Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I will claim the time over the next several minutes, and I want to talk about the issues before us today, namely, the budget. The budget is the issue today, Mr. Speaker.

As you may know, the House majority has come out with their budget, and, of course, the Progressive Caucus has come out with its budget, and that's what I want to talk about tonight.

The Congress, Mr. Speaker, is made up of a lot of diverse interests. We have people who span the spectrum of political thought. On the far right, those folks are present here and they allow themselves to be heard.

But we have other folks who have different points of view and believe that the best of America is the idea of liberty and justice for all. That's the Progressive Caucus--the idea that all Americans, no matter what their color is, no matter what their religion is, no matter whether they are male or female, no matter who they may be, have a right to live in a safe, free country with an opportunity to make a good, decent living with a retirement and with good, solid services like public schools, like police, fire and all these things, and we should live in a nation where we can really promote the common welfare. What that means is that the public sector and the private sector together--we have a mixed economy--need to work together to elevate the best interests of all American people.

To that end, the Progressive message, which I want to share tonight, is going to be about this budget, this Budget for All. The Progressive Caucus budget is called the Budget for All, and that's the Progressive Caucus message. Tune in at cpc.grijalva.house.gov to learn more about it, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is the hashtag for the Budget for All. It's #Budget4all. We want people to check it out and read about it.

It's very different from the Ryan budget. It's very different because we have a different vision for our country. It's very different because the Progressive Caucus believes that responsibility and the benefits of being an American should be shared; whereas, I think it's fair to say that the Ryan budget believes that if you give rich people a lot of money, maybe they'll start some businesses and maybe they'll hire someone and maybe people who are working class and middle class might benefit. It's called trickle-down economics, and I'll talk about that in a minute. But this is a very sharp contrast to the Progressive Caucus budget, which is the Budget for All.

Let me tell you a little bit about it, Mr. Speaker, because I think you're going to like it.

The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again. By putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education. Our budget, the Progressive

Caucus budget, Budget for All, protects the basic social safety net, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Now, it's very important to protect these programs, Mr. Speaker, because these programs go to help the people who basically made America for those of us living now. Let America never be a nation where our senior citizens who literally forged a way for younger people like me and those younger will have to eat dog food, have to choose between their medication and their meal, won't have enough to make their basic ends meet.

We need to support Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what the Budget for All does. The Ryan budget, which is really the Republican budget, does something very, very different, and we're going to talk about that in a minute.

Now, it's important, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that when you talk about the budget of a nation, what you're really talking about are the priorities of that nation, the values of that nation.

If you show me a family budget and that family spends a lot of money on potato chips and soda pop and none on the gym, I'll tell you what they value. If you show me a family that puts money into their kids' education and spends on making sure that they live in a neighborhood that's safe, then I'll tell you what their values are. If you show me a family that buys nutritious foods, I'll tell you what their values are.

Our budget is a reflection of what we believe, and our budget as a nation is also a reflection of what we believe.

Our Budget for All, here's what it reflects:

First of all, it puts Americans back to work. That is the number one thing the Budget for All of the Progressive Caucus does. Our budget attacks America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion over 10 years in job-creating investment. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get the economy working again, including--and Mr. Speaker, this is important--direct- hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps; also a Park Improvement Corps, a Student Job Corps, and others.

So, right now, when we have literally 14 million people out of work looking for jobs, why don't we send them to our schools and make these schools top-quality institutions and make the facility well painted, well cared for, well taken care of so that when the boiler breaks, the principal doesn't have to say, oh, my goodness, do I take it out of the maintenance budget to fix the boiler? What do I do?

We've got aging infrastructure in this country, and our schools are part of that. They're crumbling, and we've got to do something about it. Under the Progressive Caucus Budget for All, we spend money to hire people to help rejuvenate and improve our schools, School Improvement Corps.

Also, in many districts where State and local governments have been cutting back, you have teachers who are trying to service 50 kids, 40 kids. This program can help teach kids and give the teacher some real help in the classroom so that they will not be overburdened.

Also, we invest in a Park Improvement Corps. Now, in my great city of Minneapolis--and I'm going back there today, I hope--you can walk around our beautiful lakes. One of the lakes we have is called Cedar Lake, and everybody loves Cedar Lake. You can walk through the paths there. And recently, Mr. Speaker, I stopped at a picnic table along the paths of Cedar Lake and stamped on this--Mr. Speaker, you'd be surprised to see--it said ``WPA 1934.'' Now, that's the Works Progress Administration, a great American institution that put people back to work at a time when Americans were, in high numbers, out of work.

I think that if that generation at that time could respond to the needs of Americans who weren't working back then in the Depression, given the high rate of unemployment, our generation should not do less. A Park Improvement Corps to help take care of the paths, take care of the parks, make sure that these great national monuments dedicated to the enjoyment of all Americans are cared for and we hire people in the process, this is a good idea.

Also, the Student Job Corps. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that our unemployment numbers reflect is that a lot of young people are out of work. A lot of people who just got out of college are still looking for their first job. A lot of young people who decided that they didn't want to go to college but wanted to just jump right into the workforce are having a very tough time. So the Student Job Corps would be a program to put students to work.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there's lots of work to be done around America. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there's $2 trillion worth of maintenance that needs to be done all across America. I'm talking about the roads, the bridges, the transit, all kinds of stuff. There's young people who need intervention. There's tutoring that needs to happen. There's all kinds of things that need to happen. And between the School Improvement Corps, the Park Improvement Corps, and the Student Job Corps, we will be able to literally hire millions of people. This would be great. It would spur our economy; it would increase aggregate demand; and it would give a lifeline to some people who've been out of work for a long time.

People would really rather work, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I'm a very firm believer in our social safety net for the non-elderly. I believe in it. I think Medicaid is very important. I believe that food stamps is a critical program. I believe in all these programs. But I do know-- and everyone knows--that folks would rather work. So let's set up a work program so that people can do their job in jobs that need doing.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I talked about some of our direct-hire programs. But what about the other aspect of the Budget for All, which focuses on the targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector?

Now, Republicans, if the economy is doing great, they want a tax cut. If the economy is doing bad, they say, Tax cut. If the economy is kind of up and down, they say, Tax cut. These guys think that we should always cut taxes all the time, except when working people want a tax cut. They really fought us tooth and nail over the payroll tax cut. But if ever some really rich people want a tax cut, they're all for that. And it's not that they're bad people. It's because they mistakenly assume that trickle-down economics works. They think that if you give rich people money, then rich people will maybe hire somebody, or at least that's what they're hoping for.

The tax cuts we're talking about are targeted so that we can spur clean energy, manufacturing and cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector. Of course, President Obama has presided over America now with 23 straight months with private sector job growth-- long way to go, but definitely the right direction.

The third aspect that we need to spend on for jobs is in a surface transportation bill. We propose a $556 billion surface transportation bill spread out over a number of years. But when we think about the potholes, the roads, the bridges that are old--I mean, I was at a bridge recently in St. Louis Park in my district. This was a 73-year- old bridge. This bridge needed some care and needed to be refurbished to make sure that it stays safe. There are bridges like that all over my district, all over America. So this $556 billion surface transportation bill and the approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

The Budget for All, Mr. Speaker, is all about putting Americans back to work first. But here's something about the Budget for All that people need to know, and it's that our budget is more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget.

Now, if you ask Republicans, they think, oh, well, liberals, you know, they may not be bad people, but they're not realistic. They just want to give all the money away; they don't want to hold people responsible. Well, you know what? Our budget is more fiscally disciplined than the Republican Ryan budget.

Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially reduces the deficit and does so in a way that

does not devastate or set back our recovery. We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit-- unsustainable tax policies, overseas war, and policies that help the recent recession--rather than putting America's middle class social safety net on the chopping block.

Our budget creates a fairer America.

We end tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans on schedule at the year's end, which are set to expire; and we let them expire for the top 2 percent.

Extends tax relief for the middle class households and the vast majority of Americans.

Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in line with the Buffett Rule.

Eliminates the Tax Code's preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends.

Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies.

Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge true tax liability.

Creates a publicly funded Federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good.

Now, it has always bothered me, Mr. Speaker, that two-thirds of American corporations don't pay any taxes, because there's one-third that do. Because we have this system of loopholes everywhere, some corporations have to pay full freight and others don't have to. GE, for example, was said to have paid no or very low taxes, but there's a lot of big ones that didn't pay. Bank of America didn't pay. There's a lot of them that didn't pay. I don't think Boeing paid.

I'm saying that for the one-third of American corporations that do pay, we've got to make sure that everybody ponies up something. If more people pay, the burden on the ones that do pay will be lower. The Budget for All recognizes this important truth, unlike the Ryan budget, which protects coal, oil and those dirty polluting industries--oil, gas, and coal companies.

Now, another aspect of the budget driver, another big budget driver are these overseas wars.

Let's face it, in Iraq they told us that we were supposed to be getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any. They told us that Saddam Hussein was connected to al Qaeda. He wasn't. They said that we had to go there to make sure that there would be peace. We're leaving now, and the Iraqis--it's their country, and they are managing the best they can. Still, it's not that peaceful, but the fact is 10 years couldn't solve that problem.

It was right to get out of Iraq, but it's also right to get out of Afghanistan. We need to responsibly and expeditiously end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad.

Our budget adapts our military to 21st century threats because we definitely believe that America should be strong, but we should be adapting ourselves to the reality that we're in.

One of the attributes of our bill, one of the very important components is a piece of legislation called the SANE Act. This excellent piece of legislation reduces our nuclear weapons arsenal because this is all Cold War stuff designed to fight the Soviet Union, and there is no more Soviet Union. What are we doing with these 20th century weapons systems in the 21st century? We need to bring some sanity to that. We reduce the budget so that it reflects the modern reality.

The Budget for All protects American families by providing a make work pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food costs. This make work pay tax credit for families that are struggling with high gas and food costs is the kind of thing that incentivizes work, which is what we want to do. We extend the earned income tax credit and child dependent care credit.

I'm very happy to say I've just been joined, Mr. Speaker, by a good friend of mine from the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. Whenever she is ready, she can just stand on up and hold forth. But I'm looking forward to sharing some mike time with her, because her insights are always very important.

Moving forward on this issue of protecting American families, the Budget for All invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep Americans in their homes. This is very important. A lot of the economists who look at the problems with our economy have concluded that until we get our hands around this foreclosure crisis, we're going to continue, Mr. Speaker, to have very slow growth.

The Budget for All addresses this problem. We deal with investing in programs that stave off further foreclosures. We also invest in children's education by increasing in education, training, and social services.

The Budget for All is a good budget. It's a budget that makes sense. It's a budget for America. It's a budget designed to help the middle class and to put Americans to work. It's a budget that really reflects what Americans want, which is to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And we're already out of Iraq, but we're still kind of there. But we don't have a military presence there; we've got contractors there.

This is a good budget that I hope that people will take a very strong look at. It is more fiscally responsible than the Ryan budget. We spend more upfront to get the economy moving, but then we save money on the back end, and we end up getting to primary surplus in the year 2016. This is an important thing that we need to do.

Let me just pass the microphone and yield to Congresswoman Jackson Lee, who has distinguished herself in many areas, not the least of which is fighting for a fair budget for our Nation.

By all means I yield time.

It's funny you should make that particular point about your family tie, because, when I first heard about the case of Trayvon, I mean, my thought went immediately to my own 17-year-old son. We live in Minneapolis, and he could very well be running to go get some Skittles, and could be talking on his cell phone. It's horrifying to me, deeply disturbing and troubling, that somebody would think that, first of all, he was some sort of a problem because he was walking down the street, and then to follow him. Then even after 9/11, when people say don't follow, they still follow.

You're right. Much has been said about the Florida law, the ``stand your ground'' law, but this gentleman did not stand his ground. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what happened. He went after this kid. Then you hear the tape of the boy as he was screaming. Somebody said to me earlier today, Well, don't call Trayvon a boy. Hey, he was 17. He was a boy.

He was killed by a grown 28-year-old man. It's deeply disturbing. I wish the people who don't quite get it yet could feel how some of us feel about this case. I mean, I spent 16 years in the criminal justice system. I know that horrible things happen, and it's heartbreaking any time we lose anyone, but to think that law enforcement would operate and treat this person with impunity is absolutely an abandonment of every principle of serve and protect. If a cop did what this guy did, they would take his gun, they would make him give a urine sample, and they'd put him on administrative leave until this thing was sorted out. This guy walked away.

Here is another thing. As a criminal defense lawyer, I find it nothing short of shocking that this man's representation--shooting him in self-defense--was good enough. I mean, if you've got a self-defense claim, then after you're charged with murder, you can raise that and see if you can convince a jury of it. We have a dead young man here, and the chief of police is like, Well, these things happen. No, there needs to be accountability. Do you know what I don't want to see happen? I hope people don't think this is only because this kid is black. You know, this could be a kid of any color.

Any parent should be shocked. Any 17-year-old who's walking the streets ought to be worried that some overzealous wannabe police officer would just shoot him down. This case is a national outrage.

Do you know what? You know and I know, because we've both worked in the system, that if the police would have made the arrest and processed this case in the ordinary course, it probably wouldn't have even hit the national news. But because nothing was done--cold-blooded murder; it looked like first-degree murder--we're all horrified.

They should watch.

Yes.

I thank the gentlelady for joining me tonight.

We talked about the Budget for All, and the hashtag again is #Budget4all. People can check it out on Twitter or on anywhere else. It will be on U.S. Progress. We want people to look at the Budget for All. We want your ideas.

But I think it's also important to draw a contrast. The recently released Ryan budget, the Republican budget, does some critical things that Americans should know about. It ends Medicare. It devastates Medicaid, rewards Wall Street, punishes Main Street, protects corporations that ship jobs overseas, threatens the recovery. It preserves tax breaks for the people who don't need them and actually cuts into the social safety net for America's everyday heroes, police, fire, job training, small business, infrastructure, college affordability.

I think the facts show that in the course of the last couple of months, I guess 18 months or thereabouts, I believe that the Republican majority really hasn't been working on solving problems.

People can say whatever they want about Dodd-Frank, or they can say whatever they want about the Affordable Care Act or the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women, or they can say anything they want about the credit cardholders' bill of rights. But in the last Congress, these are bills the Democratic House majority passed that were designed to try to solve problems for Americans.

Now, some people say, Well, it should have done this more. It shouldn't have done so much of that. Fine. That's what we do here. We debate stuff. But I'm not aware of any single piece of legislation we looked at since they took the majority designed to solve a problem. It's all been: cut everything; whack everything. Let's not take a surgical look at what should be cut, what's not working. Just cut everything.

They have created budget crisis after fiscal crisis after debt limit crisis. I mean, this is the Congress of crisis.

And the Speaker may be aware that because the Ryan budget basically goes below the nonmilitary discretionary in the Budget Control Act, which was a deal, when the Senate comes in with their budget and this bill and theirs don't match, we're going to have another standoff.

Oh, and by the way, we're going to have a standoff in 10 days because the transportation bill is expiring. The House majority, the Republican Caucus, will not agree with the Senate to pass a 2-year transportation bill. So the transportation bill within 10 days is looking to expire. They say, We'll only do a 3-month bill. Three months? This is putting everybody's lives in jeopardy. They just did it with the FAA not more than a few months ago. This is the crisis Congress, where they will not make long-term decisions because they are playing politics.

I believe that since the Republicans have put defeating the President as their primary goal, therefore, of course, they're not operating on the basis of trying to solve any problems.

But before any Republicans get upset with me for saying these things that I honestly believe to be true, don't get mad at me. Americans believe that that's what they're doing. Now here's a question put to Americans. Republicans would rather see President Obama lose than see America win. Half of Americans believe the Republicans are sabotaging the recovery to win an election. This is a Washington Post poll: fifty percent responded positively to that; 44 percent said no.

If you've got most people thinking that your main goal is to get rid of the President and not help them, that's a problem. And look, some folks might say, Oh, look, Keith, that's not true. That's just you politicians arguing again. Well, Mitch McConnell said it. He said, Our main priority is to defeat the President, make the President a one-term President.

So at the end of the day, this budget reflects that politics-playing theme that they seem to be on. They are rigging the system even more heavily in favor of the richest 1 percent. Their budget gives generously to the rich and protects existing tax breaks for those at the top of the income scale.

Also, the reality is that the only way to pay for such huge tax cuts for the 1 percent is to make the 99 percent pay the tab. Their budget would weaken the middle class of America. First and foremost, the plan ends the Medicare guarantee of decent, affordable health insurance in retirement. It also slashes critical middle class investments, such as education and infrastructure by 45 and 24 percent. It cuts education by 45 percent, infrastructure by 24 percent. It includes not a single new measure to help the nearly 13 million unemployed. Though we've recently enjoyed several months of solid jobs growth, our current economic recovery is by no means assured; and we still have a long way to go.

Not only does the House Republican majority's budget fail to propose a single new idea for spurring job growth, but it would even force us to swerve into severe austerity. The Ryan budget, which is the Republican budget, cuts the following: it kills even more jobs by cutting the Federal workforce by over roughly 210,000 over 3 years, cuts food stamps and welfare, cuts retiree benefits from Federal employee pensions, cuts support for farmers, cuts antipoverty programs and uses the proceeds to give rich people even more tax cuts.

As I said before, the Republicans, who believe--and so many of them believe in it. They believe in trickle-down economics. This is the idea that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. The problem is that that belief system has never succeeded.

One of the best economies since World War II was in the 1990s. One of the best. We had the Clinton-era tax

rates, which we hope we'll return to, at least for the top 2 percent. The top 2 percent were doing great during Clinton's time. And yet the Republicans say that unless we give rich people more money, the economy is not going to be good. Well, it's not good now, and they have been in charge for a long time.

So the bottom line is the Ryan budget proposal is bad for America, cutting basic criteria for seniors and not investing in jobs. The Budget for All invests in America and puts Americans as the top priority, not just winning some election.

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

I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding time.

I have no doubt that these issues are important to the people involved. I have no doubt that the people who support and oppose this bill care deeply about it. It's a local issue, and I come from a locality and therefore understand. But the fact of the matter is that our country is in some seriously grievous harm because, yes, we do have an exorbitant unemployment rate. It's been going down. We've been adding private sector jobs. But there's still too many people unemployed. And yet the majority has not taken the time on the floor today to deal with how we're going to get all Americans back to work. They're taking time to figure out how they're going to do an earmark after they've said there's no earmarks.

This is remarkable. I'm actually not against earmarks, Mr. Chairman. I'm for them--I think they're a good thing--but the majority has said no earmarks. Yet this is about the second time in the last couple of weeks we see them floating their earmarks right on through.

H.R. 2087 would allow a county in a particular Representative's district to acquire full ownership of a little less than 32 acres of Federal land worth more than $800,000 for free. That's an earmark. Yet the rest of us can't get them. But if you are among the favorite few, you can. That's wrong. That's unfair. That's unjust. And it's particularly unjust, given the grievous problems that we're facing as a Nation.

We should be voting on a real jobs bill to create good jobs all across America, but apparently that's not what we're going to be doing with our time today. We're going to be talking about a narrow provincial interest and trying to give away Federal land for free for a particular interest in a particular locality. We should be talking about how we're going to save and protect Medicare guaranteed for all Americans, which is a threat, given the Ryan budget. But, no, we're talking about a narrow, small-town interest, which I think is important but that the majority in their infinite wisdom has said we can't do because that's an earmark.

The GOP has wasted the last 441 days that they've been in charge, and has failed to produce a single jobs bill.

In fact, they're trying to cut jobs. The transportation bill would lead to

losses of over 500,000 jobs. Now, I definitely sympathize with the folks who are out of work in the Member's district, I mean in the county where this earmark is going to be taking place. I do. I'm very concerned about the unemployed. That's why I wish we had a real jobs bill as opposed to these giveaways of Federal land, and we really don't know who it's going to be benefiting at the end of the day.

The bottom line is we have real problems in America. We've got transportation needs, we've got environmental needs, and we've got health care needs. We've got real debate to take care of. But if we're going to be debating those things, we've got to be on the floor, taking the time up to do those things, not dealing with disguised earmarks for certain people because they happen to--I don't know. I don't know why they get privileged treatment over people like me who don't get to offer earmarks anymore.

I'll say this, Mr. Chairman: at the end of the day, America is a country that needs the attention of this Congress so that everybody can get a job that pays well across this country. And we're not doing that. We're failing. What we're doing is we're allowing one county in one Member's district to acquire the full ownership of a valuable piece of land for free. And that's wrong.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is very simple. We brought this up in committee. I would like the whole body to be able to get a chance to have their say on Say on Pay. Say on Pay is a good, commonsense thing that empowers investors. It allows shareholders and companies to be able to say, Do I believe that the CEO pay in this company is too high?

Companies are not exercising the right to approve or to have a nonbinding vote on pay. As a matter of fact, Nabors Industries announced that its former CEO agreed to waive a $100 million termination payment, and that was regarded as a rare win for shareholders. In light of this, I would like to submit for the Record and for the purpose of this debate, an article entitled, ``A Rare Win for Say on Pay.''

Now, this is a bill that I would like to support. I think it's a good idea. The fact of the matter is--Mr. Chair, you would be shocked to know--that we actually, I think, passed this bill out of our committee without any dissenting votes.

The issue remains that there are a lot of advantages to this bill. It relieves the emerging growth companies of the pretty hefty burden of complying with 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley. It allows them to escape the obligation of providing 3 years of audited financial statements. Although I think they're good for our system with regard to controls, these things are costly and do take a toll.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? Say on Pay is not costly, and it's not burdensome. It empowers investors and makes them more engaged and gives them greater reason to be plugged into what the company is doing.

I have a letter from the Council of Institutional Investors that I would also like to submit for the Record. They are concerned about this section that would waive Say on Pay because it would effectively limit the shareholders' ability to voice their concerns about executive compensation packages.

[From Real-Time Advice, Feb. 6, 2012]

A Rare Win for Say on Pay

(By Sarah Morgan)

NABORS INDUSTRIES' (NBR) announcement that its former CEO

agreed to waive a $100 million termination payment was a rare

win for shareholders, who experts say often gripe about

excessive compensation but rarely act.

Under pressure from shareholders, who voted against Nabors'

pay packages and directors in a recent proxy voting, the oil

drilling company said this morning that former CEO Eugene

Isenberg will waive the huge payout. Instead, his estate will

receive a payment of $6.6 million plus interest upon his

death. ``Isenberg has more than enough money. So having him

defer this $100 million is a good thing for shareholders,''

says Stephen Ellis, a Morningstar equity analyst.

In recent years, compensation has become a lightning rod

for criticism from investor advocates, who say poorly

designed pay policies often give executives the wrong

incentives. Instead, shareholders want to see management paid

for performance, says Jesse Fried, a professor of law at

Harvard University. Nabors' $100 million payment was a

perfect example of ``pay for failure,'' he says. ``There's a

lot of things that are wrong with pay practices in the United

States, but this was particularly egregious, so it's not

surprising it drew shareholder anger,'' he says.

This case also proves that shareholder outrage has an

impact: Boards pay attention, and companies do change their

policies, Fried says. ``Pressure matters, and investors

shouldn't feel shy about applying it,'' he says.

Thanks to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and to the

recession, investors are now paying more attention than ever

to compensation issues, says Michael Littenberg, a partner at

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP who focuses on corporate governance

issues. The Dodd-Frank bill required annual (though non-

binding) say on pay votes, and companies do take those votes

very seriously, because a few companies whose pay policies

haven't passed muster have been sued by shareholders,

Littenberg says.

But investors aren't taking as much advantage of this new

power as some had hoped (or feared). Last year (the first

with the new say on pay rule in place), shareholders voted

down pay policies at only 36 companies in the Russell 3000,

or 1.6%, although roughly another 350 companies saw their

policies pass with low enough votes that they'd be considered

at risk for a ``no'' vote in the future, Littenberg says.

Nabors is one of the few companies that has suffered a

``no'' vote on its pay practices, according to Governance

Metrics International, an independent research firm. ``We

have long rated Nabors poorly, because of concerns over poor

compensation practices,'' including ``a bonus formula rarely

seen in modern practice with no measure against a peer

group,'' says Greg Ruel, a research associate with GMI.

Many companies that see ``no'' votes or worryingly low

``yes'' votes do make some changes, but they don't always

change the actual pay policy, Littenberg says. Some companies

might try to better explain how pay is determined, or simply

sit down with institutional shareholders to figure out what's

most important to investors, he says. Of course, individual

shareholders aren't privy to those conversations.

All observers agree that Isenberg had long enjoyed an

unusually lavish compensation package. He was

``extraordinarily well paid,'' in part because of an unusual

compensation plan that was put in place back in 1987, when he

took on the CEO role to lead the company out of bankruptcy,

Ellis says. His contract with the company entitled him to a

cash bonus of 10% of any amount of the company's cash flow

that exceeded 10% of average shareholder equity. This

arrangement made his pay work more like a hedge fund

manager's than like a typical CEO's, Morningstar's Ellis

says.

Since the current CEO, Tony Petrello, took over, the

company has taken some other steps that show it's responding

to widespread shareholder anger over pay practices, Ellis

says. They're now going to allow their board of directors to

be elected by a majority instead of a plurality, making it

easier for shareholders to vote out directors they're not

happy with, and hold annual ``say-on-pay'' votes. However,

Petrello is still being paid in a similar hedge-fund-like

fashion, getting a percentage of cash flow above a certain

benchmark, and while the recent shareholder-friendly moves

are good signs, it would certainly be better for investors if

the company got rid of this unusual pay policy, Ellis says.

A spokesman for the company said that Isenberg, who holds

more than 8 million shares of Nabors, decided that waiving

the payment was best for his fellow shareholders, and that

the company views the decision as ``positive,'' but declined

to comment on whether any other changes would be made to pay

policies in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Stephen Lynch.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a vote once a year, probably at the annual meeting, probably take a sum total of a few seconds; and my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to at least agree to this small thing that empowers investors and shareholders and puts them in the position to be good stewards of the company that they own.

Now, you would think that we could come together on something like this; but when you want to stand up for the highest, most grotesque and egregious executive pay imaginable, then, of course, you're going to say no. In 2010, median pay for CEOs and large corporations was $11 million. It's time to get some say on pay.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, our transportation program expires at the end of March, and we are still facing high unemployment. Why aren't we working on a real jobs bill that will create good infrastructure jobs?

The GOP has wasted about 427 days since they've been in charge by not producing a real jobs agenda, but it's around transportation and infrastructure where we have real opportunity. Unfortunately, certain people have used creative titles--deceiving titles in some cases--to try to distract the public. Their transportation bill is called the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, but it wouldn't promote jobs in energy or infrastructure. It would actually cut highway investment by $16 billion in 5 years. This would mean a loss of half a million jobs nationwide. That's right, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act would cut 500,000 jobs. The bill would cost about 11,000 jobs in my home State of Minnesota.

Today, we're debating the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. Why are we talking about small conduit hydropower when we need investment in highways, bridges, transit and airports? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not here to run down small conduit hydropower. I just think it's too small.

Also on the floor this week is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, JOBS. This is a rehash of access-to-capital bills that may be useful--in fact, I may support them--but will barely make a dent in our unemployment numbers. The GOP may have creative titles, may have some titles that catch attention and sound good; but if you scratch the surface just a little bit, there's no jobs agenda even on bills that say ``jobs.''

The American Society of Civil Engineers is a group that knows a little bit about infrastructure. This is a group, a collection of professionals, who know the issue; and they give our infrastructure grade a D--and D don't stand for ``dandy.'' It stands for ``downright bad and unfortunate.''

We have nearly 70,000 bridges across this country--or 11.5 percent of all highway bridges--classified as ``structurally deficient,'' meaning they require significant maintenance or replacement. There are about 1,400 structurally deficient bridges in my State of Minnesota, several within walking distance of my home. In 2007, my district tragically felt the impact of deficient bridges with the collapse of I 35W. We lost 13 lives, and 100 people ended up with serious injury in the hospital.

We need a real transportation bill and a real jobs agenda to rebuild our infrastructure and to put Americans back to work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, Donald Payne played a very special role in my service as a Member of Congress. I didn't know him nearly as long as many other Members, and I guess I probably didn't know him as well; but there is no doubt that as a Member coming into Congress trying to figure out how to be the best Member I could be, Donald Payne was one of the people who I admired and looked to, and no more so than when he was fighting for the human rights of all people.

Donald Payne gave me a new and unique perspective on suffering in Darfur, explaining the complexities as it related to making sure that Darfurians not only got relief, but also eventually one day would get justice.

But he didn't stop there. I have a large percentage of my constituents who hail from Somalia, and Donald Payne gave me historic perspective on Somalia on a regular basis, which I didn't have, and also, again, helped me understand how difficult it was and how important it also was that we stand for stability for the people of Somalia. In fact, his level of commitment to the people of Somalia was so great, he got into an airplane and flew there and, on his way out, was actually shot at when al-Shabab tried to take his life for showing concern for the people.

Yet he traveled many places and really went all around the world; but he also went into my district, as he went to many districts, and I'll never forget the day when we organized a community forum on east Africa. We had Somalis in the room, people from the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, people from Eritrea, all over, immigrants who made America their home either by choice or because they were refugees. For 3 straight hours, Donald Payne answered their questions, gave them comfort and assurance and information.

He is a towering figure in my world, and I don't think we'll ever forget Donald Payne. I just say, may he rest in peace, and God bless him and his family.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill, add the following:

Mr. Speaker, I stood on a highway called highway 7 on Friday at a bridge that was rated a 23 out of 100 scale. That bridge, 73 years old, in desperate need of repair, is designated structurally deficient. But I could go to another bridge within walking distance of my home over the Mississippi River only a few blocks from where the bridge fell down only a few years ago, but that would be on Plymouth Avenue. And people who know the area know Plymouth Avenue. That bridge, Mr. Speaker was and is shut down. You cannot drive a car over it. Now, that would only be one of about 1,398 other bridges that are structurally deficient in Minnesota that need repair right now.

I'm sensitive to bridges that need repair because it wasn't in somebody else's district that the I 35 bridge fell--it was in my own. Thirteen Minnesotans went to their reward, 100 had severe back and other injuries. I am incredibly sensitive to the need to fix our State's bridges, our Nation's bridges, which is why I am against this project, a $700 million bridge when we have structurally deficient bridges all over the State of Minnesota and all over the United States. This is not a good use of taxpayer money.

I find it absolutely shocking that all these fiscal conservatives are lining up to throw money at this enormously overly expensive, over- height mega-bridge. Where are the anti-earmark advocates around here? Where are the people who call for smaller government? Where are the conservative, small ``c,'' who say, let's build a right-sized bridge that makes sense so that other bridges may be fixed around our State? Well, I guess all of that only matters, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to your own little project or earmark project. Then all of a sudden it gains a whole lot of other kind of credibility undiscovered before.

Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be pointed out that this proposed bridge, which would carry about 18,000 vehicles a day--that's important. I feel for those folks, and I want them to have their bridge, and I would support a sane and sensible bridge. But the I 35 bridge much talked about tonight carries 140,000 people every day. Eighteen thousand at $700 million versus the I 35 bridge, which cost us about $260 million, was built in 1 year--less than a year, and carries 140,000? This is not a good use of taxpayer money. It soaks up resources that other people need. It violates our Scenic and Wild Rivers Act. This is a bad idea.

Mr. Speaker, I would far prefer if this bill were to go back to committee, go through the regular order, be defeated here on suspension, but go back through the committee process so some sensible amendments might be offered so this could be a good, decent project perhaps. But that's not what's happening. Suspension is for things that are supposed to be uncontroversial. We're supposed to be here passing post offices, but here we are dealing with what is absolutely a controversial piece of legislation on a suspension calendar with no chance to amend.

I wish we had that chance, because if we did, I would say we need to come together as a State, as a Nation, and fix all the bridges of this country, all the bridges of this State, and not just one big, fat megabridge.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we come together, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, to stand for a very simple idea, and that idea is that it ought to be the case that a person can freely profess their faith. It ought to be the case that no matter what your religion is, it's dear to you, and you should not be punished for professing it publicly wherever you are.

You know, I have not really sought out a lot of attention for my own faith, but I got some of it anyway, and the fact is that I feel so privileged to be an American where I can, for the first time ever, when I was sworn in, use a book of my faith.

As I heard about the story of Pastor Youcef, I thought to myself, wow, you know, here I am a Muslim in a Christian majority country free to swear in on a Koran when I came to Congress, and there he is a Christian facing the death penalty simply for professing his faith.

Pastor Youcef, he's a husband, he's a father. He has two young children. They're not even teenagers. They're 7 and 9 years old. I know they must be incredibly proud of their father, who would stand up against forces of repression that would kill him simply because he professed his faith in Christianity. It's wrong. I don't say it as an American only, I say it as a citizen of this small planet we live on, that every human being should be able to worship and seek the divine as they see fit.

Pastor Youcef deserves to be free. Pastor Youcef must be released. Pastor Youcef needs to walk out of that prison, grab his cross, go to his church, and lead his congregation in prayer, freely. He should be able to do it in his hometown in a local church.

All of us, no matter who you may be on this planet, you must stand for that idea, because if it can't be for one, it can't really be for any. We have to stand together, people of all faiths, all cultures, and all backgrounds and ethnicities and say that the right to seek the divine as you see fit must be an essential component of the human experience.

I also say a word of caution, and that is that the regime in Iran uses opportunities to deprive the people of human rights whenever they claim that there's a threat of war looming. I urge diplomacy because I think that whenever they can claim that they are under military threat, this allows them to crack down on any dissenter and try to use people like Pastor Youcef as an example so that other people will not freely express themselves and claim their God-given right not only to freedom of faith but to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial.

You know, we come together in this place, this Congress that we're all in, and sometimes we debate taxes, and sometimes we debate where bridges should go, and we debate all kinds of stuff. But I pray that there will never be a debate about the simple right of every individual to worship and see God as they see fit or not to.

I just am particularly saddened when I think about how the early Muslim community, and Iran professes Islam, but early Muslims, the first Muslims were persecuted in their home of Mecca 1,400 years ago, and they fled their country, and they sought out their freedom of their faith in a distant land ruled by a Christian king in Ethiopia, and there they found sanctuary under that Christian king.

When their prosecutors and tormentors crossed the Red Sea and came into Africa and went to that king with bribes and said, Give us these people back, they're renegades, that Christian king listened to those early Muslims and said, You know what? These people are under my protection. You can go home.

I only wish tonight Pastor Youcef could get a return of that sanctuary in his own land.

Mr. Speaker, during final consideration of H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 73 when I intended to vote ``aye''. I would like the record to reflect that I support the bill, which creates sensible penalties for knowingly breaching the security of locations such as the White House and its grounds.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to end combat operations in Afghanistan next year is welcome news. I commend President Obama for making this decision. But we should bring our troops home even sooner than that.

The American people are tired of this war in Afghanistan. Large majorities of them want a safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible. A decade of war has ravaged military families, our Nation's treasury, and our standing in the world.

I commend President Obama for ending the war in Iraq as well. I commend him for trying to end the war in Afghanistan. The courageous truth telling of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis should give us pause. His report and the failure to establish peace in Afghanistan after 10 years of war should remind us that we need a political solution, not a military one.

We have ended the war in Iraq. This is a good thing. We are slowly ending the war in Afghanistan. This is also welcome news. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unwise for the United States to enter into a new war just as we're ending two others.

But if you listen to the rhetoric around Washington and the Nation, Mr. Speaker, it is literally impossible to not hear the drumbeat of war with Iran. The rhetoric in Washington about the military strike against Iran leads me to think that we may be sliding into a new war yet.

I would like to be perfectly clear, because whenever you speak against a war, your patriotism is challenged and your courage is challenged until they find out that you were right. So let me be clear:

I strongly oppose nuclear proliferation, and that includes Iran. I have supported sanctions against Iran to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran's repression of human rights and support for terrorist groups is appalling.

But the heated rhetoric we hear around our city and the events on the world stage are deeply troubling, Mr. Speaker. News headlines read, ``The Coming Attack on Iran.'' Pundits discuss the possibility with shocking casualness, and I am alarmed by this.

America, we have seen this movie before, and, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end well. Two months after leaving Iraq, we have already forgotten the consequences of war it appears. If you need a reminder, talk to a veteran or a veteran's widow.

Our military leaders are cautioning against a strike on Iran. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the United States ``could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases.'' He said, ``That would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.'' Let me repeat, ``a conflict that we would regret.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish the United States had never entered Iraq. And before we entered it, the world--not just Americans, but the world-- said, ``Don't do it.'' Some people led us to war anyway; and haven't we all regretted--after no weapons of mass destruction, no linkage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--that none of these things that were recommended have come to pass, yet we've lost, literally, thousands of American lives and perhaps $1 trillion.

Israeli intelligence officials have equally dire predictions about a military strike against Iran. Former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said that attacking Iran ``would mean regional war, and in that case, you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.''

There is serious concern that a military strike on Iran would hasten Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, not slow it down. A strike would only delay--not end--development. Speaking about what would happen after a military strike, retired General Anthony Zinni said, ``If you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere.''

America cannot afford another war. We've just gotten out of Iraq. We're getting out of Afghanistan. And diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy is what is called for to avoid a new war with Iran.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.

The Progressive Congressional Caucus is that caucus in Congress that comes together to talk about the most important values that our country is founded on--ideas like fairness, inclusion, prosperity for all, protecting our world and the environment that we live in. The Progressive Caucus can be found talking about civil and human rights, standing for an economy that is fair and inclusive and has shared benefits and responsibilities for everybody. The Progressive Caucus is that caucus in Congress that will stand up for peace and diplomacy and also will make the case for the human rights of all people.

We bring you the progressive message to illustrate what's at stake in America today. I'm very pleased that I'm joined by my good friend from the great State of Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. We're going to bring the progressive message tonight and just talk a little bit about the values that we share.

You know, I want to set up a question I have for you, Congresswoman Schakowsky, because we have been dealing with this transportation bill over the last several days, and we will be up until the week of February 27.

One of the things about it that I found most galling is that one of the ways that the Republican majority intends to pay for the transportation bill is by charging Federal employees a fee, and really a tax, on their retirement and then using the money that they're going to gain to pay for their transportation bill.

When I think about people who are Federal employees, I'm thinking of people who take care of our veterans--the nurses at the VA. I'm thinking of people who make sure our roads and our parks are safe. I'm thinking about Federal employees who make sure our water and our air is clean. So I just want to ask you:

Do you think it's fair to sort of go after Federal employees, working people, to try to pay for this transportation budget we've been talking about over these last few days?

FBI agents who are protecting us from everything from terrorism to drugs to guns, are these people Federal employees?

If I may just ask the gentlelady a question.

Do you mean to tell me and the American people and the Speaker tonight that not only is this transportation bill proposing to cut into and to basically tax Federal employees' retirement benefits, but they've already had a freeze on top of this?

I will say to the gentlelady that I have brought a document here with me today. I had a great meeting with some Federal employees the other day, and they said, Explain it to me, GOP.

One person, Paul here, says: I earn less than $45,000 a year. Explain it to me, GOP, how cutting my pay creates jobs. This person, Paul, represents the Tobyhanna Army Depot workers. They do something really important.

Then there is another Federal employee: Twelve percent of my salary I earn caring for veterans goes to my retirement. Explain it to me, GOP, how cutting my retirement puts people to

work. That's what Teresa has to say, and she represents nurses at the Minnesota VA hospital.

Then here is Eric Young, and he represents correction officers in Miami, and he says: I pay more than $9,000 a year for my family health insurance. Explain it to me, GOP, how cutting my take-home pay lowers unemployment.

These are the faces of Federal employees. Sometimes when we talk about, oh, just cut the Federal employees, they're nameless, faceless. Who are these people? But as you pointed out, they are the people who really improve the quality of our lives every single day--people who protect us here in the Capitol but also who protect our veterans, who work in our Federal prisons, and who are Army Depot workers. This is the face of Federal workers, and I just think it's fair to say that they deserve to have somebody speak up for them as they have put their lives on the line to protect all of us.

What I hear them say is, oh, well, the Federal workers earn more money than the people who pay their salaries in the form of taxes. They say this divisively and in a very smug way. And I think to myself, aren't we a country that should value public service, people working in the public interest for the public good? Does bread cost less for them? Is gasoline cheaper for them? No, it's not. Thank heavens that the Federal Government can pay people fairly and that we don't have these vast disparities in pay between men and women for Federal workers.

Basically, the protections that the people have in working for the Federal Government don't always prevail in the private sector, and that accounts for some of the disparity. Then, of course, as you just pointed out, people at the higher income levels, they could do just as well and be paid much more handsomely if they were to work elsewhere.

I ask the gentlelady, when did it happen that working in the public interest became, in the minds of some people, something less than honorable work to do?

If the gentlelady will yield.

I actually see this as another wedge. We talk about the wedges. We talk about some folks often are associated with the right-wing conservative philosophy who make arguments that would divide people who were born here versus immigrants, gays versus straights, all these kind of wedges, the ``Willie Horton'' thing, all this kind of wedge stuff. This is a new wedge, Federal workers versus private sector workers. It seems like they're trying to engender a certain amount of resentment among private sector workers for public sector workers. When are we going to talk about the people at the very tip-top who have been compensated beyond imagination in the oil and gas sector, in the drug sector, in the health care sector, those in private equity, all these folks who have been making so much money on Wall Street? When do we ask them to do more?

I am glad that you raised this point about the people's budget, because that really is the point of the Progressive message, to talk to the Speaker and the American people about there being an alternative in our Congress. Not everybody is carried away with this philosophy that Federal workers need to pay more and get less.

Actually, there are a body of folks in the Democratic Caucus, and particularly the Progressive Caucus, who really want to see a more shared way of paying for the needs of our country.

We recently had a hearing in which we talked about jobs, and we had a group called the Patriotic Millionaires who was there. And this is the interesting thing about your particular tax proposal. A lot of people who are making a lot of money agree that they should pay more. I find this to be very interesting, because patriotic Americans do come from various income strata. I think it's commendable for people at the top end, the people who might pay a higher rate under your bill, who say, Yeah, tax us more because we believe there should be a good public school system; we believe the water should be clean; we believe that Federal workers should be fairly compensated; we have enough. What drives us is not the acquisition of more, but the idea of creating good products and services for Americans, which we charge for, of course, but at the end of

the day, everybody has to do their fair share.

I thank you for offering the Buffett Rule before there was a Buffett Rule. Before we were talking about a Buffett Rule, you were out in front of the pack.

As my hero Paul Wellstone famously said, ``We all do better when we all do better.''

But those people you're talking about, those rugged individuals crossing the prairie, when they had to put a barn up, they didn't do it alone, did they? They'd have a barn raising, which was a community event. This idea that we do what we do--what we do, we should do best together, we do those things together. Whatever we can do individually, we certainly have the freedom to do that.

I am concerned about shifting political winds, which sort of ignore the idea that we are in this together, that the road in the transportation system is part of our commonwealth, something that is a benefit to us all, and so we all should pay for it, which is why I was particularly concerned about this transportation bill, H.R. 7. For the first time in about 50 years, the House is going to consider a partisan transportation package. Republicans are breaking the historical tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild infrastructure, create jobs, and strengthen our economy.

This proposal, H.R. 7, would cut about 550,000 American jobs, cuts highway investments in 45 States and D.C.

Cut.

The GOP proposal cuts 550,000 American jobs, cuts highway investments in 45 States, bankrupts the highway trust fund with a $78 billion shortfall. As you said, it takes transit funding and puts it in the regular appropriations process, not in the stream of funding.

It gets rid of biking paths; it gets rid of walking paths. The reviews are in, and they all agree: the GOP bill is bad for jobs.

A good friend of mine who happens to be a Republican but works for the Obama administration, Ray LaHood, said, ``This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' And he's seen a lot of them. He's your home boy from Illinois, right?

Continuing to quote Mr. LaHood:

And it also is the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen.

It hollows out our No. 1 priority, which is safety, and

frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation

efforts that we've been about for the last three years. It's

the worst transportation bill I've ever seen in 35 years of

public service.

Now, that's saying a lot.

Now, you know, it's beyond my ability to comprehend that any American, any American, would do anything other than try to make sure that everybody had enough. We had enough jobs for everybody who wanted to work, and those jobs were well-paying. But I tell you, there has been polling out there on what Americans think. This is not what I think; this is what Americans have said. Half of Americans believe that Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election; 55 percent believe that, and 44 percent believe other than that.

Now, when you hear that this transportation bill is going to cut over half a million jobs, it's difficult to go to Americans and explain that's not what they are doing. Now again, I'm not going to look into the inner recesses of anyone's heart. I don't know what people's motives are. But I do know any bill, when we have unemployment north of 8 percent, which is going to cut jobs, and has been a historic place where we have created jobs, I think Americans have reason to be suspicious, and I hope our Republican majority would come and clarify what they're actually doing because, like I just pointed out, half of Americans believe that the Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election.

Absolutely. The gentlelady should note, I had this one chart up, and I would like to let folks know, because what the question was--Washington Post-ABC asked the following statement: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs.

Or: President Obama has not provided leadership on the economy, and he's just blaming the Republicans in Congress as an excuse for not doing his job.

Fifty percent of the people responded to statement A, the first one. And that is: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs.

Now, I hope that Republicans are reading these, because they're not

looking good. The best thing for them to do is to stop making proposals like this transportation bill, H.R. 7, which literally cuts jobs, because the American people are watching this. And quite frankly, I want us all to succeed. I don't think that it's good for the American population to think that one party that is elected to promote the public interest is doing something other than that in order to win an election.

Again, this board here clearly shows that when President Bush was in, this was kind of red. It's kind of bleeding, and then the blue is going up, up, up, and now above the line, and we have been adding 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth, but that public sector job loss, as you pointed out, is literally a drag on the economy, and it's hurting us. We need people to get to work.

I just want to ask the gentlelady a question. Again, I mean, does a public sector paycheck offer less at the local grocery store when the person goes to buy some groceries with that public sector paycheck?

I just want to point you, you and I were just talking about this chart which shows that under the Bush administration, the unemployment rate going up, us losing jobs, and then the steady march back the other way.

This chart shows that GOP proposals would eliminate up to 7.4 million jobs by 2016. So if you look at the proposals that the GOP has been making while they have been in the majority, the transportation bill, H.R. 7, is just one example of job killing. They like to call stuff ``job killing.'' That's their little Frank Luntz talking point. But they have in actuality proposed job-killing legislation. Starting with H.R. 1, The Economist, The Center for American Progress, showed that it would cut a million jobs. Repealing health care reform would cut about 2 million. GOP budget cuts, that's the Ryan budget, cuts to the Federal workforce, their so-called JOBS Act, all the way down the line.

This red is, if they could have their way, this is the bleed of American jobs that would happen. Now, this is a projection. But the fact is this transportation bill is a typical example of their idea of how the economy should operate. And it is very disturbing--17.4 million jobs. Of course, this would simply renew a trend that we were on during the Bush administration. So I think it's time for Republicans to stop offering these bad jobs bills and start offering some things that are going to put Americans back to work. They can begin that process by yanking this H.R. 7.

I thank the gentlelady. I just want to make a few points before we begin to wrap it up. I just want to point out that economist Mark Zandi, who has advised Senator McCain, said by 2014 real GDP is almost $200 billion lower, and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under the Ryan approach than is under the case of the President's. That's just one honest economist's estimate.

The Economic Policy Institute's conservative estimate of the Republican budget is 2 billion to 3 billion jobs lost over 5 years. Again, H.R. 1 would cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So, I really think, Mr. Speaker, that the American people need to know what kind of a ``jobs program'' the Republicans are talking about. They're not talking adding jobs; they're talking about cutting them. And H.R. 7 is but a typical example of the kind of damage these Republican majority Members would do to the American economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of important issues facing the American people, none more important than their economic livelihood and viability. So we're going to be talking today during this Special Order about economic justice, economic opportunity, and the fight for the American middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I'm cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is that caucus that comes to Congress to band together to stand up for the American Dream, the idea that all Americans, no matter which color they may be, whether they are disabled or not, whether they are straight or gay, or what their religion is, have a right to full participation and opportunity to grab that American Dream as one of our core beliefs. The Progressive Caucus believes in clean air and a clean environment, believes that all Americans, all people across the world have a right to clean air, clean water, and food free of pesticides and toxins.

The Progressive Caucus is the organization that is four square for civil rights for all people. We believe that it's a national disgrace that women are paid 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. We think it's a national disgrace to not be able to love whomever you love and want to be with. We think it's a national problem that people in our society, which was founded on the idea of religious tolerance, sometimes find themselves the target of religious hate in this area.

And we are four square dedicated to the idea that peace should be the guiding principle of our Nation and that diplomacy and development are good things, and that war is almost always a bad thing. Although sometimes it's necessary, diplomacy is always better. We don't send our people into harm's way. That's who the Progressive Caucus is. That is what we are about, and I'm going to offer time tonight, Mr. Speaker, for a progressive message.

So let me begin with that progressive message. We are here to talk about the progressive message; and tonight, we're going to address the issue of economic viability. Working American families are getting crushed, and our middle class is shrinking every day. But here in Washington, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republican caucus, is in control of the House. And while millions of people are facing foreclosure and unemployment, sadly, we see Americans continuing to hurt, and their problems are not being addressed.

This week in Congress, if I could just talk about what we did this week, the Republican majority did not bring up a single jobs bill. We didn't talk about jobs this week. Here we are at the close of the week, and we're not talking about jobs. They did not bring up a bill to keep Americans in their homes and address foreclosure, nor did we talk about cleaning up our air and our water, or building our economy or our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. No, we weren't doing that. We were doing something else, and it had to do with scoring points in an election.

One of the things we did today, which I think was important, but it was an idea that came from the Democratic-majority Senate and originated with great Democrats Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter, is that we voted on a bill to stop trading on congressional knowledge, the STOCK Act. Today, we voted on a bill designed to stop Members of Congress from profiting on confidential information they receive while doing their jobs. You would think that this goes without saying. But, sadly, that is exactly what some politicians have been doing. We voted on the STOCK Act today, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, and I was happy to support this bill.

Although my colleagues, Louise Slaughter and Tim Walz, are pushing a bill which I think was a better version, we voted on the Senate version today. But the price for getting that bill in front of us, the price for fighting to get that bill in front of us was a carve-out for a special interest, and that is too bad.

The bill came before us today, and I voted for it. But the public should know a few things about the legislation. Only after stripping out a provision to stop the so-called political intelligence would the majority even consider voting to stop Members from making bets on confidential information. We wonder why Congress has a 10 percent approval rate. After months of calls for action by House Democrats, House Republicans have finally relented; and the House took up the STOCK Act today, clarifying that Members of Congress and congressional staff, executive branch officials, and judicial officers are subject to the same insider trading rules as everyone else.

Unfortunately, leadership in the majority House caucus took transparency and accountability measures and rewrote them in secret in the dark of night. And the majority caucus, the Republican caucus, weakened the bill, dropping a provision that will require those who peddle political intelligence for profit to register and report, and eliminating the anti-corrupting provision added by the Senate and unanimously approved by the House Judiciary Committee in December. Regarding the political-intelligence provisions, Senator Grassley, Republican of Iowa, responded, It's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this provision.

So Republican Senator Grassley even had to admonish the House to say, why would we weaken the bill, dropping a provision that would require those who peddle political intelligence for money to register and report their activities? That's too bad. If Congress delays action, the political-intelligence industry will stay in the shadows--just the way Wall Street likes it.

It's time to act on this legislation and take a first step toward restoring

trust in government. We must hold a swift House-Senate conference to strengthen this Republican-majority bill that passed through here that's a weakened piece of legislation.

Last week, the Senate bill passed a stronger measure by a vote of 96- 3, and a stronger bipartisan House bill is cosponsored by 285 Members, including 99 Republicans. The so-called political-intelligence industry serves no one. All it does is really pad Wall Street profits off of a rigged game. This insider trading is nothing more than Wall Street insiders pumping Washington insiders for information so that they can place bets on stocks. Political-intelligence firms have grown drastically over the last few decades and are now a $100 million industry.

Every day, these firms help hedge funds and Wall Street investors unfairly profit from nonpublic congressional information, and these firms have no oversight and can freely pass along information for investment purposes. A 2005 story on insiders profiting off of a last- minute government bailout of companies embroiled in asbestos litigation was a catalyst to the STOCK Act. A recent Wall Street story on the prevalence of the intelligence industry reinforces the need for this bill. Without the STOCK Act, enforcement officials are left in the dark on who is paying and playing in the political-intelligence industry.

This is why we need the whole STOCK Act. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, the STOCK Act, would shed necessary light on a lucrative industry that has been lurking in the shadows since the 70s. H.R. 1148 establishes regulations for the political-intelligence industry by amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act to apply the registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements to all political- intelligence activities just as they apply to lobbyists now. This is an important provision, and it's an essential piece to the STOCK Act's purpose of banning insider trading based on congressional knowledge.

Regarding support for the STOCK Act, the STOCK Act has a lot of support, Mr. Speaker. The STOCK Act has a broad base of support from organizations dedicated to government reform, including Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Project on Government Oversight, the Sunlight Foundation and U.S. PIRG.

Here is a summary of the STOCK Act, and this is a bill authored by Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter, of which I'm an original co-sponsor. It's a stronger version than what came through here today, and it's what our country needs. The STOCK Act requires firms that specialize in political intelligence who use information obtained from Congress to advise financial transactions to register with the House and Senate, just like lobbying firms are required to do.

It prohibits Members, their staff, executive branch employees, and any other person from buying or selling security swaps or commodity futures based on congressional and executive branch nonpublic information. It requires a more timely disclosure of financial transactions above $1,000 for those Members and staff that are already required to file annual financial disclosures.

It amends the House ethics rules to prohibit Members and their employees from disclosing any nonpublic information about legislative action for investment purposes. My constituents don't have insider traders looking out for their bottom line.

Now, let me just talk a little bit more about the STOCK Act.

While the House voted this morning on the STOCK Act, making clear that rules against insider trading apply to Members of Congress, congressional staff, executive branch officials, and judicial officers and employees, the version brought to the floor by Leader Cantor was weakened by Republicans before it actually came to be voted on. The GOP rhetoric suggesting otherwise isn't fooling anybody.

The Associated Press weighed in on this issue, and they said:

The House passes Republican-written insider trading bill

that has heavy Wall Street influence. The House has passed a

bill to ban Members of Congress and executive branch

officials from insider trading, but critics from both parties

accuse House Republican leaders of caving in to investment

firms by eliminating a proposal to regulate people who try to

pry financial information from Congress.

The New York Times had something to say, too. Here's what they said in an editorial:

The House's Less Persuasive Ban on Insider Trading. House

Republican leaders appear ready to bow to election-year

pressure and pass a bill banning lawmakers from using

nonpublic information they hear on the job to make financial

investments. The House legislation, however, is missing two

vital provisions that are in the Senate bill that won

overwhelming approval last week. If the goal is to root out

corruption and raise the public's low opinion of Congress,

the House should approve the full range of reform in the

Senate bill.

The Washington Post also had something to say about this, Mr. Speaker. What they had to say is:

The House should take the opportunity to help crack down on

public corruption. The House of Representatives is expected

to take up, Thursday, a useful measure to prohibit insider

trading by Members of Congress and to beef up disclosure

of lawmakers' financial transactions. Unfortunately, the

version of the measure produced by the House majority

leader, Eric Cantor, omits one of the most important parts

of the bill passed by the Senate, a provision that would

restore prosecutors' ability to go after official

corruption.

So, Politico, which is one of our local papers that talks about Congress, took up this issue and writes, ``Cantor under fire over STOCK Act.'' What the Politico writes is this, Mr. Speaker:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has released his

version of a congressional insider trading ban, and it strips

a provision that would require so-called ``political

intelligence'' consultants to disclose their activities, like

lobbyists already do. It also scraps a proposal that empowers

Federal prosecutors going after corruption by public

officials. That stoked backlash from Democrats--yes, it did--

and even some Republicans, who are furious at Cantor and are

accusing the Virginia Republican of watering down the popular

legislation that easily passed the Senate last week.

``It's astonishing''--this is a quote from the Politico article:

It's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House

would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing the provision.

That's what Senator Chuck Grassley said in a statement. If

Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry

will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, Roll Call had to weigh in on this issue as well. It sounds like there's a pretty strong consensus that the House version we passed was weakened and watered down and not what the public was expecting.

Roll Call says:

Grassley, others rip House STOCK Act. Senator Chuck

Grassley is ripping the House version of a major reform bill

passed last Tuesday, calling it ``astonishing'' that House

GOP leaders would drop a provision requiring political

intelligence consultants to register as lobbyists. Senator

Grassley joined a chorus of watchdog groups and Democrats

criticizing the House version.

Melanie Sloan, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said: ``The Cantor provision is a sham and aimed at tricking Americans into thinking he's dealing with the issue.'' That was a quote.

So, whether you're talking about Politico, Washington Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Roll Call, or whether you're just talking about members of the House Democratic Caucus or citizens across the Nation, we did pass a version of the STOCK Act today. It was a weakened version. It wasn't good enough. And, Mr. Speaker, if Americans across this country decided that they were going to demand that there be a conference committee in which the stronger provisions were adopted, I think that would be a very good thing.

Americans across this country, I think they agree with what's written in this Washington Post article. They write:

A scaled-back ethics bill headed toward likely passage in

the House Thursday despite complaints from Senators that

Republican leaders are jettisoning--that means getting rid

of--several key provisions that won overwhelming support in

the Senate last week.

Of course Think Progress probably echos the sentiments of the American people, too, Mr. Speaker, as they wrote in their blog, ``House Republicans prepared to vote on watered-down congressional insider trading ban.'' Here's what they say:

Since a ``60 Minutes'' report showed that Representative

Spencer Bachus (R-Al.) profited from information he obtained

in a private economic briefing in 2008, Congress has moved

quickly to pass a bill to ban insider trading by its Members.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has made several changes to

the legislation which appear intended to at least weaken the

final product, if not kill it outright.

That is what they said at Think Progress.

Of course the New York Times, they're in this, too. This is an issue of serious public concern, and we would expect their editorial writers to weigh in. And what they said was this, Mr. Speaker:

With the House poised to take up a major ethics bill,

Republican leaders have deleted a provision that would, for

the first time, regulate the collection of political

intelligence from political insiders for the use of hedge

funds, mutual funds, and other investors.

Representative Louise Slaughter, Democrat of New York, said

lawmakers and the public need to know more about the

activities of these professionals, who she said ``glean

information from Members of Congress and staff and sell it to

clients who make a lot of money off it.''

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm betting that a lot of people across America don't even know that this practice even takes place. I'm betting that a lot of people across America don't realize that there are people who sort of scurry around in the shadows, looking for tidbits of information which they could use to make an investment decision, and that this is a multimillion-dollar industry.

Let me also move back and just say that, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the American people really realize that there is important information that can affect stock price that is thrown around around here. You would think that it would be just common sense, Mr. Speaker, that as we as Members of Congress are hired to pursue the public interest, that no one would ever use that information to advance their private commercial interests. There's nothing wrong with Members of Congress owning a business or something like that. I mean, this is America. But to say you're going to Congress to get information to try to trade stocks and then getting rich off that information seems, to me, a real problem.

Now, I don't know what the facts are. All I know is what I saw on ``60 Minutes.'' But it was alleged that a Member of Congress was in a meeting, pursuing his responsibility to promote the public interest, left that meeting, and using information from that meeting, purchased stock options and basically made a bet that the economy would go down.

So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, can a person, charged with a public duty to uphold the public interest simultaneously pursue their private interests? And what happens, Mr. Speaker, when those two things are at odds?

If your job is to keep the economy afloat, but it would make you money if the economy goes down because you have essentially bought stock options where you would financially gain from the loss of value, what is one to do? Well, if they're a public service employee, if they're a public official, they should pursue the public interest, and the law should forbid them from trying to pursue their private interests at the public's expense.

And yet, we do know that these things, that there's good evidence that these things may well have happened and that there needs to be accountability all around. And it is disappointing that when we finally, after these things finally get to the point where we're going to pass a bill, that we don't go all the way. We make carve-outs for the political intelligence industry. We make carve-outs for people here and there. This is not right.

The Senate version, which has accountability, which has prosecution authority, and which bans this political intelligence industry from just operating in the shadows, that is what we should be doing, not making carve-outs for them and sweetheart deals.

So I'm joined now by my good friend from the great State of Ohio, representing the northern Ohio area. There's really no one, Mr. Speaker, who has been a greater advocate for consumers than Marcy Kaptur.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Well, yes you do. But may I ask a question before you continue on?

We may see as many as 10 million homes go into foreclosure from the beginning of this crisis to the end. How important to the average home owner is this settlement? Is it going to help them?

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, now here's the other thing. So we know that there may be 10 million people who lost their homes in foreclosure. Maybe a million will get help. That's good. I hope they get it.

But has anybody gone to prison for mortgage fraud schemes? I mean, here's why, I want you to address this question, but let me lay it out just a tad for you.

So what we have here, we know, is that people were drawn in with high pressure tactics to get in a mortgage that they didn't understand, and sometimes were even misstating the income. There are people who would say, look, I didn't borrow that much money. I have no idea where that amount came from.

And then was a bunch of signing stuff that happened that people were not aware of. And that sort of skirted the reality.

The robo-signing. That's right.

And then another kind of amazing thing that happened was that people would underwrite mortgages, not based on the ability of the borrower to pay, but based on their ability to sell that mortgage into the secondary market. And then it would get repackaged into a mortgage- backed security which, somehow miraculously, you know, these things that were stated income, no income, no job loans, falsified income for these things, made it into a mortgage-backed security which then was rated as triple A in many cases.

There's got to be some fraud and misrepresentation there. And so it just seems like the system was full of misrepresentation, fraud and all that. Have we investigated this thing to the point where there are people to hold accountable before we're settling this case?

Liar loans?

Reclaiming my time, I want to ask you a question about that.

So over the course of the last several months, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle--I'm just being honest, and I don't think even they would disagree with this--have been trumpeting this idea, the government's too big. We've got to cut. We've got to cut. We just have to cut. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, just cut. Scale it back, shrink it down, make it smaller. Get rid of government.

One iconic conservative figure said we've got to shrink government to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub.

Now, if we were to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub, where are we going to get these lawyers and investigators to investigate mortgage fraud?

Have we really investigated the extent of the wrongdoing before we settled the case? I mean, I'm glad there has been a settlement. I hope that it brings justice to everyone. I suspect it will bring justice to some people. I hope so. But my question is, Do we know the extent of the harm of the bad actors?

Here's the thing. The originators might not be part of this, but these secondary-market actors, in my view, are culpable, too, because they had to know if they read the mortgages, if they read the documentation, they had to say, Wait a minute, something's funny here. We've got a 72-year-old retired widow with a stated income of $160,000 a year or $500,000 a year. It just doesn't make sense that there would be that many widows earning that kind of income. Now, there might be some who have that kind of wealth, but that kind of income when they're in their retirement years? There's got to be something fishy here.

You mentioned the S&L crisis. In the S&L crisis, we had a thousand Justice Department lawyers going after this thing. We've got 50,000 Justice Department lawyers going after this recent housing foreclosure crisis. Can we even compete with some of these titans who the Justice Department has to deal with with that small number?

I would like to ask the gentlelady from Ohio, we've talked about who lost. Homeowners lost, even homeowners who never lost their home in foreclosure and never missed a payment, their home value dropped; a lot of people lost. But did some people really make a lot of money off of this crisis?

So far they're right.

Many, many people suffered in this foreclosure crisis. It's also that cities suffered as cities were required--they used to have a taxpaying citizen in the home. Now, after the foreclosure with all of this stated income and the dishonesty and everything, they have no one living there, they have weeds growing, dead dogs there, they have an attractive nuisance where, you know, sometimes awful things happen in those abandoned houses. So cities have seen their coffers drained. They went from a plus-property taxpaying person to now an expense on the tax rolls.

We've seen a reduction in the overall property tax revenue of cities which they need to put on vital services for residents of cities, streets, cops, fire, all of that stuff.

What happens is they profit from this mortgage fraud. They make exorbitant monies as they securitize these bad mortgages. They make exorbitant money as they collected on these credit default swaps as these mortgage-backed securities went bad. Various people made gobs of money, bonuses that just boggle the mind how big they are.

But then, see, your point is interesting because they don't see the damage that they caused because they have--some of them even helicopter from their homes to their offices. Others of them are in limousines just flying down the highway back to their country villa from their downtown Manhattan skyscraper, so they don't see the damage. They don't drive through Cleveland and Detroit and Minneapolis and other places where whole neighborhoods have been sucked out because of the damaging behavior that they engaged in.

I think that it would be important after they served their jail time to come and be with the people who they harmed and have to explain the reason that we have created and exacerbated homelessness is because we just love money that much. Having two or three yachts and a couple of boats wasn't good enough. We needed more and more and more; and that's why we wrecked your city, damaged your neighborhood, and put you out of your home.

Bankers collect deposits and loan money to the communities they represent and help people do what they need to do.

Right.

I'll tell you, it's all sort of an interlocking mess. I mean, we've been told since the days that Milton Friedman first hit the scene that regulations were a problem in our economy and that having rules to protect health and safety and fairness simply were disrupting the market and that we needed to get rid of these job-killing regulations--what our Republican friends called them all the time-- rather than commonsense protections to protect people.

So we got rid of those things. We didn't enforce the laws that we already did have. We shrank government to the point where, because we didn't want to pay any taxes, government couldn't even afford itself, so we didn't have the people to make sure that consumers were being treated fairly, that mortgages were fair and that rules were being abided by. Then, as the technology and everything changed, we weren't able to change regulation so that it would keep up to date with the necessity of the market.

What I have in mind now is an heroic figure named Brooksley Born, who tried to tell them that this OPEC ``insurance'' market--I put ``insurance'' in quotes--this credit default swap market, needed to be regulated. Instead of regulating it, we actually passed a bill in 1999 that it would not be regulated. Then as a result, when the music stopped in 2008, we were at the mercy of--what?--$54 trillion.

Oh, yes. That's right.

Right.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Does the gentlelady have any more news to report about the settlement?

If the gentlelady has just a few more minutes, if I may, I would like to pose one more question.

We've heard that we've had about 23 months of private sector job growth. In January, the job growth numbers were very good, and we're happy to receive those. Unemployment has ticked down to about 8.3 percent, so it looks like the trajectory of the economy is going in the right direction.

But, until we address this housing problem, will we still have a drag on the economy?

Our Republican friends, who are in the majority, they tell us: Let laissez-faire capitalism take over. Let the housing market bottom out. Government shouldn't do anything. Just let all home value go down to nothing, and eventually somebody will buy those houses that are just sitting there, idle, after people have been unemployed and can't afford them and have to be foreclosed on. They tell us we should just be laissez-faire with that. They also tell us that we should not put any regulations in place and that we should cut taxes so that the government doesn't have enough revenue to protect the people.

To me, this crisis seems like the product of a philosophy--that the rich people don't have enough money and that the poor have too much. This seems like a culmination of a philosophy that for the people, through their democratic institutions to hold business accountable, to play fairly and by the rules, has seen its full manifestation. The full manifestation of this Ayn Rand-type philosophy has brought us to financial ruin, and they won't even admit that.

We haven't seen any hearings on how to address the foreclosure crisis, because they believe in just letting the market bottom out. I mean, even though there have been 23 months of private sector job growth, you never hear them say anything good about that; and while we're adding private sector jobs, they're trying to cut public sector jobs.

What is really going on here? Why isn't our majority addressing the jobs crisis? Their jobs program seems to be to attack the EPA. They're basically making the case that Americans who want to breathe and drink clean water are the problem of our economy. What is this laissez-faire get the government out? no taxes for the rich? What has this philosophy brought us to?

I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Well, let me wrap up.

All I would like to say, Madam Speaker, is that the Progressive Caucus looks at an America where the American Dream was of liberty and justice for all. And when those words were written, we had a society where only part of our society was legally allowed to fully participate. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. But people who believed in the dream of America wanted to make progress and fought to make sure that women and people of color could vote in this country. And people looked at that American Dream and said, You know what, we have a dream of a big middle class, broadly shared prosperity. And even though the society may not have quite been that way at that time, they worked to fulfill that promise, that dream, the American Dream, an idea that good Americans pursued and helped to bring into fruition.

We are trying to make progress on the dream, the progress of full inclusion, full employment, respecting our environment, believing in science. This is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. We're not trying to conserve the old way where only some people had privilege and opportunity. We're trying to make progress. So this is what the Progressive Caucus is all about.

The Progressive Caucus believes, of course, there should be a free market in America; but there also needs to be a public sector that will watch out for the health, safety, and fairness of our country. Yet some people in Congress are hostile to the idea of any government role, but we're not. We believe that government is how we come together in ways that we can't do it alone, for the best benefit of everybody.

And we urge the Republican majority--they've got the power; this is a winner-take-all-type system--to go out across American and do something and hear people about the issue of foreclosure, to get some jobs going. Pass the American Jobs Act. Pass the infrastructure bank bill. Do something to get this country together. Address the foreclosure crisis. Stop whipping up Americans versus Americans, using loaded terms like ``food stamp President,'' which is racial code. Stop blaming the gay community for failures in people's marriages. It's not their fault. Stop heaping hate and scorn on new Americans, and stop trying to relegate women to second-class citizenship.

Let's embrace the fullness of what it means to be an American. Let's make progress on the American Dream. Let's embrace the progressive message.

And I just want to say, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2012, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 34 and 35 due to commitments in my district. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 34 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 35.

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 2012, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 36-42 due to commitments in my district. Had I been

present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Votes 36, 37, 40, and 41 and ``no'' on rollcall Votes 38, 39, and 42.

Mr. Speaker, 1,300 Minnesota workers have been denied their basic and most fundamental right to work and support their families. That's right, yesterday marked the 6-month anniversary of workers at the American Crystal Sugar factory in Moorhead being locked out. Many of these people have worked for the factory their whole lives. Their parents worked there, Mr. Speaker, and their grandparents worked there, too.

These workers have gone to work and have gone to bat for the company. These workers, Mr. Speaker, stood shoulder to shoulder with the company to fight for a better sugar program in the farm bill just because that's how dedicated they are. But what have they got in return? They've gotten locked out. They're not on strike. They're locked out because they will not accept an unfair take-it-or-leave-it contract. These workers even vowed not to strike because they know how important their work is, but they have been locked out even though they have agreed to a no-strike guarantee.

It's wrong, Mr. Speaker. These 1,300 folks deserve better from this company, and I think the time is now for the company to negotiate.