Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a very, very special birthday. It is the 50th birthday of the United States Peace Corps, an incredible organization that was started by President John F. Kennedy and a whole lot of people that thought that this Nation had an opportunity to reach out to the men and women of America, provide them with a challenge: to go out to the world to seek peace, to work for peace, and to help developing nations meet their needs, whether it be in education, community development, economic development, or other activities. And so it has been.

More than 200,000 Americans, young and old, men and women, have become Peace Corps volunteers. They have served in 139 countries around the world, and today they serve in over 70 countries. It's been a terrific program. It has presented the very best face of America to millions of people around the world.

Today, there are leaders of many countries around this world that have been taught by Peace Corps volunteers in their high schools, in their grammar schools or universities. They have a very special understanding of America. They know Americans. They know that Americans have a big heart and they have a desire to see progress, economic and social progress in every country of this world.

And so today we celebrate 50 years. We celebrate over 200,000 Peace Corps volunteers that have served around the world, and we celebrate those who have been in the administration, the directors, the country directors, the doctors, the nurses, and the others who have been part of this enormously important part of America.

As those Peace Corps volunteers have returned to America, it is now clear in recent polling that they have continued to serve. They serve as volunteers at twice the rate of other Americans. And they are found in the schools, they are found in the community programs, and they're even found in Congress, as strange as that might seem. But, nonetheless, they've served in many, many ways, and they continue to do so.

Earlier today, I met two Peace Corps volunteers who were in the very first effort in Tanzania, then Tanganyika. They returned some 40 years later. I'm going to turn that around. They actually served in Afghanistan in the early sixties and then came back 40 years later to serve once again as Peace Corps volunteers.

And what we have found over these many years, that once you've become a Peace Corps volunteer, you never stop laboring for peace, wherever it may be. And so today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of a remarkable idea that was put forward by President John F. Kennedy, the idea that Americans could reach out to the whole world and serve wherever that need might be.

Happy birthday, Peace Corps.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss employment, or lack of employment here in the United States.

We just listened to a discussion about the problem, and certainly immigration is a piece of the problem. But in the whole totality of the extraordinary unemployment in the United States, it is but one piece. The solutions to the crisis that faces America and Americans is way beyond just the immigration policy.

I would hope that my colleagues from the Republican side would work towards a comprehensive immigration reform program, one that certainly will deal with the border and security on the border, although I think much of what was said earlier is overblown.

And dealing with deportations, I would point out that the current Obama administration has deported more people in the last year than in the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.

Much needs to be done. A comprehensive immigration policy needs to be put in place. But if it were in place today, the unemployment in this Nation would not be solved by that alone.

There is a solution that's at hand. There's an opportunity for this Congress to act immediately to bring back American jobs, to put Americans back to work. It's the American Jobs Act.

A week ago, a little more than a week ago now, the President stood before a joint session of Congress here in this Chamber filled with Democrats, Republicans, Senators and Members of Congress, and he presented to us a comprehensive program to put Americans back to work. I want to discuss that tonight and also pick up the issue that he raised yesterday about how we do that, how we put Americans back to work and, in the next several years, bring the deficit under control and put America's financing back in shape.

It's the American Jobs Act, a very comprehensive proposal, a very bold proposal, and one that would actually, not by his estimate but by the estimate of independent economists, employ some 1\1/2\ to 2 million Americans immediately. And I'd like to tell you how that might come about if this House were to pass the legislation.

We know that for America to succeed both in the short term and the long term, it's not only about going back to work, it's also about critical investments.

Over the weekend, back in my district in California, the East Bay area of San Francisco Bay and up into the Central Valley, I had the opportunity to talk to teachers, teachers who were very concerned that given the financial situation in California, that they were going to be laid off, and generally it's the new, the young teacher that has only been there a little while that's given the pink slip and sent on down the road.

This is a personal issue in my family. My daughter and son-in-law are teachers, and their class size has already grown from 20, 21 to 34, 35 in the second-grade class. A very difficult teaching situation. Yet, more layoffs are likely to occur.

One of the fundamental investments that needs to be made in any society that wants to grow, that wants to prosper, that wants to have social justice is the education of the young, and in the case of the United States, with the extraordinary number of unemployed, some 12 million to 14 million, and underemployed, perhaps another 10 million, it's the reeducation of those that have already been in the workforce. So a key investment is education. In the American Jobs Act, the President has proposed a very strong, vibrant, and necessary program to keep teachers in the classroom and to bring teachers back into the classroom. He's proposed that we fund 280,000 teaching positions across this Nation. Now, that's a huge number of teachers, many of whom have already been laid off and did not arrive for this fall school year. We can put them back into a classroom as soon as this Congress and the Senate passes the American Jobs Act. It's about $30 billion, $35 billion to do this.

Is it money well spent? Well, if you want to consider investments in the most critical of all the things that a Nation does, it's the education of their children. This is an enormous and the important factor in building the future of America and simultaneously putting people back to work.

When these teachers go back to work, that cycles money into the community. So the grocery store, the arts store, programs that require books and pamphlets and so forth, all of those things will begin to be circulating in our community.

So this is one of the key programs that the President has proposed, the American Jobs Act--fixing our schools, putting teachers back to work. And that is a critical investment.

If I might just put up another way of describing this.

If you really care about America, and you want to have a better America, then we simply have to invest in America. There are numerous ways we can do it. We talked about the education programs, and that's certainly one.

This is another one here that relates to education. I don't know if you can see this, but that's a young technician in a laboratory, perhaps in a hospital or quite possibly in a program, a new business like I saw in Davis, California. It's a biotechnology firm that actually produces herbicides and pesticides that are taken out--well, first discovered in the environment. These may be bugs, these are a fungus, these are bacteria that exist naturally in our environment that in one way or another kill bugs or kill unwanted plants.

So they're discovering these, they are then understanding the chemical, the biological nature of it, and then mass producing these biological pesticides and herbicides.

Two things they need. They will eventually go out with an IPO so they'll need capital, and that's another piece of what the President is proposing. But they also need technicians in the laboratory. In going through this particular lab, I said, How is your employment? The owner of it said, Well, we're at 90 employees now. We're 2 years, 3 years old, and we need to grow, but I can't find the technicians.

In the President's program there is a specific reeducation program that's available for young men and older men and women that want to learn a new technology, a new trade, and that's the technicians here, so that they can fill those four immediate openings that exist in Davis, California, for lab technicians.

Similarly, the community colleges will be able to receive the Pell Grants and the grants and loans for the first time ever to provide money so that these people can go to work.

There is yet one other program, and we'll get to the construction here in a little while as we go through this.

One of the key aspects of the President's jobs program is the fact that we have about 3 million, almost 4 million men and women who have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters. Many of

those are still there but most have come home.

When they leave the military, they have one of the highest unemployment rates of any group in the United States. This is simply wrong. These are men and women that have served this Nation heroically and in considerable danger, and in many, many cases having suffered grievous injuries.

We need to pay special attention to them and recognize that they have acquired some very, very important skills. They know how to work, they know how to show up on time. They know how to take instructions. What they don't know is how to be a lab technician, and they don't know that there are job opportunities out there.

So the President has proposed a special program to encourage American employers, for example the biotech firm that I discussed earlier, to reach out to veterans. There is a $5,600 tax credit. This is not a deduction. This is right-off-the-bottom-line taxes, $5,600 for any company that has less than $50 million of payroll to hire a veteran returning from the wars. It's incredibly important and the right thing for America to do.

The other thing, and this is even, I think, more--well, just as important and perhaps more important. This $9,600 tax credit--again, this is a reduction in an employer's taxes of $9,600 for each wounded veteran, disabled veteran that has returned from the wars. We only need to look at the photos that are too often in our newspapers about post- traumatic stress syndrome, about the men and women who have suffered grievous injuries of one sort or another. But if an employer is willing to reach out, they will be able to receive a $9,600 tax credit for those wounded warriors.

These are America's heroes. These are the men and women who should be first in our thoughts and first in line.

This can be combined with the educational programs that I discussed earlier so that as these veterans come back, they have the opportunity to learn a new skill, perhaps as a lab technician, and carry on and work through with a good career ahead of them that has enormous upside potential.

Once you're in these high-tech businesses and the laboratory is there, the opportunity to go on and get additional education and additional pay and benefits is clearly before you.

So this is one of the other aspects of the American Jobs Act. It's good for employers. They need an employee they can deduct off their taxes. It's $5,600 by hiring a veteran or $9,600 for hiring a disabled veteran. It's a very good, a very, very solid program in the American Jobs Act.

It doesn't stop there. Let me bring up one other item that I think we should really be focusing on.

I said earlier I'd come back to this issue of the construction worker over here. The unemployment in construction is probably well over 30 percent. In some parts--and I know this is in California--it's in the range of 50 percent. So the men and women who are in the construction industry have suffered enormous unemployment, in part because of the housing market, in part because of the cutback in State and local government expenditures.

But in the President's American Jobs Act, there is a critical investment for this Nation, and that is the investment in the infrastructure. A big word. Most of us now know it. Infrastructure are roads, airports, water systems, sanitation systems, and even the modern communication systems, not of telecommuting, but of various kinds of microwave systems and other fiber optic systems. All of those are modern infrastructure.

Now, across America, we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate. Our bridges are in bad shape. More than 60 percent of the bridges in America need to be repaired and made stronger. There are earthquake standards that are not met. Virginia wasn't thinking too much about those until about a month ago, and then suddenly Virginia began to think about earthquake standards. I will tell you that this building--this Capitol--was built a century or more ago, and they weren't thinking about earthquakes at that time.

All across this Nation, the infrastructure needs to be modernized; it needs to be brought back up to speed. So the President has proposed a $50 billion sum of money immediately available for the infrastructure of the Nation--bridges, roads, airports, the infrastructure of the modern communication systems. All of that is immediately available and, in addition to that, a very innovative--and I think a very important-- idea called an ``infrastructure bank.''

An infrastructure bank has been talked about for a long time. Europe has had one for more than two decades. What it is is an initial investment by the government and then an additional investment by public pension funds, by individuals. That infrastructure bank operates just as a commercial bank does. It's not a bunch of pork barrel projects by me or any of my colleagues but, rather, projects that are brought that are cash flow. They are able to repay the loans, repay the loan guarantees, and perhaps, depending upon the structure of the proposal, are able to get a grant of some sort. That could turn into another $50 billion very, very quickly.

I know that, out in California, CalPERS--the big public pension fund--has already said they're going to commit $800 million to infrastructure in the State of California. With an infrastructure bank in place, such as the President has proposed, they may put in $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion. They certainly have the money.

Now, in this House, my colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, has pushed the infrastructure bank for several years, but has gotten no traction from our Republican friends. At the same time, several Republicans have signed onto that infrastructure bill, so it is bipartisan and bicameral, as the Senate has a similar bill on that side.

This is something we can do immediately. This is not new science. This is not a new program. It's a program that has been around a long time, that is not yet in law but that has been fully vetted; and it can happen very quickly as soon as the American Jobs Act is passed. If that happens, we'll be looking at at least $50 billion for infrastructure projects and quite possibly much more than that if the infrastructure bank comes along.

Let me take up one other aspect of this program. There is not a community in America that has all of its public schools as neat, as well painted and as well conditioned as a community would want. In fact, in many of our communities, our schools are an embarrassment. They're rundown. The paint is chipping off the walls. The playgrounds are in disarray. The toilets don't work. The lab is a 1950 laboratory. There are no Internet communications within the school.

The President has proposed about a $25 billion to $30 billion program to renovate America's schools, to take those schools that are rundown whether they are in rural areas or in urban areas. Schools that are rundown, schools that are in need of rehabilitation, remodeling and upgrading would be in line, and it's calculated that there are 35,000 schools that could benefit from this program.

Now, who's going to do the work? These are new jobs--these are new job opportunities--and much of this work is not of a very high skill but, rather, of a skill that could be met by many of the unemployed. So this is cleanup. It's painting. It's the other kinds of work that may not require the highest of skill levels, but that is one of the additional programs that's available and is a key infrastructure program. So, as we go through these various elements that the President has proposed in the American Jobs Act, we will find the opportunity to put Americans back to work.

I notice that my colleague from New York has joined us; and we'll begin, once again, the east coast/west coast.

Earlier on, I talked about the education program. I talked about the veterans programs that the President has proposed, and I'd gotten into the infrastructure. We have yet to hit the unemployment and some other areas, but take us wherever you want, Congressman Paul Tonko from the State of New York, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. We haven't talked about Making It in America yet, which is one of your favorite themes. So please, Mr. Tonko, share with us your thoughts.

You also, Mr. Tonko. You have been here night after night with the same theme, the Make It In America theme. You went through these so very, very well, a trade policy that really positions America to once again be the manufacturer for the world.

Tax policy, we've done a lot on tax policy already. Let me just mention two things. One we did last year. Unfortunately, none of our Republican colleagues were with us on that, but at that time the Democrats had the majority. We eliminated about $12 billion of tax breaks that American corporations received. Our tax money was given to those American corporations for shipping jobs offshore. What? You mean they got a subsidy for shipping jobs offshore? They did. We ended it. So those are the kinds of tax policies we're talking about.

Now the President has proposed a continuation of another tax policy that we put in place last year. He wants to continue it as part of the American Jobs Act, and that is to give a business the opportunity to expense in 1 year, in 1 year, the cost of capital equipment so that it's not depreciated over 7 years. That's an enormous advantage for a business to make the capital investment.

Now, there is one thing that I would add to that. The President said it, but it wasn't specific to this, and that is that that capital equipment, that that lathe, that that welding machine, that that saw, whatever it happens to be, or the cultivator, the tractor out in farm areas, that that be an American-made piece of equipment, that the equipment be made in America. Because, once again, we're using our tax money to subsidize the capital equipment when I want my tax money to be used for American-made equipment.

And, in fact, guess what? I've got a piece of legislation--I got so excited, you will have to forgive me, but I have a piece of legislation that does just that. It couples up with what the President's been talking about. He talked about American made, that we buy American. Well, H.R. 637 says for that construction, for that infrastructure, airports, highway, high-speed rail, trains, et cetera, that they are made in America. These are opportunities for all parts of America, and it works. It works.

We can rebuild America, and we're certainly going to have to rebuild your part of America. You and your constituents in upper New York and in Vermont were devastated by Hurricane Irene, floods that had not been seen, perhaps, in the entire modern history of those areas. So that needs to be rebuilt.

But you are quite correct about the rest of the Nation. San Francisco Bay Bridge went down in the 1989 earthquake, the Loma Prieta earthquake, and devastated the economy of San Francisco. Freeways collapsed.

So we know that we need to build to a higher standard and we know we need to repair. These are American jobs that are readily available today. And when we couple it with the American-produced cement and steel and equipment that's American made, we will generate a new resurgence of America's manufacturing industry. It can be done. All we need is a vote of this House. All we need is a vote on the President's American Jobs Act.

It's all there. The Buy America, Make It in America is there. The construction jobs are there; the education is there; 1.5 million to 2 million Americans going back to work the day or shortly after the President signs that legislation. This is really an opportunity. And to sit here and to waste time, it just seems to me to be a tragedy.

We need help in Vermont. We need help in New York. Your people do. They have been devastated. And yet that bill hasn't even passed this House to provide the money for it. We have to do it. It's up to us. This is our task.

If I might just add, I was the insurance commissioner in California twice, first in the early 1990s, and then again from 2003 to 2007 or 2008. During that period of time, we had many emergencies in California. We had fires and earthquakes, and always we could count on the Federal Government immediately providing assistance. Sometimes fast, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars made available immediately to rebuild. And it was never, never a question of having to take money away from an existing program so that aid could be brought to California.

When the hurricane went through New Orleans, nobody said, well, we're going to take care of New Orleans and we're going to cut education or we're going to cut research. They simply put the money together during the Republican, the Bush period, to rebuild New Orleans. And that was a multi-billion-dollar project.

Now here we are with these disasters in the Northeast. And our Republicans are demanding an offset, that is, in order to provide money to rebuild the Northeast, we're going to have to cut out the research for advanced auto technology. This is the future of the American auto industry. This is how to build a better electric motor for a car, a better battery so that we can make those things in America rather than importing them from China or Korea or Japan.

The opportunity for America's auto industry to advance with more fuel-efficient cars, all of that will be pushed aside for the first time in anybody's memory here. And some people have been here 50 years. Never before was an offset required, particularly one that would harm the future of the American automobile industry.

So we are going, This doesn't make any sense. Let the compassion and the generosity of America express itself, as it has done so many, many times. And simply say, okay, we are going to appropriate the money. We'll dig deeper. We'll appropriate the money. We'll rebuild. And in rebuilding, much of it will be made in America.

We can. Yes, we can. We can rebuild America. We really can do it. You gave a wonderful example of the way in which the great Industrial Revolution in this country took place, government doing its piece and the private sector doing that piece, government setting the stage with infrastructure and then the private sector coming along building the mill towns, building the factories, and the government aiding in the research all along the way.

There's a very interesting story about the telegraph. It would not have happened had not that idea been brought to the Congress and then the Congress funding the initial implementation of the telegraph. So we've seen over the history of America the role of government. The President has laid out in the American Jobs Act a very powerful message about the role of government, together with the free enterprise entrepreneurial system, building once again the America that we want.

We have maybe another 15 minutes, I think, here, and I want to take this to another part of what the President talked about yesterday. There are two Americas. We are two very different Americas. There is the very wealthy America, and then there is the rest of America. I put this up because I was listening, as I was traveling to one of my meetings in the district over the weekend, to a radio talk show. It was KGO radio in San Francisco. They had a talk show on in support of food banks. They were taking the entire day and assisting in raising money. This is one of the most-listened-to stations on the entire West Coast. They go from Vancouver all the way down to San Diego with their radio signal, and it was a whole day dedicated to food banks and raising money for food banks.

The story line was very simple. Food banks are being inundated by men and women that can no longer buy food. They are unemployed. They are simply to a point where they cannot any longer. The stories were heart- wrenching. Men and women, families that had worked their entire life, that had always been able to come home with food and a paycheck and been able to pay the rent or pay the mortgage had lost their job, and they didn't know what to do. They were embarrassed to go to the food bank. They thought it was begging. That's not the case.

Nonetheless, the stories tore me apart and caused me to come back and find out about child poverty in this Nation, the richest nation in the world. No other nation, no matter what you think of China, no matter what you think about India and how they have grown or any part of the European Union, no other nation in the world has the wealth of America, and no other industrialized country in the world has the same extraordinary child poverty. What are we? What are we in America if we don't care for our children?

Look at this. Nearly 25 percent, some were 23, 24 percent, one in four children in this Nation live in poverty, and they're hungry. They are hungry. This has to be addressed. The President's jobs program puts men and women back to work so that they can care for their children.

There is another story behind this, and that is that the rate of poverty in America is the highest it has been since 1962, during the Kennedy period. In the Johnson period, 1963, '64, '65, America started a war on poverty, and the poverty rate in this Nation fell precipitously. Senior poverty with Medicare and Medicaid; men and women in their senior years were taken out of poverty because they could afford health care. They had health care available to them. And other programs were institutionalized. Here we are, 40-some years later, the highest incident of poverty in America since prior to the war on poverty in the 1960s. We have to address this.

Let me put a couple of more facts on the table and then let's talk about the policy changes that can redirect that. This is the last 40 years, 1979 to 2006, prior to the Great Recession. During that period of time, there was a shift of wealth and of income, wealth and of income, from the middle class and the low-income to the very wealthy. This lays it out. Again, this is prior to the Great Recession. If we look at it in the Great Recession, these statistics are even more startling.

For the low end, the poorest, 11 percent growth. And then you move up to the second group, 18 percent, 21 percent, 32 percent. For the top percentage, the top 20 percent, a 256 increase in income and wealth.

Looking at the statistics, a wage earner in a factory versus the CEO, it used to be 1 to 40, now it's 1 to 300. We've seen an enormous shift in wealth from the working middle class families to the very, very wealthy. If you overlay this with the 2007, 2008, 2009, and where we are today in 2011, it would be even more startling because now these are running negative, as you said just a moment ago. For the middle class, that's here and down, not the top 20 percent, but down here, this is the top 1 percent.

We use Donald Trump as the example here, but there are probably 400 to 500,000 that fall into this category; extraordinary wealth.

Now, we've been talking all night about the American Jobs Act, so I'm going to put this back up for us to ponder for a moment: the American Jobs Act. Total cost of the American Jobs Act: $450 million. The President yesterday said it can be paid for, and he laid out a way to pay for it and, simultaneously, over the next decade, bring down the American deficit--solve the deficit and pay for the Jobs Act. And he said that there are three ways to do it:

First, those who have much must participate. They must share in bringing America back. So he has suggested that the highest income, that 1 percent, those who make over $1 million, that they participate, that they no longer would be able to have a tax rate lower than their assistants. That's the Buffett Rule. That's a big piece of it, about $800 billion over the next decade.

He also said that corporations that pay no income tax today-- corporations like General Motors, corporations like Verizon, some of America's biggest corporations pay zero income tax. Last year, General Electric paid zero and got about $5 billion back in rebates. Something is seriously wrong, the President says. That cannot happen anymore. Everybody has to participate.

He also said that other tax breaks for the oil companies should end. So putting together these tax increases on those who have much, the superwealthy in America, the hedge fund manager that pays 15 percent on his income where you and I and others may pay 30 percent, something's wrong here. So that's what he is recommending.

We need to move very vigorously forward on the American Jobs Act, put people back to work, and simultaneously solve the overall budget deficit by not only new taxes, but also with additional cuts. That's the President's proposal.

The East-West show will continue, and the Make It in America agenda will be the American agenda because Americans want to make things in this country. They want to rebuild the manufacturing industry. The President has given us a way to do that with the American Jobs Act. Trade policy, tax policy, energy, labor, Make It in America. Make the jobs in America. Rebuild America's manufacturing base. Rebuild the American middle class. We will do it. And if we pass the American Jobs Act, it can happen very quickly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that all of us, all 435 of us, went back to our districts during the August recess. Now, I would suspect that most every Member of this House heard what I heard. I suspect that all of us who were listening heard the same message: When can I go back to work? When will there be a job for me? I'm going to lose my house because I lost my job. I can't afford to put my kids through school. You guys have got to get the job engine working once again. You've got to get Americans back to work.

Well, we are back here at work, and we're probably at the 257th day of this Congress, and yet the Republican majority has yet to put one jobs-creating bill on the floor. Now, they put a lot of bills on the floor, all of which would actually reduce employment. You cut the budgets, you're cutting somebody's job.

Fortunately, last week, the President of the United States came before this Congress, stood there where the Speaker is now standing, and presented to the American people an answer to the question that all of us heard during the recess. And he said: We can and we will put Americans back to work when Congress acts on this jobs act.

The American Jobs Act is now before the United States Congress and the United States Senate, and it's time for us to act so that Americans can go back to work.

Some say we could delay until after the next election. It will be 17 months--just short of a year and a half--before the next Congress will be in session and we will be able to pass legislation. There is not an unemployed American in this Nation that can or wants to wait 17 months to get a job. We have the opportunity today to put Americans back to work with the American Jobs Act.

The American Jobs Act works. It works. Americans can immediately go back to work as soon as that legislation is passed by this House and the Senate and put on the President's desk.

This afternoon, we're going to take maybe an hour with my colleagues to talk about various parts of the American Jobs Act, and we're going to start right now with the Representative from Illinois.

Jan, if you would join us, you talked earlier about this very eloquently on the steps of the Capitol. Please share with us.

I thank the gentlelady from Illinois who speaks so eloquently on this.

As you were talking about the schools, 44 percent of the principals across this Nation say clearly that their schools are not up to the standard that they want to have their own children in. In the classrooms, paint on the walls is falling off and bathrooms are inadequate, playgrounds and the like. There are 35,000 schools across this country that can be repaired, that can be rebuilt--new classrooms, science classrooms, upgrading the Internet systems in these schools, and the playgrounds. All of that is possible.

How correct you are when you say there are men and women out there who are ready to do that work. These are a lot of jobs. This isn't heavy equipment work. This is heavy ``person power'' work. Let's put these people to work.

Please.

Actually, in discussing this with the administration, the day the bill is signed, the schools can begin the work because the administrative process is very straightforward. This is a very, very important one. We're talking 35,000 schools, perhaps several hundred thousand or a couple hundred thousand men and women going to work immediately to repair our schools. Wouldn't that give us community pride? My school is getting repaired. It's getting a paint job. The toilets are getting fixed and the classroom, the science classroom.

This is community pride. This is American pride in our most basic of investments--the investment in our children.

One of my favorite subjects is Making It In America. The way the legislation is written, when that gallon of paint, when that heating/air-conditioning system or the playground equipment is brought to the school, it's going to be made in America. It's going to be made in America because the legislation that the President brought to us says that the money will be used to buy equipment made in America.

I notice that our colleague from Maryland, Donna Edwards, has joined us.

I know we were talking earlier about some of your favorite subjects. I believe it was infrastructure. So please, if you will, Donna, join us in this conversation.

Representative Edwards, thank you so very much for your compassion and passion for these issues. Bringing FDR, the monument, and Martin Luther King together around this set of issues is really important.

This is the worst economy since the Great Depression, and I remember on one of those plaques at the FDR memorial--and I may get this wrong a little bit--but he said, we measure our progress not by those who have much could have more, but by those who have little have enough. He had the compassion.

Last week, the President brought to us an answer to the compelling question that we hear--what are you going to do about jobs?--the American Jobs Act.

You spoke so eloquently about the infrastructure--the streets, the bridges, the schools--and that 2 million construction workers are out of jobs. The President has proposed a $50 billion immediate infusion of money into America's infrastructure--into our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our airports. There is $50 billion available this year to put Americans back to work.

It's not just the construction workers that will have those jobs, because these people will be able to keep their homes. They will be able to buy their food; they will be able to bring that money back into their economy with what is called the multiplier effect. And so that $50 billion may run through the economy three times, two and a half times, so that instead of 2 million, maybe it will be 3 million that will get their jobs.

I know that you want to add to this, Ms. Edwards.

There you have it. That's when we have the opportunity if we act now. If this Chamber, empty but for three of us and our staffs here and the desk crew, were to act tomorrow on the legislation that the President has brought before us--it's in proper form; it's before us--we could take it up, and these people, all that you talked about, could be at work in the next couple of weeks. That's the possibility.

Ms. Edwards, thank you so much for joining us and for your eloquence and for your determination to make this happen.

Our friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) has joined us. Please share with us your thoughts from middle America.

Mr. Cohen, thank you so very much. Your experience from the great Midwest, along America's great river, is really important for us to understand.

We really have an opportunity here right now. This legislation is before Congress and the Senate, and we have an opportunity for a better deal for America. It's an investment in America. We talked about the infrastructure. That's an investment that will last for 50 to 100 years because it's in the ground. It's the roads, the sanitation system. It's also a critical investment in tomorrow's workers, in our children.

The American Jobs Act has money for 280,000 teachers; 280,000 teachers will be able to stay on the job. Right now in California, teachers are getting laid off as they are in most other States of this Nation. That means that classroom sizes are going up, and the educational opportunity for our children is diminishing. We have no more important investment. Roads are important and bridges are important, but the most important investment in any society, in any economy is the investment in education, in the children, in tomorrow's workforce. 280,000 teachers will be able to stay in the classroom. This money flows directly to the school districts, not a big administrative task at all but one that goes there directly.

Small businesses. Our Republican colleagues love to talk about small businesses, and they say, correctly, most jobs are created by small businesses. That's true. That's accurate. Sixty-four percent of the new jobs over the past 15 years were created by small businesses. But what are they doing for small businesses? Cutting the contracts that the small businesses depend upon as they push an austerity budget.

The American Jobs Act takes a different path. It tells small businesses: You get an immediate tax break; 3.1 percent of your payroll tax will be eliminated in the next year. That's a lot of money, and I'll explain how much it is. In addition to that, if you hire a long- term unemployed worker, your entire payroll tax will disappear.

Let me tell you what that means. Let's take a warehouse.

You've got warehouses in your district?

I thought they might have some of that Tennessee whiskey in them. Some of that, too?

So a warehouse with a payroll last year of $7 million that this year hires 40 new workers, it would add $2 million to its payroll. It would get a full refund of the 6.2 percent payroll taxes paid on the $2 million of payroll. How much is that? That's $124,000 that goes immediately to the bottom line of that warehouse. In addition to that, they have already seen a 3.1 percent reduction--actually, it's a 50 percent reduction in their payroll tax for workers who were already there, and that's another $155,000. So we are looking here at $279,000 of reduced expenses, taxes, to that company. That means that they can improve the warehouse. That means they can expand or hire more workers. This is in the President's American jobs program specifically for small businesses.

Listen up, America. Listen up businesses out there. There is an opportunity here for you to immediately expand your business, reduce your payroll taxes, hire new workers, bringing a new worker on that has been on long-term unemployment and paying no payroll taxes for the next year. This is very, very important and very big, and it is immediately available as soon as the leadership, the Republican leadership in this House, brings the American jobs bill to the floor.

Mr. Cohen, if you would like to carry on here, I know you have some more thoughts.

I've been kind of shuffling the boards down here because you went through several subjects along the way, and each one is so terribly important and pertinent to the issue. But I think I can wrap it all up in this, and that is, America lost about 50 percent of its manufacturing jobs in the last 20, 25 years. We went from 20 million, 21 million manufacturing jobs to just over 10 million today, but we can once again rebuild the American manufacturing sector. That's where the middle class jobs are.

You had talked about tax policy, that the tax policy has shifted from one that was broad based and which the wealthy and everybody participated in in a progressive mechanism in which now the wealthy-- and Warren Buffett has said it so very well--he actually pays a lower tax rate than does his secretary. He said, This is wrong. This is upside down and wrong. And he's quite correct. But if we take a look at the manufacturing sector of America and we apply a couple of principles, that is, that we're going to buy American--and this has to do with our policies here.

Trade policies. We've been giving it away in these international trade deals. On the taxes, we just talked about that. The tax burden has shifted from the wealthy down to the middle class, further eroding the purchasing power and the status of the middle class, so much so that just yesterday the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with a report that the poverty level in America has reached the highest level in 52 years. That's the pushing down of the American middle class so that those at the bottom have been pushed out of the middle class into poverty.

Exactly right. Twenty-two million children living in poverty, not knowing where their next meal is going to come from. At the same time, they're cutting the food programs.

This is our program. This is the President's program. Every one of the things that is in the American Jobs Act is here. Taxes. There are tax breaks for businesses. And this entire program is paid for by ending the giveaway of our tax money to the oil companies. That's $4 billion a year--$40 billion over the next decade--of our tax money going to support the oil industry, the wealthiest industry in this world.

Well, he pays 15 percent. Somehow or another they got into the law. The hedge fund folks that are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year--in some cases, billions--are paying 15 percent on their income. Now they've got it classified as capital gains when, in fact, it's their labor. That is, it's their work. As you and I are working here and as people are working in the manufacturing plants, it's their work, but it's taxed at 15 percent, not at 35 or 38 percent. What's that all about? Where are we going to end that tax break? That's about $17 billion over 10 years.

So taxes are part of it. The energy policy, we haven't talk about that. We talked about labor--putting men and women back to work. And the education system, 280,000 new teachers or teachers in the classroom. Research and infrastructure, this is part of the Make it in America agenda which can be carried out with the American Jobs Act.

So, if we pass the American Jobs Act, we've got a really good opportunity to once again make things in America, because the legislation calls for about $50 billion in infrastructure and the establishment of an infrastructure bank for sanitation, water systems, Internet, high-speed cable, and all of those kinds of things in the infrastructure bank. So we may be looking at $60 billion, $70 billion a year of investment in these infrastructure projects. Coupled with that is Buy America, Make it in America. Buy American-made buses, American- made locomotives. The concrete and steel in the bridges, that's going to be American made.

I can tell you one of the greatest horror stories about infrastructure. It's right in San Francisco, just outside my district. The San Francisco Bay Bridge, a multibillion-dollar rebuilding of the Bay Bridge because it falls down in an earthquake. It did once. We don't want it to happen again. Multibillion dollars. To save 10 percent, the contract went to Chinese steel companies. All of the steel manufacturing in that bridge comes from China. Thousands of jobs in China. And to make things worse, the inspectors were over there, and they didn't do a good job. Beyond that, when the bridge parts came over here, Chinese workers came with the bridge. No more of that. We're going to make it in America.

I've got a bill in--others are working on this--and that is, if it's American taxpayer money, by God, it's going to be used to buy American taxpayer goods and services. We can do this, and the first step is the American Jobs Act.

They're talking about laying off 40,000 people across America in the next year.

The American public, through the TARP program, bailed out Wall Street, bailed out the banks, and the banks have done nothing. The big Wall Street banks have done nothing except enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer. Those days should be over. We need to move in a different direction.

One of the groups we really need to help are those men and women that have been fighting the wars. Now, my personal view is that the war in Afghanistan ought to stop tomorrow. We ought to bring that $120 billion a year that we're spending in Afghanistan, bring it back here, invest it in America in education and bridges, infrastructure and debt relief; 120 billion a year in Afghanistan, and we're still spending a vast amount of money in Iraq. End those wars, bring that money home. Bring the soldiers home. And when we do, we're bringing home a lot of wounded Americans, wounded Americans who need our respect and who need jobs.

In the American Jobs Act there is a special place for veterans, special advantage. They deserve it. They're the ones that have sacrificed. They're the ones that took time out of their lives to fight those wars. Whatever we may think about those wars, we can only think good thoughts and honor the veterans, and here's a way to do it.

There are 877,000 unemployed veterans in America today--nearly 1 million; 877,000 looking for work. In the American Jobs Act, there is a very special tax credit available to any employer who hires a veteran. You can reduce your taxes by $5,600 right off the bottom, $5,600 tax credit--not a deduction, but a credit. And if you happen to hire one of those wounded vets--and we know them, we've seen their pictures, we know what post-traumatic stress syndrome is all about--hire a wounded vet, and it's a $9,600 tax credit to every employer, whomever it happens to be, across this Nation. Now that's what we need to do.

All the talk about balancing the budget, all the talk about a deficit hasn't put one person to work in America; in fact, it has laid off hundreds of thousands of people. We need to put America back to work. The American Jobs Act does that, and it does it in a very special way. For those Americans that have been out there sacrificing in Iraq, in Afghanistan it gives them an opportunity. It gives every employer an incentive to hire those workers. We owe it to these men and women. And when these men and women go back to work, they become taxpayers. And when men and women in America go back to work and become taxpayers, then the deficit will be resolved, then we will solve the deficit.

We need to make cuts, we need to do those things, but those are in the out years. Right now, it is about jobs. The President has given us the legislation. The question for our Republican leadership here is-- they control this House; they're the ones that set the agenda; they're the only ones that can bring a bill to the floor--When will you bring the American Jobs Act to this floor so that we can put Americans back to work?

Mr. Cohen, I know how deeply you feel about this. I know that in your district your people that you represent are hurting. They want jobs.

We're going to wrap this up in just a few moments. So for our closing remarks, go for it.

We have a different view here. I'm confident that the President will be reelected because he understands very clearly that we need to put Americans back to work, And he has given us the American Jobs Act--complete legislation. All the sections are there. All the writing is done. All the legal work is done. It is now before the United States Congress and the Senate, and it's up to us, 435 of us in this House. Are we ready to act? Are we ready to do what Americans want us to do? And that is to put them back to work.

Pass the bill. Pass the bill. Put Americans back to work.

I'm going to quickly go through some of the parts of this bill and the way in which they affect Americans.

It's about investment, investing in our infrastructure: $50 billion directly available for the transportation sector--rail, high-speed rail, intercity rail, bridges, roads, $50 billion available this year to put men and women back to work repairing our transportation infrastructure. Another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank in which the pension funds of America, the public pension funds, could invest. And perhaps another $20 billion or $30 billion in that infrastructure bank to once again augment the development of the infrastructure that we need--water systems, sanitation systems, all of those communications systems that we desperately need.

That's on the infrastructure side.

On the education side, repairing our schools:

Thirty-five thousand schools to be repaired, repainted, classrooms, science laboratories, as well as the playgrounds; 35,000 schools out there. Your

neighborhood school, the opportunity for it to have a new paint job, a new bathroom, whatever is needed;

280,000 teachers. You could fill the entire stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, football, 100,000, and still have a third game with only 80,000 people. 280,000, think of it. The Ann Arbor, Michigan, stadium filled 2.8 times over. Teachers in the classroom. This is exciting.

Veterans, a very powerful incentive where a business can reduce its tax burden. That is the bottom-line tax reduced by $9,600 when you hire a disabled veteran. That man, that woman is going back to work, becoming a taxpayer. Once again, pride in our Nation. This is powerful.

For the unemployed, an extension of unemployment benefits, and we didn't even get to that today--and all of this in the context of rebuilding the American manufacturing sector.

More than 10 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last two decades. We can put them back to work if we use our public policy, use our tax money that's going to build those bridges or those roads, buses and locomotives, use our tax money to buy American-made, American-made equipment. All it takes is a law, and it works.

Sacramento, California, near where I live, has built--or Siemens, a German company, has built a major manufacturing plant in Sacramento, California, to manufacture light railcars and Amtrak locomotives.

Why did they do that? They did that because the American Recovery Act, the stimulus bill that our Republican colleagues like to trash, said that the money for transportation systems--buses, light rail, and trains--must be spent on American-made equipment. So Siemens said, well, if that's the law, we want the business. They built the plant, and they're manufacturing light rail cars and locomotives today in America, using American equipment, using American workers. That's what we can do if we are willing to pass the laws to make it in America.

Photovoltaic systems, wind turbines, all of these things supported with our tax dollars. Why not use those tax dollars to buy American- made solar cells and wind turbines?

The President has given us the opportunity to do what we should do, as representatives of the American people. Put Americans back to work. Pass the American Jobs Act. Pass the American Jobs Act.

Mr. Cohen, wrap this up for us.

Pass the bill.

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

Mr. Tonko and Mr. Sarbanes, thank you for being here. I'm delighted to be able to join you today talking about infrastructure.

Earlier today, just a couple of hours ago, my office had representatives from the City of Davis, near Sacramento, and another community, Woodland, both of them in Yolo County. They're talking about an infrastructure project. The water systems in those communities have, for 150 years, depended on groundwater, but the groundwater is going bad. They need to develop a new water system--about $300 million, $400 million. They cannot continue with the present system. They need help. But they also, in doing that, are going to be able to employ a vast number of people and put in place the infrastructure those communities need. We're talking about the University of California, Davis campus, with about 27,000 students at that campus, bad water. They need to rebuild their water system.

Right now, across America we're looking at more than 2 million construction workers, men and women that could build that water system for those communities. They're out of work. Two million are out of work.

The President came here last week and said Americans want to go back to work, they want a job, and he put forward to this body--to the Senate, the House--a proposal, the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act, putting Americans back to work.

You want to deal with the deficit? Take tax-takers, people that are unemployed, and make them taxpayers. We can do this and simultaneously solve the long-term deficit problem of this Nation by growing the American economy once again with, as you were saying so well, Mr. Sarbanes, infrastructure projects.

You were talking about east coast-west coast, Mr. Tonko. Twenty-seven hundred miles of American roads almost unfit for travel. This is the kind of project that the President wants: $50 million to rebuild the American transportation system so we can travel.

Mr. Tonko, you and I were right here in the back of this House Chamber earlier today and you were sharing with me the stories. The reality in your district is these are your constituents who have been harmed. And we had our colleague, Peter Welch from Vermont, who was also talking about the extraordinary damage done to the infrastructure in Vermont. As we rebuild those communities as part of this American Jobs Act, people go to work in those communities and are able to once again stand on their own.

Share with us some of the things that you've seen from your own district and the needs for infrastructure replacement in your communities.

You're absolutely correct. The President's American Jobs Act, which I'm embracing and I believe the Democratic Party has embraced, is one that is focused like a laser on the immediate challenge that America has--and that is: Employ Americans. Put Americans back to work.

Another thing that's in the bill--this is about schools. Forty-four percent of the principals across this Nation and all the schools across the Nation have reported that their school in one way or another is not satisfactory for students: the bathrooms are not working, the playgrounds are falling apart, the roofs are leaking.

We need to make American schools physically strong and pleasant for the students to be in. So this is a major piece of it. This also is improving the science laboratories. And the President has lined out about, I think, $30 billion to rebuild the American schools. It's not just the schools that are going to benefit from that and the children that are in those classrooms and on the playgrounds, but it's the Americans that need jobs, and they'll get those jobs rehabbing and rebuilding the schools.

They could start tomorrow if Congress acts today to pass the American Jobs Act. Because the resources--that is, the money-- would be there tomorrow. The day the President signs this bill, those men and women could go to work rebuilding those schools.

There is one other thing that's in the President's bill that I am really excited about because we've been talking about this forever and a day around here, and that is, Make it in America. There is a buy- America provision in this legislation. So when they go out and buy the paint, redo the heating and air conditioning system, those are going to be American-made paint, American-made air conditioners and heaters. That's the kind of thing we can do. We can use the American taxpayer money to rebuild the American manufacturing industry, just as you said. We can do it. It's billions of dollars of American money in transportation, bridges, roads, buses, and trains used for American- made equipment, making it once again in America. This is exciting. This is really rebuilding the manufacturing base.

Mr. Tonko, thank you for bringing us together. Yesterday, the President delivered to this Chamber a comprehensive American Jobs Act, employment for perhaps 2, maybe more than 2, million Americans immediately available as soon as this Congress acts. And it is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit. It is fully paid for through a series of tax increases on the superwealthy, and the oil companies finally having to give up our tax money that they've enjoyed for more than a century as a subsidy.

We can do this. We must do this. We must put America back to work. And in doing so, we will be able to deal with the deficit because Americans have come, once again, taxpayers, and we have created the critical investments in individuals, in education, in infrastructure and in small businesses, all of whom will benefit from the American Jobs Act.

It's our responsibility, it is our opportunity, it is America's opportunity to go back to work.

Mr. Tonko, thank you for bringing us together.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proposed to the Rules Committee an amendment about making it in America, one more way we can build jobs here in this country by using our own tax money.

In the charter schools legislation there is some $300 million a year authorized for the construction of charter schools, the enhancement, the improvement of those schools. Now, where will the material come from? Where will the heating and air conditioning systems be manufactured? Where will the lumber, the concrete, the other materials, the high-tech equipment come from? Will it be American-made, or will it be made over in China and imported into the United States?

It seems to me we're about to use $300 million of our tax money, that is the American taxpayers' money, to build some schools, or to improve some charter schools. All well and good. But why don't we create some jobs in addition to that? Why don't we put into this bill an amendment that simply says that the Secretary of Education, in prioritizing the grants, shall give higher priority to those proposals that would use American-made equipment, American-made jobs?

We can, and I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Lewis, for agreeing that we ought to be making it America. This amendment was rejected for reasons unknown to me by the Rules Committee, perhaps known to them. And if Mr. Dreier were here, or maybe I should ask Ms. Foxx, why was this objected to? Why was it not made possible to put this amendment on the floor so that we can create American jobs?

I would note that we're 247 days into this session, and not one bill has been put forward by the Republican majority to advance jobs. Here's a little chance for us to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it's a great privilege to stand here on the floor of the House even at this late hour as we prepare to hear, tomorrow, the President of the United States come before a joint session of Congress to talk about how America can get back on the right road, on the road to recovery from this long recession, and how we can create jobs here in the United States.

For many, many months now, my colleagues and I have been here on the floor and have submitted legislation time after time and week after week talking about specific programs to create jobs. I want to thank my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle for his presentation and the solution of doing away with regulations as the way of creating jobs.

He mentioned getting government out of the way, and he also mentioned the Hoover Dam--which was built with borrowed money. Yes, they borrowed money to build the dam, and it did in fact create jobs. Now, whether there were regulations or not, the fact was that the United States created an enormous infrastructure system in the past, and for the last decade, we've done very, very little, even though we borrowed a vast amount of money to build infrastructure projects in Iraq and Afghanistan but precious few here in the United States. We need to bring that money back home. We need to build those infrastructure projects here.

By all expectation, tomorrow, when the President stands here before us, he will be talking about infrastructure, as he should. It is the foundation upon which we build any economy, and it's certainly the foundation upon which the American economy has been built and succeeds such as it is today.

We need an infrastructure bank. We need to take money that we will borrow at about a 1 or 2 percent interest rate for a 10-year note, put that money into an infrastructure bank, let's say it's $20 billion, reach out to the pension funds--in my State of California, CalPERS and CalSTRS, the public pension funds--and say, Here, invest in this infrastructure bank so we can build projects in California, so that we can put in place the levees to protect us from floods, so we can put in place the communication systems, the fiberoptic cables, so that we can build the sanitation facilities, the water recycling facilities, the dams that we need for a growing population in a State that once again could be growing if we put in place the infrastructure; nothing modest but, rather, a bold program, a bold program to build America's infrastructure, to rebuild the bridges, to rebuild those facilities that are crumbling as a result of years of inattention. Infrastructure, construction jobs, putting people to work.

As the President said on Labor Day, there are a lot of construction men and women out there that are prepared to get dirty on the job once again to end their unemployment. That's one project that I am sure the President will be putting forth to this Congress, and the question to my Republican colleagues: Are they ready to be bold? Are they ready to step forward and put America back to work or only talk about regulations and doing away with regulations?

While we're talking about regulations, one of the regulations they want

to do away with is one that would prevent mercury from being in our water and air. It's as though somehow they must think that mercury is good for children and adults. We don't need more mad hatters around. What we really need is a safe, clean environment, and those are the regulations that are out there.

Oh, by the way, if you want to stop our regulations, I suppose you would stop the President's effort to roll back those regulations that have no good purpose.

Yes, indeed, the current administration is in the process of reviewing the regulations and eliminating, rolling back and modifying those that no longer serve a good useful purpose in protecting Americans.

So, here tomorrow, we'll have the President speaking here on the floor of the Congress, talking about putting men and women back to work. We're some 250-plus days into this year and, to date, not one Republican bill has been brought to the floor that would create one job. A lot of bills have been brought to the floor that would actually eliminate tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands of jobs.

What we need to do is not to address the deficit with immediate cuts that actually constrain and restrict the economy. An austerity budget is not called for as we limp along in the current economy, but, rather, a growth budget, infrastructure bank being but one example.

There are numerous other examples; a tax policy, a tax policy that's rational.

Let me just put this all in the context, for a moment, of what we talk about on the Democratic side, which is jobs, putting people back to work. We can do that. And the Make It in America agenda, which I have here, is just that kind of agenda to put Americans back to work.

We talked already about infrastructure, which is down here. It's not at the bottom of this list; it just happens to be at the bottom here. It's the Number 1 thing that's on the agenda.

We also should talk about research. Yesterday I was in Davis, California, invited there by a biotech company that uses biotechnology to manufacture bio-herbicides and bio-pesticides. These are naturally occurring chemical compounds found in plants and animals and bugs that actually kill bugs or kill other plants. They formulate this, using research that comes out of the universities in California and around the nation. That research is extraordinarily important. It's creating a whole new industry of safe, biologically derived chemicals that are safe in the environment, that actually come from the environment and kill bugs in agriculture, or unwanted plants. That's what we need. That's the research agenda part of making it in America.

Now, I notice that joining me on the floor is my colleague and part of our east coast/west coast operation, Paul Tonko from the State of New York. Earlier today Paul and I were talking here on the floor as we were voting, and he was showing me some pictures of the devastation that has occurred in his part of New York State. And out of that conversation came, once again, the word ``infrastructure.''

Mr. Tonko, I'm very sorry about what's happened in your district and New England and here on the east coast. We've had our disasters in California in the past. Not this year, and we're thankful for that. Our hearts reach out to you and your constituents as they go about rebuilding. I think you were saying even today there may be another flood.

Paul Tonko, Representative from the State of New York, thank you for joining us this evening.

Representative Tonko so well explained with great passion the problems that his constituents are facing at this very moment, as, once again, the floodwaters rise in his district and throughout the Northeast. Actually, I guess it's most of the east coast as that tropical storm starting on the gulf is now finding its way all the way up the east coast.

Our prayers go out to all the people that have suffered thus far, and our hopes that this will not be a repetition of the devastating floods of last week.

You also brought to our attention the need to rebuild. This is part of the community of America. We're a community. We're 380 million, but we're still a community. We call ourselves Americans. And in these times of disaster, we must come together as a community bringing what resources are necessary, not what's available, that are necessary to rebuild to get people back on the path of living their lives in a safe, harmonious community with the necessary resources to carry out their goals so they can have a job, so that they can rebuild their manufacturing facilities. That fits into the Make It In America agenda.

As we go about that rebuilding, and we've all seen the pictures of the washed-out roads you mentioned, and you showed me the picture of the lock. Was that an Erie Canal lock?

You're talking about real patriotism. You're talking about real American patriotism, the great strength of this Nation. First of all, our compassion for each other that we're willing to sacrifice today so that you can rebuild in the Northeast. The Northeast has done that or all of America has done that many, many times for California because it seems to have more than its share of disasters.

But across this Nation, this year we've seen natural disaster after natural disaster occur with billions of dollars of loss. As Americans, it is our patriotic duty, it is our community to reach out to help rebuild. As we rebuild, if we keep in mind these seven principles of the Make It In America agenda, we'll not only put people back on their feet, but we will strengthen the American economy.

You mentioned that lock that was taken out, the historic nature of it. It's been rebuilt. I saw the picture. It's a modern piece of equipment. But if that equipment is made in America, it's not only going to help the economy and your community once it gets back into place and the commerce that results from it is restarted, but it will also mean jobs for steelworkers who are making the steel, the fabricators who are building the lock, the engineers, and even the regulators that are making sure the lock goes in in a safe and appropriate way. Those are all American jobs.

So part of the rebuilding of America is the Make It In America, so that Americans can make it once again.

Thank you very much.

You're quite correct about how we pay for all of this. We know that we're going to be borrowing money to rebuild these communities, as we should and as we must and as it is our purpose in a community. But in doing that, we must be very careful not to offset that expenditure in some way that harms others, for example, the educational system.

Now, tomorrow, we have a bill on the floor dealing with charter schools and the funding of charter schools, both the physical plant as well as the educational programs in charter schools. It seems to me that if a charter school is to be built, or any school for that matter, it's our tax money, either local or Federal or State tax money, that that money ought to be used to buy American-made equipment--American- made roofing, American-made concrete and steel--so that our tax money is used to buy American made.

If you want to use your own money, and anybody out there that wants to go buy a solar cell for their house and they're using their own money, fine, buy anything you want to buy. But if

you want to use our tax money as a subsidy for that solar system, then, by golly, it ought to be an American-made solar panel; not one made in China but, rather, one made in the United States.

Now, I have two bills that deal specifically with that. One in the energy that says, hey, you want an energy subsidy to put up this big energy clean, green solar power plant, good. We need that clean energy. But use that tax subsidy to buy American-made equipment. That way, we can rebuild our American manufacturing base.

Similarly with transportation. In transportation, we all pay 18\1/2\ cents on every gallon of gas beyond the Federal excise tax. It's billions of dollars. It's used to build the roads. It's used to repair the bridges. Not enough now to keep us going but, nonetheless, billions of dollars a year. Is that tax money used to buy American-made buses and American-made trains and American-made steel and concrete? Not really. But we need legislation that says our tax money is going to be used to buy American-made equipment.

You're absolutely correct on that.

I want to give just a couple of very quick examples of the way in which that policy finds its way into legislation, and then I want to turn to our colleague who just arrived from the great State of Texas. Sheila, thank you so very much.

But let me just give a couple of examples. Tax policy. You're talking about a system to capture waste heat and to use it in a productive way, to generate it for electricity or for some other purpose. That's a capital investment.

When the Democrats controlled this floor, we passed legislation that allowed a business such as you've described to put that equipment into place and to write off the total investment in 1 year, in the very first year, an immediate writeoff, giving an enormous incentive to businesses to make a capital investment. Now, that's very wise tax policy put forth by the Democrats, signed by President Obama, and it's one of the kinds of tax policies and tax breaks that we think needs to be in place to grow the economy.

There are many other examples, and I can go on for several hours, but I would rather yield to my colleague from the great State of Texas.

Please tell us what's going on in Texas besides fires here and there and, once again, another disaster area in which, as America, we need to reach out and support Texas.

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, you are a true leader. Your State of Texas is under a fiery assault and will also need direct Federal assistance, not only in fighting the fires but also in the eventual recovery, and that's certainly going to be the case in New York.

We understand. There are many different kinds of disasters. There are natural disasters that we have discussed for several minutes here on the floor. There is also the disaster of not having a job, of losing your home, not being able to care for your family and seeing all of your dreams just basically disappear for lack of a job.

As we reach out, as we think about these natural disasters and our human desire to be helpful, we would also think about those millions of Americans, and we are probably talking well over 20 million, maybe 25 million Americans that do not have a job, and they are facing their own personal disaster. They need help. They need help from many different places, certainly their communities, wherever it may be, but also the Federal Government.

I know that those of us on the Democratic side of this aisle have for the last 3 years attempted and succeeded in developing programs that actually have created millions of jobs. A lot of people talk about the American Recovery Act not working. In fact, it did work. Some 3 million jobs were created. Those are not my estimates, those are estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and others. Give or take 100,000, we are talking about thousands and tens or hundreds of thousands, millions of jobs that were actually created.

We cannot go through an austerity period at this point, because people are hurting. They need help, they need jobs, and we can do it and simultaneously build the American economy by the infrastructure, putting in place the foundation, by educating, a great example. Just yesterday, I talked earlier about this biotech company that's creating bioherbicides and biopesticides. They need to hire technicians in their laboratories and in the manufacturing. They can't find them.

The education bills that we put forth that have been stopped and actually reduced by our Republican colleagues are necessary for the community colleges and other educational institutions to provide the skills needed for those people that have lost their jobs to become technicians, high-paid technicians in that new biotechnology field.

So there is where these things come together. We need to always keep in mind the millions of personal disasters that are out there as people have lost their jobs and struggled.

Representative Tonko, I know you're facing natural disasters, but when we were here in August, in early August and July, you were talking about jobs and the need for jobs in your area. Please come back and let's just pick this up again and carry it.

Representative Tonko, as you were talking, I reached back and I found this display that we sometimes use. These are critical investments. Yes, infrastructure, the dams and the roads, those are critical investments. But here is the most critical investment of all. These are American workers being educated, getting prepared for the new technology jobs, carrying on the jobs of the future. This is where we need to make a critical investment in America, and this is a key part of the Make It In America agenda--that is, the education, labor and education, making sure our labor force is well educated and well prepared for the jobs of the future.

Sheila Jackson Lee, you were looking like you wanted to get in the middle of this.

It is jobs, jobs, jobs, Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.

This is America. This is America, the strongest country in the world today. There are others that are growing, and thankfully they are. But this is America. We talk about patriotism. Some people say we are broke. We're not broke. We have troubles, to be sure, but we have an extraordinary strength in America, and that is the American worker, and they need a chance. They need a governmental system that is supporting them with education, with programs such as infrastructure, with using our tax money to buy the products that they make.

This is America. We're Americans. We are the people who get things done. Nobody has been at it longer than upstate New York. The Industrial Revolution started in your territory, Mr. Tonko, and I see the strength that you have and I see the strength your people have to rebuild after this devastating week.

You mentioned something that just caught me like that. Public policy, public laws make a difference. I want to give you an example. You mentioned Germany and the advances that they've made in green technology.

I had the opportunity over the recess to go to a manufacturing plant owned by Siemens, a German company, one of the biggest manufacturing companies in the world, in Sacramento, California, and they are manufacturing in Sacramento, starting with just pieces of steel, and building light railcars and heavy-duty locomotives for Amtrak. I mean, this is the heaviest manufacturing that occurs in any country. It's a German company located in Sacramento, manufacturing from start to finish for American transportation systems.

Why are they doing that? Why is that German company investing millions upon millions of dollars in California to manufacture trains and locomotives? They are doing it because the American Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, said that the money must be used on American-made equipment. The laws we make on this floor, the work done here in this Capitol, will determine the future of America's manufacturing.

If we ignore the necessity of putting in place laws that say make it in America, use American taxpayer dollars to buy American-made equipment, if we ignore that, then we will see those jobs go offshore and we will see that equipment come onshore. That's not what I want. That's not what the Make It In America agenda is all about. It's about a set of policies, trade policies. Free trade, no; fair trade, yes.

China, you're manipulating your currency. There is a bill that's being held up in committee by our Republican colleagues that would force China to deal with its currency manipulation. They have a 25 to 30 percent advantage in cost simply through an unfair trade practice that China is foisting upon this Nation and others.

Taxes. We haven't talked about tax policy much, but there are tax policies that are critically important.

Energy we touched on. We'll come back to energy in the days ahead, because this is about national security. Labor, education, research, infrastructure. We've touched on that today.

We've got about 5 to 7 minutes. Let's do our lightning rounds here and we'll go round and round. That Invest in America, I like that one.

Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, tell us about it.

Thank you, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Tonko.

Thank you, Mr. Tonko and Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. Your representation of your constituents and for America is unparalleled. You are fighters. You are fighters for those people that have faced the personal disaster of losing their job, losing their home, and many of their dreams.

Tomorrow, here on the floor of this Congress, the Senate and the House will meet and we'll be listening to our President talk to us and to the American people at a moment in time that is of critical importance to the very future of this country; a moment in which we will choose a path, an aggressive path, to deal with the disaster of unemployed Americans. He will come to us with a plan. I believe it will be a

bold plan. It will be comprehensive. It will cover probably many of the issues that are here on our Make it in America agenda. But I want all of us, Democrat and Republican, to take those ideas and to put them into law so that Americans can have a job so that once again they can become taxpayers, and in doing so, bring to America's Treasury the money that we need to deal with our deficit. It's a very, very important moment.

We're going to need to reach across the aisle, right down this middle aisle, reach across it, and say, okay, our colleagues here were talking earlier about regulation. There's some good that needs to come from that. There are regulations that impede progress. And on our side, we want to put people to work.

With that, we await the President tomorrow, and we'll stand with him and with all Americans to put us back to work. Thank you so very, very much.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

A very interesting point in our progress here in America. There is a real difference in view, and we're in the process now of choosing which path this Nation will go.

This is not about a deficit. This is about the very nature of America. It's about our heart and soul. Are we going to be a country that uses all of our resources, whether they are the public resources or the private resources, to fill the needs of our people--their education, their health care, their well-being after they retire--or are we going to go a different path and not use all of our potential?

The Republican proposal that's before us--this is not the first-- would change America and really drive us back to the 19th century, a time in which the government did not have a social welfare program such as Social Security and Medicare.

Make no doubt about this and have no doubts that the proposal before us is a very significant step towards ending Social Security and Medicare. If that's what the American people want, well, we shall see.

Thank you very much. This evening I am going to be joined by several of my colleagues. And as they come to the microphone, let me just lay down some of the facts.

Not more than an hour ago this Chamber voted on Speaker Boehner's proposal to deal with the debt limit. Very interesting comments that he made prior to the speech--and while I can't quote them precisely--he did say

that his whole strategy started way back in January when he told the President that he was going to use the debt limit as a way of getting his way.

Well, we saw what his way is, and that's what was voted on today without any support at all from the Democrats and a lot of Republicans saying that it was not the right way to go.

So what did he propose? We have two very, very basic paths that are facing the American public today. One of those paths is a path that we voted on, which is a path to basically unravel most of the things that America holds dear.

In order to carry out the caps and the $2.5 trillion in reductions that are in that legislation, we would have to decimate Medicare. There is no way it could possibly continue to provide the services to our seniors and similarly Medicaid, of which 70 percent of that money goes to seniors who are in nursing homes. And so those two critical parts of the foundation of the American society--that is providing health care to our seniors and the aged, blind, and disabled--are going to get unraveled as a result of the legislation that passed.

Similarly, there is no way to meet those spending reductions without going after Social Security. The other path is one that we have suggested on the Democratic side, and we are going to spend some time talking about these two today, and that is the path that maintains these pillars of the society of America that basically express the values of our country, that our country is one that cares deeply about our citizens, whether they are aged, seniors who may need medical care and who need an income, Social Security and Medicare, or whether they are young children that need an education and those in between that need jobs.

That's the path that the Democrats have offered in the budget that we put forth on this floor that we voted on, that was our recommendation on how to move forward. It failed without any Republican support, but it was a path that basically spoke to the values of this Nation that we have held dear for these many, many years.

I would like to turn now to my colleagues here. I would like to start with my colleague from Oregon, Peter DeFazio.

Peter, I know that you have some remarks that you would like to share with us this evening.

Mr. DeFazio, thank you very much. You clearly pointed out the dichotomy between the Democratic proposal, which is one of building and creating and putting together a society and an economy that actually works, and the Republicans seem to be just dismantling time after time.

I would like now to turn to Congresswoman Betty Sutton, our colleague from the State of Ohio, who has seen the effect of the cuts and what they mean in her district.

So, Ms. Sutton, if you would care to share with us your thoughts.

It is about jobs. There are very few economists-- except maybe some that supported the proposal that the Republicans put together today--but nearly every economist in this Nation said the only way we will ever get this Nation back to a balanced budget is with full employment, putting people to work. And that is the Make it in America agenda.

Let me now turn to Mr. Perlmutter from the great State of Colorado, who has some concepts and ideas he would like to share with us this evening.

Mr. Perlmutter, you are so very correct. The American Dream, you laid it out there so well--job, family, home, ability to take care, kids off to school, good health care--the American Dream. When you get old, you've got Medicare, you have Social Security. That's really the foundation.

However, what happened on this floor not more than an hour and a half ago will destroy that dream. Now, we have work to do; indeed, we do. And now I would like to turn to my friend and colleague on the floor, sometimes we call it the East Coast/West Coast show, my friend from New York, Mr. Paul Tonko.

What took place here on the floor, Mr. Tonko, over the last couple of hours was really a charade. It was theater. It had no sense of reality. There is no way that piece of legislation is going to move forward. You said it so very well: It became more and more radical with each iteration over time.

It seems as though there is a small group within the Republican Caucus that really doesn't want government at all. Almost an anarchist attitude about government is bad, get rid of it in every way.

And then there is group in that same caucus that actually published a piece of paper, it came from the leadership, and one of the things that they said that they wanted to do was to bring down the President. Well, we have an election coming up, to be sure. But to use the full faith and credit of the United States, that is the honor and really the dignity, to say nothing of the financial strength of this Nation, to bring down the President seems to be unconscionable.

Earlier this afternoon before we started this 1-hour, one of our colleagues on the Republican side brought up a nice little picture of a woman balancing her budget, presumably at home, and a checkbook. She said that 40-some States have a balanced budget amendment, and they balance their budget.

Earlier this afternoon, I was talking to my friend from the great State of Virginia, and he said: Let me share with you how one State balances their budget.

I yield to Bobby Scott.

Excuse me. You said that Arizona has a balanced budget amendment in their Constitution and somehow they balance their budget.

Excuse me for a second, if I might interrupt. One of the proposals coming from some of the Republicans was to sell America's assets. Do you suppose they intended to sell the U.S. Capitol?

If I might, my good colleague from Virginia, on the floor today it was perfectly clear that the Republicans are refusing to even consider any increases in taxes or the elimination of tax breaks, on oil, on corporations that send jobs overseas, it's no. On the high end, the hedge fund managers that have a billion dollars of income, no, they're going to keep those tax breaks.

There you have it.

Our colleague from Ohio, if you could comment. We're going to do this kind of moving along more rapidly. We've got several different comments. Our colleague from Texas is back.

Please, if you would, and then I'll turn to our colleague from Texas.

And there's the voice from the central part of the heart of America from the great State of Ohio.

We know that America can make it. This is still the greatest manufacturing center in the world, and part of our job agenda on the Democratic side is what we call Make It in America.

The gentlewoman from Ohio very quickly pointed out several elements in that. I put this up while she was talking so we could think about it.

Trade policy. We can't give away our jobs on trade policy.

Taxes. We talked about the tax issues, corporations getting tax breaks for going offshore.

Energy. We need energy security. We can't afford to continue to pay all of our hard-earned dollars to the petro-dictators of the world and the most dangerous places of the world. We need a domestic energy policy, a green energy policy, a clean energy policy, with the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs there.

Labor policies. We talked about educating our kids. Bobby Scott from Virginia talked about the cuts that are in the Republican budget when we need to educate, re-educate and prepare our labor force.

Education. In this budget that they just put forward are tremendous cuts to the Pell Grants that allow kids to go to school.

Research. Again, Bobby, you talked about the research cuts, and the infrastructure we've talked about several times. This is all part of our agenda. This is how we're going to build America, how the American Dream can become a reality once again by making the critical investments on the public side, bringing the private side along.

I know that Texas likes to say everything is great in Texas, but I have talked to our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, many times we've talked to her on the floor, and it's not all perfect.

Could you share with us the view from Texas?

Ms. Jackson Lee, thank you so much.

We have about 10 minutes left here, and I'd like to do lightning rounds.

My colleagues, you've been so eloquent and have really brought these issues to bear, but why don't we all do a wrap--we'll do about a minute--and we'll just pass it around.

Let's start with the great State of New York. So we'll go to the east coast first.

Mr. Tonko.

Thank you, Mr. Tonko.

Let's move to the great State of Virginia, down in the tidewater country.

Indeed, we do. If we're going to have the American Dream continue to be a reality, we've got lot of work to do. We've got to put the American people back to work, and we're going to have to deal with the deficit, and it will take us a while to do it.

Mr. Courtney, you very well and eloquently pointed out how we got into the deficit. Please, your final thoughts.

How about the view from Colorado?

And from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Thank you.

I'll do a wrap here, and we'll be finished for this evening.

Unfortunately, the work has not yet been completed. We do need to lift the debt ceiling. We can, and it will be done one way or the other. The President has the ultimate authority under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to simply order the Treasury to pay the bills.

All that has gone on here today will devastate the United States. It will devastate it. We've talked about that part of this is the requirement that no more debt ceilings will be lifted until there is a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds, or a 60 percent, vote to do anything. That is guaranteed gridlock. The only thing that could take place on a majority vote would be cuts. Think about that, America. In order to raise taxes, in order to end the tax breaks given to the oil companies or the rich barons on Wall Street, it takes a two- thirds vote. But to cut Medicare?--a majority vote. We're not going to let that happen.

There is one place that the Democratic Party is going to stand, and that is: Keep your hands off Social Security and Medicare. No way. Nohow. I don't care about all of this talk that goes on here. The bottom line is: That is a fundamental building block foundation of this Nation. It brought every senior out of poverty.

There's not a family in America that doesn't depend upon Social Security and Medicare for their parents. Now, if you want that cut, you stay there with what the Republicans are talking about because there's no way that you could possibly carry out what they're proposing unless you go after Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.

We will not let it happen. This is where we stand. It's not a line in the sand. It is etched into the very heart of the Democratic Party.

With that, I thank my colleagues for joining me this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Heads up America. This isn't just about raising the debt limit; this is about fundamental change in all the things that we hold dear here in America.

If you care about Medicare for your parents, or if you happen to be 65, pay attention to what's going to be on this floor in the next couple of hours. If you think Social Security is important to you or to your parents and to your future as the foundation for your pension, pay attention to what's going on here. Because have no doubts, America, that the Republican Party is putting forth, using the debt limit as a lever, putting in place fundamental changes in Medicare, basically looking to terminate Medicare as we know it, and changing Social Security so that it is no longer the foundation for your pensions.

Heads up America. Watch carefully, because the Republican Party is going right at the very heart of the most stable and most important parts of every retiree's future. Pay attention. Pay attention. Because this is a critical moment.

I move to strike the last word.

The amendment that's being offered is perfectly appropriate. It's the duty of the Department of the Interior to carry out the law. The law requires the Secretary to review, from time to time, the status of public land.

All too often, I hear my colleagues on the Republican side say that this is government land. No, no, no, this is not government land. This is our land. This is the land of the American people, owned in common for the common good. And the Secretary, carrying out that responsibility, reviews the attributes of the land. Is it good for oil? How about gas development or coal development? Or maybe it's useful as grazing land, or perhaps it should be wild and scenic land and preserved for the purpose of remaining in its most natural state. So my Republican colleagues come up and say, No, you can't look at the land. You can't study the land. We just won't want to know anything about the land, except to allow for the destruction of the land.

This particular amendment doesn't come in a vacuum. This amendment leads to the House floor another bill that is likely to move out of the Resources Committee and soon be on the floor, which would take the previous work done over the last 30 years that would quantify the values of the land, scenic, natural, wilderness, and push all of that aside and say, Open all the land, all the land to what was euphemistically--I hope euphemistically--called mechanized conservation. Hmm, ``mechanized conservation.'' Sounds to me like bulldozer, drilling rigs, a stampede of cattle and the like over any and all land.

Understand that this particular line in this appropriation bill goes hand in hand with a piece of legislation that went through, that was heard in the Resources Committee just yesterday, that would take all of the land that has been designated as wild and scenic some 30 years ago--some of which is said, no, it's not perfect for a wild and scenic designation--and take all of that land and open it for development. We ought not do that.

Therefore, this amendment that's been brought forward by the ranking member is appropriate in that it allows the Department of the Interior to upgrade some 30-year-old studies, taking into account new scientific information, new information about the land, and making that information available to us in Congress so that we can make an informed decision about whether land should or should not be wild and scenic or whatever designation might be appropriate, including opening some land for development. But I suppose it's best to know nothing.

I would love to yield briefly to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, sir, my apologies for interrupting you.

Thank you for that accommodation.

I think the underlying problem was well described by you, and that is that the language prohibits the Secretary from going forward with the study of the wild lands. I think that's wrong. I think it's appropriate for us to always update our studies, always to understand what has changed and what is appropriate as we go forward.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I think you're down to parsing words here. The study that was attempted to be undertaken by the Secretary was to study the lands for their wild land values. He obviously could not designate a wild land that doesn't exist. But that study could give us information that we would need to open land to more drilling or other purposes, or to hold it aside for scenic and other values.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

When I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I thought that the Department of the Interior should do what it needed to do. Now that I'm here I would agree with you that they should do what we tell them to do. Just a change in jobs.

However, the point here is that the language that you have put into this bill would preclude the Secretary from moving forward, even to carry out the words that are in the document itself. And I did read the document.

We need to know what is on the land, and we need to know its potential uses. As I understand the amendment that you have put forward that is in this bill, it would deny the funding for those purposes to do the study. Now if I am wrong about that intent and effect of the amendment, then we've had a wonderful debate in which we all agree that the Secretary and the Department of the Interior should continue to always study the land and to take into account new information, new science, new knowledge, new GPS or satellite photos of the land. So I think, as I understand the amendment, and the intent of the amendment, it is to stop the Department from continuing to study these multiple attributes.

It's useful to read, and the characteristic of order No. 3310, which is the subject matter, was well described by the gentleman from Washington--if one were to read the order, the order basically directs the Bureau of Land Management to continue to do its studies for the purpose of identifying those lands that have wilderness characteristics. This is exactly what I was talking about when I raised my first point, that this particular section that is in this appropriation bill, section 124, fits directly with the piece of legislation that was authored by Mr. McCarthy and was heard in the subcommittee yesterday, and that is to terminate efforts to create wilderness areas in the United States. That's what this is all about. This is about opening lands to development, and to prohibit the Department from exercising its authority under the law to continue to investigate and to analyze our land for the value of its wilderness characteristics.

Therefore, this particular clause, 124 in the appropriation bill, runs directly counter to the requirement under the existing law that's been there for more than three decades for the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, to carry out its responsibilities.

I thank the gentleman from Washington and our colleague on the other side.

It's useful to read the Secretarial order rather than all of the hullabaloo of what this is all about. The Secretarial order follows the law. It says that the BLM shall do an analysis as to the wilderness characteristics. That is in FLPMA; that's the law. And so it says that's what it's doing.

I believe that's precisely what they're trying to do is tell the Secretary not to follow the law.

In fact, the Secretarial order does follow the law. It precisely follows the law.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank my colleague from California for reminding all of us that there are consequences for what we do here. This current wholly manufactured debt crisis has people very, very nervous.

The women that Ms. Speier talked about, concerned and nervous about their Social Security checks, whether they will be able to get their medical care, and today's Wall Street Journal, the first five items on what's news, various businesses around the world and financial institutions being prepared for the first time ever in America's history that our debt may not be worth a hoot. It may be worthless, that

we're going to default. This is a totally manufactured, unnecessary crisis. We didn't have to be here.

I want us all to step back a little ways, step back to December 2010, when we had another manufactured crisis. It came time to fund the Federal Government and to deal with some issues having to do with unemployment. And the Republicans in the Senate held us hostage and demanded that we extend the high-end Bush tax cuts, which created a $700 billion deficit. We went ahead and did that, and rolled the issue forward 3 months so that in February we would have yet another crisis, the funding or the shutdown of the Federal Government.

Yet again another opportunity for our Republican colleagues to create a crisis so that they could use it to force onto the American public their policies, which became very evident what they wanted to do. They wanted to reconfigure the entire American scene. They wanted to roll back Social Security. They wanted to end Medicare for all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age. They wanted to end the programs to support higher education, to reduce research, to reduce funding for food safety programs. They used these manufactured crises to shut down a government.

And yet here we are again with the debt limit, first discussed back in May, and then because of the Treasury Department's ability to continue paying bills, we are now up against the final deadline of August 2. Yet again a totally manufactured unnecessary crisis.

Previously, Ronald Reagan said: Don't do this. Do not put the good faith and credit of the American government on the line. He told the Republicans, his Republicans back in the 1980s, honor the debt. This is not about new spending, this is about spending going back a century. This is about the American bills that were paid or not paid years ago, and that's our debt today.

We don't need to do this. There are options. We're putting forth, as we did earlier, a clean debt limit increase. Get us past this. We are also looking at the opportunity for the President to invoke the 14th Amendment, the fourth clause of the 14th Amendment, that says America will honor its debts. I believe he has the power, issuing an Executive order to the Treasury Department: pay our debts. This is something that is fundamental for America, and we must do it.

Put aside this manufactured crisis. It didn't need to be real, but it has become all too real in these last few days as our Republican colleagues are unable to get their act together, even to put forth a proposal that would eviscerate necessary programs. Can't even do that.

The President has called for a balanced approach, one of taxes, raising the taxes that should have been raised back in December and eliminate some $700 billion of this problem, but let's do it now. Let's go after the oil companies that are receiving our tax money at the very same time that over the last decade they have created nearly a trillion dollars of profit. They don't need our tax money. The poor in America, the senior citizens in America, they are the ones that need help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I was just listening to the debate here, saying: What are they thinking? What is the rationale? What is the purpose for the legislation that we have before us, more pointedly, the amendment that was just offered?

This is an incredible country. This is a country that very recently took great pride in cleaning its rivers, in protecting its citizens from toxins and pollutants and chemicals and poisons. This is a country that took great pride in creating the first-ever in this world national park and then expanded it over time to create the most awesome National Park System in the entire world. This is a country that took great pride in the Snake River and the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

An argument was made a moment ago that there is not enough money. Yet not more than a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our oil that is pumped from our land, the land of the people and of the United States--and in fact even to get a royalty--was rejected by our Republican colleagues. So money was available if we simply had gone for the royalties that should be there under any case. This legislation, however, goes far beyond that, and over time will destroy the pride that we have taken in creating our national parks, in setting aside for future generations the great vistas of America, protecting our air, our land and our water.

You look at this bill. You look at the details of this bill, and you go, Oh, my. How could they? How could they put in legislation that would block the effort of the EPA to eliminate mercury poison in our air and water? How could they allow a bill that would create more soot in our atmosphere, put 34,000 lives at risk, and exempt the oil companies from air pollution standards in offshore drilling, which in California is a big deal because the air blows, the wind blows onto the land? How could they threaten the health of millions of Americans by jeopardizing the EPA's critical air, land and water regulations? Then our children. They block the EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution. How could they put together a bill that potentially could contaminate 117 million Americans' water?

How could you do that? Have you no pride in this country? Do you not care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that cares about clean water? You talk about jobs. Yet, in this bill, you eliminate the funding for the Clean Water Act, which is really building sanitation facilities in our community.

I remember in the 1960s the great pride that the 500 people in my community of Mokelumne Hill took when they got that money from the Federal Government and actually built the first sanitation system in that small town. How could you deny Americans the opportunity for that--and the drinking water and the jobs that go with it?

That's what this bill does. Take pride in what you're doing, gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the American public will not take pride in what you're doing to this piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I move to strike the last word.

What a fortuitous moment to have the opportunity to follow my colleague from California.

Indeed, I do know something about the Interior budget. I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, and I know full good and well what the Department of the Interior means to America.

Early this morning, I left Sacramento. My mind was very much on the debate you just suggested: What are we going to do about the deficit?

But it didn't take long to realize, as I sat by the window, as I moved over the Sierra Nevada mountains into Nevada, then across to the Rockies, and across this entire Nation--for most of the way, it was rather clear--that we have an awesome, unbelievably beautiful country. We're the strongest Nation in the world, and we have great economic strength.

This bill, however, would take this great Nation, the great beauty and the incredible people of America, and put them at risk. It would put this Nation's extraordinary beauty and resources at risk. That's what this is about. This isn't going to solve the budget deficit one way or the other. This is a miniscule part of the overall Federal budget. It is important--important because

it is about this Nation's physical and human health. We're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency.

This bill as written would bring to the people of America poison. It is the poisoning of our rivers and our air. Use whatever word you want about cleanup--use the nice words--but we're talking about poisoning the rivers and the air of America. That's what this bill does. When you take the Environmental Protection Agency and you take away its ability to protect us, then you are allowing poisons to be in our water and in our air and in our land.

You look at this bill, and you're talking about the extraordinary physical nature of America. Do you want the great mountains of the Appalachians to be flattened so you can have more coal to burn and then foul the atmosphere? That's what this bill does.

Do you want to take away the ability of this Nation to protect your precious Mojave Desert? That's what this bill does.

Do you want to allow those who would destroy by grabbing the resources of this Nation without even bothering to pay a decent royalty? That's what this bill does whether it's the oil in the gulf or the copper in a new mine in Arizona.

I've listened to the Republican bills day after day on this floor and in committee, and they would strip away the protections that Americans want for their health and for their land. That's not what we should be doing.

Do you want to know where the money is? My colleague from New Jersey said it very well:

It's in Afghanistan and it's in Baghdad. We're building the bridges. We're cleaning the rivers. We're providing the water and the electrical systems there to the tune of $150 billion a year.

Bring our troops home. Bring our money back to America. Build America. Rebuild America. There is the answer. Not in this way will you ever solve the deficit.

By the way, this bill lays off people--15,000 people at the EPA alone. This bill will not build infrastructure. This bill will take away the infrastructure for our sanitation systems, for our water systems. That's what this bill does.

My colleague from California knows full good and well what's intended here. It's to give our resources to the polluters. It's to foul our air. It's to remove the ability of the people of America, not some government in Washington but the people of America, who have for the last 40 years demanded clean water, that their resources be protected, that the commons be protected. It is the people of America that want a future that's good for their children, that want a future that's viable, that want a future that does not have poisoned water and air. That's what the people of America want. This bill goes exactly the wrong direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to be joined by my colleagues today, and we are going to talk about the financial situation here in the United States and about the meaning of the various ideas and proposals that have been put forward.

I want to compliment my colleagues on the Republican side for their tenacity in putting out their sound bites, but I think it's very, very important for the American people to understand in detail exactly what is being proposed here. Yesterday, we did have what was called the Cut, Cap, and Balance proposal. You might also call it the ``Cut, Slash, and Burn'' proposal because, once you get past the sound bites and get into the details of what has actually been proposed, you've got to stand back and go, Whoa. Wait a minute. Is that really what a balanced budget amendment is all about?

We're going to go into that in a few moments to really understand exactly what this balanced budget amendment is and the effect that it will have on Americans, particularly on women in America; but before we go there, we need to step back a bit and understand how it is that we got into this situation with this deficit of $14 trillion. How did we get here? It's really important to understand that. Before you go off and try to solve the problem, you need to know what is the situation, what is the circumstance.

This little chart here lays out where the deficit came from. Now, understand that, at the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001, the United States Government was running a surplus, a $300 billion-plus surplus. It had run that for the previous 2 years. So we had a surplus, and we were on the path during the decade 2001-2010 to literally pay off the entire American debt. It would be paid off. Now, whether that's a good idea or not, you can debate that, but that's what we were on. So the trajectory was, had we maintained the same policies, the same growth in our economy, we would have paid off the total debt. However, something happened.

Now, what happened?

What happened was a change in policies and two wars: the Iraq and the Afghanistan war following the 9/11 event in 2001 and then the Iraq war in 2003--neither war paid for. For the first time in American history, neither war was paid for--all borrowed money for the first time ever in America's history. Another thing happened along the way, and that is: in 2001, the first George W. Bush tax cut followed in 2003 by the second George W. Bush tax cut.

Here is what they meant. Take a careful look at this. This is where the deficit started. We started here with the Bush-era tax cuts and then over the years so that in 2019--20 years--we have this extraordinary growth in the deficit caused by those tax cuts. Of course it assumes the tax cuts will continue on into 2019.

The red area here are the wars. Again, not paid for. So the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war.

The other thing is this downturn in the economy. The downturn in the economy occurred in 2008. How did it happen? Why did we have that crash of the American economy?

We had it because the Federal Government stepped back from regulating the financial institutions, allowing them to run wild, assuming that they would be smart enough to regulate

themselves. That didn't happen. They were smart enough to be extraordinarily greedy. Wall Street went on a greed binge, and the result was the collapse of the financial industry. Needless to say, there are other players in this game. Many Americans, hundreds of thousands of Americans, joined in the game and took out mortgages and bought houses, but there was no way they could possibly afford them. It was the financial industry, the mortgage industry and the Wall Street bankers, and we wound up with the great collapse of 2008.

To deal with that, the bailout of Wall Street occurred. Most of that has now been paid back. It worked. Did it work for the benefit of Americans? It stabilized the financial institutions, and it certainly worked for the benefit of Wall Street. That program occurred in the final months of the George W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, the American economy has not recovered despite the spending of some $700 billion in the stimulus program. It actually worked. It didn't work enough to get the economy moving forward, so we wound up with this huge deficit.

Going forward, the deficit remains in place because the wars continue: $178 billion a year spent on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also continuing are the George W. Bush tax cuts. This is where the deficit is coming from. Thirdly, the economy has not recovered. That's where the deficit is.

Now, what do you do about that? Do you put in place a constitutional amendment that has something really interesting? When the American public understands what is in that amendment, it's not just a balanced budget; there are real things in that amendment. Then that amendment, if ever put in place, will have extraordinary consequences for America--in my view, none of them positive.

A sound bite is great: Balance the budget. Force the government to balance the budget just like we do at home. Hello, America. Do you really balance your budget every month? every year? I don't think so. We take out a mortgage to buy a house. That's borrowing money, folks. That's not balancing your daily budget. That's borrowing money, and now you've got to pay the mortgage, pay the interest. When you lose your job or when you're laid off or when you're cut back in hours, what do you do? You do your best to cut expenses, and then you probably are going to borrow more money--maybe the home equity loan, maybe the credit card--to get by. We all do that, all of us. It's not so easy to at the end of every year balance the budget.

Forty-nine States? Yes, they have balanced budget amendments. I'm from California. Democrat Jerry Brown: facing a balanced budget amendment. Guess what? He borrows money. He doesn't balance the budget. Oh--and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger--Republican, said he was going to ``blow up the boxes'' and balance the budget. It happened twice in the 7 years that he was Governor that he was able to balance the budget.

Why did this happen? Why did it happen? America, ask the question: What is in the balanced budget amendment? I'll tell you what's in it: a requirement that a two-thirds vote be enacted for every expenditure and every tax increase--a two-thirds vote. This is a fundamental shift in the very nature of American democracy.

We had a dozen wonderful Representatives of the Republican Party talk for an hour here, and not once did they mention that the American democracy will be forever changed. No longer majority rule. A fundamental tenet of American democracy, majority rule, pushed aside. And now should this ever become law, a minority rule, one-third of this House, one-third of this Senate dominating the will of 65 percent of every elected Representative and Senator. The end of the most fundamental tenet of American democracy, the end of majority rule.

It also works in a very pernicious and bad way. You can cut taxes with a majority vote. It takes a two-thirds to raise taxes.

So years and years ago, the oil industry had the opportunity in our democracy to receive a tax reduction. They got a tax reduction. And the oil industry went on with that tax reduction, called a subsidy, so that they can explore for oil and gas. For a hundred years they have had a tax break. Now, we can give them another tax break; but under the balanced budget amendment, it would take a two-thirds vote to take away the tax reduction, the tax break, the subsidy that they have received for a hundred years, a century, would take a two-thirds vote to do that because that would be considered to be a tax increase.

So what does it mean to the oil industry? Well, here's their profits from last year. Let's see: Exxon, $10.7 billion; Oxy, $1.6 billion; Conoco, $2.1; Chevron, $6.2 billion; BP, of gulf fame, $7.2 billion, that's their profit. Part of that profit is your tax dollar. Part of that profit is the tax dollar of every American that has been given to the oil companies for more than a century so that they can go explore for oil.

Is there an American that believes that the oil industry needs our tax dollars to continue to be viable? I don't think so. But if the constitutional amendment passes, becomes part of our Constitution, a majority of this House and the Senate could increase the subsidy, but it would take a two-thirds vote to get our money back. We need to understand the details of what a balanced budget amendment means.

I've been joined by my wonderful friend and extraordinary Representative from the great State of New York representing the Hudson River Valley in the capital region.

We had a discussion last night about a piece of this, and I've been waiting for you to arrive when we could talk about how the balanced budget amendment and the cuts in the legislation that was passed yesterday would affect women.

We just had 20 women from the Republican Party here telling us that we ought to enact a balanced budget amendment. What does it mean for women who are 65 and over?

Would you please join us and enter this conversation.

Mr. Tonko, once again you are on the right track here.

Earlier before you came in I was discussing our Republican colleagues, Women's Day, and they were all talking about the great value in the balanced budget constitutional amendment.

My colleague from Colorado, Jared Polis, came running over and said, They don't understand. They need to know what's in this. And I'd like you to explain.

I started off with the majority, two-thirds vote. You're a constitutional specialist. What does all of this mean to America if they really understood and got past the sound bite? ``Balanced budget'' sounds good, but what does it actually mean?

Thank you so much for bringing our attention to the way in which the balanced budget amendment would fundamentally alter the very nature of our government.

Earlier I talked about the majority vote versus the minority rule that is in this amendment. And now you bring to our attention the percentage that is in the amendment. Those percentages have real meaning beyond the issue of just a very, very important issue, the very nature of our government, and the reason why we have representative government, why we have the Senate, why we have a Congress.

But there's something else to it and that is, the percentage that they have chosen would force the government expenditures to go back to the 1965 level where there was no Medicaid and no Medicare program in America. So, once again, there are different ways of assaulting and terminating Medicare. One was the direct way that was in the Republican budget that passed this House earlier in which they explicitly said that for all Americans who are not yet 55, there would be no Medicare. They would be given a voucher, and they would have to go buy insurance from the private insurance market, which all of us understand is a very difficult place to get a fair deal. The other way of doing it is in a constitutional amendment, as was proposed yesterday, that would make it impossible to fund Medicare and similarly impossible to fund things like natural disasters.

Let's assume we were at 18 percent, which is the number they've chosen, of GDP and the Federal budget, and we have the great Mississippi flood or the great Missouri flood or the earthquake in California or the hurricane in Florida, billions of dollars. The Federal Government would have no ability under this amendment to step in.

Let me turn to Mr. Tonko. I know you had some other things that you wanted to bring to our attention.

Freedom ``from'' health care.

Before we leave the balanced budget amendment, the bill that was on the floor yesterday had two other pieces to it. One of them was to go after the budget of the United States and reduce it by $111 billion, beginning in October of this year. That has real impact. Part of that impact would be felt on Medicare.

Let's just put some understanding into what Medicare is all about. Our colleague from Connecticut did this last night, but it really, I think, is well worth repeating, and so I am going to just read off some statistics, so please bear with me.

In 1965, when Medicare was established, 44 percent of all seniors 65 and over did not have health insurance. Now, of those, 40 percent of the seniors lived in poverty. So you had heavy poverty and you had no insurance. The two are tied together. You get sick, you lost your money, you spent everything you had. The life expectancy at that period was 70 years.

Now, what's happened in the intervening years since 1965? Now, 40 million seniors, nearly every senior in the United States, has health insurance. Not just a little health insurance, they have a comprehensive health insurance policy that covers most everything they need--doctors, hospitals, and drugs.

The poverty rate for seniors has fallen from 40 percent to 10 percent. Why? Social Security and Medicare.

Now, they lived to 70 in 1965. Today, seniors live to an average age of 78\1/2\ years. Why? Because they have medical care and they have Social Security providing them with the basics of life.

Now, what happens if the Republican budget were to pass and Social Security were to end, not only for those who are 55 years of age now and want to have Social Security 10 years later in their lives when they become 65, but immediately for seniors, now, if the Republican bill passed, would become law that passed yesterday, and the previous one, the budget bill were to become law? $880 billion would be removed from Medicaid.

Medicaid's a different program than Medicare. This is for impoverished people in America, almost all of whom are in nursing homes. $880 billion, over 10 years, removed from Medicaid. So those seniors, most of whom are women--and I would remind you that we heard from the Republican women here earlier promoting a program that would cut $880 billion out of Medicaid, 70 percent of which goes to nursing homes, the majority of whom in those nursing homes are women. This is not a women's program that they've put forward.

And on the drug side, you were talking about this, Mr. Tonko. This is an immediate reduction, an immediate reduction in the drug benefits, so that 3.9 million seniors would wind up paying $2.2 billion more immediately if the Republican budget were to go into law because of the reduction in the Affordable Care Act that provided this benefit.

These are just some of the things that the American public needs to understand when you get past the sound bites. We must balance the budget and, therefore, the balanced budget amendment.

Well, wait. What is it? What does it really do? It terminates majority rule in America and institutes minority rule so the fundamental of American democracy is trashed; requires that the budget of the United States be ramped back, back, back to the 1965 percentage of GDP, before there was Medicare, which, inevitably and inextricably means that Medicare is over once that balanced budget amendment passes.

Mr. Tonko, please continue.

You've moved to a subject that we really want to get to, which is jobs, but this is my favorite.

And on the individuals.

Let's move on beyond it. But this is something that I always put up when we talk about Medicare, and that is it was 1965. This is a tombstone, and it says: Medicare 1965-2011. Created by LBJ. Destroyed by the GOP. No doubt about it.

Three votes in the first 6 months, now 6\1/2\ months of this new Congress, three votes by the Republicans that have put up three different measures that terminate Medicare as we know it.

Oh, to the job creators. You must mean those wealthy folks.

We've been joined by an individual from the great State of Vermont who has spoken many times on this floor about jobs and about what we need to do.

Thank you for joining us. Share your thoughts.

Peter, as we stand here on the floor of this House debating an extraordinarily important moment in time about the direction we're going to go, this issue of paying our bills, we need to understand that what we're really talking about here is not tomorrow's bills; we're talking about expenditures that have been made over the years dating back to World War II and even before World War II, expenditures that have been made, votes by the majority of this House and by the Senate, signed by the President, America decided to spend the money. Earlier, I put up a chart here talking about where it came from--this House. And George W. Bush voted to reduce taxes, created a deficit, had to borrow money, voted to start and to carry out two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, borrowed money to do it. These are past expenditures. And here we are 12 days away from the default crisis where our Republican friends are using this moment in time where we're not really discussing tomorrow's expenditures; we're talking about yesterday's expenditures, and they're saying give us our way or else America defaults.

We kept hearing from our Republican colleagues that what America needs is a cut, balance--how does that work?

Well, the Republican--we heard it here over and over again, it was cut, balance--whatever. What I kept hearing is cut, slash, and burn because they're going to cut and slash critical programs for seniors.

I think what Americans really, really want, they want a job.

They want to go to work. They want an invest, grow, and build policy--not a cut, slash, and burn policy, but an invest, grow, and build. They want to invest, as you say, in education. They want their kids to have an education. They want to build the infrastructure. And they want to see the economy grow. But I'll tell you what happens when you start cutting, slashing, and burning. Here's what happens: If you take a look at the American economy, beginning in December of 2009, just start right there, just say that's the equilibrium point--wasn't a good day at all in America, a lot of jobs were not available. But we've seen 2.8 million jobs created in the private sector, okay. Simultaneously, we have seen cut, slash, and burn at the Federal level, as the Republicans have taken control and put in their continuing resolutions and reduced the Federal budget--and at the State level, and we've seen 378,000 jobs lost in the public sector. These are police, firemen, teachers, people that are out there making sure that our food is safe, and so forth.

So the reality is, we're seeing the government jobs go down. For every 100 government jobs that are cut, 30 private sector jobs are lost because those people depend upon the payroll from those government jobs.

The Simpson Bowles deficit commission said it very clearly: This is a long-term problem. We need to solve the deficit over the long term. We cannot and should not solve it with immediate cuts because it will impair the recovery of America. And here's what's happening: We're seeing the growth in the private sector retarded as the public sector reduces. This is the effect of the cut, slash, and burn strategy that our Republican colleagues want to put forward.

So what's going on in Vermont?

Thank you, Mr. Welch.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) has joined us, and directly in front of me is the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Let me turn to the gentleman from Colorado first.

Let's just get ourselves into a good discussion here. The great Midwest, Ohio, the industrial center of America, being rebuilt by Betty Sutton.

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

And we're going to make it in America. America is going to make it. This is a great, strong country. Yesterday, I heard during the debate that we're broke. We're not broke at all. We've got a deficit problem; we can deal with that with some good policies when we put people to work.

This is America, and we're going to make it in America.

Let's look at that chart that Mr. Perlmutter has over there. Trade policies. We talked about that a little bit.

Taxes. We're spending our tax money on buying equipment that's made overseas when it ought to be made in Ohio--the buses, the trains, the solar panels, and the wind turbines. How about doing those in Colorado? You have a plant there. Use our tax money to buy American-made equipment.

Talk to me about research. Mr. Tonko, you come from one of the great early research centers of America.

We're going to put people back to work, and one way we're going to do it is with a clean energy policy. We need a national security policy on energy. I know that part of that solution is going to come from Colorado where they are doing the research and where they are making some of this equipment and from middle America. And I suspect even Vermont will have a piece of this puzzle.

Mr. Perlmutter, tell us about energy systems in Colorado.

Okay, we are going to have our bullet session here. We'll start with Ms. Sutton from Ohio.

Mr. Tonko.

Mr. Welch.

We're going to make it in America. When we do, America will make it. We will put forth, as Democrats, a jobs program. We're going to invest, we're going to grow, and we're going to build this economy. That's our promise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. After 200 days of Republican power in this House, not one jobs bill. This cut, slash, and burn legislation will not work.

We need an invest, grow, and build strategy. That's what Americans want from Congress. They want us to invest in education, invest in research, and invest in innovation so that America can remain a leader in the global economy. They want us to invest in infrastructure, build bridges, highways, clean energy and cut our dependence on foreign oil, because when we make it in America, that's when America will make it. Americans can make it.

Cut, yes. What we ought to cut are the Republican giveaways to the Big Oil companies, to the Wall Street barons, to the hedge fund managers who enjoy massive tax breaks. That's where the cuts ought to be. They ought to be cut out.

And what of this legislation that's before us? We ought to vote ``no.''

Cut what doesn't create jobs for middle class families, like Republican giveaways to big oil companies. And save what actually works, like innovation to jumpstart new industries and education to help middle class people get good jobs.

I therefore rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill is an extreme version of the Republican budget plan that would make permanent the dangerous budgetary and constitutional measures that would destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and reduce Social Security benefits for those who need them the most. The bill would also handicap the government's ability to respond to economic downturns and create jobs, and it fails to address some of the real drivers our debt--tax breaks for corporations and the rich and runaway Pentagon spending, including our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This legislation is an affront to the very principles of this nation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address said, ``If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'' Unfortunately, it seems that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no regard for this fundamental American value, as the bill they have brought to the floor today attempts to balance the budget on the backs of those with less for the benefit of those with more. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, by taking away their Medicare benefits. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the disabled, by taking away their Social Security benefits. It attempts to balance the budget on the backs of low-income Americans, by taking away their Medicaid. And who stands to gain from taking away Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits? Special interests and the rich.

In addition to taking away Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, H.R. 2560 would also subvert the federal government's ability to respond to downturns in the economy or special needs including a possible national security crisis. During inevitable cyclical downturns, it will be necessary to raise the debt limit to stimulate growth by cutting taxes and providing unemployment benefits to help people get back on their feet if they're laid off, among several proven effective measures. Furthermore, in the event of a security threat, we have an obligation to act. This bill, including the proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment would make it nearly impossible to respond to any economic or security crisis.

At the root of all of this is a system of misguided priorities. My Republican colleagues have determined that in order to balance the budget, we should prioritize cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, instead of addressing what got us into this current deficit--a porous, lopsided tax code designed to make the rich richer, and two unnecessary wars, one of which we continue to wage. This bill does nothing to end the tax breaks we currently provide for millionaires and billionaires, hedge fund managers and oil companies. Nor does it address runaway Pentagon spending. Based on CBO's most conservative estimates, the DOD alone is projected to spend nearly $300 billion on the Afghan and Iraqi wars from 2012 through 2015, and estimates by Harvard researchers which take into account long-term costs like caring for our veterans put the total cost of these wars in the trillions. Rather than ending tax breaks for corporations and millionaires and billionaires and bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, my friends on the other side of aisle want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits for those Americans who need them.

I urge my colleagues to see this charade for what it is--an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those with less for the benefit of those with more--and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2560.

Will the gentleman yield?