Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, unrelated, partisan riders often have received scorn in the past. In 2008, for example, now- Speaker Boehner mentioned his strong distaste, stating: ``Attaching these riders is the sort of stunt that has made Americans extremely cynical about Washington.'' But when finally agreeing to vote on a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, this bill is riddled with riders.

Preventative health care, for example, improves wellness and lowers costs. When provided the opportunity for free preventative services, 70 percent of Medicare recipients enrolled. But this bill cuts that care. Why? It's a rider.

What do payroll tax cuts and shipping more gasoline to China have in common? Republican Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged this political gamesmanship saying: ``I think we should debate the Keystone pipeline, and we should debate tax policy separately.'' Sadly, it's another rider in this bill.

Finally, Republicans included a poison pill with actual poison-- mercury, arsenic, and other toxins. What does gutting the Clean Air Act have to do with payroll tax cuts? Nothing. It's a rider.

I strongly support extending the payroll tax cut to help 160 million Americans; but first we need to cut the partisan riders.

I thank my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, for the 173rd time this year our friends on the other side have brought another anti-environmental, anti-public health bill to the floor. For good reason, this House majority has been identified as the most stridently anti-environmental Congress in history in a tragic refutation of Republicans' heretofore historic commitment to conservation and public safety.

The REINS Act, like the Regulatory Accountability Act passed last week, has a poetic finality as it would block any and all progressive regulations largely the legacy of Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Under Teddy Roosevelt's administration, in response to appalling food processing conditions described in Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' Congress reacted and passed the first comprehensive food safety regulation. One hundred years later, the REINS Act, on the floor today, would block even the most commonsense regulations which Congress mandated just last session--new standards to protect Americans from deadly contamination by Chinese and Mexican imported foods. The REINS Act is a worthy piece of legislation for those among us who actually believe that Chinese factory farms should ship contaminated, uninspected food directly to American dinner tables.

President Teddy Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act, written by a Republican Congressman, Congressman Lacey of Ohio, to protect the Grand Canyon--and thank God they did--when Congress at that time refused to designate it as a National Park. The REINS Act would prevent Federal land management agencies from issuing regulations to protect America's greatest places from degradation by mining and off-road vehicles.

The REINS Act also would block all regulations issued subsequent to Teddy Roosevelt's administration, including such landmark bills as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Along with the Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House approved last week, the REINS Act is the most comprehensive, radical assault on American safety and public health in the last century.

If REINS passes, it will replace the rule of law with the rule of the jungle. Our friends on the other side know full well that in commonsense language they have masked the inability of the Federal Government ever again to issue commonsense regulation to protect public health and safety in this country. And that would be a tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Marlene Blum on receiving the Lawrence V. Fowler Award. The Fairfax County, Virginia, government gives the Fowler award annually to a citizen volunteer who has served on a County board, authority or commission and who has demonstrated exceptional service to the community.

Marlene has committed herself to volunteer service on the often- overlooked advisory boards and commissions that are nonetheless so vital to the functioning of a caring community. She has, through mastery of areas like heath care and human services, given us a model of how a single person can affect policy and programs that improve the lives of our entire community. Her wisdom and counsel continue to be indispensable in everything Fairfax County does in health and human services.

I have been privileged to call Marlene a friend for many years now, and I have worked very closely with her on countless issues. Her dedication and hard work have been inspirational. Marlene has been a truly transformative figure, leading by deed and example, improving the lives of the very youngest to the very oldest.

Over the years, Marlene has served in a number of different roles on a number of different boards and committees, generously giving of her time and expertise. She was President of the Fairfax County Council of Parent Teacher Student Association and promoted student needs. As Chairman of the Fairfax County School Health Task Force, Marlene led the effort to place public health nurses in every school. She led the effort to create the Community Health Care Network which provides primary health care to uninsured and underinsured individuals. Marlene helped create the County's HIV/AIDS Task Force in 1989 providing prevention and education assistance. She served on the Planning Committee to End Homelessness, providing blueprint recommendations. Marlene was instrumental in the creation of the Medically Fragile Respite Program in 2006, providing medically needy homeless individuals with critically needed care. Marlene served as the first Chairman of the Consolidated Community Funding Pool Advisory Committee, providing funding allocation recommendations for the County's various human services needs and helping to establish a professional, nonpartisan procedure for allocating human services funding.

One cannot overstate the profound impact Marlene Blum has had on the daily lives of Fairfax County residents over her more than 20 years of service, and she is an indispensable resource for our community. She truly represents a living example that one determined citizen does make a difference. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Marlene Blum for receiving the 2011 Lawrence V. Fowler award and to take this opportunity to recognize all of our tireless citizen volunteers who give of themselves to better our communities.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Cameras in the Court Act of 2011 to ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial branch by providing television coverage for open proceedings before the United States Supreme Court.

This is companion legislation to a bipartisan bill, S. 1945, introduced yesterday by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Assistant Senate Majority Leader, and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011 respects the individual rights of the parties appearing before the Court, only applying to open proceedings. In addition, a majority of the Supreme Court justices may vote to exclude television coverage of a particular proceeding if they decide that such coverage would result in a violation of the due process rights of any of the specific parties before the Court.

This legislation would only apply to those Supreme Court proceedings currently open to the public. Individual Americans are welcome to observe these Court proceedings, but only in an extremely limited number. The Supreme Court has seating for several hundred, however they typically only allocate roughly 50 seats for the general public. And that is what is so troubling. Given the sweeping nature of recent Supreme Court decisions, this limited seating almost screams elitism, secrecy and contempt for the public by this third branch of our government.

I strongly believe that the separation of powers and our system of checks and balances is essential to the successful operation of a democratic society. However transparency and accountability are necessary to ensure that those checks and balances are properly applied, even in the judicial branch itself.

Regardless of the scope of the legislation, Congressional debates and votes on each and every bill are televised and available to Americans through CSPAN. It was not enough for reporters to pass along their accounts of what occurred, nor was it enough for the limited number of Americans who could directly observe from the House and Senate galleries. The entire American public--it was determined--was entitled to know what the Congress was undertaking in its name.

It strains any reasonable precept of transparency to assert that such momentous recent Supreme Court deliberations such as Bush v. Gore, Kelo v. City of New London, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission were available only to the 50 Americans who were allowed and fortunate enough to be among the chosen few to wait in the queue for public seating.

Americans today live in a world where information is near instantaneous; where with a handheld cell phone they are able to communicate through live video conferencing with nearly anyone in the world. Today's technology allows us to bring events from across the globe to our fingertips in real time.

It is essential that the highest arbiter of the law of our land provide all Americans with the opportunity to observe United States Supreme Court proceedings in a manner that will enable them to form their own opinion through direct observation. Transparency and accountability are the windows through which everyday citizens may observe and protect democracy. Are there risks that some will play to the cameras? Yes, absolutely. Are those risks offset by the public's need, indeed right, to know? Absolutely yes. Sunshine--even in the Supreme Court--remains the best disinfectant against those who might feel that the black robe of life-tenure grants them permanent immunity from accountability for their words and opinions.

I urge my colleagues to support transparency and accountability in the United States Supreme Court and cosponsor the Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011.

Madam Speaker, all of us join with our colleague in honoring that fallen hero.

Madam Speaker, Congress must act now to extend the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and domestic renewable energy tax incentives. The effects of the Great Recession continue to linger in this economy, which is why a more robust recovery has not yet taken root.

Our efforts in the last Congress, through the Recovery Act and the Job Creation Act at the end of last year, provided what momentum we actually have. The official unemployment rate has now fallen to 8.6 percent as a result of 120,000 new jobs created just last month. That's the lowest level in more than 2 years and marks 21 consecutive months of private sector job growth. But these gains will be at risk if Congress fails to extend the payroll tax cuts, domestic clean energy incentives, and unemployment benefits before the end of this year.

The payroll tax cut provides the average American worker $1,000 to spend or invest every year, having a positive impact throughout the economy. Economic analysts at Barclays estimate that the payroll tax cut alone will add another 1 percent to gross domestic product growth, $250 billion in economic activity throughout the United States. Conversely, if we fail to extend that payroll tax cut, 160 million Americans will be facing a tax increase in January.

Similarly, 1.3 million Americans who are trying to get back into the workforce will see their unemployment benefits cut unless we renew them. According to the Congressional Budget Office and Senator John McCain's economic adviser, Mark Zandi, unemployment insurance is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, generating $1.64 for every $1 we invest in unemployment insurance. Failure to extend unemployment benefits will reduce the gross domestic product by nearly 1 percent and, by reducing economic activity, could put as many as 1 million Americans out of work at a time when we're trying to expand the economy.

With respect to domestic clean energy production, renewing these incentives will sustain one of the few private sector success stories we've witnessed during the Great Recession. Since 2007, the number of jobs in the American wind industry has grown 70 percent. So today there are as many wind energy jobs as there are in the coal industry. The number of solar industry jobs doubled since 2007 to more than 100,000 Americans. This surge in domestic clean energy employment is a direct result of the 1603 Treasury Grant Program to support clean energy activity.

Madam Speaker, as we continue to debate these expiring tax and benefit provisions, I'd caution my colleagues against holding them hostage to advance some extreme ideological agenda. Last week, the Senate minority leader brought legislation to the floor which would have slashed Federal employee wages and benefits while arbitrarily downsizing the Federal workforce.

As the Bureau of Labor Statistics noted, public sector employment continues to shrink by tens of thousands of jobs. A job is a job, whether it's in the public sector or the private sector. One is not better than the other.

If Republicans had not been successful in cutting 535,000 public sector jobs in this country, unemployment would actually be 0.35 percent lower. It would be down to 8.25 percent today, not 8.6. Cutting Federal employee pay and slashing the workforce would actually undermine the economic benefits of the payroll tax extension and the economic benefits we've all worked so hard to create.

Similarly, we should reject attempts to tie these economic recovery actions with partisan proposals to gut the Clean Air Act. Republicans in the House already have tried to pass 172 viciously anti- environmental bills, riders, and amendment in this body this year alone. Now, some in the Republican Caucus have suggested pairing the Clean Air Act repeals with an extension of the payroll tax cut, a Faustian bargain at best, Madam Speaker.

Repealing these Clean Air Act standards for industrial boilers, for example, would cost the U.S. economy $21 billion to $52 billion per year in higher health care costs, real costs to the economy.

Not surprisingly, some even have proposed expediting approval of the Keystone XL pipeline in exchange for the payroll tax extension. Again, we already have pipelines from Canadian tar

sands into America. According to independent economic analyses, the Keystone pipeline could increase exports of Canadian oil, not to the United States, but to China. I want to keep that oil here in this economy if we're going to build that pipeline.

Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership's legislative sausage would shock Upton Sinclair, who wrote ``The Jungle'' 100 years ago. He said, It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding.

Instead of wrapping special interest policy-riders and polluter giveaways into a tax-extender package, Congress should focus on those policies which are demonstrated job creators: payroll tax cuts, domestic clean energy incentives, and unemployment insurance extension.

The economic recovery is too fragile, Madam Speaker, to risk on the higher health care costs, higher gas prices, and economic hardships that some of these Republican proposals would otherwise create.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2471. This bill would update the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving consumers the ability to use social media to discuss movies they have been watching. When it was passed in 1988, internet social media did not exist, and the law needs an update for the digital age.

This legislation explicitly prevents businesses from using an ``opt out'' mechanism

which businesses might abuse to consumers' detriment. Instead, it requires that consumers proactively choose to share their movie preferences with their friends. For this reason, the Future of Privacy Forum, a consumer advocacy group, supports this legislation.

This update ensures that consumers can use existing social media outlets to discuss movies they have watched. It may also contribute to the health of the movie industry by integrating it more fully into new modes of internet communications used by consumers.

I applaud my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for his work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 3010, seductively titled the Regulatory Accountability Act, would block every single new or pending Federal regulation, including those regulations which Congress has already directed agencies to write. This bill would neuter the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms protecting consumers; it would block tougher food safety oversight responding to last year's salmonella outbreak; and it would gut public health laws, jeopardizing clean air and water and workplace safety. It would effectively repeal 25 separate public health, consumer protection, and environmental laws Congress has already passed. No wonder the Statement of Administration Policy noted that the President would veto the bill if passed.

With this legislation, the House Republican leadership has now attempted to pass more than 170 pieces of legislation, riders and amendments to attack public health and the environment; but H.R. 3010's impacts would not stop here.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Securities and Exchange Commission would not be able to implement consumer protections mandated by law, including commonsense rules like prohibiting investment banks from betting against their own clients on the stock market. The EPA would not be able to complete the toxic air pollution control rule which Congress directed it to implement 21 years ago. Our regulatory system already is so slow that this critical public health standard, which would reduce mercury and arsenic pollution, has been taking since 1990 to develop. Apparently taking two decades to limit mercury pollution is much too fast for the sponsors of this bill.

This bill uses seemingly innocuous requirements to create a tangle of red tape so thick that it would be impossible for any Federal agency, frankly, to issue meaningful regulations ever again.

This bill uses several clever provisions to create regulatory gridlock. The first seems harmless. It requires

agencies to use the lowest-cost requirement when issuing regulations. It directs agencies to consider alternative regulatory approaches proposed by industry. This model emulates the structure of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which provides a case study for failed environmental legislation. Like this bill, the Toxic Substances Act requires regulations to adhere to the lowest-cost solution. What's wrong with that?

For this reason, polluters have been successful in challenging almost every proposed regulation on the premise that there are lower-cost alternatives. For example, asbestos. Despite its well-documented health hazard as a known carcinogen, it's still legal to use asbestos in America unlike in 50 other advanced countries, because asbestos manufacturers challenged the EPA's ban on asbestos and won the case in court when they showed that prohibiting asbestos was not the lowest- cost regulatory option.

The Toxic Substances Act is so ineffective that in its 35 years, a mere five of 22,000 potentially toxic chemicals have actually been regulated under its authority. This bill would require regulatory agencies to analyze every single alternative proposed by industry--a Sisyphean task that would effectively preclude any new regulation from ever again being issued against recalcitrant polluters.

The other clever provision of this bill which also appears innocuous is the requirement that agencies perform a cost-benefit analysis for every regulatory alternative, even spurious ones, proposed by industry. Of course, Congress wants agencies to consider both the cost and benefits of regulations. That's why agencies already do provide full cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. Requiring agencies to waste time analyzing every, even spurious, industry alternatives indefinitely delays any additional regulation.

There are only two differences between this bill and the majority's previous attacks on the environment. First, because of its broad scope, this bill would be more destructive; and, second, its clever language conceals how thoroughly it would eviscerate regulatory agencies.

That is why I have introduced this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to exempt public health and safety laws from the purview of this bill. The Republican leadership claims it supports public health and safety. Well, let's give them the opportunity to prove it.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect public health and safety. Without this change, this so-called Regulatory Accountability Act guts the important public health, safety, and consumer protection standards we have long counted on in this country; and it would, in fact, not hold industry accountable for any of its future actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, this House is taking up a proposal that represents a direct attack on the will of the American people.

Public financing for Presidential elections, which began in the 1970s, is one of the few opportunities where Americans are allowed to specify how they want their tax dollars spent.

As Members of Congress, we are charged with representing the interests of our constituents. In this particular instance, however, we know precisely what the American people want. By voluntarily checking this box on their tax forms, more than 10 million of our fellow Americans have made their intentions explicitly clear. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund exists because individual Americans expressly opted to dedicate a portion of their taxes to that purpose.

In January, House Republicans voted to ignore the explicit intentions of the American people and eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Thankfully, the Senate heard Americans' call and killed the bill. And this year, millions of Americans again checked the box on their tax forms for calendar year 2010, once again, explicitly telling the government how they wanted their taxes spent.

Ironically, our Republican colleagues cite their own YouCut website as a representative site, with at most, a few hundred thousand followers. They disdain 10 million citizens but revere the few. This is selective representation in its most rawest and worst form.

The bill before us today, H.R. 3463, will break faith with the American people by ignoring their direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in defending the will of American taxpayers by opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ethan Doyle, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Ethan

has been identified by his educators for his academic excellence, leadership potential and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program in Vladimir, Russia.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Vladimir, Russia, as well as the surrounding areas. The program provides participants with the opportunity to build relationships with young leaders from all over the world with an intense focus in the Russian language, one of the thirteen ``critical needs'' foreign languages determined by the Department of State, for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Ethan is a student at Johns Hopkins University. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in international educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Ethan Doyle and wishing his continued success in his further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Samantha Gray, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Samantha has been identified by her educators for her academic excellence, leadership potential and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program in Kyoto, Japan.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Kyoto, Japan, as well as the surrounding areas. The program provides participants with the opportunity to build relationships with young leaders from all over the world with an intense focus in the Japanese language, one of the thirteen ``critical needs'' foreign languages determined by the Department of State for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Samantha is a student at the University of Georgia. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in international educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Samantha Gray and wishing her continued success in her further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Patrick Rostock, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Patrick has been identified by his educators for his academic excellence, leadership potential, and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program in Shanghai, China.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Shanghai, China, as well as the surrounding areas. The program provides participants with the opportunity to build relationships with young leaders from all over the world with an intense focus in the Chinese language, one of the thirteen ``critical needs'' foreign languages determined by the Department of State, for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Patrick is a student at James Madison University. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in international educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Patrick Rostock and wishing his continued success in his further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Harleen Jassal, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Harleen has been identified by her educators for her academic excellence, leadership potential and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program in Chandigarh, India.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Chandigarh, India, as well as the surrounding areas. The program allows participants to make friends with young leaders from all over the world with an intensive focus on the Punjabi language, one of the thirteen critical need foreign languages determined by the Department of State, for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Harleen is a student at the George Mason University. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Harleen Jassal and wishing her continued success in her further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Lea Gold, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Lea has been identified by her educators for her academic excellence, leadership potential and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program Jeonju, South Korea.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Jeonju, South Korea, as well as the surrounding areas. The program allows participants to make friends with young leaders from all over the world with an intensive focus in the Korean language, one of the thirteen critical need foreign languages determined by the Department of State, for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Lea is a student at the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Lea Gold and wishing her continued success in her further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Simrun Bal, a 2011 Critical Language Scholarship Program Recipient. Simrun has been identified by her educators for her academic excellence, leadership potential and exemplary citizenship to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship Program in Chandigarh, India.

This Critical Language Scholarship Program allows students to participate in daily educational activities in Chandigarh, India, as well as the surrounding areas. The program allows participants to make friends with young leaders from all over the world with an intensive focus on the Punjabi language, one of the thirteen critical need foreign languages determined by the Department of State, for summer 2012. At the end of the program, participants receive a certificate of completion.

Simrun is a student at the University of Richmond. It is inspiring to see young people who are interested in educational and developmental experiences such as these.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this remarkable achievement by Simrun Bal and wishing her continued success in her further pursuits.

Mr. Speaker, the economy received an early holiday gift this past week when Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping figures outperformed expectations. However, we still face significant challenges. Unemployment remains too high and global markets are showing signs of instability, both of which are the lingering effects of the Great Recession. Casting a grim shadow over all of our actions is the fact that some Members of this body still persist in ignoring the public and letting ideology stand in the way of striking a reasonable balance to tame our national debt and grow the economy.

Of note is the recent report released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, showing that the Recovery Act we passed 2 years ago has been a significant success in an otherwise gloomy economic picture. According to the CBO, the Recovery Act increased GDP growth by up to 1.9 percent in the third quarter of this year, a quarter in which we had 2 percent growth. That's an extraordinary impact.

Thanks to the Recovery Act, 2.4 million people, according to the CBO, now have a job and the overall unemployment rate is 1.3 percent lower than it otherwise would have been if we'd done nothing, as my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted us to do.

According to CBO's in-depth analysis, the Recovery Act will continue to have a significant impact on the economy. Although it was designed to operate from 2009 to 2011, CBO found it will continue to drive GDP growth next year, adding 1 percent to the economy and will further increase employment by 1 million jobs.

After opposing any stimulus action in the midst of the worst economic contraction in 80 years, the Republicans actually criticize the Recovery Act now for the fact that it didn't do enough. That speaks less to the merits of the Recovery Act, I'd suggest, than it does about the magnitude of the Great Recession. And it is extraordinary chutzpa from the other side to just say ``no'' and now criticize the Recovery Act for being inadequate.

The Great Recession was, in fact, the Nation's worst economic collapse in 80 years. What began in the subprime housing market quickly spread throughout the financial industry, threatening economic ruin. At its height, more than 700,000 Americans were losing their jobs every single month. Millions more lost their homes through foreclosures. The Great Recession was already one of America's worst before President Obama was ever sworn into office, and during that economic maelstrom our first act in the 111th Congress was to pass the Recovery Act to help, on a party-line vote, I'm sad to say.

Many of my Republican colleagues point to the continued weakness in the economy as an indication of the Recovery Act's failure, rather than acknowledging that it is actually a function of the severity of the recession and failing to acknowledge their own supine, Darwinian response to it. They claim that, as the economic turmoil which began in 2007 raged all around us, Americans would have been better served had Congress simply done nothing and hoped for the best. Now, as the lingering effects of the recession continue to hold back a robust recovery, they continue to defy reasonable bipartisan attempts to put people back to work and get our country moving again.

The Recovery Act cut taxes for 95 percent of all Americans--both families and small businesses. It kept thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job. Recovery Act dollars funded highways and transit

improvements in every State, putting hundreds of thousands in the depressed construction industry back to work. There was a time when cutting taxes and investing in infrastructure was a bipartisan endeavor and had broad Republican support as well as Democratic support.

But there's still time for redemption. The President's American Jobs Act now provides another opportunity for our Republican friends to actually partner with Democrats and support economic recovery. The American Jobs Act provides incentives for companies, large and small, to hire additional workers; it cuts taxes on every working American in order to further spur economic demand; and it provides support for sorely needed infrastructure investments to repair America's bridges, roadways, and schools. In short, it builds on the success of the Recovery Act we passed 2 years ago.

There are 2.4 million Americans with jobs today because we took action 2 years ago. With 14 million more waiting, we can't afford now to do nothing. We must act.