Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here in the House and in the Senate and with the President's pen, we make policy for America. We make foreign policy. We make security policy. We make health policy and environmental policy. And we make economic policy. And it's time to take a close look at exactly what the tax cuts for the rich have done for us for the past 9 years because now we are going to make policy for not just the next 2 years, but I believe for far longer than that.

Let's simply take a look at the 9 lean years that we have experienced under tax cuts for the rich and compare them to the 9 fat years that preceded that. The first thing you'll know, which you can see from this chart here, is that in the 9 previous years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts for the rich, 23 million jobs were created. Since we enacted those tax cuts for the rich, we have lost 2 million jobs in America.

The next chart shows that the average unemployment rate as a result rose from 5.5 percent approximately to well over 6 percent after we enacted the Bush tax cuts. So often I have heard that the Bush tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs when the record is directly to the contrary. In fact, it doesn't only affect people who work, it affects everyone.

If you look at the net worth of this country, the net worth of America, the value of all of our schools, our homes, our 401(k)s, our small businesses, our cars, our furnishings, everything that we own in America, according to the Federal Reserve, in the 9 years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, home values in America rose by 37 percent. In the 9 years after we enacted the Bush tax cuts, our home values in America rose only 13 percent. And as a result of that--because our homes are, for many of us, the most valuable thing that we own--as a result of that, our net worth as a country increased by 93 percent before we enacted the Bush tax cuts and by only 26 percent after we enacted the Bush tax cuts. Now I think that's a very important statistic. We are taking into account the rich and the poor, the black and the white, the male and the female, people all across the country. When we didn't have the Bush tax cuts, our net worth as a country increased by 93 percent. When we did, it increased only by 26 percent.

Now, there's been a lot of discussion lately about the deficit, the debt. If you look at what the effect was on the deficit and on the debt, you will find that in the 9 years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, we had on average a 2.37 percent surplus in the Federal budget. In those 9 years, we actually had a surplus on the average of 2.3 percent of gross domestic product. And since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, we have had a deficit of 8.5 percent on the average each year.

We all know the dramatic effect that the decline in the economy has had on the poor and on the middle class. But let's take a short moment to look at what effect it actually had on the rich. Before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, the S&P 500 index--the most broad measure of stock market performance in the United States, 500 different companies--the S&P 500 increased in those 9 years by an amazing 285 percent. Now, since more than half of all stocks in America are owned by the top 1 percent, the most wealthy Americans,

that means that the most wealthy Americans benefited by not having the Bush tax cuts to the tune of a 285 percent increase in the stock market.

In contrast to that, since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, the stock market has actually gone down over the past 9 years by 11 percent. So I ask you whether you are working, whether you are not working, whether you are poor, whether you are middle class, whether you are rich, isn't it obvious what will happen if we extend these tax cuts any further? Whether it's for 1 year or for 2 years or for another 9 lean years. I think the answer is obvious. Fewer jobs, higher unemployment, a lower value to our homes, lower value to the Nation's net worth, and a drop in the stock market. That's the future that we face if we extend these pernicious tax cuts further.

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring attention to an article written by Leticia M. Diaz at Barry University entitled ``Strengthening America.'' Dr. Diaz, who holds a PhD and a JD from Rutgers University, is the Dean of the Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law in Orlando and a member of the advisory committee for the newly formed American Bar Association Commission on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities.

Strengthening America

(By Leticia M. Diaz)

Like millions of others, I came to America with my

immigrant parents. Seizing on the opportunities and access to

superior education offered by this country allowed me to not

only achieve the American dream, but to give back to this

nation.

My story is far from unique. Like the immigrants before me,

I came to the United States to seek the freedom and the

opportunities unavailable in the country of my birth.

Comprised of a vast immigrant population, the United States

matured and expanded as a result of the great Irish and

Chinese immigrations of the 1800s along with many newcomers

from Europe over the years. These immigrants provided much of

the labor force that built the infrastructure as our country

grew into a world power. Over the years, my family and

millions of other immigrants worked hard to make America into

a strong, productive, and dynamic nation.

Today, tens of thousands of young adults stand ready to

give back to the country they call home. By opening the door

to educational advancement or military service, the DREAM

(Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act

before Congress benefits those youngsters who, as children,

accompanied their parents to the United States. But without

passage of the DREAM Act, these young people--who have

already proven themselves in our schools and communities--

face a very uncertain future.

The DREAM Act would grant legal status to young adults

brought to the United States as undocumented immigrant

children. The rigorous requirements under the Act ensure that

only contributing members of society who have already proven

themselves to be law-abiding citizens and dedicated students

would enjoy the benefits of the Act.

The stringent criterion prescribed by the DREAM Act ensures

that the floodgates to illegal immigration will remain

closed. Instead, the Act addresses the issue of young,

undocumented children who have grown up in this country and

excelled in school. As they seek to enlist in the military or

continue their education and launch their careers, these

motivated pro-American youngsters continue to run into

unreasonable roadblocks. The DREAM Act prudently addresses

those hurdles.

All members of society will benefit from the DREAM Act, not

just a select few. Everyone wins when we educate the youth of

tomorrow, encourage them to achieve their career goals, and

motivate them to become productive citizens of our great

country. As an educator and a person who was born in Cuba and

immigrated at an early age, I am foremost an American who

recognizes the importance of providing access to education to

those who are truly committed to learning and personal

growth.

As Americans, we have a moral obligation to address the

immigration issues facing our country. The DREAM Act would be

a great start to much-needed reform. As such, we urge

Congress to pass the DREAM Act, blazing a trail for these

young adults to become valuable, contributing members of the

United States as they deserve.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to bring the DREAM Act to the floor for immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations on Dr. Norman Wall being honored for his many contributions to the foundation of the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel and his continued involvement in medical advancements both in the United States and in Israel.

He used his role as a medical officer in the U.S. Army during World War II to help establish what is now Israel's largest hospital and research center. Dr. Wall has not stopped giving back to the community both here and abroad. Since his move to Orlando in 1995, he has made a great impact on the Florida Hospital community.

I greatly appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his many contributions in the field of medicine. Dr. Wall has a true grasp of the concept of tikkun olam and I am inspired by his commitment to making the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 596 on Motion on Ordering the Previous Question--H.R. 1745, I was unavoidably detained because of a transportation delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, we've heard endless braying from the Republicans time after time, demanding an extension of tax cuts for the rich in this country. They tell us that extending the tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs when we've had these tax cuts for the rich for 9 years, and I haven't noticed a whole lot of jobs being created in the last 9 years. They tell us it will dramatically boost the economy. I haven't noticed that happening for the last 9 years either.

So you really have to wonder why they persist in this mania, this obsession of theirs that we need to have more tax cuts for the rich when the economy is flat on its back and unemployment is almost 10 percent.

I think I have the answer. The answer turns out to be very simple. They want a tax cut for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the Republican Party.

Let's start with this gentleman here, the man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't he look happy?

According to Newsweek, he makes $58.7 million a year, and extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will mean that he'll have another $2.7 million. Mega dittos, Rush, and mega money.

Let's look at the next one.

Here's Glenn Beck. According to Newsweek, Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit, and extending the Bush tax cuts means a cool $1.5 million for Glenn Beck's ongoing, night-by-night imitation of Howard Beale from ``Network.''

Now let's take a look at the next one.

Sean Hannity. Newsweek says that Sean Hannity, this man of the people, makes $22 million a year from his act on Fox, and that means that the Bush tax cuts mean an extra $1 million for Sean Hannity. Maybe he can go now and afford some anger management classes.

Let's take a look at the next one.

Bill O'Reilly. He makes a modest $20 million a year from his gig on Fox. And that means that the Bush tax cuts give him not quite seven figures, merely $914,000 a year of extra cash. It's easy to see why Bill O'Reilly wants to see the Bush tax cuts extended. And I have to say he's no Pinhead when it comes to that.

And now Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has made $14 million this year from cashing in on her fame. In fact, she has done a better job of turning fame into cash than anyone in American history, $14 million. She wants the Bush tax cuts extended so she can make an extra cool $638,000.

And now on to Newt Gingrich, the man who did such a great job in running America back in the 1990s that he wants a second chance in this decade. Newt, if you do to us now what you did to us then, we're going to be in big trouble. But Newt Gingrich makes $5 million a year from his punditry, which means he'll get an extra quarter million dollars a year from the Bush tax cuts being extended.

And now let's go on to the Big Cheese, George W. Bush, himself, the man who got us into two endless wars, the man who brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy, the man who gave us $4-a-gallon gasoline.

George W. Bush makes a cool $4.2 million a year, according to Newsweek. That means that extending the Bush tax cuts for George Bush means an extra $187,000 in his pocket every single year.

I have a better idea. Instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the Bush tax cuts without ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of America, let's do this: let's take that money and create jobs. All that money that the Bush tax cuts are charging us, that could create jobs for 3 million Americans a year. A $30,000 job, a fair wage for fair work, a dignified wage for dignified work, and a way to revive our economy in America.

I think that's a better idea than stuffing even more money into the pockets of the rich. Because the problem in America today is not that the poor have too much money. That's not the problem at all. It's that they need jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a subject that I began yesterday. This is the second episode of what the rich are going to do with all those tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to them through extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich in lieu of the Obama tax cuts for the middle class.

As I said yesterday with regard to the 1 percent top income group in this country, the high and mighty who earn more than $1.3 million a year in taxable income, according to the Republican plan each one of them will receive a tax cut, every single year, of $83,347 each year.

I have given a lot of thought to what they are going do with that money. I made some suggestions yesterday, and here are some more suggestions about what they could possibly do with this windfall that the Republicans want to hand to them at a time when this country has 9.5 percent unemployment, 40 million people who cannot see a doctor when they are sick, and so many people who are in danger of losing their homes.

For instance, the rich, the idle rich, the high and mighty, the ruling class, they can buy three tickets to the most expensive suite at the Super Bowl. That costs only $75,000. They will have $12,000 left over in pocket change.

Here is something else that they might do with the windfall that the Republicans want to give them. They can go to the top of Mount Everest. That costs only $65,000, a luxury climb to the top of Mount Everest, with somebody holding your bag for you the whole way up. Just one thing: Make sure you don't fall down.

Here is something else that they can do with the Republican tax plan to give $87,000 a year to the rich. They can take a beautiful 110-day cruise around the world. That costs only $80,000. And it is up to them what they do with the other 250 days a year, but think about that. Think about people in the middle class who struggle, save for vacation year after year, and sometimes occasionally get to go on a 3- or 4- or even a 5-day cruise. With the Republican tax cut for the rich, the millionaires can go on a 110-day luxury cruise, not just 1 year, but every single year.

Here is something else that they can do. They can enjoy two nights at the Hugh Hefner SkyVilla at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas. That costs only $80,000. They will have $7,000 left over for tipping the bellman. And remember, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Republicans want to stuff so much money into the pockets of rich people in this country, the millionaires, the people who make an average of $1.3 million a year, that every single one of them, every single one of them every year for the next 10 years will be able to enjoy a luxury cigar in the morning and a luxury cigar in the evening as well, and they can light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that that's the best use of $100

billion a year of tax money. I have some other ideas about what I would like to see happen. I would like to see jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

If you do the arithmetic, you will find that the $100 billion a year that the Republicans want to hand over to the rich so that they can further comfort the comfortable, that could be used instead to provide a decent job, a job with a living wage, a decent day's pay for a decent day's work to 3 million Americans, and, in a single stroke, could reduce unemployment in this country from 9 percent to 7 percent; but, more importantly, take that $100 billion and make sure it actually circulates in the economy. Because what will the rich do with it? They'll keep it in their pockets; or they'll send it abroad buying luxury goods like we discussed yesterday, or they'll take a cruise around the world that adds nothing to the American economy. But if you actually did take that money and you created 3 million jobs at $30,000 a year for the American people, then you would see our economy revive overnight.

When it comes down to my vote for tax cuts for the rich versus jobs, I'm going to vote for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, sometime between now and December 31 we will be discussing tax cuts--specifically, whether to extend the President Obama tax cuts for the middle class or whether to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts for the rich--and I think it is important for people to understand exactly who this money will be received by.

In the case of the Obama tax cuts, like the child tax credit, it will be received by needy parents who need the money in order to pay the mortgage, pay the rent, pay their car payments, their credit card payments. And in the case of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it will be received by the rich.

In fact, for the top 1 percent of income in this country, the high and mighty, the people who make an average of $1.4 million every single year, according to these charts I am about to show, you will see the following:

Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan for tax cuts is to give each millionaire, each person who makes $1.4 million a year on the average, the top 1 percent of income in this country, the high and mighty, $83,347 a year in tax cuts. $83,347 a year, according to econometric modeling by Citizens for Tax Justice.

Let's give some thought as to what the high and mighty might actually do with that money.

Well, here is one possibility. They can buy an $83,000 Mercedes-Benz E-Class car not just once, but every single year for the next decade. And each year when they get tired of their brand-new Mercedes-Benz E- Class car, they can just give it to somebody because they can afford another one. They can give it to a spouse, a sister, a son, a daughter, anybody. Every single year for the next 10 years, the Republican tax plan is to give millionaires enough money for a Mercedes-Benz.

Here is something else they can do with it. They can buy this gorgeous Hermes bag, a Birkin, for $64,800, not once, but every single year for the next 10 years, to which they will say to the Republican party, ``Thank you very much.''

Here is something else they can do with their money. They can buy this bottle of Chateau d'Yquem wine, bottled in 1787, for only $56,588. That will leave loose change in their pocket of $25,000. They can buy a bottle of wine from 1787 every year for the next decade. Thank you, Republican Party.

Here is something else they can do. They can buy 20,000 jars of their favorite mustard, Grey Poupon, 20,000 jars. That is certainly enough for them, their family, their friends, even a few poor people. Thank you, Republican party.

Here is something else they can do with the $80,000 that the Republican Party wants to put in their pocket every year for the next 10 years. They can buy 800 cigars. Think about that. That is one for the morning and one for the evening, 800 luxury cigars. Then they can light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. Thank you, Republican Party. You are letting the rich in this country enjoy two cigars each day for the next 10 years and light each one with a $100 bill.

Now, I have a different idea. I think it is a better idea. These tax cuts for the rich by the Republican Party are going to cost the U.S. taxpayers $100 billion a year. Do the math. We have 14 million people in this country who are unemployed. We have 13 percent unemployment in my district.

Here is an idea. Let's take that $100 billion and give 3 million Americans a job. Let's give 3 million Americans a working wage, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and that will revive our economy. It will immediately reduce unemployment by two points. And they will take that money and they will spend it on their rent. They will spend it on restaurants in their neighborhood. They will spend it on getting their hair cut. They will spend it on their credit card payments. They will spend it on the things they need to do to stay alive, instead of the alternative, the Republican favorite alternative, which is to have them lose their jobs, keep unemployed, and move into their cars. That is the better idea.

I favor jobs, not tax cuts for the rich.

Madam Speaker, foreclosure fraud can affect anyone, whether you have a mortgage, are paying on time, have income, or not. The average foreclosure hearing in a Florida court is 90 seconds. Mistakes are common, and fraud is rampant. Everyone is familiar with dealing with a big bureaucratic institution. What is happening is that these big bureaucratic loan servicers are charging fees inappropriately, refusing to talk to homeowners by putting calls through to call centers in India, and then foreclosing with forged documents once the homeowner has been drained of all assets and the will to fight.

There is one set of rules for banks, and another set of laws for everyone else. A servicer can ask for fees, it can demand payment, it can send you to call centers in India, and it doesn't have to negotiate. And you now have virtually no rights as a homeowner.

Here are four bizarre examples:

(1) Last summer, Fort Lauderdale resident Jason Grodensky experienced what has tragically become an increasingly familiar process all across America: his house was sold at a foreclosure sale after a bank notified the Florida courts that Grodensky had defaulted on his mortgage. The foreclosure came as a surprise to Grodensky, according to reports from the Sun-Sentinel. Not only did Grodensky not have a mortgage with the bank that sued to foreclose against his house, he had never had a mortgage at all. Grodensky had paid cash for his home.

(2) One house in Pinellas County, Florida saw two foreclosure suits brought against it because the banks didn't know who had title to the mortgage.

(3) One victim with a perfect payment record of all interest and principal was foreclosed on because of a $75 contested late fee.

(4) Tim and Nicole West were victims of a predatory loan. In 2005, a bank threatened to sue the couple if they didn't sign a refinancing offer. Their loan servicer subsequently raised their payments from $1900 to $5300 a month, with regular forebearance fees required in the tens of thousands of dollars. Finally, the servicer refused to accept payments from the family in the name of negotiating for a mortgage modification. Instead of modifying the loan, their servicer began foreclosure proceedings. The servicer used fraudulent documents to prove that it had the right to foreclose.

Here's how it happened.

Securitizating mortgages was originally a way to take the cost of a mortgage of a bank's books. From 2005 onward, the securitization chain went out of control, and Wall Street wanted as many mortgages as it could get, as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. In order to allow it to pull out more fees at every link in the chain, subprime lenders, trusts, and banks decided to cut as many costs as possible, including record-keeping. They didn't keep good records, and violated the laws mandating that they had to file records with county clerks on who owned what mortgage title.

Instead, banks simply digitized mortgage titles into a privatized system called the Mortgage Electronic Registry System (MERS) and did the transfers by trading Excel spreadsheets among banks and trusts rather than by endorsing the notes as required by their own contracts, state real estate law, and IRS rules. Today, MERS is the registered owner of a security interest in 60 million properties or about 60% of the mortgages in the United States. 97% of the loans originated between 2005-2008 are in MERS.

It appears that on a widespread, probably pervasive basis, they did not take the steps necessary for them to own the note (a borrower IOU), which means that in 45 of 50 states, they lack the legal right to foreclose. Thus, every trust now has questionable legal standing in foreclosures in the overwhelming majority of states. In addition, the records were poorly kept, so servicers are basically guessing that they have the right to foreclose when they foreclose.

Obviously, the banks do not want to grapple with the consequence of trillions of dollars of securitized mortgages having no legal standing to foreclose. So, they have simply created a system whereby servicers hire `foreclosure mill' law firms whose business is to forge documents showing that they have a legal right to foreclose. Some of these mills have been featured in the New York Times, and so-called `robo-signers', people whose names show up on thousands of affidavits, despite obvious forgeries and overt admissions that these people had no knowledge of what they were signing.

The system is so organized that there is a company, Lender Processing Services, who allegedly has created the means to systemize fraud. Lawyers use the LPS system to request which affidavits and documents they need. LPS then has `document mills' where they can magically make an authorized Vice President of Whoever You Need, and send you backdated signed documents saying you have the right to foreclose. Courts at first refused to believe that this level of rampant fraud exists, but more recently, they have started to sanction fraud against loan servicers.

Servicers don't make money through routine servicing; it's a break- even business. They make it at foreclosure, with a $6,000 foreclosure fee. When you combine the incentive to foreclose with systemized fraud, it's lawlessness.

Fraud is now big business. And it's sanctioned in part through the government, as both Fannie and Freddie are shareholders in MERS.

We're approaching the point where the easiest way to make a buck is to steal it. The only way to end this plague of foreclosure fraud is to make sure that crime does pay.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor central Florida's ``Veteran of the Month'', a local man known for his exceptional accomplishments and volunteer efforts.

Former Marine Staff Sgt. Michael Sprouse is paralyzed. Despite his disability, Mike has persevered to become a world-class hand cyclist. He holds five marathon course records, and is the world record holder for speed on a downhill course. Mike also organizes and runs sporting clinics for individuals with disabilities all over central Florida and south Florida.

Military service is a family tradition for Mike. His grandfather and father served in the United States Marine Corps. His father made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam in 1966. Mike entered the Marine Corps the day after he graduated from high school. He went on to serve 6 years as a Drill Instructor at Parris Island, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, Mike Sprouse is an inspiration. Every day, he leads by example. Mike encourages others to overcome their disabilities. He is not just an exemplary veteran, he is a phenomenal person. I am proud to recognize him as Florida's 8th District Veteran of the Month.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredible innovations and inspiring achievements of NASA on the 52nd anniversary of their founding. As the world's space pioneers, NASA has pushed the boundaries of the possible, contributing significant scientific discovery along the way.

NASA was established when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act 52 years ago today. Soon after, NASA sent the first U.S. astronaut into space through Project Mercury--Alan B. Shepard, Jr., and shortly thereafter, John Glenn became the first U.S. Astronaut to orbit the earth. NASA built upon this success with Project Gemini, collecting information on weightlessness, space docking, reentry, and executing spacewalks. Finally, in 1969, Project Apollo fulfilled President Kennedy's bold ambition to send a man to the moon before the end of the decade. We all watched as Neil Armstrong took mankind's first steps on the moon and affirmed America's place as the technological leaders of the modern world.

In words that were as poetic as the occasion was meaningful, Armstrong said, ``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Buzz Aldrin quickly joined Armstrong on the moon as Michael Collins continued to circle overhead. I was 11 years old that day. I joined people everywhere in watching and celebrating this tremendous collective accomplishment. I remember it clearly. My family was on vacation, but I had persuaded my parents to let me stay in the hotel room alone all day to watch the television, so I could see these giant men take those giant steps. Their mission was a landmark moment for America, for the world, and for all time. Americans are still inspired by these men and their mission to travel over 250,000 miles of dead space to reach our closest celestial neighbor. I remember thinking then that humankind as a species is capable of true greatness. While wolves howl at the moon, humans visit it.

NASA has conducted many more space flights since that historic day, and it constantly strives to contribute to humanity's knowledge of the universe and ourselves. It inspired a generation to pursue careers in science and engineering, and to believe in the power of American society. Alone in that hotel room, watching TV, I certainly felt a lasting sense of meaning--a connection to those three brave astronauts. Those astronauts represented, in that moment, America's destiny. A destiny shared by the thousands of men and women who worked to make it happen.

NASA's efforts continue today, but their legacy is already assured. From inspiring children to dream to inventing the water filter, NASA has shaped American society in ways we can hardly begin to count. In this, the most competitive, technology-oriented century man has ever known, we are lucky to have an institution like NASA. An institution that will continue to spur us to achieve what was once thought impossible.

Central Florida is proud of NASA and all that it has done. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I have great respect and admiration for NASA's contributions to space exploration. NASA has been, and continues to be, a positive and productive force for the advancement of our Nation's interests. I look forward to watching as they continue to carry us into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 473 and ``no'' on No. 474. I was unable to vote on these rollcall votes because of a personal issue concerning one of my children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Robert N. Butler, the father of modern gerontology. Dr. Butler, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, researcher, and psychiatrist, died at the age of 83 on July 4th at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. Dr. Butler was known for coining the phrase ``ageism'' to describe the discrimination against the elderly. He made it his life work to help create a health care system in which Americans would grow old with dignity and respect. I was honored to be a co-founder and to serve on the Alliance for Aging Board with Dr. Butler. It is truly a privilege to recognize the leading advocate for the treatment and care of the elderly.

Dr. Robert Butler was born in 1927 in New York, and raised by his grandparents on a chicken farm in southern New Jersey. His close bond with his grandparents sparked his passion and interest in the strength and determination of the elderly.

After serving in the U.S. Maritime Service, Dr. Butler attended Columbia University, where he received his undergraduate degree in 1949 and medical degree in 1953. He studied psychiatry and neurology as a resident at the University of California; later joining National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland as a research psychiatrist. He studied the central nervous system in elderly people, and helped investigate problems in nursing homes. Dr. Butler was a U.S. Public Health Service surgeon from 1955 to 1962. During the 1960's he maintained a private practice, while he was a researcher and gerontologist at the Washington School of Psychiatry. He also taught at several medical schools, including Georgetown, Howard, and George Washington Universities.

In 1976, Dr. Butler became the founding director of the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health. During his time there, he successfully pressed Congress to increase research funding, particularly for Alzheimer's disease. Later, he established and led one of the first comprehensive geriatrics departments at an American medical school at Mount Sinai Hospital. His efforts lead to an overhaul in the treatment of the elderly by improving the education of doctors.

Throughout his career, Dr. Butler authored hundreds of articles and various books about the biology and sociology of aging. He wrote his most famous book in 1975 titled, ``Why Survive? Being Old in America'', which won him the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. Since its founding in 1986 until his death, Dr. Butler was the Vice Chair and served on the Board of the Alliance for Aging Research. This non-profit based in Washington, DC is the nation's leading citizen advocacy organization for promoting a broad agenda of medical and scientific research to improve the health and independence of older Americans.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Butler's accomplishments are very personal to me. I help found the Alliance for Aging Research and served as an officer for 22 years. I worked closely with Dr. Butler, as he provided guidance and inspiration for the organization's mission. I am deeply saddened by the loss of a true medical pioneer, and a true friend. Dr. Butler always believed that if you love what you do and can contribute to society, then there is work to be done. He worked until three days before his death. He will be remembered for his groundbreaking work in the field of gerontology, which has changed the medical landscape and will greatly impact the lives of every American.

My grandfather, in the 1930s, spent several years of his life, every single day, going to the dump looking for things there that he could sell, looking for things that he could take to the market and sell, because there was no other way for him to survive the 1930s and the Great Depression.

There was no unemployment insurance back then. There was no State benefits back then. There was no help for the people who had no jobs. All they could do, like my grandfather, in desperate straits, supporting a family of seven, was to go to the dump and desperately try to find something he could sell.

That, my friends, is the America that the Republicans are trying to revive. The America of desperate straits, and for them cheap labor. The America where people have nothing, hope for nothing, and are desperate to live to the next day. That is what the Republicans are trying to resurrect by blocking unemployment insurance day after day, week after week, and now month after month.

I've got news for my Republican friends. Every single person who's going to receive unemployment insurance under this bill is unemployed. Every single one of them doesn't have a job. And that's why they need this money.

Now, I know what the Republicans are thinking. They're thinking why don't they just sell some stock. If they're in really dire straits, maybe they could take some of their art collection and send it off to the auctioneer. And if they're in deep, deep trouble maybe these unemployed can sell one of their yachts. That's what the Republicans are thinking right now. But that's not the life of ordinary people, the 99 percent of America that actually has to work for a living, that doesn't just clip coupons and live off of interest and dividends like my Republican friends do.

That's why we need this bill to pass, because of the 99 percent of America that deals with reality every day, the people who will lose their homes if this bill doesn't pass, the people who will be living in their cars if this bill doesn't pass. That's why we need this to pass.

And I will say this to the Republicans who have blocked this bill now for months and kept food out of the mouths of children, I will say to them now, may God have mercy on your souls.

I speak tonight in support of peace. The hardest thing that we often do as human beings is this, to admit that we are wrong. It's not easy. We all know it. We don't look forward to it. And sometimes we feel bad afterward. But we have to admit we are wrong when we are wrong, because if we don't we keep hurting ourselves. And that's exactly what we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, we are hurting ourselves. We are hurting ourselves extremely deeply.

We have spent over $3 trillion pursuing these wars. That's over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. We have put our whole national economy at risk, bringing it to the brink of national bankruptcy. We have killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Afghans, and of Iraqis. We have shed blood all over the Middle East at this point.

And in addition to that, we have done lasting damage to ourselves as a country on a moral level, on an economic level, and on a level of the health of the young men and women who serve us. A quarter of a million of them left with permanent brain abnormalities. We are hurting ourselves. We are a strong country. We decide when wars begin and when wars end, and we have to decide to end this one right now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication and community leadership of Linda Sutherland in honor of Children's Awareness Month. As executive director of the Orange County Healthy Start Coalition, Mrs. Sutherland helps provide nutritional education and counseling services to pregnant woman and mothers with infants in order to ensure healthy pregnancies and babies. For 10 years, under Linda Sutherland's direction, new and expecting mothers in Central Florida have had access to support and important resources that will ensure their child receives the highest quality of health care. Children's Awareness Month focuses on bringing attention to the emotional, physical, and mental health needs of our children and youth. Linda Sutherland's leadership with the Healthy Start Coalition encourages the strengthening of maternal and child health by ensuring that all Florida families have access to a continuum of affordable and quality health and related services.

Mrs. Sutherland is a graduate of Marymount College where she graduated with a degree in Business Administration. She was then elected and served for the next 12 years as an Orange County School Board Member. Over the past two decades, Mrs. Sutherland has been given numerous awards for her professional and personal achievements and contributions. The Who's Who of International Women, Orange County Public Health, and the Florida School Board Association are just a few of the organizations who have recognized her outstanding leadership and active involvement in the Central Florida community. Linda Sutherland also serves as a peer reviewer for The Maternal Child Health Journal and contributes to the State of Florida March of Dimes Planning Committee.

Madam Speaker, Mrs. Sutherland's advocacy on behalf of women and children in the Central Florida community simply cannot be measured. Throughout the last 25 years, Mrs. Sutherland has demonstrated that a single person can make a difference in many lives. The Healthy Start Coalition transforms families every day by working together to reducing infant mortality and low birth weight babies. It gives me pleasure to honor Mrs. Linda Sutherland who deserves this recognition for her incredibly charitable work and philanthropy in the Central Florida community.