Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Senate Republicans continue to refuse to allow the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the American people. Let me tell you what that does in my State.

If we don't extend those benefits within a very short period of time, 125,000 Kentuckians will be without the means to support their families. That means, in addition to human suffering, we're talking about $125 million a month that will not be spent in the Kentucky economy. Multiply that across the country, and you see the incredible effect that it can have.

I don't think that Republicans really mean it when they say, Well, we're okay with supporting it, but we want to pay for it. They didn't say the same thing when they got into two wars, provided a new entitlement prescription drug benefit, and passed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

You can't build a political philosophy on the pain and suffering of the American people, but that's the only conclusion that I can reach. They figure, create as much pain and damage as you can create, and then the American people will blame the party in power for it. That's a pretty cynical way to approach the lives of the American people and Kentuckians.

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans and their attitude toward the economy. Democrats want an economy that works for everyone. Republicans want an economy that works for Wall Street banks, that works for insurance companies, and works for big oil companies.

The greatest evidence of that was just mentioned by my colleague from Connecticut; the minority leader's statement that the reform package that we're proposing to pass for Wall Street is like killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. Goldman Sachs is an ant? AIG is an ant? Bank of America is an ant? These are ants with an awfully big appetite, because they chewed up $17 trillion worth of American citizens' net worth.

No, we can't let ants this dangerous loose on our economy. We have to propose reasonable regulations, and that's what we're doing. We want to make sure that the American economy works for every American and not just for the people on Wall Street.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded votes for Rollcall 355, 356, and 357, Had I been present I would have voted yes for these measures.

BILL: H. RES. 1368--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, Rollcall No. 355--Vote ``yes,'' H. RES. 1409--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, Rollcall No. 356--Vote ``yes,'' H.R. 5502--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, Rollcall No. 357--Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Republican party's love affair with fossil fuels. After all, the fossil industry has dominated the direction of energy policy in this country for the last generation, but the American people know that our future is not with fossil fuels, that it is not with oil and that it is not with coal. It is with alternative and renewable energy. They know also that this is the way we will help create new jobs in the economy.

In a recent poll, almost 70 percent of the people said they thought an emphasis on alternative renewable fuels, just like we have done in our ACES Act, will create jobs for the American economy--in one estimate, up to 2 million jobs. In my own district, General Electric is bringing back 800 jobs to build energy-efficient appliances--400 of them coming back from China.

Energy reform is a job creator. The American people know it. I hope the Republican Party will join us in bringing the energy situation in this country into the 21st century and will join us in creating new jobs for a new American economy.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded votes for rollcall 339, 340, 341, and 342. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' for these measures.

I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.

I remember back in the movie, ``The American President,'' there's one scene where Michael Douglas' character is being criticized by one of his staff members, and he says, Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats?

I have to sit here and say, my colleagues, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats. Because if you think back upon what we inherited, those of us who are now trying to pull that car out of the ditch, which is also the economy, and try to improve things for the American people, how deep in that ditch it was. And we're talking about 700,000 jobs lost per month. We're talking about an inherited projected deficit of $10 trillion. That's what the Obama administration and this Congress has been trying to repair.

Now, what has been the response from our colleagues on the other side? It has been solely, Well, this isn't a good idea; this isn't a good idea; this isn't a good idea. We're spending too much money. Blah, blah, blah. Let's cut taxes. Well, we tried that. Been there, done that, and that's what brought us to the ditch.

Now what have we done in this Congress? What have we done to take that car out of the ditch and get it back on the road? We have taken, by every measure possible. We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We put $300 billion back in the hands of the American taxpayers. That's something that our colleagues on the other side neglect to mention, that that money--most of that money, or 40 percent of the so-called stimulus package, went back to the American taxpayers to spend.

I have the privilege of cochairing the Congressional Task Force on American Competitiveness. Two days ago, we had a forum here. We have had people from companies as large as General Electric and Ford to very small startups. Without an exception, every one of those businesspeople said that we would be in such worse shape were it not for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You can imagine all of the progress or much of the progress they had made in sustaining or growing their businesses was attributable to support given through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and that the government has to continue to play a role.

One reason they said was very interesting. In the global economy, we are not necessarily competing in a free market atmosphere. We're competing with a lot of State-supported industry. So, for instance, when General Electric, which is bringing back 400 jobs from China to my district to build an energy-efficient hybrid water heater, they did it because support through the Recovery Act enabled them to make that difference that they were trying to balance--the economics--because of a State-supported system in China. The support they got through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act made up that difference and now they are bringing 400 jobs back.

They are bringing back 400 jobs. They are planning to bring back more jobs, again, because of the government's help. Now, as I said at the outset, there are two ways to approach this decline. We can say the government has no role. We can say all the government should do is get out of the way and the private forces will recover the economy. As I said, been there, done that. It hasn't worked.

The steps that we have taken, the steps that we propose to take in this Small Business Act, the subject of this rule, are steps that we believe are worth trying, that will be an affirmative effort to grow jobs in the small business segment of the economy to make capital available, to provide tax incentives--yes, to my friends on the other side, tax incentives--to motivate small business operators to grow their businesses, to start new businesses. These are the steps that this Congress and this administration are taking to grow the economy. It is better than sitting in the cheap seats and saying we want to go back to the agenda that put us in the ditch.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

I know the American people who are watching this must have their heads spinning because all we have heard for a year and a half now from our colleagues on the other side was TARP was a disastrous program; TARP is a disastrous program. They are running ads against us in our districts about how horrible TARP was: so and so voted for TARP. And yet here we have someone who is advocating that we take money from TARP and give it to small businesses. I actually think that is a good idea. I am for that.

But I want to clarify something because he is misstating the impact of the underlying bill. This bill does not add anything to the deficit. This bill is paid for, and the $30 billion in loan facilities that we are actually making available to small banks throughout the country actually generates a surplus for the Treasury. That is a profit maker for the Treasury. There is no cost unless the money is actually borrowed. And if it is borrowed and paid back with interest, then the taxpayers actually benefit.

So it is one to thing to talk about deficits and argue about who is responsible and so forth, but to actually misstate the actual facts about the underlying bill here is a little bit disingenuous.

I would like to make one more comment. My friend from North Carolina mentioned earlier, you keep blaming the former President. No, we actually keep blaming the former 12 years of Republican control of the Congress because that is the period of time in which the really disastrous policies for the economy were implemented and were approved: the two tax cuts that mostly went to wealthiest Americans; the $7 trillion projected debt because of the unfunded prescription drug plan; and, of course, the war funding.

I know that the President, President Bush, dealt for 2 years with a Democratic Congress. We did have control of the Congress, but we sure didn't have a veto-proof Congress. And every time we wanted to implement a policy or change the President's budget, he threatened a veto. So, yes, we did have control of the Congress, but we didn't have control of the Nation's economy. But for 12 years, the Republican Congress did. For 6 years of that, they had control of all three branches of government. That is when the true damage was done.

We have an important piece of legislation that will help small businesses create jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of a woman whose legacy and work has forever changed the character of both the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of America. Today, in Louisville, a major thoroughfare will be named in honor of Senator Georgia Davis Powers. This is a commemoration bestowed only to the most legendary leaders in our Commonwealth--and Senator Powers is nothing short of legendary.

I am honored to join the chorus of voices praising her tireless and lifelong fight to ensure equality and justice are persevering principles in our Commonwealth. As the first woman and first African- American to be elected to Kentucky's State Senate, Georgia Powers is a trailblazer who has dedicated her life and career to the cause of civil rights. Though she has retired from politics, her service has left an enduring mark in Louisville and across this country.

In fact, her life's work is and continues to be a true example of how one individual can make a difference not just for her own generation, but every one that follows.

When the story of the struggle for civil rights and women's rights in Kentucky is told, Georgia Powers stands as a central figure--a legend who continually sought to make life better for all of our citizens. Today, as we ensure that her legacy will be recognized by the people of Louisville for decades to come, all Kentuckians and all Americans should be proud of her dedicated service in pursuit of our defining national goals.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me today in further recognizing the extraordinary work and dedication of Senator Georgia Powers of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, after a year and a little bit more of debating health care in this country, with all the numbers and the rhetoric, sometimes we lose sight of the actual human face of what we accomplish for the American people.

I have the great honor today of being joined by two bright and beautiful young women: Camille Davis and Madeline Davis of Louisville, Kentucky, 7 and 9 years old. They both had tethered cord syndrome that was diagnosed and treated successfully at Children's Hospital in my hometown. They are doing great, and they will grow up to be whatever they want to be. As a matter of fact, I'm glad that they're not 25 because probably one of them would take my seat very shortly.

But the important thing is now, because of the health care bill that we passed, they can be anything they want to be. They can go to grad school. They can do an internship. They can stay on their parent's policy until they're 26. They have total freedom without regard to being denied coverage because of their medical history. This is one of the great benefits of the health care act that we achieved for the American people, and there are millions more like Madeline and Camille who will benefit for the rest of their lives.

I am so proud of what we accomplished for Madeline and Camille Davis and for millions of American young people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a woman who spent her career tirelessly fighting to ensure young people in crisis have a place to get help, no matter where they are and no matter what they are going through.

National Safe Place is a national organization that oversees a network of shelters and resources that provide young people with immediate assistance, whenever they need it. Sandy Bowen has played an absolutely integral role in spreading the organization's mission across the Nation, transforming Safe Place from a single service located in one community into a nationally-renowned network that has touched the lives of almost a quarter of a million young people in 38 states. And we in Louisville couldn't be more proud that she calls our community home.

As Sandy reaches the end other exceptional career of service at Safe Place, we should have known from the start that she was destined to live a life dedicated to helping others. Her first job, in fact, was operating a nursery school and a pre-school in her backyard where children could attend for just $1 a week.

After working in the Jefferson County Public School system and for the 4-H Program, Sandy joined Safe Place. At the time, it was a local program operated in greater Louisville, established to give young people in crises a comfortable and safe place when they have no where else to turn.

Sandy came on board a few months after its founding. Since that time, it is no coincidence that National Safe Place has grown in leaps and bounds, expanding across the country, garnering recognition from Congress and 3 Presidents, and helping and educating tens of thousands of young people.

Safe Place has served 100,000 young people in Kentucky alone, and every citizen of our commonwealth can be particularly proud of its extraordinary work. Our home-grown organization has flourished thanks to Sandy Bowen's leadership, developing into a nationally-recognized symbol of hope and security for young people.

When she retires this year, Sandy Bowen will leave behind a legacy of service to our Nation, a record of commitment to helping those most in need, and a safe place for young people throughout our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Sandy Bowen for her career of service, and I wish her nothing but luck and continued success in the next chapter of her life.

Mr. Speaker, when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Citizens United case, which allowed corporations, including foreign corporations, to spend money to advocate candidates in American elections, many people might have thought this

was an abstract threat. But the events of the last month probably should convince them otherwise.

Last year, BP Oil made $14 billion in profit. If they took one-tenth of that profit, $1.4 billion, they could spend $3 million in every congressional district for every election. It might be less expensive for them to buy Congress than it would be to pay the damages that they have done to this country.

You know, in Kentucky, we have a candidate, Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate. He said President Obama was being un-American when he said he wanted to keep his foot on the throat of BP Oil. Do you think Rand Paul might be getting some campaign expenditures from BP this year?

The damage that BP Oil has done to our country is not nearly as great as the damage which the Citizens United case could do to our democracy. We need to pass the DISCLOSE Act and put limits on corporations' ability to influence American elections.

Mr. Speaker, it always amuses me to listen to my Republican colleagues talk about the economy. They talk about smaller government, they talk about lower taxes, they talk about cutting spending. I call this ``bumper strip economics.'' And we've seen what bumper strip economics means. It was called the Bush administration, and that led us to the worst recession that we faced in this country since the 1930s.

In Kentucky, we've seen what bumper strips actually mean. When Senate candidate Rand Paul says, Smaller government means not just don't hold oil companies accountable, let's not hold mining companies accountable for 29 deaths, let's not even let the government enforce basic civil rights, no, the country needs more than bumper strip economics and slogan politics. We need policies that are actually going to get this country moving again, and that's what Democrats in Congress are committed to providing.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I was proud to cofound the Congressional Task Force on American Competitiveness. The reason we did that is while this Democratic Congress makes the kind of short-term required investments to keep our economy stable and to grow it from the depths of a recession that we have just emerged from, we still need to keep our eyes on the prize, and that is growing an economy, investing in an economy that will provide vibrant job growth opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

This is why the task force strongly supports the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, a piece of legislation that will expand our growing commitment to science and technological education, to innovative research and also to utilizing our manufacturing base to grow the economies of the future. Yes, the America COMPETES Act will make the kind of long-term investment that will create the economy that will sustain our society for years to come and create the kind of futuristic jobs that we can all be proud of.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the America COMPETES Act which will sustain this economy in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I know our Republican friends don't like it when we call them the party of ``no,'' but let's review the score for just a minute.

On health care reform, 177 noes, no yeses. On Wall Street reform, 175 noes, no yeses. On the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 177 noes, no yeses.

Let's look at the Senate. In two consecutive votes whether to bring Wall Street reform to the floor for a debate, 40 noes, no yeses.

They're not just the party of ``no''; they're the party of no jobs for America, for no energy security, for no Wall Street reform, for no consumer protections against predatory practices, for no equal pay for women in the workplace, and the party of ``no'' for tax relief for middle class families.

If the Republicans don't want to be called the party of ``no,'' they'd better learn to say ``yes.''

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

It's a great pleasure to be here today to discuss with the American people the fundamentals of the problem that we're trying to deal with with the Wall Street reform legislation now working its way through Congress.

I had the privilege in the last Congress to be a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee when all of this was unfolding, in the fall of 2008 when for the first time people were getting a sense that Wall Street was essentially operating like an unregulated casino. It was essentially the Wild West of finance. And my economics training, as skimpy as it may have been, taught me that the financial system in our capitalist form of government, in our free market, is supposed to help with the allocation of capital in its most productive way so that capital finds its most productive uses. And what we found looking at these incidents as they unfolded back in 2008 and as we have seen even up until the last couple of weeks is that the giants of the financial system in this country, Goldman Sachs, the other major Wall Street financial institutions, weren't guiding capital to its most productive use.

They were guiding capital, hoarding capital, accumulating enormous sums

of capital, in some cases essentially creating capital out of the ether, and deploying it for their own very greedy use. And I know that when we have had arguments both inside of Congress and out over the last few years, we say, well, why would government allow these institutions to get so big that they can wield this kind of power? And the answer we always got from the Goldman Sachses of the world and from others was, well, we need to be that big so we can compete in the global economy.

The question they have never answered to my satisfaction and I don't think to the congresswoman's satisfaction and certainly I don't think to the American people's satisfaction is competing for whom? For what? To what purpose? Because if we allow, as a society, companies to get that big where they can threaten to bring down the entire economy and they don't produce any good for society at large, then why do we care if they can compete?

Whom are they competing for? Are they competing just for their stockholders? In the case of Goldman, are they competing just for their partners who take home $13 billion, $15 billion worth of bonuses each year? That's the question I think that is at the core of this debate and has to be as we move forward trying to decide exactly what policies we should adopt.

In Goldman's case, as I mentioned, I think in 2009, the total bonuses they have allocated for their partners, their principals, and their employees is something like $13 billion. Do you know how much their Federal tax rate was? It was .9 percent, .9 percent.

Now, virtually every American pays a higher tax rate than that. Goldman Sachs paid less than 1 percent of its net income in taxes, while its principals and its employees, its top earners, Mr. Blankfein and others, were making millions upon millions.

So we have to say, does society benefit from having Goldman Sachs here? No. I think we can make a pretty strong case that over the last couple of years, this country has suffered enormous damage, and not just in New York but throughout the country, throughout Main Street, with defaults, mortgage, collapse of banks, all sorts of things. The enormous problems with AIG and its cost to the taxpayers when we had to bail them out, largely attributable to the type of activity that Goldman and others were involved in.

So as we look through Goldman's business principles, and I think you have done an excellent job of pointing out some of the ironies, to use a gentle term, some of the ironies involved in those principles, we have to ask ourselves, what are Goldman's principles for being part of the American economy? Where do we show anywhere in there that they want to help our economy prosper? No. This is for their shareholders, their principals, and their clients who are among the wealthiest individuals in the world.

So while we worry about what Goldman has done, and I think most of us, most Americans, are outraged at, if for nothing else, the ethical shortcomings of the techniques that they have been using, we have to ask ourselves as well what good does Goldman Sachs, what good does Bear Stearns, may it rest in peace, and Lehman Brothers, what good do they do for the American economy? Because I think the evidence is pretty strong that, in fact, they have been extremely detrimental to the American economy and to the average American in their activities over the last few years.

Well, actually, as we heard just a few weeks ago, about 47 percent of the lowest income earners in America pay almost no income tax. They do pay a significant employment tax, Social Security and Medicare. In fact, every American working pays 7.5 percent combined Social Security and employment tax. Income tax will vary. I think the average Federal income tax, people making $40,000 to $50,000 a year, was in the 3 or 4 percent range, which is still three or four times what Goldman Sachs was paying. And, of course, once you get to higher levels, the Federal income tax is somewhere--I think the average American making more than $250,000 a year pays an average of 23 percent. So that's just somebody making $250,000, $300,000 a year, not the billions and billions of dollars that Goldman Sachs has made. They pay 23 percent on average more than Goldman Sachs paid.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that our Republican colleagues have brought up the CMS report because, while they try to proclaim that this is some kind of revelation, what it actually verifies is what we've been saying all along, which is that we will expand the coverage in this country, not by the 30 million people, which was originally projected, but now by 34 million people. For a 1 percent increase in our total health care costs, which is something that we always said we were going to do, we are going to insure 11 percent more of the population. That's a pretty good deal.

Yet there was another big surprise in that CMS report, not just that we are going to insure more people than we thought, but that we will extend the life of Medicare's trust fund, not just by 9 years as we thought, but now by 12 years--all the way to 2029.

Yes, there was some news in the CMS report. It is good news for the American people; it is good news for Medicare, and it is good news for the Democratic Congress, which did this great service for the American people.