Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for personal reasons, and missed a recorded vote for S. 990, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. If present, I would have recorded my vote as ``nay'' for rollcall vote 376.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my question is about the clarification of the rules. The rules also, for our visiting guests, allow the Sergeant at Arms to clear the Chamber, if necessary. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

I thank the Chairman.

I would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation that we are having about a very difficult conversation in our country.

Mr. Speaker, recently I have given several Special Order speeches about my view of the Constitution, making the argument for why I think it should be amended to include certain basic rights for the American people that they currently lack. These include: the right to a high-quality education, the right to health care, and equal rights for women.

Equal rights for women, alone, Mr. Speaker, would be responsible for providing an extraordinary amount of income for 51 percent of households headed by women if women in our society were simply paid at the same rate that their counterparts in the workforce are paid. Equal rights. Equal rights for women, alone, as a fundamental right, would strengthen our economy.

This afternoon, my Special Order time will be used to discuss the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, the Republican proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, which we just voted on, and the balanced budget amendment, or what I've taken to call the ``imbalanced budget'' amendment. All three of them have something in common.

In an ideal world, my colleague Paul Ryan would support the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but such an amendment would have extraordinary implications for our country, extraordinary implications for our Federal Government, and it would be fundamentally in the wrong direction.

And while the Republican proposed budget of fiscal year 2012 does not have the strength of the Constitution of the United States, it is clear to me that Republicans and conservatives in the Republican Party--and some conservatives within the Democratic Party--are forcing the Nation's politics into a consideration of a balanced budget amendment for the Constitution. And I want to talk about that in the context of the 2011 debate, the context of the 2012 debate, and such an amendment.

Before I begin, I want to set the framework for my Special Order.

President Harry Truman, in 1946, said, ``All of the policies of the Federal Government must be geared to the objective of sustained full production and full employment.''

Today, our country has unemployment that is nearing 9 percent; unemployment nearing 9 percent. Nearly 13 to 14 million Americans are presently unemployed--many of whom are chronically unemployed--and yet, in 1946, President Harry Truman said that the objective of the Federal Government must be ``sustained full production and full employment to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business investment.'' There has not been a single bill in this Congress since the 112th Congress has begun to address the issue of full employment.

Secondly, I want to remind the American people, Mr. Speaker, of what William Jennings Bryan said in 1896. He said: I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man or a woman who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him or her, I find a man or a woman who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution that would have forced middle class and working class Americans to carry the burden of spending cuts. My colleagues across the aisle simplified the impacts of this measure by describing it as ``tightening our belts.'' They seem to be oblivious to the fact that these cuts went deep for those Americans who could least afford them.

H.R. 1--tightening our belts--slashed programs like community health centers specifically designed to provide access to basic health and dental services to underserved communities that may not be otherwise able to care for them.

H.R. 1 tightened our belts through cuts to the National Institutes of Health, setting back development of cancer treatments and cures for other diseases, the impact of which we will feel for years to come as medical professionals are forced to shut down promising research projects.

H.R. 1 tightened our belts by hacking away at training of health professions, reducing this funding by more than 23 percent. Cuts to title VII and title VIII programs that help to train primary health professionals for underserved areas would limit the access of low- income individuals to quality doctors, nurses and physician assistants in their areas.

H.R. 1 tightened our belts by severing title X family planning programs. In doing so, we stepped back in time, preventing lifesaving care from being offered to our Nation's women, specifically women who wouldn't otherwise have access to this kind of care.

The programs I've listed so far provide health services to our Nation, and especially to our most underprivileged populations.

H.R. 1 also tightened our belts with cuts to job-training programs, Head Start, and after-school programs, Pell Grants, Hope VI housing programs, and high-speed rail. These programs were systematically sent to the guillotine.

Removal of Name of Member As Cosponsor of H.R. 1081

The people that they serve are not millionaires to whom we generously extended tax cuts. They are not the corporations that eagerly navigate tax loopholes, navigate the walls and the Halls of this Congress every year, costing our Nation billions in revenue. They are everyday, hardworking, middle class, public school educated, checkbook balancing, minimum wage earning mothers and fathers and grandparents who elected each of us, hoping we'd find a way to decrease unemployment and bring America back from the brink.

Mr. Speaker, thankfully our colleagues across the Capitol thought we went a few notches too tight in our belt with H.R. 1, as the Senate refused to take up these cuts. Much of our future long-term budget decisions and discussions to reduce our deficit and get America back on track remain in limbo.

Recently, this discussion had reached a fevered pitch. After multiple short-term extensions of the fiscal year 2011 appropriations legislation, the negotiations between Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, and the President had broken down many times throughout the week. We were faced with the threat of the first government shutdown since 1996. Agencies were planning which workers to furlough, national parks and museums were prepared to shut their doors for the weekend, and the

brave men and women in active duty and service to our Nation were prepared to continue their work without pay.

Then at the 11th hour, there was a breakthrough. The 5\1/2\-month continuing resolution agreed to by the leadership of the House and the Senate and the President included a total of $39 billion worth of cuts.

But these cuts that were agreed to late into Friday have real consequences. There are significant cuts to programs like WIC, Women, Infants and Children, the special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children; Community Health Centers; Low-income Heating and Energy Assistance Programs, LIHEAP; international disaster assistance; and Head Start.

And after the President and congressional leadership agreed to giving $800 billion in tax cuts to America's top wage earners last December, we turned around and cut programs that working families and seniors depend on. It just doesn't make sense to me, Mr. Speaker.

Again, while I was relieved that the Federal Government did not shut down, I am deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us this so-called ``compromise,'' if you can even call it that. Like the negotiations that held up tax cuts for the middle class at the end of last year to hold out for tax cuts for the wealthy, our leadership has again demonstrated that they're willing to hold up programs that provide for the most vulnerable Americans. And this Congress is only just beginning.

As for next fiscal year's budget, there are a variety of solutions that have been presented--some with potential to succeed, others destined to fail.

Among the proposals lie Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's recent offering. Look at the facts. His proposal will reduce our Nation's deficit, but leaves us asking the question, At what cost?

First and foremost, Mr. Ryan intends to place the burden of ending our Nation's debt on the citizens least capable of caring for themselves, the most reliant on the help of others--our seniors. The Budget Committee's proposal will end the Medicare our senior citizens have come to know and rely on, replacing it with what can only be described as a coupon, a voucher, that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would leave our eldest Americans shouldering 68 percent of their health care costs in the next 20 years.

Who else pays the cost of balancing our budget within the Ryan proposal? The burden falls next to working American families. The Ryan proposal will lower tax rates for individuals with the highest income as well as corporations, relying on raising taxes for the average Americans to pay for it.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it's the same standby trickle- down failure that we placed our faith in in the past decade. Despite what Majority Leader Cantor says, during an economic downturn, decreasing the deficit does not create jobs. Also, cutting taxes does not create jobs. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have cut taxes so much that if Majority Leader Eric Cantor's theory were correct, we would have zero unemployment, which we do not have. This is what the Ryan plan aims to do.

For 10 years our economy has stagnated. The gap between the median wage and average wage is growing because the highest earners are the only ones receiving wage increases. Unfortunately, balancing our Nation's budget on the backs of the middle class does not end there.

Where else would the burden of balancing the budget fall under the Ryan plan? Education. Cuts to K-12 education are just the starting point in disadvantaging the future of America. The proposal also makes significant cuts to Pell Grants. These cuts will prevent the educated generation of young Americans our country needs to compete in a global economy. The proposed cuts to Pell Grants would return the maximum award allowable to pre-stimulus levels, impacting millions of young Americans depending on financial assistance to attend college. This will stretch the time it will take for them to earn their degrees and enter the workforce.

Finally, Ryan's budget continues to provide tax loopholes to big oil companies and cuts all Federal support for clean energy, shortsighting our economic investments in the future of energy.

Mr. Speaker, I am not promoting constant Federal debt. I am not advocating against hoping or trying for a balanced budget. But when you look through history and the history of our Nation, we see that when Americans were in most need during war or recession, during the Great Depression, we focused on solving these problems, not just on reducing our debt.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently engaged in two wars and fighting our way out of the worst recession of the modern era. The Ryan budget is a new attempt at an age-old ploy to mandate a balanced budget for the Federal Government. Ending our Nation's deficit and returning our country to prosperity should, of course, be the goal. But we must also ask the question, At what cost? Where do our priorities lie?

The Ryan proposal, like the myriad of constitutional amendments before it, attempts to balance our budget on the backs of those Americans who can least bear the burden.

Here's the history of the balanced budget amendment. The current budget situation is most poignant when looking at the origins of the balanced budget amendment and its history. Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleagues across the aisle present the Republican Study Committee's budget this morning, I'm apt to wonder what it is that they're actually studying over there. Hopefully, we will be able to set the record straight.

As a reaction to FDR's New Deal, Republican Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota introduced the first version of the amendment in 1936. Like many constitutional amendments, this resolution did not receive a hearing or a vote.

During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term, the Judiciary Committee of a barely Democratic Senate held its first hearing on this amendment. It again did 2not receive a vote.

After these partial defeats, the balanced budget amendment supporters shifted their focus to the States. From 1975 to 1980, 30 State legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to propose this amendment directly to the States; that is, they sought to bypass Congress and the congressional amendment process.

The election of President Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980 renewed hopes for a balanced budget amendment and passage by Congress. While the Senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed to garner the necessary three-fifths majority in the House. This failure energized conservative groups such as the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitation Committee to refocus on State action.

In 1982 and 1983, the Alaska and Missouri legislatures passed a resolution supporting the BBA, bringing the total number of these resolutions to 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention.

However, a growing concern about the scope of a constitutional convention led some States to withdraw their resolutions, reshifting focus to congressional action.

From 1990 to 1994, Congress would make three additional attempts to codify this amendment. All failed to garner the necessary three-fifths majority. However, the BBA made a comeback when it was included in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Twenty-six days after taking office, the newly empowered Republican majority adopted the balanced budget amendment, giving conservatives their first congressional win in a decade. Disappointment awaited in the Senate, however, where two separate votes fell just short of adoption. This failure, along with the balanced budget and the budget surplus at the end of the decade, sapped any remaining congressional support for a balanced budget amendment.

There was renewed energy from Republican support for the amendment in 2000 as it was included in their party's platform. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the massive deficit spending created by them eventually led Republicans to sweep the idea of a balanced budget amendment back under the rug. By 2004, the Republican Party left any mention of a balanced budget out of their political platform.

Again in recent years, with the advent of the tea party and the return of

extreme fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party, there are currently 12 balanced budget amendments in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate there are three. I had my staff double-check that for me. Twelve balanced budget amendments in the House. They are all basically the same. Some have even been offered by Members of my own party. I understand these Members' frustrations. Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to pass my nine amendments to the Constitution for 10 years now, and my amendments are based on FDR's second bill of rights, which he proposed back in 1944. Today, 67 years later, here we are.

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally believe that conservatives in Congress are pushing for this amendment, not to force a vote in Congress, but to rally States to act. Mr. Speaker, we have a troubling national debt and deficit, but the balanced budget amendment is not the solution.

The argument proponents of a balanced budget amendment make is as follows: Like families, businesses, and States, the Federal Government should balance its budget. But since it does not, we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that it will do so.

Nearly every State in this Union has some form of a balanced budget requirement, but those States are not out of debt. Their amendments have restricted the ability of those States to care for their citizens in time of austerity or emergency, but their budgets are not balanced.

According to a Forbes analysis of the global debt crisis in January of 2010, every single State in the country is carrying some form of debt. These debts range from as little as $17 per capita in Nebraska to $4,490 in Connecticut. How can this be, Mr. Speaker? It's because the infrastructure of these States allows them to hide debt in capital funds. The Federal Government cannot, and I would argue the Federal Government should not follow this path. Congress should never seek to hide the fiscal realities from the public that bears the burden of the costs nor should we sell the public magic beans that a balanced budget amendment will somehow make the national debt and other problems go away.

Debt will exist just as new problems will arise. Just as there are new threats to America, unforeseen threats, just as there are future economic calamities that we cannot see, the Federal Government must play some role in addressing a national crisis. A balanced budget amendment would simply prohibit the Federal Government from exercising precisely the authority that it needs to exercise on behalf of the American people.

In fiscal year 2012, approximately 44 States will face revenue shortfalls. Many are desperately looking for ways to declare their State bankrupt. Bankrupt. I say it again, Mr. Speaker, because this proposed amendment would place the Federal Government in a similar predicament. The effect on many States is calamitous. For instance, in Rhode Island, judges and court workers have cut pay and left 53 positions unfilled. This is still not enough to balance their budgets. As a desperate last resort, the chief justice has begun to dispose of cases on backlog, literally tossing them out. Florida is in the same predicament.

Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment would force the Federal Government to deny Americans the right to seek redress and justice in Federal courts for the sake of balancing their budgets. In my home State of Illinois, mental health services have been cut by $91 million. Human service directors are fearful that these cuts will cause a real public health and public safety crisis. Iowa, Idaho, Alabama, and Ohio are considering drastic cuts to education.

My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our children and grandchildren any amount of national debt that they fail to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. States are already cutting too many services that the American people and the American workforce need in order to remain strong and competitive. Should the Federal Government do the same, our legacy will be an America that is uneducated, ill-equipped to compete on a global level.

Mr. Speaker, as exemplified by its effects on the States, this amendment may sound good on its face, but it falls flat when examined more critically. Like an optical illusion, the image of which carries and changes as you draw closer, the balanced budget amendment masquerades as the savior of our budget; yet in reality it threatens to permanently destroy it.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, and others, a Federal balanced budget amendment would do five very damaging things. It would damage our economy by making recessions deeper and more frequent. It would heighten the risk of default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. It would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. It would favor wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues on people who can afford to pay, and easier to cut programs for people who need them most. And lastly, Mr. Speaker, it would weaken the principle of majority rule. Therefore, passing a balanced budget amendment is not prudent. It's not the right path for our Nation to follow.

So let's return for a few moments to the five faults outlined by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice. These arguments will bring to light the dangers with which a balanced budget amendment would threaten our Nation.

The first fault. A balanced budget amendment would damage the economy and make recessions deeper and more frequent. Under a balanced budget amendment, Congress would be forced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy, not just under the amendment, but also under the Ryan budget, requiring the budget to be balanced or in surplus every year, regardless of the current economic situation or threat to our Nation's security.

A sluggish economy, with less revenue and more outgoing expenditures, creates a deficit, as we've seen from recent events. A deficit necessitates economic stimulation to reverse negative growth. That is why in the last session of Congress the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure, provided 95 percent of working Americans with an immediate tax cut, and extended unemployment insurance and COBRA for Americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own.

If Congress were forced to function under a balanced budget amendment, deficit reduction would be mandated, even more so during periods of slow or stalled economic growth, which is the opposite of what is needed in such a situation. This consistently proposed constitutional amendment risks making recessions more common and more catastrophic for middle class families, seniors, veterans, and the poor. Under such an amendment, Congress is stripped of any power to adequately respond.

The second fault. A balanced budget amendment would risk default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government while simultaneously challenging the separation of powers. A balanced budget amendment would bar the government from borrowing funds unless a three- fifths vote in both Houses of Congress permitted a raise in the debt limit. Under such a scenario, a budget crisis in which a default becomes a threat is more likely because of the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling. We are about to enter into a national conversation about what to do about the debt ceiling. That default under such a scenario becomes more likely to occur.

After a default of only a few days, the long-term impacts would quickly appear. Confidence in the ability of the U.S. to meet binding financial obligations would erode almost immediately. The government pays relatively low interest rates on its loans because it pays its debts back in full and on time. A default would mimic an earthquake, shaking confidence in the United States on a global scale, resulting in exploding interest rates and aftershocks felt in our national economy.

The international economy would also succumb to the rumblings of this potential disaster, and our deep connection to it would cause even further chaos here at home.

Other balanced budget proponents argue that since States have to balance

their budgets, so should the Federal Government. Indeed, many States are required to balance their operating budgets but not their total budgets. No such distinction is made by a balanced budget amendment.

Rainy day, or reserve funds, which States can draw on to balance their budgets, are prohibited by a BBA. Many States operating under a BBA require the Governors to submit a balanced budget, but do not require the actual achievement of it. Some States allow Governors to act unilaterally to cut spending in the middle of the fiscal year. This condition of the BBA would violate the Federal Constitution's separation of powers.

The Founding Fathers were deliberate in their construction of our government, and the separation of powers serves as a cornerstone in our democracy. Each branch has certain powers and limitations. Congress, the courts, and the President worked together but in distinct ways to move America forward. The threat of judicial involvement in matters of the budget is a real problem under the balanced budget amendment. The BBA would weaken the balance of power. It diminishes the authority of Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, to have the final say on taxes and spending.

Mr. Speaker, what purpose does this body serve if this amendment passes? Should we broaden the scope of judicial review granted to our Federal courts? By subverting the balance of power between the branches, this body steps onto a slippery slope of reassigning authority and moving away from the values inherent in our Constitution.

The third fault. A balanced budget amendment would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future.

Since the 1930s, our Nation has consistently made public investments that improve long-term productivity growth in education, in infrastructure, in research and development. All of the Federal highways in this country are paid for by this Congress. They have helped build a more perfect union between the States, within States.

When we take off from O'Hare airport in Chicago or from Reagan airport, all of the airports are Federal facilities run by the Federal Aviation Administration. When you visit your Nation's Capital and you take off from an airport, because airports function under the rigid guidelines of the FAA, there is a reasonable assurance, when your plane takes off from one airport and lands at another airport, that the length of the runway that you take off from and land on are reasonably the same. States don't determine the lengths of runways.

If we are going to build a national government, if we are going to build one country, if we are going to form a more perfect union, only the Federal Government has the power to do that. It simply cannot be done one State at a time. In a global economy and in a global economic environment, we must move as one Nation to challenge Europe, to challenge the Japanese, to challenge the Chinese, to challenge cheap labor and cheap labor markets abroad.

We must have one national standard, not 50 individual State sovereign standards to move our Nation--our education system, our infrastructure and our research and development--forward. These efforts encourage increased private sector investment, leading to a surplus and a thriving economy.

A balanced budget amendment, which requires a balanced budget each and every year, would limit the government's ability to make public investments, thereby hindering our future growth and thereby hindering our ability as a Nation to be competitive nationally and internationally--a very important point, Mr. Speaker, for which I want to deviate from my prepared remarks.

You see, it is just simply impossible to go one State at a time or to assume that the private sector, acting on its own, has the capacity to address the question of sustained full production and full employment on their own. President Truman made it perfectly clear: All of the policies of the Federal Government must be geared to the objective of sustained, full production and full employment, to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business investment. In the 112th Congress, unemployment is at 9 percent, and not a single piece of legislation considered by the 112th Congress has done anything to address 13 million unemployed Americans.

A few short weeks ago, I came to the House floor after having purchased an iPad, and I said that I happen to believe, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs--now Borders is closing stores, because why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your book, download your newspaper, download your magazine.

At Chicago State University in my congressional district, in the freshman class, they are not being given textbooks any longer. They are all being given iPads as they enter school. President Wayne Watson hopes to have a textbook-less campus within 4 years where at this State university they no longer have textbooks.

Well, what becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? What becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper?

Well, in the not-too-distant future, such jobs simply will not exist. Steve Jobs is doing pretty well. He created the iPad. Certainly it has made life more efficient for Americans, but the iPad is produced in China. It's not produced here in the United States. So the Chinese get to take advantage of our First Amendment value, that is, to provide freedom of speech through the iPad to the American people, but there is no protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress and the direction of this Congress, in its obsession with debts and deficits, is heading in the opposite direction of sustained full production. Again, iPads are made in China, and full employment. There are 13 million unemployed Americans counting on this Congress to do something.

They certainly can't count on the State of Illinois; it's broke. They can't count on the State of Idaho; it's broke. They can't count on the State of Alabama; the State of Alabama is broke. They can't count on Mississippi; Mississippi is broke. Louisiana is broke. The States are broke.

So the Federal Government is under an obligation to sustain full production and full employment to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business investment in the United States, not in China.

The third fault of the BBA would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. Since the 1930s, our Nation has consistently made public investments that have improved long-term productivity growth in education, in infrastructure, and in research and development.

These efforts encourage increased private sector investment, leading to a budget surplus and a thriving economy. A balanced budget amendment, which requires a balanced budget each and every year, would limit the government's ability to make public investments, thereby hindering future growth.

For years, conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to programs that serve as social safety nets for American families. Although we must consider the debt and the deficit, the larger and more significant issue is the nature of the debt that we create.

If you invest $50,000 in a business, in a house or in your education, you can expect future returns on your investment. If you ``invest'' the same $50,000 in a gun collection or ammunition, what are the future investment returns? Both investments result in $50,000 of debt, but only one results in returns that can transform that debt into long-term gain. Social investments provide the potential for greater returns in the long run in the same fashion as personal investments. Even small expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in the long term.

If the Nation chooses to invest $1.5 trillion over a 5-year period in the building of bridges and roads and airports and railroads and mass transit and schools and housing and health care, we could create some debt.

But the increased ability of companies to interact and to ship their goods over well-paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would sprout around the freshly built or newly expanded airport, the higher wages of a student who is well-educated and able to attend college, resulting in more tax revenue, and the improved productivity of employees at their healthiest would eventually result in greater returns for our country.

The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for corporations and the rich brought about some short-term stimulus of consumer spending. But similar to Reagan's tax cuts, which resulted in record government deficits, the long-term damage outweighs the immediate effects. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of investing in our Nation's need for long-term balanced economic growth. The Reagan administration neglected and cut back on our Nation's investment in infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job training, transportation, energy conservation, and much more.

The inclination of most conservatives in both parties is to cut the debt by cutting programs for the most vulnerable among us--our poor, our children, our elderly, and our minorities. This approach, however, has been proven false too many times. A balanced budget amendment would take us back to this archaic and ineffective system permanently.

The fourth fault. A balanced budget amendment favors wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it harder to raise revenues and easier to cut programs.

Again, a BBA ultimately favors wealthier Americans over middle- and lower-income Americans. Under current law, legislation can pass by a majority of those present and voting by a recorded vote. The BBA requires, however, that legislation that raises taxes be approved on a rollcall vote by a majority of the full membership of both Houses. Thus, the BBA would make it harder to cut the deficit by curbing special interest tax breaks of the oil and gas industries, and it would make it easier to reduce programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' benefits, education, environmental programs, and assistance for poor children. Wealthy individuals and corporations receive most of their government benefits in the form of tax entitlements while low-income and middle-income Americans receive most of their government benefits through programs.

As evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, it is far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending for our military or to increase taxes. As long as spending is a political issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice in our government will always happen first.

Raising taxes, the only option to address a budget deficit aside from cutting programs, is already a burdensome political issue. The additional requirements of a BBA further complicate the process of raising taxes. This means that the richest Americans will likely keep the benefits they receive from our government via tax cuts. Meanwhile, the poor lose the programs that provide them with housing, with food, with job training, with health care, and the very means to survive. This will further reinforce the growing gap between the rich and the rest of our society, middle class, working poor, and the destitute alike.

Aside from this already distressing point, when the baby boom generation retires, Mr. Speaker, the ratio of workers to retirees will fall to very low levels. This poses difficulties for Social Security since Social Security has been a pure pay-as-you-go system, with the payroll taxes of current workers paying for the benefits of current retirees. This was acceptable as long as today's workers could pay for today's retirees. But in the future, when there are fewer workers to pay for more retirees, the system is going to be out of balance.

So in 1977 and 1983, the Social Security Administration took important and prudent steps towards addressing this issue. It allowed the accumulation of reserves to be used later when needed. These changes were akin to what families do by saving for retirement during their working years and then by drawing down on their savings after they reach retirement. The balanced budget amendment insists that total government expenditures in any year, including those for Social Security benefits, not exceed total revenues collected in that same year, including revenues from Social Security payroll taxes. Thus, the benefits of the baby boomers would have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working and paying into the system then. This undercuts the central reforms of 1983. Drawing down on any part of accumulated reserves under a BBA, required under present law, means that the trust funds were spending more in benefits in those years than they were receiving in taxes. Under a BBA, that would be impermissible deficit spending.

The fifth fault. A BBA weakens the principle of majority rule and makes balancing the budget more difficult.

Most balanced budgets require that unless three-fifths of the Members of Congress agree to raising the debt ceiling, the budget must be balanced at all times. They also require that legislation raising taxes must be approved on a rollcall vote by a majority of the full membership of both Houses, not just those present and voting.

Currently, this provision weakens the principle of majority rule, and that's exactly what the tea party and my conservative colleagues want. Why do they want it? Because a three-fifths requirement empowers a minority, 40 percent plus one, in any given year. It creates a small group of people willing to threaten economic turmoil and disruption unless they get their way, i.e., the Republican freshmen, with the ability to extort concessions or exercise unprecedented leverage over our national economic and fiscal policy. Mr. Speaker, haven't the last few weeks demonstrated how difficult it already is to reach a compromise on a budget? This provision will simply make it impossible.

The final argument, Mr. Speaker, is what I'm calling the Ezra Klein argument. There is a final fault which is not on my list, but it is significant enough to mention. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post cleverly points out in a recent article, entitled ``The Worst Idea in Washington,'' that under a balanced budget amendment, not a single budget of the Bush or Reagan administration would have qualified as constitutional. In fact, the only recent administration which would not violate the requirements of a balanced budget amendment would have been President Clinton's, and that would have been for only two of his budgets. Mr. Speaker, if President Reagan's budgets wouldn't qualify, is this something we should even be considering in this Congress? I don't think so.

I have listed a few, and certainly not an exhaustive list, of the arguments against the balanced budget amendment. The truth is the Federal budget is quite unlike fiscal practices of businesses, families, and States even though we keep hearing the argument: The Federal Government needs to balance its budget like I do at home. The Federal Government needs to balance its budget like our families do. The Federal Government needs to balance its budget like the States do. But contrary to popular myth, except in times of war and recession, the country has a conservative record of keeping deficits actually in line. It's when the States fail, it's when there are wars that we are fighting, and it's when we are looking at unforeseen economic calamity that we need a Federal Government that can reach into the deep recesses of her bounty to bring about a more perfect Union and keep the Nation moving forward. Without the Federal Government, the States cannot do it on their own, and the private sector has shown a reluctance to do it without regulation from the Federal Government to make the Union more perfect.

Let me add one final quote, Mr. Speaker. In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., stood not very far from this auspicious location and delivered a speech at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, at the feet of Abraham Lincoln's memorial at the end of our Mall. He began by saying, today I stand in the shadow of a man who 100 years ago set the slave free. But 100 years later, they find themselves still trapped and still isolated in the ghettos and the barrios and the rural areas of our Nation. He said, Mr. Speaker, today we have come here, in a sense, to cash a check. Now imagine that. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the other end of this Mall, is looking in the direction of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress of the United

States. And he says, Mr. Speaker, we've come here to cash a check, a check that should give us upon demand the riches of security and of freedom and justice. But America, Dr. King says, has issued us a bounced check. It keeps coming back marked ``insufficient funds.'' But I refuse to believe that there are no funds in the great vault of opportunity of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am 46 years old, and I've had the privilege of serving in this Congress for nearly 16 years. I remember on September 10, 2001 when we stood here on the floor of this Congress, my dear colleagues, and this Congress declared that it was broke, that it couldn't find money for anything. We took a vote on September 10, 2001, to defund education programs for the most vulnerable children in our Nation.

Every Member of Congress, mostly from conservatives, and many conservative Democrats, came and made the argument that we could no longer afford to provide high-quality education for your children, that we could no longer afford to provide health care for all of the American people, that we could no longer afford it. And just 24 hours later, the tragedy, the great tragedy of the 20th century, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and flew a plane into the ground in Pennsylvania and landed a plane on our Nation's defense system at the Pentagon. Just 24 hours later, the Congress of the United States that did not have the money to provide for education for our children, the Congress of the United States that did not have the money to provide health care for all of the American people, suddenly it found an unlimited amount of money to chase down Saddam Hussein. And we are spending an unlimited amount of money, just 24 hours later, to find Osama bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan. Ten years later, we haven't found him yet. Yet we continue to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars.

So on one day the government is broke. Twenty-four hours later, Dr. King says the Nation has issued us a promissory note, and it keeps coming back marked ``insufficient funds'' for priorities that matter to the American people.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, needs the flexibility to respond in times of economic downturn or in war in a way that businesses, that families, and that States never have to consider.

I have been in the House long enough to know now that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came into the majority with large deficits and debt, I knew their first response would be to cut social spending, to weaken government regulation and underfund protection of workers' rights and civil rights and environmental protections. You name it.

I wish I could say I didn't see this coming, but conservative politicians want to get government off the backs of finance, off the backs of finance and industry. They are willing and ready to use the current economic situation to do it, and they intend to place the burden on the backs of the middle class, of seniors, of children, of veterans and the poor.

The Republican budget that we voted on today does just that. The balanced budget amendment aims to make it a permanent fixture.

Mr. Speaker, I know we can do better. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class Americans. We need to achieve the America of everyone's dreams. The burden of that dream must rest squarely on the shoulders of every American that can carry it.

I find it offensive that some of the most profitable corporations in this country pay no taxes and some even get a refund. I find it offensive that the richest 400 people in this country who have more wealth than half of all Americans combined have an effective tax rate of only 16.6 percent.

In the words of William Jennings Bryan: ``When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.''

With those wise words, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, last week I came to the floor of the House to talk about the history of law and human rights, and I suggested that history is a work in progress. I believe that the law is going somewhere from the earliest civilizations with eye-for-an-eye systems of justice through today, when countries like ours lead the way toward more freedom and more human rights for all.

We began this Congress with the reading here on the floor of the redacted version of the Constitution, not the Constitution with amendments. But that redacted version leaves out the historical struggle to create today's Constitution as a more thoughtful and a more inclusive document.

Mr. Speaker, America is one big corporation. The Constitution is the bylaws. We, the people, the board of directors, have the right to change our bylaws in the Constitution and redirect the American corporation towards our priorities.

The American Constitution is a benchmark in that living history. We have amended it from time to time to make sure that we are closer to achieving a more perfect union for all Americans.

I believe we should continue that process, and amend the Constitution in several ways, including giving all Americans the right to a high- quality education, high-quality health care, and a clean environment.

I think we need to guarantee equal rights for women. If, in fact, the Congress had adopted the Equal Rights Amendment for women many decades ago, today 51 percent of all jobs and 51 percent of all households that are headed by a woman where there is no man would provide greater stability for the work that they already do.

But tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to put my beliefs about why the Constitution should be amended into further historical context.

This week's Time magazine makes my point in ways that I cannot muster tonight on the House floor. It has a picture of our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, crying, and it says, ``Why We Are Still Fighting the Civil War.''

And no American who is watching this debate on the floor of the Congress between Democrats and Republicans should be operating under any illusion that we are simply not on a battlefield, we are simply in the halls of the Congress. But we are waging one hell of a fight to build a more perfect union versus building more perfect States' rights.

I wrote about these issues extensively, Mr. Speaker, in 2001, very extensively in my book, ``A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights.'' In fact, my book's launch party was scheduled for the big Borders, World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, we had a scheduling conflict and couldn't make it.

So I want to talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about the central conflict of American history, the debates over the role of the Federal Government between those who believe in States' rights above all and those of us who have a more national perspective and believe in creating a more perfect union. I think that's a more appropriate analogy for defining how the Congress is divided; not Democrats and Republicans, for some Democrats will vote for the continuing resolution offered by the Republicans supporting more and more cuts. It's really hard to tell where people stand.

But in Washington, either we are building a more perfect union for all of the American people, or we are building a more perfect States' rights. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to share a few quotes that I think help frame the debate.

In the early years of our Republic, Gouverneur Morris, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, said, ``I cannot conceive of a government in which there can exist two supremes.'' In 1787, Mr. Speaker, Gouverneur Morris was concerned that a dual system of State and Federal control might not work very well.

In his book ``Dixie Rising,'' Peter Applebome writes, ``Think of a place that's bitterly antigovernment and fiercely individualistic, where race is a constant subtext to daily life, and God and guns run through public discourse like an electric current. Think of a place where influential scholars market theories of white supremacy, where the word `liberal' is a negative epithet, where hang-'em-high law-and- order justice centered on the death penalty and throw-away-the-key sentencing are politically all but unstoppable. Think of a place obsessed with States' rights, as if it were the 1850s all over again and the Civil War had never been fought. Such characteristics have always described the South. Somehow, they now describe the Nation.''

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it's important to note a headline from June 24, 1999, from The Washington Post that read, ``In 3 Cases, High Court Shifts Power to States.'' Of course, in over a decade since then, we have seen case after case at the Supreme Court, bill after bill in this House, that have furthered that trend.

This afternoon I want to talk about the center of conservatism, the center of the Constitution, the legal basis by which Republicans and some Democrats stake out their anti-Federal Government agenda. Mr. Speaker, there are two central issues that have dominated this country from its beginning. The first is the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. That question has been with us since the writing of our Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787; through the Supreme Court's first major decision in 1793, Chisholm vs. Georgia, during the antebellum period of the 1800s through the 1860s; through the Civil War and postbellum first and second Reconstruction periods; and it remains active and very much a part of our discourse today.

The second issue that has plagued the U.S. is race. It is the central dilemma in our Nation's history, and it has haunted us since 1619, when the first African slaves arrived on our shores--before the Declaration of Independence, before the Constitution, before the Bill of Rights through to the current period of Second Reconstruction.

Throughout history, the question of how to properly balance the national and State governments has confronted America: Are we 50 nation-states that voluntarily participate in a national federation but can ignore or withdraw from that federation at any time--like when 11 States seceded from the Union, or when 22 States filed a lawsuit

against the health care reform bill that passed the Congress this year and the President signed it--or are we one Nation, with a national common law that is indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?

These were perplexing and troublesome questions for the Founders and for the first three-quarters of a century of our existence. They still trouble us today. In a very real sense, it was the Civil War that converted us from a federation of States to a Union. The current common belief is that we are the latter. In practice, too often, we still try to operate like the former. Clearly, the ideology and legacy of States' rights lingers and continues to disrupt and interfere with our ability to build a more perfect Union.

For some, not building a more perfect Union appears to be the goal. Downsizing the role of Federal Government, or the ``revolution of devolution'' ideology that Newt Gingrich brought on the scene in such a forceful way following the 1994 Republican conquest of the House and the Senate, clearly is an obstacle to achieving national goals. Not building a more perfect Union is clearly the goal of the 112th Congress.

Under the guise of the budget, deficit reduction and spending cuts, today's Republican majority, with the help of some Democrats, is trying to push through bills that would drastically shrink the size and change the scope of the Federal Government. As a result, we're on the verge of a government shutdown, and many Republicans have cheered about the possibility of a government shutdown with loud applause.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it will be impossible to build a more perfect Union until the ideology of States' rights and the legacy of devolution are politically defeated, as well as in the hearts and minds of the American people. It is currently a central part of the belief system of far too many Americans.

By decentralizing the essential decisions on economic issues such as full employment, health care, housing, public education, and justice, it simply guarantees economic injustice for workers and consumers, and it ensures inadequate health care, shelter, learning, and justice for all Americans.

Soon, millions of Americans will wake up with a shut down Federal Government and States in a fiscal meltdown. Their faith in their elected representatives and government to solve the bread-and-butter issues of their lives will be shaken, and Americans' confidence in our freedom system will be diminished.

The 50 States, acting individually or functioning merely in loose cooperation or voluntary association, simply cannot and will not adequately address policywise, administratively or financially these basic national needs. Only if these essential questions are addressed in a democratic, centralized and coordinated way can we even hope to build a better Nation.

There is no simple answer to this balance of power issue. The question of the relationship of the States to the Federal Government is an ongoing one. Times and circumstances change, and if government is to be relevant, responsive and accountable to the American public's real needs, the relationship, roles and balance of power between the Federal and State governments must adapt and adjust.

The balance of State and Federal power is not something new, and it cannot be settled ``by the opinion of any one generation,'' wrote Woodrow Wilson in 1911. He continued, ``Changes in the social and economic condition of society, in the electorate's perception of issues needing to be addressed by government, and in the prevailing political values require each successive generation to treat Federal-State relationships as `a new question,' subject to full and searching reappraisal.''

Politically, however, the reality of circumstances should not be used as an excuse to pursue an anti-Federal Government philosophy of States' rights. The guiding or dominant principle must remain true to the Preamble of our Constitution--to build a more perfect Union, not more perfect States' rights.

The idea of States' rights in the American Colonies preceded the formation of the Constitution and the United States. It rested on the idea of State sovereignty, that ultimate political power and authority resided in the States individually. A century later, States' rights became the means by which State governments defended slavery and perpetuated that peculiar institution with its elitist and perverted economic, political and social arrangements.

In fact, there is a difference between sovereign State rights and the States' rights ideology. Some matters do belong in the purview of the States. States' rights, however, come from a very different spirit and appeal, one that has historically defended injustice within the States.

During the colonial period, citizens strongly identified with and were loyal to their individual Colonies or States. For example, early frictions among the Colonies prevented them from working together to fight against French and Indian antagonists in the mid-1700s. Only their joint hatred of British domination joined them together in the Continental Congress as States in 1776 to fight and win a revolution. Even then, the hostilities among the States continued, postponing adoption of the Articles of Confederation until 1781.

Thus, internal mistrust among the States and external colonial and revolutionary experiences with England made most Americans suspicious and distrustful of undemocratic centralized Federal, central or national power. Indeed, when they drew up the Articles of Confederation in 1776 and ratified them in 1781, they made central authority so weak as to be unworkable for the idea of a union.

The Founding Fathers--women and people of color were not included-- tried to correct this flaw when they drafted the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. Their mixed feelings and the politics surrounding ``centralized,'' or Federal, and ``decentralized,'' State, power led them to create a Constitution with divided powers both ``within,'' legislative, executive and judicial branches, and ``without,'' between Federal and State governments, that were deliberately ambiguous. It was a central issue of debate during the constitutional ratification process as well.

The new Congress quickly proposed ten amendments that secured these rights, including the 10th Amendment, which delegated to the States those powers not authorized or prohibited by the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

This has come to mean that if the Constitution specifically speaks to a right, then it is federally protected; but if the Constitution is silent on a particular issue, like slavery, it was reserved to the States, respectively. Only adding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States overcame the limitations of the 10th Amendment to guarantee freedom to the slaves.

However, if slavery, Mr. Speaker, at this time were a State right, then State rights can never be human rights in the American political context. Therefore, if succeeding generations of Americans believe in human rights, they must fight to overcome the limitations of this old amendment and the very slave system that it protected in order to provide progress.

If you believe in gay marriage, you must overcome the limitations of the 10th Amendment and not State by State, but fighting for your human rights in the context of the Constitution. If you believe in education for all, since the Constitution of the United States is silent on the question of education, you must overcome the limitations of the 10th Amendment to guarantee an equal high-quality education for all Americans. If you believe in health care for all Americans, you must overcome the limitations of the 10th Amendment, this old slave amendment, and guarantee the right to health care for all Americans in the Constitution; because the issues of slavery taught us, if slavery is a State right and if Virginia all the way around to Texas has the right to leave the Union, then States' rights can never be human rights.

The questions, Mr. Speaker, were many. And it should logically have followed exactly what this Congress is doing. If the Constitution is silent on health care, cut it. If it's silent on Medicare, Medicaid, LIHEAP, unemployment, housing, NIH funding, cut it. The Republican majority has placed it on the chopping block because they

argue it is outside the scope of Federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned from this process and what we bring to the table is that human rights must be advanced by this Congress in order to broaden the definition of what it means to be an American.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am joined by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana. I want to welcome my colleague from the great city of New Orleans whose congressional district has experienced a State that is in a difficult financial condition. He has experienced natural disasters, and he cannot just rely upon his State legislature to solve these problems. He needs a strong Federal Government to close some of the profound gaps that exist in his congressional district, just as I need a strong Federal Government to close gaps that exist in my congressional district. But it is virtually impossible, Mr. Speaker, to close those gaps unless this Congress recognizes that we have an obligation to the American people, to those who have been left behind.

While slavery was clearly the cause of the Civil War, the nonslavery rationale for the Civil War and the argument that won it broad support in the South and almost won it international recognition was Madison's and Jefferson's interpretation of States' rights as self-determination.

That's why the tea party comes running up here saying the Federal Government should be out of business, turn it over to the States. With some practical examples of the limitations of what we are confronting, I am proud to introduce to some--and I am honored that he is joining me tonight in this colloquy and this discussion--the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cedric Richmond.

How can the Federal Government or how can the States address unemployment individually? How can 50 States, one State at a time, address education? How can 50 States, one State at a time, address health care without some centralizing, unifying coordination from the Federal Government?

It may not even be a State priority to eliminate unemployment. In other words, there ought to be some national interest in making sure that 13 million Americans have a job, that they are working and they are paying taxes and that they can help reduce the deficit and the debt.

I hear from neither side, anyone come to this floor saying that we are putting forward an agenda to wipe out unemployment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I have not seen. I have not seen it in any coordinated way. And as if to suggest that Illinois, just because of an invisible border between Illinois and Indiana, that Indiana's economy doesn't affect the Illinois economy, or the Wisconsin economy doesn't affect the Illinois economy, or the Iowa economy, another border State, doesn't affect the Illinois economy, what I have seen are Governors now in battles, offering incentives to corporations not to leave their State and cross State lines because we are not growing the economy evenly in all States together.

The absence of Federal coordination creates a disaster amongst the States, and we become less of a Union as States begin to offer incentives in a rush to the bottom to undermine workers, to undermine the quality of life for Americans by changing laws within States to undermine the quality of benefits that workers receive who even work within States.

This is part of the ongoing revolution that has been led over the last 5 or 10 years by the right wing, both in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party, against the idea of the central government.

My question to you: How can we be a government of, for, and by the people and then be so upset at it when it is our government? when it is us?

I think the lesson comes particularly from African American history, which I think is appropriate. We don't talk about it up here enough. I'm not ashamed or afraid to come and talk about it.

When African Americans were fighting against slavery and fighting from 1619 to 1865, the passage of the 13th Amendment, the legal argument that was used to justify--to justify--why slavery needed to continue was the 10th Amendment. States' rights.

Virginia said, You don't have a right, Federal Government, to come here and tell us what to do. Georgia said, you don't have a right, Federal Government, to come here and free slaves. You don't have a right, Federal Government, to come into Alabama and tell us what to do. You don't have a right, Federal Government, to come to North Carolina and tell us what to do.

And here we are in 2011 with an element of the Congress of the United States and a tea party outside of the Congress of the United States telling us: Federal Government, you don't have a right to come into our State and give somebody health care. You don't have a right to come into our State and end the foreclosure crisis. You don't have a right to come into our State and provide a higher quality of life for all Americans.

Oh, yes, but you do have a right to give some people a tax break. You do have a right to help these corporations. You do have a right to bail out Wall Street, but you don't have a right to bail out the individual.

So I think, Mr. Richmond, that we have a unique perspective around the 10th Amendment that we need to bring into this debate. I'm hoping the Black Caucus joins us in that conversation.

But let me ask you, Mr. Richmond. In Louisiana, if offered an opportunity by this government to receive more resources to fix schools, to fix levees, to build infrastructure, would your State send the money back?

Mr. Richmond, I understand that my time is about to expire.

But our men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and fighting in Iraq, they're fighting to defend that flag. They're fighting to build a more perfect Union. It's shameful that Members of this Congress aren't fighting for that flag, aren't fighting for a more perfect Union, aren't fighting to expand opportunities for our men and women when they return from Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is nothing more tragic in this current hour, Mr. Speaker, than the idea that our men and women could come home to unemployment, could come home without health care, could come home to homes that are in foreclosure, Mr. Speaker. The 112th Congress needs to do something about that.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for participating in this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, yesterday my Republican colleagues introduced a continuing resolution that would increase the defense budget for the entire year while funding the rest of the government for just 1 week and drastically cutting just about every other vital program. That's no compromise.

For months the Republicans have said that as we reduce spending everyone has to take a haircut, including the Defense Department. But now the Republicans propose increasing military spending. The Republicans claim they want to fund the government for the rest of the year. But this bill is for 1 week with drastic cuts to programs that serve our most vulnerable.

Madam Speaker, if you say one thing and then you do another, that is not negotiating in good faith. That's not a real compromise.

In fact, The Washington Post reported that in the Republican caucus this week, the possibility of the government shutdown was greeted with cheers and with applause. They want a shutdown.

Over 13 million Americans are unemployed. They don't have time for this, and they don't have any more time to waste; and we shouldn't be wasting the time and the resources that they gave us. So if the Republicans won't compromise at the negotiating table, maybe we should get everyone down here to the floor to discuss this, to discuss the condition of the unemployed and to discuss why a government of, for, and by the people should remain open.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently have given several Special Order speeches about my view of the Constitution and making my argument for why I think it should be amended to include certain basic rights that the American people currently lack, such as the right to a high-quality education, the right to health care, and equal rights for women.

I believe these rights should be given to the American people as a matter of moral and social justice. However, even more than that, I believe that there's a strong economic case for why these rights should be granted by this Congress. If we guarantee the right to an education of equal high quality to every American, and give the Congress the power to implement that right by appropriate legislation, then, Mr. Speaker, we will set off a true race to the top as States, cities, and the Federal Government are compelled to meet under the standard.

The nature of the problem: in 50 States there are 95,000 schools. There are 15,000 school districts; 3,141 counties; 19,000 municipal governments, and 30,000 incorporated cities. In all of that government there are 60 million children who are being asked to be the very best that they can be.

With my amendment, that means more teachers and teachers' aides and tutors for our kids. It means the construction companies and roofers and architects will be engaged to build new schools and improve old ones. It means technology companies benefit as computers and laptops are purchased; and, yes, iPads, Kindles, and Nooks replace textbooks.

I realize that there will be a cost to all of this, but I believe that if we can find the resources for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and military action in Libya, then we can find the resources to educate our children and the American people. Most importantly, for 308 million Americans, we can't afford not to.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to put my proposal tonight in some historical context, if I can. I want to suggest that through the course of human history, law is actually going somewhere. I want to suggest that at points in time from the earliest civilizations, progress has been made incrementally towards freedom, towards justice, and towards human rights.

I want to put our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the context at vital points in time. These documents are not the end all and the be all of democracy and freedom. No, Mr. Speaker. The very ability to amend our Constitution suggests that the Founders of our country see things the way I do--that the document they crafted was a landmark in human history, but not a perfect, final draft.

So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a walk through history to talk a little bit about where law and human rights have been, where they are, and where they're going. A couple of themes are going to emerge that as history shows that law is heading in a certain direction, we're going to see an action by a majority in this Congress heading in the opposite direction of human law through human history.

Like all civilizations, the roots of democracy and human rights lie in what is known as the Middle East--the Mesopotamian Empire. Although those early civilizations were decidedly not democratic and not inclusive of human rights, the evolution of law as we know it started there. Around 2350 B.C., Before Christ, Mesopotamia was ruled by Urukagina's Code, the oldest known set of laws. They are referenced in documents from the period as the consolidation of ``ordinances'' that claimed that kings were appointed by the gods, and affirmed the rights of citizens to know why certain actions were being punished.

Some 300 years later, around 2050 B.C., Ur-Nammu's Code was the earliest known written law. Only a handful of articles can be deciphered, but evidence suggests an advanced legal system with specialized judges, testimony under oath, and the ability for judges to assess damages to be paid to victims by the guilty party.

In 1850 B.C., we saw the first known legal decision involving murder of a temple employee by three other men. Nine witnesses testified against them, and three were sentenced to death. In 1700 B.C., Hammurabi's Code was carved into rock columns in Babylon. The underlying principle was ``an eye for an eye.'' Some 282 clauses regulated an array of obligations, professions, and rights, including commerce, slavery, marriage, theft, and debts. Punishment by modern standards was barbaric, including cutting off hands or fingers as a punishment for theft.

In 1300 B.C., the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament say that the Ten Commandments were received by Moses directly from God. Contained in the book of Exodus, those Commandments became the basis of modern laws against murder, adultery, and stealing. Around 1280 B.C., in India, rules passed down orally through generations were formally written down as the Laws of Manu. They were the basis of India's caste system, and punishment was used sparingly and only as a last resort. Interestingly, members of the higher castes were punished more severely than those in the lower castes.

In 621 B.C., Draco's Law was written for the Athenians. The punishment was so severe--often death--that we derived the word ``Draconian'' from it. However, Draco's Law introduced the concept that the state, not private parties or vigilantes, had the exclusive role in trying and punishing a person for a crime. Shortly after Draco's Law, the Spartan King Lycurgus give his oral law to the world. Lycurgus' Law held that women had a duty to have children. But if the children were deformed, they would be killed. Those who lived became wards of Sparta at age 7 when they began preparation for military duty.

In 550 B.C., Solon, an Athenian statesman and lawmaker, redefined and refined Draco's Law by ``democratizing'' it, making it more accessible to the citizens of Athens. Around the same time, in 536 B.C., China created the Book of Punishments, which limited the ways in which somebody could be punished after being convicted of a very serious crime, but still allowed for tattooing, manipulation, the amputation of feet, and death as legal punishments.

In 450 B.C., the Twelve Tables in Rome were created. These formed the basis of all modern law. Under these laws, a system of public justice was developed whereby injured parties could seek compensation from guilty defendants. The lower classes--the plebes--were given greater protection from abuses by the ruling classes--the patricians-- especially with regard to debts. The Twelve Tables also prohibited marriages between classes, severely punished death, and gave fathers the right of life or death over their sons. The Tables survived for nearly a thousand years until they were destroyed by the invading Gauls in 390 A.D.

One hundred years later, in 350 B.C., the first Chinese Imperial Code of Law, the Code of Li k'vei, dealt with the issues of theft, robbery, arrest, and other general subjects. It served as a model for the Chinese T'ang Code, which came about a thousand years later. In 339 B.C., the trial of Socrates played a role in the development of law. Accused of corrupting the minds of youth with his logic and of not believing in the gods, Socrates was a scapegoat for the loss of the Peloponnesian Wars. He was sentenced to death by a vote of 361-140, but his trial advanced the idea of the role of ``conscience'' in legal proceedings. Socrates was afforded the opportunity to speak to the jury and engage them in a dialogue. And, instead, he chose to give the jury a speech, criticizing them for their lack of sensitivity.

While it may not be contemplated as part of the traditional legal history, the life of Jesus Christ informs my personal understanding of the law. Under Jesus' law, pure motives, a mature love and grace unmerited, as well as nominal justice, good behavior, and honorable ends became important. Jesus was not replacing Moses' Law, but was seen as fulfilling and perfecting it. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says, ``Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and

Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished.''

In Galatians, Paul writes, ``For the whole law of Moses is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' In Romans he writes, ``Love is fulfilling the law.'' Thus, this Judeo-Christian understanding of the law is both a commitment to justice and the application of a knowledgeable understanding of love is important to the spiritual framework that underlies and undergirds much of my understanding and this Nation's philosophy towards the law as well as the purpose and the function of the law in society.

All law after the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ is profoundly impacted. We make a transition from Before Christ to Anno Domini. Jumping ahead to 529 Anno Domini, Justinian's Code organized Roman Law into a series of books called ``Corpus Juris Civilis.'' This legal collection was guided by Greek and English common law, the two main influences on contemporary Western jurisprudence. Many legal principles in use today, including the very spelling of the modern word ``justice,'' emanate from Justinian, the Emperor of the Byzantium.

The 17-article Constitution of Japan, written in 604 A.D., shaped that country's morality and law. Paternalistic in orientation, it espoused such legalisms as ``peace and harmony,'' that they ``should be respected because they are very important for intergroup relations'' and ``equality, speediness, and integrity should be maintained in court procedures.''

One distinction that characterizes two different legal traditions is that much of traditional Asian law seeks to prevent disputes; whereas Western law seeks to resolve disputes. It is very important, Mr. Speaker. A distinction between Asian law is that it seeks to prevent disputes; whereas Western law seeks to resolve disputes.

In 653 A.D., the kingdoms that make up modern-day China were consolidated, and the T'ang Code, revising earlier existing Chinese laws and standardized procedures, was created. It listed crimes and their punishments in 501 articles. One of those allowed just two forms of capital punishment for a convicted criminal: beheading or hanging.

Shortly thereafter, in 700 A.D., China invented the use of fingerprinting as a means of identifying people.

In 1100 A.D., the first law school came into existence.

The basis of English common law in 1215 A.D., the Magna Carta, was signed by King John. It forced the King, for the first time, to concede a number of rights to the barons and to the people. Its 61 clauses included freedom of the church; fair taxation; controls over imprisonment, habeas corpus; and the right of all merchants to come and go freely except in time of war. Its most important clause was No. 39, stating that no freeman shall be captured or imprisoned except by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Now even the King was restrained from merely exercising his will against another person.

In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was enacted, the precursor of our American Bill of Rights. It prohibited the arbitrary suspension of Parliament's laws, and more importantly, limited Parliament to the right to raise money through taxation.

In 1692, the Salem witch trials captivated Salem, Massachusetts. The fervor resulted in more than 300 accusations of witchcraft, with 23 executions as a result. It thrust the justice system into the popular mind in a way never seen before.

In 1740, the infamous South Carolina Slave Code, which regulated the use of slaves, became the model for slavery in other States. It said: ``All Negroes, Indians . . . and their offspring . . . shall be and are hereby declared to be and remain forever hereafter slaves; and shall be deemed . . . to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners.''

Then in 1765, law became more accessible to the common man when a British barrister named Blackstone wrote down the entire English law system in an easy-to-read, four-volume ``Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.'' Blackstone's work was easily exported to the new British colonies and was the basis for the governments there according to many legal scholars.

In 1772, the Somersett case captured the world's attention. James Somersett, a slave in Massachusetts, escaped from his master while on a trip abroad in England. He was recaptured and imprisoned, to be sent to Jamaica, then a British colony; but three English citizens claimed to be his godparents. Three white citizens claimed to be the godparents of an African American slave, and they filed a suit, alleging that slavery was not legal under British law. They won their case. Somersett was freed, and slavery was finished in Great Britain.

The reaction in the colonies was profound. Partly in response to the Somersett case, the colonies in America revolted. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence by the American colonists from Great Britain created a new day for human rights. It asserted ``all men are created equal'' and have ``certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.'' But we know that the writers of the Declaration did not intend those words to apply to all men and certainly not to women or to the American slave.

The Constitution of the United States of America was signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, and was ratified by nine States on June 21, 1788. It formed the legal basis for the first republican form of government in the history of the world. It defined the institutions of government and the powers of the executive, the judicial, and legislative branches. Its shortcomings with respect to slavery, along with the power struggles between the Federal Government and the States, are well documented. Nevertheless, the Constitution and its inherent ability to be amended have been the model for many other nations in attaining their independence, and represent one of the most important steps in the development of law and human rights.

The American Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was approved and ratified in 1791. These 10 amendments, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, declared rights in the areas of free speech, free press, free religion, the right to trial by jury, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights has influenced many modern charters and bills of rights around the world, and stands as one of the bedrocks of not just our democracy but of human rights history.

In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and stated unequivocally that the Court had the power to strike down actions taken by American State and Federal bodies that, in its judgment, were unconstitutional. This principle of ``judicial review'' represents, in my opinion and in the opinion of many legal scholars, the biggest advance in American law since the Constitution was ratified. It serves as a model for the balance of powers that many other nations have adopted.

One year after Marbury, France adopted the Napoleonic Code, which canonized many of the victories of the French Revolution, including individual liberty, equality before the law, and the ``consent of the governed'' character of the state. It had great influence beyond France, with Quebec, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, California, and Louisiana adopting parts of it.

The Geneva Convention of 1864 set forth basic human rights standards during times of war, including protection of military medical personnel and humane treatment of the wounded. It was later supplemented by a Prisoner of War Convention. Though it has been violated and ignored on numerous occasions, the Geneva Convention remains an important legal document and a milestone on the march of law and human rights.

In 1865, following the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passed, and the States ratified, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending legal slavery.

Prior to that, the 10th Amendment was the turning point in the Constitution of the United States. Those rights not written in the Constitution are in the purview of the States.

The addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution established a new

paradigm. If slavery, as conservatives and Southerners argued, is a State right, then States' rights can never be human rights.

The Constitution, with the addition of the 13th Amendment, changed the present order and the divided time.

I'm in Congress today, and Barack Obama is President of the United States because of the Constitution and its capacity to change time and space.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which puts forth a legal code of internationally recognized human rights. It serves as a basic guide to the fundamental rights of all people.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we've seen many, many more landmarks in human rights that have been reached. We're even watching the Middle East now seek even greater human rights against monarchies and kings and other leaders who are despots and not believing in the basic rights of people.

While we've failed to ensure full equality for all women in this country, we are making progress towards pay equality. I believe we need to amend the Constitution to ensure that women have fully equal standing with men.

We've enacted hate crimes legislation, and many States have moved towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians. We have much more work to do on that front.

And as I began my remarks tonight, I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we need to amend our Constitution to include certain rights that the American people should have but don't. As I just said, we need to include equal rights for women; we need to include the right to a public education of equal high quality; we need to include health care as a right for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it might surprise some Americans to know, which we learned in Bush v. Gore, that we don't even have a fundamental right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, only a right to not be discriminated against in the States while voting.

So, from the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, through the development of Europe, Asia, North America, and the rest of the modern world, we have seen greater democracy; we've seen more inclusion; we've seen more freedom; we've gone from vigilante justice, to ``an eye for an eye,'' to the modern criminal justice system. The death penalty was a common response to crime in many of the earliest civilizations, and it persists to this day in many places around the world, including here in the United States. My home State of Illinois, thanks to Governor Pat Quinn, recently banned the death penalty. I personally support that, but I know many of my colleagues would not.

There is an element in this Congress that is heading in the opposite direction of human law and human history, but the arc of history continues. The development of law and human rights did not stop with the writing of our Constitution, and it did not stop with the writing of our Bill of Rights.

The Constitution is not a static, set in stone, take it as it is and only as it is document. It, like the overall development of human rights and law through time, is organic. It's dynamic. It's living. It's forward-looking. It is adaptable to the challenges of a new day and a new world.

In fact, in their infinite wisdom, the Framers of the Constitution set up the very mechanism by which the march of justice and human rights could continue: an amendment process. It's not an easy one, and it's not one that should be taken lightly, but I believe we should, indeed, revisit our sacred document and amend it to include fundamental freedoms for the American people.

Thus, human law and political rights have evolved through history to ever higher forms and the granting of more rights. This has also meant that responsibilities and obligations have moved away from external sources and appointed governmental power to the voice of the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people.

The word ``democracy'' is comprised of two Greek words: demos and kratos--people, strength or power--people power. It means we the people have the strength and the power in the end to elect people to make our laws and rules. We the people have the right to declare what rights we have and what rights we don't have, what rules we will live and play by, and under which laws we will be governed. A representative democratic government is a political structure and arrangement whereby the supreme governmental authority is accepted, and the rules are made with the consent of a majority of the common people.

Thus, the contrast between organic, evolutionary, and political nature of the law versus the static, strict constructionist, and natural view of the law should be clear in terms of the creation and preservation of political rights in human development.

The approach of conservatives to play down or advocate an antipolitical, antilegislative, and anti-Federal Government philosophy of social change is, therefore, certainly not a strategy designed to advance the public interests or real economic interests of the majority of the American people. These conservatives and tea party activists who will descend upon Washington tomorrow are acting on behalf of the special interests of the few who do not want mass democratic participation and action. This antigovernment and undemocratic conservative approach is a strategy to undermine progressive and economic change intended to benefit the public good.

In a living democracy, we must continually criticize and reform our politics, our government and policies to keep them relevant, effective, efficient, accessible, accountable, and responsive to real people's needs. This is very different, however, from criticizing politics and the government, per se, as irrelevant and ineffective as instruments of change or protecting old rights as opposed to advancing new ones.

It is quite clear that the strict constructionist constitutional approach of conservatives like Mr. Quayle and Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Meese, Mr. Bork and George W. Bush seem to be frozen in time, backward-looking and fearful philosophical views of government, history, and the Constitution.

Strict constructionism, Mr. Speaker, runs contrary to the whole legal development of rights in human history. Strict constructionists look back to the Founders' original document only, before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and other progressive amendments to the Constitution were added, before nonlandowners could vote, before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Strict constructionists, as former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said at an event celebrating the 200th anniversary of the writing of the Constitution, ``believe that the meaning of the Constitution was 'fixed' at the Philadelphia Convention.'' That would require us to know their original intent and rigidly preserve the Founding Fathers' philosophy, even though they were all men, most were slaveholders, and they allowed slavery in the Constitution. A strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution also means a reaffirmation of States' rights as the preeminent guiding legal principle.

A broad interpretation, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as forward-looking, as living, as positive, and a hopeful document. We respect the past and the positive contribution that the Founders made. We seek to understand their intent and the full context in which the Constitution was written, and we seek to understand to the fullest its original meaning. But we also know that it has been changed and improved along the way in order to be more inclusive of all the American people. Therefore, we also know that we have an obligation today to improve it even further.

The more people are made aware of their rights to which they are entitled, the rights which have already been written in national and international law, the more politically educated and conscious people become of these rights, the more politically active and organized the common people become in the struggle to achieve these rights, and the more accessible and responsive our democratic institutions of politics and government become to the democratic will of the people, the faster and more nonviolently we as a society will be able to achieve a new and higher set of human rights.

Mr. Speaker, since this Congress has begun, I've been coming to this floor

talking about one issue, and that's high unemployment. And in order to wipe out unemployment, which we've been recording from 1890 to 2011, we need a massive jobs program in this country. I recommend a jobs program that benefits all Americans: the rebuilding of 95,000 schools in this Nation to an equal high-quality standard; putting roofers, brick masons, electricians, teachers, carpenters to work; providing unprecedented technological access to the Internet and modern forms of communication to 60 million children across our country.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, tea party activists and conservatives in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, many of them don't see it that way. But I see something different. I see an America that can build runways for airplanes in States all across this country and build an interstate transportation system by one national Federal standard.

We simply can't build schools and provide an equal high-quality education for 60 million children in 50 different States in 15,000 locally controlled school districts in 3,100 counties in 19,000 cities across this country one school at a time. If there's enough money to fight the war in Iraq, if there's enough money which this Congress keeps writing the check for to fight the war in Afghanistan, if there's enough money to spend $550 million in 1 week bombing Libya, then, Mr. Speaker, we can find the money in this Congress to rebuild these schools, reduce unemployment, put 15 million unemployed Americans to work, and change the course of our country. If we can put 15 million Americans to work, we can wipe out the Nation's debt, its deficit, and provide a long future for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to our democracy is unemployment. We all know the numbers. We all have far too many constituents who don't have jobs and can't provide for their families.

Too many Americans are without work, and more and more of them are losing hope. Unemployment benefits are running out. Fear is creeping in. But for some of the unemployed, their tireless job search has been coming up empty because some employers won't even consider them for openings.

Recently, The New York Times reported that one employer listed a job that included the caveat: ``No unemployed candidate will be considered at all,'' and a Texas electronics company said that it won't ``consider/review anyone not currently employed, regardless of the reason.'' It is reminiscent of a time when signs read: Blacks need not apply, or Women need not apply.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's high time that we fix that. How are the unemployed supposed to find work if they don't even get considered for a job? How do we expect the unemployment rate to go down when the unemployed aren't even available or allowed to compete for a job?

Along with Congressman John Lewis, I'm introducing legislation that will amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants because they are currently or were currently unemployed.

The Civil Rights Act of 2011 will not give a job to those who are unemployed, but it will give those who are unemployed through no fault of their own the opportunity to compete for a job on the merits of their ability.

Mr. Speaker, we talk in pleasantries and political correctness about ``these difficult economic times.'' We debate policy and hold hearings on how to move America forward, but recently the Bureau of Labor Statistics had to modify its current population survey to be able to include responses reporting a duration of unemployment over 2 years.

We are making room for the reality of chronic unemployment in America in very real ways, while promising it will get better. I think we need to do more to make sure that people have opportunities.

Nearly 9 percent of Americans right now are unemployed. That's 13.9 million Americans that we represent as Members of Congress who are looking for the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. They are looking for Washington and to Washington for leadership and to keep things from getting any worse.

They are writing our offices begging us to help them jump-start America. They are not just looking for a hand out. They are looking for a way out, just a chance so that they can take care of the rest. They are hoping that the next interview will mean a new start.

Mr. Speaker, the job market is troublesome; but we cannot allow companies to arbitrarily pick who will come out of the economic crisis by disqualifying unemployed workers. It should not be their right to discriminate this way.

We, as a Nation, face triumphs and challenges together. It seems to me that to allow such a practice is counterintuitive to everything that Congress is working towards. Why create jobs if those Americans currently without jobs are not eligible?

Just because an individual was unlucky to be laid off or had the misfortune to graduate into a jobless market does not mean that we should just cast them aside.

This employment practice adds insult to injury for Americans who are desperately looking for jobs, for college graduates who debate if their education was worth the cost, for families who are trying to make more on less.

Those who live on Main Street of America had very little to do with the onset of our economic crisis. In response, they are doing what generations before us have taught, carrying on, hoping that the darkness will give way to light.

Mr. Speaker, if we allow employers to block consideration for those who are unemployed, we let that light get a little dimmer. We allow the American

Dream to be tarnished. We send a message to the American people, those who are currently unemployed and those who are one bad break away from unemployment, that we will bail out banks but not support them as they fight to take care of their families.

The Civil Rights Act and the amendments that have followed demonstrate what makes America exceptional. Here, regardless of the color of your skin, the god you pray to, your ethnicity, your age or sex, you will be judged on your performance. We haven't always lived up to our principles, but it is the collective momentum towards these values that makes America great.

Discrimination against any American is an affront to the very idea of America. A new class of citizen now needs protection from the superficial bias that is not based on the ability to perform. Using current employment status as a requirement for application or consideration is shameful.

There are 13.9 million Americans currently unemployed; that means 13.9 million Americans are considered by some employers to be no longer viable for employment. They are dismissed out of hand.

But, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to believe that every unemployed individual is unqualified for a job. It is an arbitrary way of narrowing an applicant pool by finding a loophole that allows discrimination.

I ask each and every Member of Congress to stand with me and to say to those 13.9 million Americans who are unemployed, you are not forgotten, your chance has not passed. We should pass the Civil Rights Act of 2011. We should not allow the opportunities that all Americans deserve to be taken away. Current joblessness should not disqualify you from employment. Your ability is more valuable than any label ever placed upon you.

Mr. Speaker, last month our Nation created 200,000 new jobs. That's good news. But our country needs to create 335,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth and to reduce unemployment to what it was before the recession. In communities like mine, unemployment is at least 15 percent, and the numbers do not include those who stopped looking for a job.

In order to hear the stories of the unemployed Americans, I have asked them to send me their resumes to [email protected] so I can submit them for the Record.

I heard from Peter Haas of Parlin, New Jersey, who said, ``I am sending out resumes every day. No response from any company out there. I think no company is hiring at all. No response, not even an email.''

Ms. Christine Stumpf of Chicago said she's had only one phone interview in a year of looking, and she can hardly believe it.

Why is it so hard to find work? Maybe it's because the unemployed are not even being considered for many jobs. It's been reported that some companies will not even accept applications or grant interviews to those currently without a job.

I hope unemployed Americans will send me their resumes and stories to [email protected] to keep stories of the unemployed in front of our government, in front of Democrats and Republicans.

Peter Haas

14 Skytop Gardens Apt. 4

Parlin, NJ 08859

Cell: (949) 878-1953,

Home: (732) 588-5145,

E-mail: [email protected]

Significant Experience:

11/89-03/2006 The Waldorf-Astoria in New York Hilton Hotel

Director--Food & Beverage Operations (6 years)

Assessed company staffing needs and recruited staff through

various methods

Coordinated the successful and complete training for 140 or

more employees within the establishment

Successfully trained team members on customer service,

teamwork, and leadership in the hotel

Assisted with training, monitoring, and developing employee

skills within all service departments

Implemented policies and procedures for the restaurants,

bars, and banquets within the Waldorf Astoria

Monitored compliance with health and fire regulations

regarding food preparation and serving, and building

maintenance in lodging and dining facilities

Performed all aspects of marketing and promotions for

restaurants, bars, cocktail lounge, and banquets

Reviewed operational procedures to determine ways to

improve services, performance, and safety

Estimated food, liquor, wine, and other beverage

consumption to anticipate amounts to be purchased and used

for food & beverage operations within the hotel

Successfully maintained and updated food, wine, liqueur,

and equipment inventories in a monthly time

Monitored budget and payroll records and review financial

transactions to ensure that expenditures are authorized and

budgeted

Restaurant Manager--Managed restaurants, bars, fine dining,

and casual dining (5 years)

Coached assistant managers and supervisors on management

and communication skills

Successfully maintained all service standards according to

Hilton Restaurant services and policies

Trained, supervised and evaluated new staff for restaurant

operation and services

Monitored restaurant sales activities to ensure customer

satisfaction and service

Maintained quality control by evaluating satisfaction

records with restaurant sales and constantly sought new ways

to improve employee performance and service

Banquet Manager--Managed all banquet functions, liquor

purchase, inventory, and sales (5 years)

Directed recruitment and retention of new employees or

potential supervisors and current employees

Monitored all sales distribution throughout the hotel and

customers satisfactory in banquet services

Successfully improved banquet operations and customer

satisfaction within the banquet department

Monitored the budget for any banquet function within the

client's arrangement and negotiated event

Quickly and effectively solved customers' questions,

comments, and concerns

Steward Department Manager--Managed restaurant, banquet, and

kitchen supplies (2 years)

Assigned employees to specific duties to maintain quality

service throughout the hotel

Ensured all health regulations are maintained and updated

within the establishment

Tracked inventory stock and reordered as inventory dropped

to a specific level

Responsible for restaurant, kitchen, and banquet supplies

within the Waldorf Astoria

Coached steward supervisors on management and communication

skills within the department

Responsible for scheduling, budgeting, and training

employees for safety regulations, standards within the

steward department

Performed weekly department meetings to evaluate ways to

improve service standards

Ensured that all requisitions and services are completed

according to Hilton Hotel policies and standards

Maintained acknowledged all sanitation, dishwashing

maintenance, and safety standards

(Most recent experience: 04/06-03/09)

04/2006-01/2008 Ecolab Corporation in Austria-Vienna

(Moved to Vienna to be near family when mother ill)

http://www.ecolab.com/ District Manager--For Hospitality Services & Business

Development

Contacted strategic business and operational projects,

managed public and investment relationships, prepared

presentation, and developed business plans directly for the

Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by associating myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia and the gentlelady from Maryland on a very thoughtful presentation that they offered the body this evening.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some controversy in the blogosphere and on conservative talk radio shows about some comments I made last week regarding my belief that every child in this country should have the constitutional right to an education of equal high quality. Let me be clear. Last week, I raised the possibility that such a right might lead to an education standard in this country of an iPad for every child just like it could lead to standards of class sizes and athletic facilities and music classes and other important resources for our children.

Let me be clear on a few things. These devices are revolutionizing our country, and they will fundamentally alter how we educate our children. Mr. Speaker, this is an iPad. It is an incredible device, so incredible, in fact, before I could open it up after I recently purchased it, Apple came out with the iPad 2.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Kindle, a device from Amazon that allows you to download books and to read them. Before I could finish opening up my Kindle, Kindle came out with an even smaller Kindle, neither of which has been activated at this time.

Mr. Speaker, it will not be very long before every child in this country is educated using one of these devices or something similar. Why? Just go to your local Borders bookstore, that is, if there's one left.

Recently, Borders announced it was closing 200 of 508 stores, including one in my congressional district. If the recent history of the music business is any guide, then other bookstores and libraries, both private and public, may not be far behind them. That's because the future of publishing isn't in hard copy books any more or magazines or newspapers. It's all digital. The iPad, the Kindle, the Nook, and other similar devices make it possible to access any book, any periodical at any time any place.

As digital downloadable music has gained in popularity, we've seen a fundamental shift in the music industry. Now there are hardly any physical stores where we can buy CDs or other music products anymore. We've gone from the 78 to the 45 to the long-playing LP to DVDs, and now to downloadable music. The same will be true for publishing. Books will soon become obsolete. So the school library will soon, unfortunately, be obsolete.

Schools are likely in the future to use that space for more classrooms. Maybe it will help alleviate our classroom size problems. But for certain, architects in the future will likely be designing future schools without a library.

Hard copies of textbooks will become obsolete. Instead of incurring the costs of buying them and storing them and instead of forcing our children to lug around huge backpacks full of heavy books, we'll just download them onto a device just like one of these. This is going to happen in the future. In fact, it is happening right now.

In my district, at Chicago State University, thanks to the innovation of President Wayne Watson, the freshmen class of students this past fall, every single freshman received an iPad. Over time as new classes enroll, the administration at Chicago State University hopes that all students will use electronic devices for textbooks and to submit assignments. It could be a textbookless campus within 4 years. ``Imagine the cost savings for schools,'' President Watson said. ``Give a child an iPad, a Nook or a Kindle or any of these devices when they are in the first grade, and he or she could use it all of the way through college. All of the cost of buying hard copy books for the course of that child's educational career would be simply wiped out.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, because I suggested this idea, I have been called a communist and a socialist and any number of other things, but let me tell you why that is misleading and malicious. Let me go back to what I talked about last week.

Last week from the House floor, I talked about the greatest capitalists in the history of our world. In my opinion, the greatest capitalists in the history of our world were the men who founded our country, our Founding Fathers. They were engaged in all manners of trade and commerce that ranged from farming cotton and beans and corn. And even before the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, even before the Bill of Rights in 1791, even before the Declaration of Independence, from 1492 until 1776, and certainly and even more tragically in 1619, 19 scared Africans arrived on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia, 157 years before the Declaration of Independence. Their desire for commerce and capitalism even had them trading people. They traded among themselves and with others across the world. And when they rebelled against the government of England and established their own country, they had a choice in an unregulated, unfettered free market system or a system of government with checks and balances and regulations and rules. So much for the antigovernment movement in our Nation. Our Founding Fathers were not antigovernment. They chose government, but they chose government with an overall structure of freedom and personal liberty along with regulation and rules, which leads us to the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is one of the great landmarks in human rights and personal freedom. It certainly is that not only in domestic history but in world history. It protects free speech, freedom of and freedom from religion, the right to assemble and to petition the government. It also happens, and often not talked about in our country, it also happens to be the greatest economic program in the history of our country. Think about it.

I asked the Congressional Research Service and their experts responded by saying to a specific question: How many jobs in the United States of America are tied to the First Amendment? Initially they said: It is practically incalculable. He said any job, and I quote, ``with a public presence'' could be considered protected under the First Amendment. And, therefore, the Congressional Research Service conservatively estimated that approximately 50 percent of all jobs in the United States are tied to the First Amendment. Imagine, or just stop and think about it. Every newspaper in this Nation and the jobs that emanate from those newspapers are tied to the First Amendment. Books, Internet publications, every TV station, social media, public speaking, Sirius Network, AM/FM radio, advocacy, lawyers, movies, CDs, DVDs, VHRs, VHSs, Comcast, Blu-ray, MP3 players, Democrats and Republicans, telephone services, cell phones, Droids, pagers, music-- classical, R&B, pop, country western, hip-hop, techno, karaoke--the United States Postal Service, Federal Express, UPS, print advertising, Times Square, New York City, commercials, iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, art, museums, photography, education, colleges and schools, theaters, plays, musicals, and on and on and on, they have their basis in the First Amendment.

That doesn't even include freedom of religion, the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, all religions, nonprofit organizations, 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, charitable giving. All of this is First Amendment activity.

Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment, with American innovation through time, from the founding of our country to this very date has unleashed over time the greatest economy that the world has ever known. The Founding Fathers set in place a system that through our value system would give birth to more than 50 percent of all jobs in the United States of America. And that system has worked remarkably well for a long, long time.

But now there is a problem, Mr. Speaker. These devices will cause the loss of jobs at bookstores. Borders is closing almost 50 percent of its stores. It is going to cost the jobs of librarians and libraries, publishing houses, printers, book binders.

And where do we think these devices are made? They are not made here in the United States. They are most likely made in China or other places. So if you are not an American and if you believe in the value system that emanates from the First Amendment, including all of the jobs that emanate from the First Amendment, and you are outside of America and you are looking in, you need only wait for American innovation as a result of our own freedom system to take advantage of selling to the United States at some cheaper labor costs a product that helps strengthen our First Amendment. It comes, however, at the cost of jobs. Significant jobs.

So the First Amendment, the amendment that has unleashed such great economic activity and brought about such amazing innovation and helped America become the greatest economy in the world, is now known for helping the Chinese economy grow and create jobs and prosperity and, ironically, challenge America's place in the global economy.

We all know our economy has struggled over the past few years. The financial and economic crises have been devastating for many Americans. The unemployment rate still hovers near 9 percent. And in communities like mine, it is near 15 percent.

How do we turn our economy around? I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we follow the mold of the greatest capitalists and turn to our Constitution; turn to our bylaws, the bylaws of the American enterprise. That is what President Roosevelt did as he began his fourth term in office.

Mr. Speaker, here is what President Roosevelt said on January 11, 1944, in his State of the Union address. January 11, 1944, unemployment is beginning to come down, but throughout President Roosevelt's administration, we see the highest levels of unemployment in the history of the United States, the period known as the Great Depression.

But as we are coming out of that Great Depression, President Roosevelt, after having served nearly four terms as President of the United States, has some insights on how future generations of Americans must address unemployment. Today, unemployment hovering at around 9 percent.

Let's hear what our President had to say: ``It is now our duty to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for winning a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than we have ever known before. We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people''--and this is January 11, 1944--``whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed and insecure.''

``This Republic had its beginning''--1788, 1791--``and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights.''

Here Roosevelt is giving deference to the idea that the First Amendment through the Great Depression is responsible for most of the Nation's jobs.

``Among these rights,'' President Roosevelt says, ``is the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

``As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however,'' the President acknowledges, ``as our industrial economy expanded, these political rights proved inadequate to assure us''--that is, every American--``equality in the pursuit of happiness.

``We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.

``Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

``In our day, these economic truths have become accepted as self- evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station, race, or creed.

``Among these are:

``The right to a job; the right to earn enough food to provide for one's family; the right to every farmer to raise and sell their products; the right of every businessman, large and small; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age and sickness and accident and unemployment; the right to a good education; all of these rights.

``And after this war is won,'' he said, ``they spell security. We must be prepared to move forward''--forward through time, a time that President Roosevelt himself would not live to see--``in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

``America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these rights and similar rights are carried into practice by our citizens.''

Mr. Speaker, what if we amended the Constitution, if we amended the bylaws of America, to include the right of every citizen to an education of equal high quality? What would that do for architects, and roofers, and bricklayers and manufacturers, as school districts across this country seek to meet the equal high quality standard by building new schools and improving existing ones?

What would it do for the NASDAQ, as schools improve their technological capabilities with laptops and computers and iPads and Nooks and Kindles and other devices? There are 60 million children in the Nation's public school systems. Sixty million. I believe that, like the First Amendment over time, an amendment guaranteeing every American the right to a quality education for all students would provide a huge economic boost for our country, just like the First Amendment at the inception of our country is responsible for 50 percent of all jobs, if we truly want to compete with China, with India, with other countries around the world, if we truly want a population that is better educated than any other population on planet Earth, capable of paying more taxes, eliminating unemployment, rebuilding schools, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding hope in our communities, and by definition every time we build a newer first class school, we change the property values of every home around that school. In America we just don't sell housing anymore, we sell housing plus schools at the same time.

I wish every Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, in my home State would visit New Trier in the northwest suburbs. New Trier High School represents quality of education that is provided unlike any other high school in the Nation. There are state-of-the-art classrooms, with small class sizes. It has top quality athletic facilities including two aquatic centers. That's swimming. The school rents it out for fees, raising revenue to help offset some of its cost. There are 17 varsity athletic teams for boys and 17 varsity athletic teams for girls. New Trier is noted for its drama, for its music, for its visual arts programs. Students are given the opportunity to develop all of the aspects of their talent. They are given a full educational experience that molds boys and girls into young men and women. The academics at New Trier are unrivaled. In 2006, the mean SAT verbal score was 620, and the mean SAT math score was 650, meaning that 1370 was an average score at New Trier. The school literally churns out Ivy Leaguers.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need more New Triers. We need all of our schools to have the facilities, the resources, the rigor of New Trier. I certainly need it in my congressional district on the south side of Chicago. And if there is someone out there in America who wishes they had a school like that in their congressional district, I wish they would just go touch their television set, Mr. Speaker and say ``amen.''

But we can't get there, Mr. Speaker, under local property tax regimes that fund our schools. In the 50 States and territories, there are 95,000 public schools in 15,000 school districts, in 20,000 cities--all different, all separate, all unequal and all funded differently.

At New Trier, roughly $15,000 is spent on every child per year, which is nearly double the State average. That's because New Trier is located in one of the wealthiest areas in my State and, therefore, has the resources to fund such a high quality education.

Now I don't want to take, Mr. Speaker, anything from New Trier. My vision on the floor of this Congress is that the United States of America should be building 95,000 New Triers across our country--that's 95,000 schools putting millions of Americans to work in high quality education--for as long as there is an America, not for the 112th Congress, not for the 113th Congress, but for all of these Congresses, and there have been 112 Congresses that have made the First Amendment responsible for 51 percent of all jobs in this Nation. It has taken 112 Congresses for 51 percent of all jobs to be vested in the First Amendment.

What's the great thing about my amendment? The jobs that are associated with building 95,000 schools are not likely to end up in Beijing. Because building schools has something to do with putting Americans to work. That's very different than building iPads, or using First Amendment values that tend to leave our own country and, yes, they spread good will throughout the world but it takes our quality of life and our standard of living with them.

And that's what Mr. Roosevelt is talking about. I mean, he is the President that had to address unemployment. So what Roosevelt is looking for are jobs with domestic content. But he recognizes that the Constitution of the United States, however much we honor it, is insufficient on the question of economic rights for all Americans to ensure that future generations of Americans will be the beneficiary of the highest possible education standard that the world has ever known.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, it will create new jobs over time. As teachers are hired to provide that high quality education and schools are built and rebuilt and technology is purchased and maintained, that will unleash over time immense economic capitalistic activity that will drive job creation and corporate profits for generations to come. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a cost. But if we can find money for the

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we can find money to bail out Wall Street, if, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, we can find money to put a man on the Moon, then we ought to be able to find money to put a man and a woman on their own two feet right here in America and guarantee our children an equal high quality education like that of New Trier.

Mr. Speaker, only the Constitution of the United States can guarantee that kind of education system and at the same time unleash incredible job growth and economic activity.

With the few minutes I have remaining, I have been dedicating this session of Congress to the unemployed. A lot of unemployed people have been sending me their resumes, and the cost of inputting their resumes into the House Record, for which I am asking them to continue to send me their resumes and stories, is astronomical.

And I wonder sometimes, Mr. Speaker, why the Congressional Record isn't digitized, why we still have to cut down trees to print all of these speeches delivered by Members of Congress. Well, the cost would be significantly less if the Congress of the United States would catch up to the Nation's education system and start digitizing the Congressional Record. I'm not totally unconvinced yet that we're not dragging our feet into the future on purpose.

With that said, I want to read a few stories of some people who have been going through, well, a whole lot of hell, Mr. Speaker, in this economy. These are the stories of our men and women who have served. This is from John Bridges:

``Representative Jackson, I appreciate your effort to show the country what's happening to the veterans by entering their resumes in the Congressional Record. A bit of background for you: I was raised in Tilden, Illinois, and joined the U.S. Navy when I was 17. And after 22 years, I retired in the Dallas, Texas, area. I then went into the wireless telecommunications industry for over 12 years before being laid off at the end of August, 2010.

``I have not had any success with any position since that time. I've had one interview with the VA, and an upcoming one with the University of North Texas. However, I have not heard back from anyone, so I'm assuming that the positions have gone to other individuals. Thank you, and good luck with this effort, as well as your service to the Congress.''

Thank you, Mr. Bridges. We're going to do what we can, I hope, one of these days in this Congress to find you a job.

How about a former sergeant from the United States Marine Corps, Robert Green: ``Congressman Jackson, Jr., thank you for thinking of the veterans, whose sacrifice for our country should always be respected and honored the way one veteran honors another.

``My story is that after getting out of the Marine Corps in 1980 I landed a job as a welder working in Arizona on a power plant. I went to night school, obtained my certificate of completion for the trade I was working in and continued to use my benefits to add classes at the local community college level while raising my family and trying to live the American Dream. After nearly 30 years of work in the construction industry I found myself laid off.

``I had not completed the degree program, but had the experience and enough credits for a 2-year degree in the industry. I had worked hard to establish a role of senior project manager on a construction project; yet without that degree, most companies will not even give me a call.

``It is my hope that this idea not only heightens the concern of veterans, but sheds light on the college industry's business model that keeps people forever pursuing degrees that, despite their personal life changes, nothing changes. Thanks again.'' Former sergeant, United States Marine Corps, Robert Green.

``Congressman, I am currently a government contractor with the 505th Training Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Florida. We're undergoing a Research Management Decision, RMD 802, which includes the realigning of resources for fiscal year 2010 and 2014 to decrease funding for contract support and increase funding for approximately 33,400 new civilian manpower authorizations, 10,000 of which are for the defense acquisition workforce.

I and three other 30-percent-or-more disabled veterans are being replaced by workers and will be terminated from employment effective the 25th of February, 2011. All three of us have served our country for over 20 years and have been an integral part of the 505th Combat Training Squadron for years. It's going to be a difficult task to find work because of our age and our disabilities.

``I myself, having young children and limited opportunities for work, find myself wondering if everything that I've worked for and the American Dream of keeping my house and putting my kids through college has now become a nightmare. Thanks for promising to post the veterans' resumes. And I believe that even though you're not promising jobs, at least you're trying to bring visibility to the plight of our Nation's veterans.'' Mr. Tracy L. Palmer--put his life on the line for the United States of America. The least we can do is try and find Mr. Palmer a job.

``Good evening. My name is Thomas Gadbois. I recently read an article about this program in the Marine Times. I served in the Marine Corps from 2001 to 2002 before receiving a medical discharge. I was separated after having a seizure disorder. During my time in the Corps I served as a radio operator, a platoon sergeant, and worked a complex entry control point while serving in Iraq in 2007. I've been searching for a job for over 1 year now, and my family and I recently relocated to Okinawa, Japan, where the job search still continues.

``I would like to thank you for starting this program. There are so many veterans out there that can be productive members of our society if the Congress of the United States would just find something for them to do.''

Out of respect for your resume, which is going into the Congressional Record tonight, my hat is off to you, Thomas Gadbois. We're going to do what we can to try and find you a job.

``I served as an active duty member, full time, in the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard for over 20 years, Mr. Speaker, as an ordnance mechanic. I took advantage of the VA programs after retiring in 2000 to start a second career in the information technology field. I applied to all technology positions at a local VA medical center as they were available. My application was not even considered. I never gave up and tried for at least 10 more years.

``In my last job, I was making $44,000, but it was just enough for the both of us. Now I am forced to tell potential employers I will take a minimum of $15 per hour just to get interviewed. I see American companies wallowing in their greed, Mr. Speaker, to outsource jobs to other countries because it's cheaper, and that's what we're getting into, cheap products instead of investing in the talents and the skills and the knowledge of the American worker. This has to stop somewhere. ``Respectfully yours, Pasquale Filoromo, TSgt United States Air Force, retired.''

They go on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to submit extraneous materials for the Record relating to the subject of this Special Order, including the names of these veterans that I specifically offered tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 11, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates are too high in our Nation: around 9 percent nationally, and within our minority populations, that rate is even higher.

Finding a job is already difficult for hundreds of thousands of Americans, yet a growing number of employers are excluding jobless applicants from consideration--making the job search nearly impossible for those who are unemployed.

Companies have begun to post descriptions of vacancies including statements like ``unemployed applicants will not be considered'' or ``must be currently employed,'' leaving those in the most dire need of a job high and dry. It's a practice that I utterly oppose. Congress must put an end to it.

It reminds me of when blacks, women, and Asians were told they need not apply. Mr. Speaker, how on Earth can an unemployed person find a job if he or she is barred from applying?

Unemployment discrimination is as profound as racial discrimination. This is an appalling form of discrimination that deeply harms all Americans, hinders companies from finding the best workers, and further disables our economy. It should not be tolerated in America or anywhere else.

I again call on those plagued by unemployment and joblessness to send me their resumes and their stories to [email protected].

americaresumesfor

From: Joseph Drake [[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:19 PM

To: americaresumesfor

Subject: My Resume and Story

Dear Congress: I am 60 years old, too young to be retired,

too old to be unemployed. In the current economy and at my

age and health my chances of re-employment diminish. I wasn't

planning to retire early, but rather late, because of my

small amount of savings. Now, when I do get a job again, I

will have to postpone retirement even longer. I had almost no

contacts about employment in spite of applying for about 6 to

12 jobs a week since I lost my job. My economic circumstances

had gradually eroded so that I had to start living in a

rooming house.

Since I returned to Seattle, in 1993, I have largely worked

in either retail or parking and had worked for Ampco Parking

for 13 years. I haven't had even 72 hours of work since I

lost my job last September, and am almost completely

dependent on my unemployment check. My bills are piling up. I

am planning to start selling my book collection and some of

my Videos and DVD's. I am planning to discount my landline

and depend solely on my cell phone.

I have lived a diverse and interesting life. Like Obama, I

was once a community organizer. I organised A Tenants Union

in Santa Cruz, CA once, and then worked in organizing low

income workers and neighborhoods, helping their causes and

providing services. I have always been someone to volunteer,

stating in high school or get involved, and to think of the

needs of others. I volunteer at my church on movie nights, as

an usher, and on the Peace and Justice Committee.

I have also been a journalist in the past. Now write two

blogs and do other online writing. One of the blogs is about

my unemployment and life in the margins of America, drawing

perspective from the Catholic Worker movement and the social

teachings of the church and the bible. My other blog is about

the arts. Although I have my own political and religious bias

expressed in my blogs, I have my non-Catholic, even non-

religious friends, and many conservative friends. In fact

some of my blog followers are conservatives to disagree with

my solutions, my way of interpreting the social teachings of

the church, but admire my concern for the poor and sympathize

with my situation. I will probably post a copy of this email

for them to read and put a link from my Facebook page to the

blog post.

Now I am one of those in need, going to food banks, getting

my coffee at Jack in the Box for 55 cents by asking for the

senior discount, cutting every corner and buying only what I

absolutely need. I hang out in lines with desperate looking

characters.

I am uninsured, as Cobra was too expensive for me when I

lost my job and I have what was supposed to be a sprain to

the finger, but which was probably X-Rayed from the wrong

angle, and seems like a permanent injury and deformation.

While I can work and use my hand, I can't type with my small

finger, or close it completely. Short of going back to the ER

and getting more unpayable bills, without benefits I have no

means to treat it.

I am hanging in their with the support and prayers of a

great church community, my family and friends, my Facebook

friends and blog readers. I try to be thankful to God every

day for each little thing he provides me and to focus on the

bigger issues--like the struggles of the Egyptian people, our

nations problems, everyone else who is poor or unemployed. I

am hoping, that like the 1930's, we will end the decade as a

less selfish, more cooperative, more optimistic nation that

when we entered these hard times. I will pray for our nations

leaders tonight, that all of you get granted the wisdom to

help our suffering people.

I have attached, saved in SkyDrive, my general purpose

resume. I have of course

have other resumes, but my general one tells my story.

God Bless you and God Bless all the poor and

unemployed,

Joseph Drake.

Let me express my appreciation to you and to the leadership of this Congress for allowing me 30 minutes to speak to my constituents, but also to speak to the American people about the central issue that confronts our Nation and this economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the central issue that has confronted every Congress that remains unaddressed, for which I want to talk about tonight, is unemployment.

The unemployment rate in our country is too high. The Democratic message, job creation and create jobs, I respect that message.

Republicans believe in tax cuts and tax breaks and pro-business perspective, which many Democrats support as well, and I believe that, clearly, economic growth is the path to job creation. But for the unemployed in our Nation, a very, very different category, the debate, led by Democrats and led by Republicans in the Congress of the United States, all too often ignores people who are unemployed.

Unemployment is a very special category. Every Member of Congress knows the numbers, but it's the American people who are feeling them. About 9 percent of the country is ``unemployed'' based on the definition of unemployed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses.

But in communities like mine, it's around 15 percent, and that's conservative. Some communities have as high as 30 percent unemployment.

So when Democrats come to the floor of the Congress and talk about job creation, for African Americans, for minorities and for women, when we hear that language, because we are usually the last hired and the first fired, job creation isn't a message that touches my constituents. It's not a message that touches the long-term unemployed who find themselves in the barrios, the ghettos, and the trailer parks of our Nation.

So the question is why Democrats and Republicans in Congress, both promoting growth, Republicans promoting tax breaks and tax cuts and limited government as a way to stimulate the economy, Democrats focusing on job creation as a way to separate the economy, which might include reasonable spending and deficit reduction measures, why, in the midst of our conversation, led by Republicans in the majority and Democrats, unemployed Americans continue to grow. There is this huge category that Democrats are not speaking to and Republicans are not speaking to but needs to be addressed in order to strengthen our economy and change the present direction.

You see, Mr. Speaker, if we can provide a job for every American, if we can eliminate unemployment just like we eliminated slavery, if we can eliminate unemployment just like as a Nation we are trying to eliminate discrimination against women and against the disabled and against the gays and lesbians of our Nation, if we can eliminate unemployment--the way our system is actually set up, if every American is working they pay into the system. And if they are paying into the system, it pays for future generations of Americans to take advantage of the entitlement programs that my colleagues who just left the floor were talking about. But if there is high unemployment in any given generation, it profoundly impacts the kinds of resources that are available for the Federal Government and local governments to handle basic programs that keep our Nation strong in every succeeding generation for every American.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans have been out of work. For many months they have stopped looking for work. So even though they have no jobs, they are not counted as unemployed.

Over the last few months, I have called on unemployed, underemployed, and economically insecure Americans to send me their resumes and their stories so that I can keep unemployment front and center before our government.

Unemployment. I did not say job creation. I did not say deficit reduction or tax reductions to corporations. I said unemployment, that thing that President Roosevelt talked about when he said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.''

President Roosevelt wasn't talking about the Russian bear. He wasn't talking about Nazis in Germany. He wasn't talking about fascism in Italy under Mussolini. He was talking about the deterioration of our national fiber and fabric from within, unemployment.

And at the time that he was delivering that speech, Mr. Speaker--I know that my chart here is probably inadequate for the C-SPAN cameras-- but the largest spike in our Nation's history for unemployment, between 1930 and 1945, was during President Roosevelt's administration. Now one would think that the goal would be in order to keep men content and women content in their homes, in their jobs, and actually believing in our country, that we would be working collectively as Democrats and Republicans to eliminate the idea of unemployment as a potential factor in the life of the American people.

But no. We're talking about job creation, we're talking about deficit reduction, and somehow we believe that by moving the interest rates and the levers of our economy that somehow corporations that have chosen to leave the United States and locate in foreign countries abroad, that somehow they're going to come back to America and provide us with enough work for millions of Americans who find themselves unemployed, underemployed, and out of work.

So, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate this shameful condition, I have called on unemployed, underemployed, and economically insecure Americans to send me their resumes so that I can tell their story and so that I can keep unemployment front and center. Thousands of people responded and sent their resumes to me at [email protected]. And so tonight, I want to share a few of the emails that I received. And Mr. Speaker, I hope these stories will compel this Congress to make ending unemployment once and for all a national priority. If we can end unemployment once and for all, we can save Social Security without any cuts to Social Security. If we can end unemployment once and for all, we can take the entitlement programs off of the table.

But there is very little focus on ending unemployment. Congress is focused on job creation. However, Congress' efforts, historically, at job creation have gotten it probably at least about a C-minus in terms of what most economists actually believe Congress has the power to create jobs. Congress doesn't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs. Congress can offer incentives for the private sector to create jobs, but Congress cannot create jobs unless Congress is going to hire everybody, which, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily a bad idea of Congress hiring everybody. But that's another Special Order.

I want to talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about these Americans who have been left behind, and at the conclusion of my remarks hopefully offer some insight in what I think could serve as a constructive part of a conversation about ending long-term unemployment for all Americans.

First, I want to start with Linda Stabile. Linda wrote a letter to Speaker Boehner. She said, ``I'm a 63-year-old woman who has been laid off from my job I loved in mid-June of 2009.'' She got laid off from her job she loved. ``Since then, I have spent every day looking for work unsuccessfully. I am a four-time breast cancer survivor and in December underwent my second mastectomy in 3 years. I have a small condo with a modest mortgage, but sold my car last August to help me make ends meet. Unless I'm able to find even a part-time job, in a few months I will join the ranks of the 99ers with an uncertain future. Should I lose my home, I have nowhere to go.

``There are many Americans who face the same frightening prospect, I know, and I'm sure you receive many communications such as mine. But I do hope that you will lend your support to extending benefits for the long-term unemployed.

``The emotional, physical, and psychological stress of day-to-day job hunting is painful, and it's damaging beyond words. I begin each day with a hopeful outlook, but at the end of the day, restorative sleep is beyond my reach. I am talented. I have good skills. But time is running out. Please, won't you make jobs a priority? Respectfully, Linda Stabile.''

Linda, I believe that we should make jobs a priority, and ending the shameful condition of unemployment ought to be a priority of this Congress.

Linda M. Stabile

skills summary

Highly organized and energetic administrative professional

with wide experience in managing multi-faceted projects,

along with day-to-day support of an office or executive, with

emphasis on sales.

Proven skills in writing, editing, interpersonal

communication, and attention to detail.

Excellent computer skills--Microsoft Office Suite: Word,

Outlook, PowerPoint and Excel.