Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 359, which would repeal the presidential public funding system. Thanks to Wall Street, unemployment is nominally at 9.4 percent but in actuality is much higher and foreclosures continue to defy efforts to get them under control. Thousands die from no or inadequate access to medical care every year because the health insurance companies have given rise to one of the most expensive, least accessible, and lowest quality health care systems in the developed world. Defense companies profit handsomely off of two major wars, one of which is still expanding almost 10 years on. Fossil fuel companies continue to alter the planet at a pace that has been declared not only a major environmental and economic issue, but also a national security issue. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``in 2007, the top 5 percent of wealth owners accounted for about 60 percent of all wealth accumulated by households.''

These are also industries who happen to contribute mightily to campaigns of both parties. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that special interests spent $281.6 million during the 2010 election cycle. These industries are not contributing out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their large investments pay dividends. It is the cost of doing business.

This is not a situation in which it is a good idea to give the wealthy more influence over the public's governance. But H.R. 359 will do that. By reducing the opt-in, voluntary contribution to presidential campaigns, this Congress will declare that the vast majority of Americans should have less influence over the selection of its government and the corporations should have more.

Instead, we should be demanding full public financing of elections with small maximum contributions. We should be amending the Constitution to clarify that our founders did not intend to create a system in which one dollar equals one vote. And we must reverse the corrosive decision to grant corporations the same rights as people in the eyes of the law.

We can do better. A thriving democracy demands it.

Mr. Speaker, banks repossessed more than 1 million homes and issued nearly 3 million foreclosure notices in 2010. These record-breaking numbers defy a massive effort over the last two years by the Obama Administration to prevent foreclosures. Nearly $12 billion dollars has been spent on a system to incentivize banks into lowering the monthly payments of troubled borrowers. But the program hasn't made a serious dent, and here's why: banks make more money on foreclosure than they do on mortgage loan modification.

Banks who give mortgages to homeowners also own many of the companies, known as servicers, which collect the monthly payments by borrowers. This seems like a logical arrangement, until you understand that servicers make more profit if a homeowner defaults on their mortgage and gets foreclosed on, than if the bank gives that struggling homeowner a mortgage modification. Yet one in five homeowners owe more on their mortgage than their home is even worth.

This has kept well-intentioned mortgage modification efforts by the Obama Administration will not be able to seriously reduce foreclosures until the banks are forced to write down the value of mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, recent headlines have celebrated the most recent unemployment statistics from January, which showed the number of unemployed Americans to 9 percent. The rate is down from 9.8 percent in November, at its lowest level since April 2009. This is the biggest two-month decline in the unemployment rate since 1958. This news was celebrated along with news of the stock market breaking high levels not seen in years.

But the upbeat headlines celebrating these figures are little comfort to the nearly 15 million unemployed Americans. Pull back the headlines and you discover a grim reality. More than 40 million Americans are in poverty, and that number is actually closer to 50 million, once health care, transportation, child care and other costs are included. The labor force participation rate, a measure of the number of working-age Americans who are employed, are willing to work or are actively looking for work, is the lowest it has been in over a generation. The job situation has been so grim for so long, that of the more than 6 million Americans who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, many have given up hope of ever finding a job, and are no longer being counted. So before we start patting ourselves on the back for climbing out of the Great Recession, let's remember that for too many Americans, behavioral economics and celebratory newspaper headlines are not something you can eat.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House will debate the extension of the Patriot Act.

I have here a report from the latimes.com that says that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently and to a greater extent than was previously assumed.

The report goes on to say that, in 2007, the Justice Department's Inspector General told Congress the FBI may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times since 2003 in the course of secretly collecting telephone, bank and credit card records without warrants--instead, using so-called ``national security'' letters that give them the ability to demand this kind of information and get it.

The Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of the Constitution. We started this Congress off with a discussion about reading the Constitution. Many of us carry Constitutions with us in our pockets. How about today we take a stand for the Constitution to say that all Americans should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to make certain that the attempt to reauthorize the Patriot Act is beaten down.

It is time that we really remember the essence of what that motto ``don't tread on me'' means. It means you protect your liberties; you stand for freedom.

Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. I certainly appreciate that.

I will certainly never seek to impugn the feelings of those who say that we have to have the PATRIOT Act in order to protect our country. We are all patriots here, and we all want America to be protected; but we have to recognize our constitutional experience here and the reason why we have a Fourth Amendment that protects people not just from unreasonable search and seizure, but from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their lives.

When we look at our constitutional experience and all of the efforts that made it and built up to it, we didn't hear ``give my liberty or give me a wiretap.'' We didn't hear ``don't tread on me, but it is okay to spy.'' What we heard was a ringing declaration about freedom, and it was enshrined in the Constitution.

I stood on the floor of the House way back when the Patriot Act came forward, voted against it because I read it and understood that it opened up the door for a broad reach and possibilities of broad reach by the government into our daily lives.

The gentleman from Wisconsin, who is my friend, correctly pointed out earlier the difference between National Security Letters and the Patriot Act. But it also is true that section 505 of the Patriot Act gave the government the ability to greatly expand who could issue a national security letter, so much so that nearly 50,000 national security letters were issued by the FBI in 2006, I think the year was. They don't have to use section 215 of the Patriot Act. They can just invoke the national security letter authority and reach into people's financial records, their medical letters, their reading material.

What is happening to our country? Why are we giving up our basic liberties? We need to take a stand here, and this is as good a day as any to take a stand. Many Members of Congress, including those supported by my friends in the tea party, maintain their goal is to get rid of big government, get government out of their lives. Well, how about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest reach of government into our daily lives? Shouldn't we be thinking about that?

Some want to get government out of health care. Some want to get government out of retirement security. How about getting government out of people's bedrooms, out of people's financial records, out of people's medical records?

Vote ``no'' on extending the Patriot Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Mr. Gordon S. Murray. When Mr. Murray, a retired Wall Street executive, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in 2008, he decided rather than quietly and privately succumbing to the disease, he would write a guidebook outlining his investment strategy. In doing so, he helped many Americans make sense of investing.

Mr. Murray, a Baltimore native, spent years working for some of Wall Street's biggest names, including Goldman Sachs. Upon his retirement in 2001, he sought investment advice from Mr. Daniel Goldie of Dimensional Fund Advisors, who introduced him to a new way of understanding investment. Dimensional advisers suggested going against the Wall Street mentality of taking exorbitant risks and attempting to beat the markets. Mr. Murray was quickly convinced of this system's merits and began working for Dimensional as a consultant.

Last year, when brain scans revealed a new tumor, Mr. Murray made the decision to end aggressive treatment, and began to focus on writing a book with Mr. Goldie in an attempt to spread their knowledge to the greater public. They initially self-published the resulting book, ``The Investment Answer,'' which sold out of the original 200,000 copies last fall. Mr. Murray passed away just days before the hardcover version of the book was set to hit shelves. Mr. Murray felt that writing ``The Investment Answer'' was a beneficial experience. He stated, `To have a purpose and a mission for me has been really special. It probably has added days to my life.' (New York Times, 1/24/2011)

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and memory of Mr. Gordon S. Murray, who proved to be an inspiration through his refusal to let his terminal illness prevent him from achieving his life's work. Mr. Murray will be loved and remembered by many, especially his widow, Randi; his mother; his two sons, Sam and Ben; two sisters, Gillian Koerber and Norma Inglehart; his many friends, colleagues and all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, the outgoing Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Major General Arnold Fields, issued a last warning yesterday before moving on from his post.

Fields warned that over $11 billion of U.S. aid is at risk, citing insufficient planning and a lack of oversight. The $11 billion are funds designated to build facilities to house and train Afghan security forces.

The lack of security in Afghanistan also poses a problem, placing any potentially beneficial projects that are completed at risk. Even if all the facilities scheduled to be built are completed, does Afghanistan have the capability to protect and maintain them?

A March 2010 report by the United Nations states that there is a ``massive human rights deficit'' in Afghanistan, with 36 percent of the population living in absolute poverty and another 37 percent living just above the poverty line. Only 23 percent of the country has access to clean water. This, despite the billions of dollars in reconstruction and development aid we have funneled into the country.

So where is our money going? We know that President Karzai and his cronies are living large, while the rest of the country falters. It is time to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, when talking to non-partisan health care financing experts about the ideal health care system, their preference is clear: they usually agree that a single-payer system that prevents the health insurance companies from getting between you and your doctor is the way to go. But they usually follow up with a caveat--the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are too powerful to allow it to happen: it is not politically feasible.

I am thrilled to say that argument is now a relic. On January 19, Harvard economist William Hsiao released a report that examined three health care systems for Vermont, whose new governor campaigned on a single-payer platform. The report found that a true single payer system would save Vermont 8-12 percent off their health care spending upon implementation and another 12-14 percent as the system gets up and running. The result is that 5000 new jobs will be created because of the burden lifted off of businesses. And it would cover every Vermonter.

An article by VTDigger.org announced that ``Even the private insurance companies, many of whose policy-holders would presumably be diverted to the new `single pipe' which would channel all payments to doctors and hospitals through set rates for procedures cautiously welcomed Hsiao's proposal.''

We are at the doorstep of one of the most promising developments in health care of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the contributions of Captain Dan Hoffman, a longtime public servant and Chief of the Parma Police Department. A natural leader and dedicated law enforcement officer, Captain Hoffman devoted nearly four decades of his life to protecting the people of Ohio.

Mr. Hoffman grew up on the near west side of Cleveland and graduated from Old Lincoln High School. He began his career with the East Cleveland Police Department in June of 1973, and moved to the Parma department five years later. Over the last 33 years, Hoffman has worked in many areas of the Parma Police Department. In his early years, he served on the Uniform Patrol Division, the Motorcycle Unit, the S.W.A.T. Unit, the Detective Bureau, the Special Investigations Unit, and the Services Division. He later moved up to work as Commander of the Uniform Patrol, Records, and Services divisions before being promoted to Executive Officer and finally Chief. Somehow, Hoffman still made time to attend both the FBI National Academy and Northwestern School of Police Staff and Command.

Like a true leader, Hoffman credits his employees and colleagues for the department's success. In a letter announcing his retirement, he wrote ``As I think about all of the past and present employees who have worked so hard to get us where we are now I am filled with a sense of pride for all of their and your accomplishments. It is apparent that everyone has committed to ensuring the safety and quality of life for the citizens of Parma.''

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in applauding Dan Hoffman for his outstanding service to the people of Parma. May every American citizen feel deep gratitude for the bravery, dedication, and talent of men and women who spend their lives keeping our communities safe. Captain Hoffman had a true calling to law enforcement and he leaves behind a legacy of public spirit, excellence, and camaraderie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Ashley Turton, a loving wife, mother, daughter, sister and friend. Mrs. Turton's devotion to public service, and her passionate love for her family and children, has left a mark on countless lives.

Mrs. Turton dedicated her life to serving the American public. She served as press secretary, and later, chief of staff to Congresswoman DeLauro. She also worked as an aid to Congressman Richard Gephardt. She was a leader during her career as a public servant and she worked for the benefit of the people.

Upon leaving the public sector, Mrs. Turton continued to promote responsibility and good work ethics as a regulatory affairs analyst for Progressive Energy. She was a valued employee and a cooperative colleague, always happy and enjoying life's pleasures.

For everything Mrs. Turton was, she was a kind and caring mother first. A mother of three, Mrs. Turton was an active part of her neighborhood, where she was commonly seen playing with her children.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Ashley Turton, whose legacy of professionalism, service to others, and love and cheerful radiance will forever remain in our hearts and minds. I extend my sincere condolences to Mrs. Turton's husband, Dan Turton, a colleague of ours and a friend to many, and to Mrs. Turton's parents, siblings and children. Mrs. Turton's commitment to the common good and love will remain an example for us and those to come.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has long labored under a stigma of violence.

An estimated one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. 30% of all students through grade six will experience bullying, either as victims or perpetrators.

Domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in our schools, gang violence, racial violence and violence against those we perceive to be different than us remain prevalent.

So what should we do?

What if we had an organized approach to dealing with violence in our society? What if we treated violence as phenomenon that could be addressed, diminished and resolved?

We have always been told that war is inevitable. That violence is inevitable.

We must challenge these notions. Government has a role in creating an organized approach to addressing violence and to create structures to lessen violence and its impact on our lives.

We cannot wait for more tragic events to occur to force us to examine issues of violence here at home.

There is no time like the present to begin, again, the debate about violence in our society. I intend to facilitate this debate with a proposal I will soon bring forward.

Mr. Speaker, millions of retirees that worked in the public sector feel very threatened right now, and for good reason: their pensions are being threatened. As we engage in a national conversation about how to reduce the deficit both in our States and in our Nation, let us be clear about one thing: we will not be cutting the pensions of retirees--including teachers, police, fire and EMS workers, public works personnel, and many others--who devoted their careers to serving the public. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported that States are facing 2012 fiscal year operating deficits totaling nearly $125 billion dollars. This number represents both short and long-term financial challenges for States. But the fear, blame and confusion surrounding such a number has put a tremendous amount of pressure on elected officials and State legislatures to make immediate and drastic cuts to State services, including retiree pensions. Recently, a proposal was suggested to give States the ability to file for bankruptcy. Such an initiative is a non-starter, as it would do far more harm than good. It means that States who declare bankruptcy could seek to back out of their solemn promise to provide for those who served the public after their service was done.

Those promises are known as defined benefit pensions. The public employees were promised the security of knowing those benefits would be there when they need them. If States successfully cancel out these agreements under cover of bankruptcy, the costs to individuals as well as the trust in government will be enormous. We cannot, we must not and we will not ask retirees to pay the consequences of upending these long-term promises for the sake of a false short-term financial solution.

As we begin this great debate over what our priorities are, it's worth reflecting on an article that was written nearly 3 years ago in the Sunday Times of London by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his associate Linda Bilmes. Here is what they write:

``The Bush administration was wrong about the benefits of the war''-- talking about the Iraq war--``and was wrong about the costs of the war. The President and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

``The cost of direct U.S. military operations--not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans--already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

``And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost 10 times the cost of the first gulf war, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam war, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history that cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting 4 years, at a total cost, in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation, of about $5 trillion.''

They go on to write that, ``With virtually the entire Armed Forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop, in today's dollars, was less than $100,000.'' That's in 2007 dollars. ``By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

``Most Americans have yet to feel these costs.'' This was written almost 3 years ago. ``The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it--in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But, of course, the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.''

That from Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes almost 3 years ago.

One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half our discretionary spending. We have seen countless stories of U.S. taxpayer dollars going unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had countless high-profile hearings on contractor fraud and the lack of oversight at the Department of Defense.

According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 39 percent of our income tax dollars last year went to Pentagon spending on past and current wars. And Stiglitz, again, has said that the Iraq war ``didn't just contribute to the severity of the financial crisis . . . it kept us from responding to it effectively. Increased indebtedness meant that the government had far less room to maneuver than it otherwise would have.'' So what we have is the U.S. financing war on borrowed money.

We must examine our connection between soaring debt and these two wars, the war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan. Between 2003 and 2008, the U.S. debt increased by almost $4 trillion. A quarter of that debt is directly attributed to the war in Iraq. The cost of the war in Afghanistan has been over $455 billion to date, and the deadline for that keeps sliding past 2014.

Now, in the nationalpriorities.org, they talk about a sustainable defense. And one report says that there are options for reducing military spending, saving nearly $1 trillion over the next decade without adversely impacting U.S. national security interests. So we can have a strong defense, but we're spending so much money, we're undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people here at home. And we have to start taking care of things here at home.

What will we sacrifice? Will we sacrifice the education of our children for these wars? Will we sacrifice Social Security for these wars? Will we sacrifice Medicare or Medicaid for these wars? Will we sacrifice our infrastructure for these wars? Or will we say the war in Iraq was based on lies; let's bring these troops home? Will we say that Afghanistan is a hopeless, corrupt mess and it's time to bring our troops home, and then begin to use the resources of our country, those resources that are hard-earned taxpayer dollars, use that money for things here at home? Let's have that debate as we talk about cutting the budget.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on the reduction of non-defense and security spending, a visit to recent history reveals a telling connection between our soaring debt and the two wars our country is waging.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the average American family of four almost $13,000 last year. We know from our constituents when we return to our districts that the average American family of four cannot afford that. They cannot afford to pay for wars that undermine our national and moral security. Many families can barely afford to stay in their homes.

Nobel Prize winning economist and author of The Three Trillion Dollar War, Joseph Stiglitz, says that there is ``no question that the Iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The result: a war completely funded by borrowing. The global financial crisis, he says, was due at least in part to the war.

If this sounds familiar, it is because we are pursuing the same policies today. The ramifications of our spending on the Iraq War-- soaring oil prices, federal debt and a global economic crisis--were during a time when the resources dedicated to Iraq were much greater than those being dedicated to Afghanistan. The commitment of an additional 30,000 troops and a continually slipping withdrawal date commits us to an endless war and an endless stream of borrowed money. It commits us to seemingly endless economic insecurity.

Moving past the costs of waging war, there are the costs of providing returning veterans with the care they need. When these costs are factored in, the costs of health care and benefits for veterans significantly increases the $3 trillion price tag to nearly $5 trillion.

It is time to question the way we enhance our national security and our economic security. It will be a grave mistake to miss this opportunity.

The facts tell us that the policies we have been pursuing in recent years have led us further from the very goals we claim to be working toward. The facts tell us that it is fiscally irresponsible to continue defense spending at current rates.

By ignoring this responsibility--by pretending that it doesn't exist--we fail to heed the lessons from our economic decline. The costs of maintaining the status quo are great. The moral and human costs are even greater.

Mr. Speaker, as President Obama meets with visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, in the past decade, we've lost at least 2 million American industrial jobs to China. In 2010 alone, the trade deficit between the U.S. and China was $252 billion dollars.

The fact is that Chinese workers are paid much lower wages than U.S. workers, which means their products are much cheaper to produce than if companies operating in China had to pay actual fair labor costs. Chinese workers endure a much lower standard of living than Americans do. They also lack any right to organize or petition their employers or government for better working conditions. They do not enjoy the same protections of their environment that masses of Americans have fought so hard for. We take these basic protections for granted because they are enshrined in our law.

We cannot seek to compete with the Chinese on their level by weakening environmental and worker protections in the hope that this will correct the economic imbalances between our two nations. Instead we must re-write the U.S.-China trade agreements to include these essential worker and environmental protections.