age sixteen, she moved from Puerto Rico to New York. There Mrs. Delgado met her late husband, Jose Caraballo, and became a mother to two wonderful children.

In 1967, Mrs. Delgado moved to Connecticut, where her lasting commitment to civic

engagement and community participation began. Mrs. Delgado was instrumental in the creation of the Hill Health Center for Children and Youth at Yale University. Recognizing the need for a youth-oriented and minority-focused health care center, Mrs. Delgado obtained a grant to better serve these children and her community. Because of her leadership on this issue, Mrs. Delgado served as Health Education Assistant to the Center's Director.

Working alongside the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, Mrs. Delgado helped guide the school's implementation of its affirmative action program. At the time, affirmative action policies were often limited to African American students, but Mrs. Delgado encouraged the school to extend their efforts to other minority communities, such as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Thanks to Mrs. Delgado's involvement, the school graduated twenty-five minority students. One of these students who went on to serve his community is the Honorable Judge Wilfredo Martinez of Orlando, Florida.

Drawing again on her intimate knowledge of the community and innate ability to express its needs, Mrs. Delgado obtained another grant to begin operation of the Fair Haven Health Clinic. This clinic recently celebrated its forty-third anniversary.

Though Mrs. Delgado retired at age seventy-two, her record of accomplishments in the physical and mental health areas remains impressive. She has served on a variety of public service and community advisory boards, including on the Board for Progressive Action, which aimed to empower low-income communities through education, counseling, and occupational training.

In 1991 Mrs. Delgado relocated to Irma Shores Lake in Orlando, Florida, where she began several small businesses and became an active member of the community. Mrs. Delgado served as a Regional Field Operator for President Bill Clinton in 1996 and helped coin the term ``I-4 Corridor''.

Mrs. Delgado is a proud member of the Asociacion Borinquena de la Florida Central and currently serves as Vice Chair for the Black-Latino and Puerto Rican Alliance for Justice of Florida.

Please join me in recognizing Mrs. Delgado's lifetime of civic achievement and community involvement.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 657 and 658, I was absent because my flight from Orlando had an equipment failure in mid-flight and had to return to Orlando, resulting in a lengthy delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''