Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me for this hour.

I am going to speak for a time, and then I am going to yield my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), who has an important message, but I would like to start by just talking to the American people about the Progressive message.

You can sit at your television sets and you can watch this broadcast. For the last hour, what you would have heard is people claiming that you can get jobs by just taking away our health and safety rules, by just getting rid of regulation--and magically, we're going to get jobs. Well, we've had the Clean Air Act in place since the early seventies; we saw record job growth in the 1990s; and we have seen the Bush era, which was when the Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House--the lowest job era in modern memory. They have tried their way, and they got us into this mess.

I will never forget that it was January 2009 when this country lost 741,000 jobs in that month alone, and the

Democrats and President Obama have been building it back ever since.

The Progressive message is about the antidote to that line of argument--that the rich don't have enough money, that the poor have too much, that asking our American corporations to look after health and safety laws is too much of a burden, that we have to sacrifice our lungs so that some multinational can make even more money.

No, no, no.

The Progressive message is where we stand up for small business people, where we talk about the right to organize on the job, where we get into the conversation about civil rights and human rights, where we talk about peace at home and abroad, and where we talk about the importance of protecting our environment.

I want to welcome a great Member from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who has just joined me for the moment. I thank the gentlelady for joining me with the Progressive message.

I thank the gentlelady.

In a moment, I will yield to my good friend from Illinois, Jesse Jackson.

But I do want to say that as you talk about the least of these, we are talking about poor folks who need some home heating oil, children who need Head Start; right? We are talking about people who need the SNAP program, the food stamp program. We are talking about students who need some help to be able to afford a college education.

And my question is: Will the rich and the wealthy and the well-to-do of America pay a little bit more to help this happen? Bank of America didn't pay a single penny in Federal income tax in 2009. Boeing, despite receiving billions of dollars in Federal Government contracts every single year in taxpayer money, Boeing didn't pay a dime in U.S. Federal corporate income taxes between 2008 and 2010. Citigroup. Citigroup's deferred income taxes for the third quarter of 2010 amounted to a grand total of zero. At the same time, Citigroup continued to pay its staff lavishly. John Havens, the head of Citigroup's investment bank, is expected to be the bank's highest paid executive for the second year in a row, with compensation of $9.5 million.

ExxonMobil, Big Oil, dodgers, use offshore subsidies in the Caribbean to avoid paying their fair share. Although ExxonMobil paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, none of it went to the American Treasury. This is the same year that the company overtook Walmart in the Fortune 500. Meanwhile, the total compensation for ExxonMobil's CEO was about $29 million.

Of course General Electric, 2009, the world's largest corporation, filed more than 7,000 tax returns and still paid nothing to America's Government. GE has managed to do this with the aid of a rigged Tax Code that essentially subsidizes companies for losing profits and allows them to set up tax havens overseas.

So let me just say, on behalf of the people who need food stamps, on behalf of the people who need college tuition, on behalf of the folks who need home heating oil because of cold winters, on behalf of the people who are struggling to make it in America today, will our most privileged Americans do anything? The Progressive Caucus thinks they ought to do something.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

Let me yield to the gentleman from Illinois who is going to talk to us about infrastructure, very important, putting Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is under attack. It may not be easy to see; but in State legislatures all across this country, we are seeing a quiet passing of laws that will strip American citizens of their right to vote.

It may come as a surprise that this is happening in the United States. Our great country is best known for its rich democratic tradition, which is predicated on the right to vote; and this right to vote has been expanding over time, not retracting. Throughout our history, brave men and women have fought and died for the right, and it has been denied to too many Americans for too long. Since its founding, the United States has been on a course toward enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement. Incredibly, that seems to be changing.

State legislatures are turning back the clock on decades of hard- fought voter protections. This year, 34 State legislatures introduced prohibitive voter ID bills. If passed, they could affect the voting ability of nearly 21 million Americans. Two States have enacted prohibitive proof-of-citizenship laws, which stand to exclude even more voters at the polls; 13 States are working to make it harder to register to vote; and nine are working to reduce early and absentee voting.

These laws add up to the greatest attack on voting rights since the Jim Crow era. In all, they could strip more than 5 million Americans of the right to vote. That figure alone is half the margin of victory from the 2008 Presidential election. Congress must act. Today, I am introducing two bills to push back against these laws and protect Americans' right to vote.

The first bill, the Voter Access Protection Act, will ensure that no American citizen is denied the right to vote because they don't have photo IDs on election day. The second bill, the Same Day Registration Act, will allow Americans to register to vote on the same day they cast their ballots. No American citizen should be turned back at the polls because they didn't register weeks or months in advance. These bills will help ensure that all Americans are able to exercise their fundamental rights in Federal elections.

If you truly believe in democracy, you should be doing everything you can to increase the enfranchisement of American citizens, not to take it away. I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical and patriotic legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that this bill is another example of the majority having no real jobs agenda. The Republicans are claiming that this bill will create jobs in Arizona. And, of course, our whole country wants more jobs anywhere we can get them. But the truth is no one really knows the exact economic impact of this mine.

The only jobs number that we have to go on are those provided by Rio Tinto, the foreign parent company of Resolution Copper. When this proposal was first developed in 2005, it was reported that the mine would create about 450 jobs. Without any explanation, no data, no analysis, the estimates have skyrocketed to over 1,200 jobs or even 6,000 jobs. That sounds enticing, particularly to a country where we have 10 percent, 9 percent unemployment. But without any data to support it, it just seems like speculation. You could just say it's going to create a gazillion jobs. Why not? Anything to get the deal.

There's no way to know because the numbers are not supported by a mining plan of operations or impartial economic documentation of any kind. This bill is an affront to the National Environmental Policy Act. Under this legislation, by the time any environmental review or accurate job figures are available, the land will already be in private hands. In fact, there is no job requirement in the bill. There is no job requirement in the bill despite the vaunted promises of 6,000 jobs. This bill doesn't include any local jobs requirement from the mining company.

At a time when the whole country is looking to Congress to create much-needed jobs, and we really are vulnerable to any promises of jobs, our colleagues across the aisle should be focusing on creating jobs in America, not just large, vaunted promises that really have no background or substantiation. Our colleagues across the aisle are spending time in this House to create a special interest carve-out for a giant, multinational corporation. It's, by the way, owned by people outside the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the changes in the Arabic-speaking countries over the last year have been astonishing. This region, which is home to over 300 million people, has been making unmistakable drives toward democracy, but those drives have not always been linear and smooth. There have been setbacks in advances. But as this region changes, the United States must also adjust to those changes as well.

First, I want to congratulate the people of Tunisia on their historic election on Sunday. It was Tunisia's first free and fair election since gaining independence in 1956. Tunisians created a new paradigm for governance in the Middle East, and I hope this is replicated throughout the region. Tunisia, by the way, was the first country to begin its dramatic social change against a historic dictator.

Last December, Tunisians said, ``Enough.'' They took to the streets to demand their rights, and they ousted a dictator and went to the polls just a few days ago to elect new leaders. More than 90 percent of registered voters turned out to vote--that's 90 percent. Long lines snaked down sidewalks and around street corners. People waited for hours to exercise their right to vote that had been denied to them for more than 50 years.

It was also a well-deserved victory for a country that gave birth to the Arab Spring. Tunisians started a democratic movement that is slowly transforming dictatorships into democracies. The changes that are taking place in Libya are also irreversible. I don't celebrate the death of anyone, even a person as bad as Qadhafi, but Libya is certainly better off without Muammar Qadhafi. I am glad that the Transitional National Council will investigate the circumstances of his death, but the fact that he is off the scene gives Libya a new chance and a new lease on life.

For 42 years, Qadhafi ruled Libya with brutal force and criminal neglect. The country cannot afford more conflict. It should embark on a national reconciliation process similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa.

That's not easy for a country that has endured so much bloodshed. But Libyans now have the opportunity to lay down arms and come together. Libyans will decide for themselves what kind of country they want to build. The Libyan people must decide what kind of example they will set for other countries in the region.

I'd also like to turn attention to Iraq. I offer my congratulations to President Obama for keeping his promise to exit Iraq. No yellowcake uranium, no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and no weapons of mass destruction, and yet literally thousands of Americans' lives were lost, thousands of Iraqis' lives were lost, and perhaps $1 trillion was lost. It's time to go. I congratulate President Obama in his decision to leave.

Syria's path toward change is also irreversible, but the outcomes are less certain. Bashar al-Assad's government has now killed over 3,000 people. Countless others have been raped and tortured. This is not the model that will characterize the region's future.

People like Tawakel Karman of Yemen are setting a new standard. Referred to as the ``Mother of the Revolution'' in Yemen, she recently won the Nobel Prize for her nonviolent activism, and I congratulate her.

As people across the Middle East and North Africa struggle for democracy, the United States should do all that it can to help them reach that democratic condition that we take for granted. As Americans, we will remember our own long struggle for freedom and should be at the waiting to help others secure their democratic future.

I'd like to thank the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the chair.

We're seeing a trend here in the House of Representatives, Madam Chair, attacking the EPA and not working on jobs. This bill does nothing to regulate coal ash in a way that protects the environment or public health. This bill wants to give regulatory power to States, but there is no national minimum standard for State permitting programs in this bill.

The municipal solid waste standards used by this dangerous piece of legislation are inadequate to protect our communities from dangerous toxins. Many of the toxins found in coal residuals are simply dangerous to public health and are known cancer-causing agents. Just a few of the toxins found in coal ash include arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and a bunch of other stuff that's hard to pronounce.

This bill will allow these toxins to enter our drinking water in dozens of communities across the country. On top of releasing toxins into our drinking water, H.R. 2273 does nothing to promote recycling of coal ash. Instead, it promotes the indefinite storage of coal ash, which furthers the leaching of dangerous carcinogens and neurotoxins into our drinking water. Additionally, this bill denies the EPA from instituting a deadline or meaningful cleanup standard for disposal sites that have already contaminated groundwater.

It has been 40 weeks the Republican majority in the House has been in the majority, and we haven't voted on a single jobs bill, Madam Chair. This train of bills dealing with cement emissions, dealing with the TRAIN Act, dealing with Boiler MACT rules--and now, today, coal ash-- suggests that the Republican majority believes that the problem to creating jobs in America is that Americans want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and it's just too expensive to do.

This is a false statement, this is not true, and I hope that we reject this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I'm Congressman Keith Ellison. We're claiming this hour on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which tonight is going to feature a number of critical issues, all focusing on the importance of the rights of women and the assault they have been under in this Congress.

To lead off our hour and to get started, I first want to introduce a good colleague from the great State of California--Oakland, California, who's going to lead off our hour.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been a champion of the rights of all people. She has been a champion for peace and justice around the world. And she has been an unswerving champion for civil and human rights not only for women, but for all people around the world.

So let me first recognize, on behalf of this Special Order hour, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Congresswoman Lee, I yield the floor to you.

Let me thank the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee, a fearless, unrelenting struggler for the rights of all people.

Tonight we're here with the Progressive Caucus. We're talking about the harm that H.R. 358 would do to women's rights. It would hurt the rights of women in three important ways. It would deprive women of comprehensive health insurance coverage, eliminate emergency lifesaving protections, and undermine health care benefits in the Affordable Care Act. For the first time, private health care insurance coverage for women will be restricted.

And so to carry the discussion further, and from a very important perspective, my good friend from New York--also a tireless fighter for the rights of all people, a leader in the area of choice and women's rights--let me yield the floor to Carolyn Maloney.

Congresswoman Maloney, I wonder if you would yield for a question.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote, in order for women to receive the best health care and disease prevention, they must have access to all medically appropriate, legal medical procedures, regardless of the ability to pay. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians opposes

legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical care. These proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government between a physician and a patient.

My question to you is: This bill, H.R. 358, the very deceptively titled Protect Life Act, does this bill have scientific and medical backing behind it as the opposition to this bill has? In other words, do they have trained medical professionals operating on the basis of science supporting their position?

I yield to the gentlelady.

The gentlelady has been very eloquent about the assault on women's health. If you don't mind, given that you are a member of the Joint Economic Committee, which is a bicameral committee, bipartisan committee, I think, in the Congress, I wonder if you don't mind talking with me just a little while about the assault on women's economic prospects.

In your opinion, Congresswoman Maloney, how will assaults and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security impact women, given that women statistically live longer than men and have a greater representation for use of those important programs? Are we seeing not just the health but also the economic viability of women under threat, as well as seeing important programs that women rely on disproportionately cut into?

I yield to the gentlelady.

I appreciate the gentlelady shedding some light on this issue because the fact is that today we were looking at a bill that would restrict women's health care access.

But you know that we have been trying to fend off assaults on the viability of women's economic situation. We still know that women earn about 80 cents for every dollar men make. This is unexplained, or it is explained. It's explained by gender discrimination.

And I think it's important for even men to take account of this important fact, that if your wife or partner is being discriminated against in the workplace because she's a woman, then your total family income is being hurt because of sex discrimination in the workplace. It's important that men and women come together to fight these attacks on women's rights because, even though the direct victims of this kind of discrimination are women, this invariably hurts the entire family, and so this is everybody's business to stand up for the rights of all people.

I tell you, one of the things that really concerns me is this gap in pay between men and women. The median weekly--women earn about 81.2 percent of what men earn. In addition to that, they have assaults on their access to health care. When you add these things up, what does this mean in terms of the majority's commitment to women's rights? What does it all add up to?

I wonder if the gentlelady might offer her views on this subject.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Now, Congresswoman Maloney, I know you might have to run, but I appreciate your standing here with me tonight because I think that the people of America, Mr. Speaker, need to hear from a person like yourself, Congresswoman Maloney, who has been laboring in the vineyards of economic and civil rights, both, for a few years now. You know what you're talking about, you've been doing this work, you've served the community for many years, and I just want to see if I can get your views on another issue, and that is that one of the things that Republicans have been doing is having this program to cut, cut, cut government services, which, of course, has led to reductions in public employees.

So, for example, while the private sector has added about 1.7 million jobs over the last 12 months--of course, during the Bush administration we were losing jobs--the public sector has lost about 400,000 jobs. When you consider the fact that women are disproportionately likely to work for the public sector, their employment decline has been particularly hit when public sector employees get laid off.

So I want to keep connecting the dots tonight, if I may. We started out the conversation with the cuts to women's health in this deceptively entitled bill, the so-called--I don't even want to repeat it because it is so wrong, but the Protect Life Act, actually it's a ``not to protect women's life'' act.

But then we move on to cuts to important programs that older women are disproportionately relying on, we move to the wage gap, and now we're seeing that these cuts to public employees are falling more heavily on the shoulders of women.

You mentioned an agenda. Are we really talking about an agenda here, not just a single program but a whole agenda?

I yield to the gentlelady.

I like the jobs bill as well. It's too bad that the American Jobs Act was not even able to be debated in the Senate yesterday. You would think that we could debate the bill at least. If Republicans have different ideas about job creation than we do as Democrats, I'm okay with that. Let's debate it, and let's get it out on the floor. But they don't even want to have the debate. You mentioned the public sector getting support.

Congresswoman Maloney, as you know, the President challenged them, the Republicans, to do this. He said, look, I'm putting my bill up here, you bring yours up here, and we'll see which one creates more jobs. And folks like Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised both Republicans and Democrats, took an evaluation. He said the Republican plan is not likely to create any jobs next year. Well, people are employed this year and next year. And what are they doing about it? Well, they're just cutting basic services in local government, they're getting rid of health regulations in the EPA, they're doing things like creating cultural fights, like the one they did today, trying to sort of divide Americans based on people's deeply held views about the issue of abortion when we need to be getting people back to work, which is, in my view, trying to take our eye off the ball.

But I just wanted to throw out a couple of facts that I think may contribute to the dialogue. Here's one: In September, 2011, a month that just passed, the public sector lost 34,000 jobs. Eighty-two percent of those jobs were women's jobs. This is an important fact. This is according to the National Women's Law Center. And then also, the damage in the public sector was driven largely by cuts to local governments' education. I'll say that again. And, Congresswoman Maloney, you're a former teacher, so I know this is close to your heart. The damage in the public sector was largely by cuts to the local governments' education.

In this field, one that is nearly three-quarters women, 24,400 jobs were lost from August to September. Since the recovery began in 2009, this field has lost more than 250,000 jobs. What does it mean when we, as a society, disinvest in public education?

One thing it means is that women workers will be hit harder because that's who three-quarters of our teachers are. It also means that our young people will be deprived.

As a person who has been in the classroom, Congresswoman Maloney, what does that mean when a classroom goes from 20 kids to 35 kids? What does it mean to the kids who might not be catching on to the lesson or who may have a learning disability? I mean, is it even possible for a competent, caring teacher to teach all the kids given that some may need extra help?

Congresswoman Maloney, you just mentioned a moment ago this idea of reinvesting in our schools. Today, I had a visit from a number of superintendents in my State of Minnesota. They were not all from the Fifth Congressional District, which I'm honored to represent, but they were from a cross-section around the State.

They told me that there were literally nearly 100 different school districts going to the voters for a referendum so that they could pay their basic expenses because the State government is backing off its commitment to education because the Federal Government is backing off its commitment.

The fact of the matter is we have a disturbing trend here.

They said, Look, if we could just get the part of the American Jobs Act passed that would help us with these old and outdated and rupturing boilers, these old, beat-up pipes, this poor ventilation, these windows that are not opening and closing properly--if we could get some help with our capital budget--that would free up money for

us to hire teachers and to do some real instruction.

What do you think of that part of the American Jobs Act which goes to this issue of investing in our schools and in keeping our teachers out there and preventing 280,000 teachers from being laid off? What do you think about this idea of, really, just making sure that the infrastructure of our schools is sound for our kids and for the people working in the schools?

Congresswoman Maloney, I know that you have to take care of other important responsibilities, so I want to just thank you.

I just think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for people to know that Congresswoman Maloney is the author of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act. It's when you go and use your credit card and don't get back a bunch of fees and stuff you didn't even bargain for--terms being changed without any notice to you. When you used that credit card and were late on that card, sometimes they used to jack you up on the card you weren't even late on because you were late on some other card. They can't do that anymore.

When people benefit from credit card justice, you have to thank Carolyn Maloney. You cannot just use that card and say, Wow, things are better than they used to be with this card. They're better because Carolyn Maloney fought tirelessly.

This was an uphill climb for you. It wasn't easy. You had to work on editorial boards; you had to work on Republicans; you had to work on Democrats; you had to work on the Senate. You had to just pound the pavement night and day; yet you got that done, and this country cannot pay you back for the good work you did.

Congresswoman Maloney, I wish you many, many, many years here in this Congress; but no matter how long you stay here, I just want you to know that that accomplishment is a towering achievement which will stand the test of time and is historic. So I don't want to hold you up, because I know you've got to go do some important things, but I just didn't want you to leave without my mentioning how important that service that you gave was, not to mention the work that you do every single day, including the work you do on the Joint Economic Committee, on the rights of all people as well as on women's rights.

That's right.

Yes, there was.

Let me thank you again, Congresswoman Maloney. You have a wonderful evening and, again, thank you for all of the great work you have done and thank you for your help tonight. I am just going to remain a few more minutes to help the American people understand what is in the American Jobs Act.

The American Jobs Act is an excellent piece of legislation. We have been talking a lot tonight here at this Progressive Caucus Special Order about women's rights, but we've also been talking about jobs and, of course, these subjects go right together.

But it's important, as we talk about this subject tonight, that the American people know what's in the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act will put Americans to work when jobs are needed, which is now, not later, not next year, not some other time, now.

The emphasis of the American Jobs Act is immediacy. It will preserve and create jobs now. It will put money in the pockets of working Americans now. It will give businesses job-creating tax breaks now. And it will provide a boost to the economy right now.

So this is what we're aiming for in the American Jobs Act. Republican colleagues have failed to produce any kinds of a jobs bill. The only time they ever talk about jobs is when they're not talking about jobs. They say that cutting important health regulations will create jobs. They won't.

They say that cutting taxes for people at the very top of the American income scale, corporations, will create jobs. It won't. Corporations already are awash in corporate profits. They're not using the money to create jobs, and they won't use the money even if we give them more money because what they don't have is customers. Why don't they have customers? Because people aren't working.

Americans need to be put back to work, and when businesses find that they have customers and orders they will hire people to fill those orders. When they have excess capacity, they are not going to just hire people. They're going to hire people when they need to hire people because they've got sales that they need to make.

Of course, this is a basic and fundamental difference of opinion that we have with our Republican colleagues about the way the economy works. But I do believe that after years and years of trying, trickle-down economics must be discarded, must be dismissed, must be thrown away as a discredited economic theory.

Trickle-down economics, which is the Republican mantra--they believe in trickle down. They believe if you give

rich people enough money maybe the money will trickle down to the rest of us.

This has been a failed economic policy. They are wrong. They have been proven to be wrong, and yet they never stop coming here saying, if we just gave the rich people another tax cut, if we just gave the rich corporations, who don't pay any taxes now, more money. If we just gave them more money, all those profits that they have they might maybe hire somebody. They're wrong, and history has proven them to be wrong. I don't know why they cling to this outmoded, discredited, discarded theory of economics, but they cling to it.

The American Jobs Act would do something different. It would put people back to work, and with people working again, this will boost aggregate demand, aggregate meaning added up, cumulative demand. And with that, more customers, more people with money to buy and spend, this economy will take off and the store will hire people because they will have a reason to. So the American Jobs Act goes right to the problem.

But here's the other thing. The American Jobs Act calls it a Jobs Act, and it is. But there's something also very important that the American Jobs Act does that I wish got more play. It invests in our Nation's basic infrastructure, and it invests in our Nation's human capital.

It puts targeted tax breaks--not just giving money to rich people and corporations who have plenty of money and who won't use it to hire people--but it gives targeted tax breaks and puts money in the pockets of American workers and American employers so that they will add and grow jobs. And it puts the money into job training, which does skill upgrades for our people so that they are more productive and better at what they do. The job saving and job-producing actions will put paychecks into the economy, will provide vital economic needs and invest in economic growth.

I just want to quote Mark Zandi for a moment, this economist who works for both Republicans and Democrats. He is unbiased, and here's what he had to say. He says, President Obama's job proposal would help stabilize confidence and help keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession, add 2 percentage points to GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.

Now, that's a big deal. Wouldn't the people watching this show, Mr. Speaker, like to be able to see America go from 9.1 percent unemployment to 8.1 percent unemployment? I think this would be great, and here's the best thing about the American Jobs Act. It's paid for.

Unlike the two wars that the Republicans got us into in the last decade, unlike the big PhRMA Medicare part D, unlike the tax breaks under George Bush and the Republican majority, these, the American Jobs Act, is paid for.

President Obama has offered pay-fors in this which cover the cost of the bill. This is something the Republicans are not used to, which is why they may not quite understand the American Jobs Act. They like to spend money that we don't have. That's what they did with the two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what they did with the Bush tax cuts. And that's, of course, what they did with the Big Pharma giveaway.

But this bill is paid for. The American Jobs Act is paid for, which may be why they don't support it, because they don't understand things that are paid for. They just understand spending and adding to the deficit.

But the Republicans have not only failed to produce or support any jobs bill of their own, other than just absurdly claiming that getting rid of important health regulations is going to create jobs, they're refusing to even act on the American Jobs Act. In fact, Majority Leader Eric Cantor has already said the Jobs Act was dead, his words.

The Republicans not only failed to produce or support any jobs bill, they are refusing to act on this bill, and I think Eric Cantor has also said it was ``unacceptable,'' another word that he used. Now, that's, again, fine with me.

If the majority leader could say, look, I don't like this part, but I can maybe go for that part, let's get the bill up here, all four amendments, debate this thing. But by all means let's start talking about jobs around here. The Republicans are more invested in protecting millionaires from paying their fair share than helping their middle class to work.

By a 16-point margin, Mr. Speaker, the Americans support President Obama's proposal to create jobs, 52 percent to 36 percent. Fifty-two percent of Americans want it, 36 percent of Americans don't. By a 16- point margin Americans support President Obama's proposal to create jobs.

By a 15-point margin, more Americans trust President Obama to do a better job creating jobs than congressional Republicans, 49 percent to 34 percent. Sixty-two percent of all Americans, Mr. Speaker, and at least 62 percent of the people surveyed support a balanced approach. That means cutting spending and raising revenue to reduce the deficit.

And, Mr. Speaker, three out of four Americans support raising taxes on Americans with incomes of $1 million or more. These are the so- called job creators Republicans like to talk about. The only problem is they haven't been creating any jobs.

But what will create jobs is businesses and small businesses that have orders and have consumers and have people working and have people who have money to spend at their businesses. That's what will create jobs.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the American people that the three components of the American Jobs Act are designed to win. One, the American Jobs Act and reinvesting in America, preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and keeping first responders, firefighters, and police officers on the job. Two, modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country.

Mr. Speaker, myself and Congresswoman Maloney were talking about this. She's a former teacher. We were talking about supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms, school innovations, both rural and urban. But as I talked about earlier today, the superintendents and the schools that I represent, some of them have boilers that are about to go out, windows that aren't fixed up right, roofs that need repair, basic stuff.

This would put thousands of Americans back to work as we give our young people a good decent place and a modern place to go learn in.

Of course, another part of the American Jobs Act, all under this important category of investing in America, is making immediate investments in infrastructure, modernizing our roads, our railways, our airports, and putting hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work; Project Rebuild, a great effort, an effort to put people back to work, rehabilitating homes and businesses and stabilizing communities, leveraging private capital and scaling up successful models of public- private collaboration; and, of course, expanding wireless Internet, expanding wireless Internet to 98 percent of Americans by freeing up the Nation's spectrum.

The second element of this important American Jobs Act which Republicans should support and Democrats do support is tax cuts for employers and employees. This is not just some giveaway. This is targeted tax cuts that are designed to succeed.

Some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle like to say Democrats don't like tax cuts. This is not true. We are for tax cuts when they are targeted and designed to help the average working American, not just some giveaway to rich people. And, of course, I have nothing against rich people. I like rich people. In fact, one day when I leave Congress and go back to the private sector, maybe I can be one of them. But the fact is right now, right now the fact of the matter is we need tax cuts that are targeted and designed to spur the economy, not just giveaways, hoping and praying that the money will trickle down.

Specifically what I'm referring to is cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year. The President's plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers' payroll taxes in half in 2012, providing $1,500, a tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security trust fund.

This is important because things are tough around the house. Things are tough around the kitchen table, and Americans could really use this, particularly now. It will help maintain aggregate demand, and it would be very helpful.

Also, allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today's near 4 percent interest rate, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family's pocket.

Also, cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses. The President's plan will cut in half taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll.

Mr. Speaker, another important element of the American Jobs Act that has to do with this tax issue is a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages. The President's plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll by adding new workers or increasing wages. That's a targeted tax cut. That's a tax cut that's going to get people to hire somebody, not just some give money to rich people and hope they hire somebody. This is a targeted tax cut that will actually be of value.

The next one, Mr. Speaker, encouraging businesses to make investments by extending 100 percent business expensing into 2012. This extension would put an additional $85 billion in the hands of businesses next year.

The third thing that I think is important to mention is helping the unemployed with pathways back to work. Some people like to refer to our social safety net. I think it is much more effective to refer to it as our social safety trampoline. That is when you fall down, America, caring, compassionate Nation that we are, provides a way for people to bounce back. And that is what the third element of this American Jobs Act does. Returning heroes, offering tax cuts to encourage businesses to hire unemployed veterans.

Now, I know there are some Republicans who would vote for this provision. There's got to be. Businesses that hire veterans who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer would receive a tax credit up to $5,600, and that credit rises to $9,600 for veterans who have a service-connected disability. Now, I have just got to believe that there are a few Republicans who would give a green vote to a good piece of legislation like that.

In the same vein of helping our unemployed, the most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years, as part of the extension of the unemployment insurance, to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President's plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give States greater flexibility to use unemployment insurance funds to best support job seekers and connect them to work, including in this innovative program things like work sharing, unemployment insurance for workers whose employers choose work sharing over layoffs.

Second, improve reemployment services for long-term unemployed through counseling eligibility assessments.

Three, new bridge to work program. This plan builds on and improves innovative State programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary, or pursue on-the-job training.

I'm about at the end of my time tonight. This has been the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are here with the progressive message, which we like to come to as often as we can. What we're talking about tonight is standing up for the rights of women. More than 50 percent of Americans are female. My daughter is one of them. I just want to argue that for this country to rise to its full measure of greatness, we have to have full and equal rights for everybody, especially women.

Today, there was an attack on women's constitutional rights today. There also have been assaults to programs which women disproportionately rely on like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and also employment sectors that women are employed in such as the public sector. This is too bad, and we need to stand up against it. But also jobs. Instead of dealing with divisive social issues where Americans of honestly held conscience disagree very severely on this issue of pro-choice/pro-life, instead of dealing with these old issues, things that we have been fighting over for years and will probably never be solved, why don't we talk about jobs.

And so we did go into the American Jobs Act tonight where we talked about the key parts of this important bill by President Obama. First, investing in our infrastructure and in our people skills; second, targeted tax breaks designed to put people back to work, not just giveaways for the rich; and, third, help for the unemployed. These are three very important features which I believe will really help America.

All we want is a chance to debate these issues on the House floor. We can bring amendments, debate them, vote some up, vote some down, but it's just wrong to deny the American people a chance to get a good jobs bill. So tonight, I just want to wrap up by saying that it's always a pleasure to come before the House and discuss critical issues facing the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night I was disappointed, although not surprised, to see the Senate fail to arrive at the number of votes needed to bring cloture so that the American Jobs Act could be debated. They not only don't want to pass the jobs bill, they don't even want to debate the jobs bill. I thought that was an embarrassing moment for the U.S. Congress because, with 9.1 percent unemployment, with people who have been chronically unemployed for so long, one would think that we'd want to get down here and talk about jobs, bring forth our ideas, offer amendments, and do everything we could to try to help spur the American economy on. And yet we saw that jobs bill go down.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know that Congress can bring things up, and they can bring things up again. And as long as Americans are unemployed at the disgraceful rates that they are today, our Congress will never stop fighting to continue to bring jobs bills back to this Congress.

The Republican majority in this House has yet to bring a jobs bill. We hope to see one one day soon.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. What it says is that if the EPA administrator finds that the regulation creates more than 1,000 jobs, then the administrator can shorten the 5-year delay which the bill would impose.

So, very simply, the EPA administrator can come forward and say, look, 1,000 jobs have been created by this, and therefore this delay of 5 years will be shortened. That's all the amendment calls for. And in a time when we have such tremendous need for jobs in America, I would think that if the EPA can identify 1,000 jobs created in connection with this rule, then we should certainly be able to shorten the 5-year period of delay.

So I ask for support for this amendment because I'm sure that everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees wholeheartedly with job creation.

And there has been, I believe, a false choice offered to the American people. And this false choice is very simple to describe, and that is that we can either have rules that limit emissions from boilers or we can have jobs, but, according to some people in this body, we can't have both. We can't have both clean lungs, be free of mercury, be free of other neurotoxins and contaminants, and have jobs. I argue we can have both. And if the EPA administrator can demonstrate that there are jobs created here, then the 5-year period should in fact be shortened.

I argue that what we need to do here is to stand for jobs. And according to EPA, what we have seen is that this underlying rule, which would be delayed by the bill, actually will create and has been estimated to create up to 2,200 jobs. So let's see if that's actually right. Let's see if the proposal, as set forth by the rule, would create jobs as the EPA administrator says it will. And if it does, we should say let's go forth.

The economic impact of the boiler regulation is exceptionally positive.

The EPA's data shows that by reducing the particulate matter pollution from industrial boilers we will generate net economic benefits of $22 billion to $56 billion every year. So why wouldn't we want to take full advantage of that economic activity, as all of us are concerned about jobs.

The over 40 years of success of the Clean Air Act have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand. They are not one versus the other. They go together. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key pollutants by more than 70 percent while, at the same time, the economy has grown by over 200 percent. So much for the claim that regulation kills jobs. That's not true. It's not right. It's inaccurate. And I say, by supporting my amendment, we can see who's right.

I see no reason why the Republican majority wouldn't support my amendment if they believe, as they claim, environmental regulations hurt jobs. We have a chance to see. And I want to see if people really believe what they claim, and they can demonstrate their commitment to what they argue by supporting my amendment.

The benefits outweigh the projected costs of compliance by as much as 13 to 1 in this case.

The misleading report from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners claims that over 300,000 jobs are at risk. This is wrong. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies found that the industry commission report is based on exaggerations and omissions. The report from the industry substantially overestimates the cost of compliance with regulation. And the boiler owners have ignored many benefits of the rule--thousands of new jobs to install and operate and maintain pollution control equipment.

The public health benefit, that is nearly $40 billion a year. Creating green economy jobs to make our air cleaner would create jobs throughout the supply chain--for example, installing and operating scrubbers.

So it's important that we make jobs the focus of our work here in Congress. The Republican majority has seen fit not to introduce any jobs bills during its time as the majority. Here's an opportunity to say, if you really believe that regulations kill jobs, vote for my amendment and we will be able to see, because the administrator, if 1,000 jobs can be generated, will be able to delay this rule.

Now, if you really don't believe it and you just want to do what the boiler owners want, then of course you will vote ``no.'' But if you really believe what you say, you will vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, a number of very passionate and well-informed speakers have come before this body today to urge a ``no'' vote based on facts and based on research. All this is extremely important, and I'm so glad they did it, but for the people watching this debate today, they need to know one thing, and that is that this legislation is bought and paid for by industry so that people could try to save money at the expense of people's health and their lives, and this is exactly what's going on here today.

What's going on here today is that industry interests backed candidates who come here today to offer legislation that would allow the cement industry, the coal-fired power industry and the boiler industry users to just dump mercury and other junk into the air that makes you sick.

And as we're talking about jobs, what about a jobs bill that could put Americans to work, as opposed to saying, we're just going to get rid of all the regulations in America? What if we just got rid of all the regulations in America? We would be sicker, we would die sooner, and we would be much less of a country. What if we just said that we're going to put the health of Americans up front, that we're going to actually introduce a jobs bill like the American Jobs Act? What if we did those things? America would be back on track. But maybe some of these big industrial polluters would be a little sadder.

I say today, Mr. Chairman, that this Congress should reject the attack on Americans' health. In the last 3 weeks, we have seen industry polluters from the industry that uses these boilers, the cement industry and coal-fired power plant industry, be able to just run amok on the people's health, and we have yet to see a single jobs bill in the course of the 250-plus days that this majority has been in the hands of the Republicans.

This is a national disgrace. The American people said they wanted jobs. They haven't gotten them. The American people say they want to be well and healthy. They are seeing assaults on that. This is something that the American people need to bring their attention to, Mr. Chairman; and I hope that people are paying attention to this debate today because it is crystal clear whose side the majority is so on: industry polluters, not the American people.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment because I'd like to make the point that Americans watching this debate, Mr. Chairman, should not be fooled into believing that there is some false choice between being able to breathe and having a job. This is just a false choice. It's a trick bag, and it's unfair to make this argument to the American people.

The fact is we can breathe and we can avoid asthma and mercury poisoning and have a job. You don't have to have one or the other. And the fact is, Mr. Chairman, is that the folks who argue against regulations that protect our health and sometimes impose a reasonable cost on industry, these folks have never liked regulations that ask business to do their fair share.

This is not a new thing. This is not unique to the cement industry. This is an ongoing ideological debate which has been going on for a long time. But thankfully, Americans recognized that

we needed to breathe and work. So we passed regulations. We passed and enacted the EPA. And we brought laws and regulations into being that would protect our health. But now we're being asked to say, Your health or a job? And this is being done in the middle of one of the most dramatic recessions since the Great Depression.

The fact is, this claim that if you get rid of all the regulations these corporations are just going to spring forward and start hiring people is untrue. There's no evidence of it. I'd love to see some proof of this claim. It's not the case. And you can't tell me that if some self-interested business person comes to a hearing and says, I would hire if we could get rid of regulations, I don't buy that. I want to see some real evidence. But there is none. That's why you don't see it.

The fact is is that if you want to put people back to work today, we've got to pass the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be on the floor talking about the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be talking about the infrastructure bank bill. We need to be getting Americans back to work because the real reason that our economy is dragging along and unemployment is so high is because our government is not putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure, by refurbishing our school system, by putting the necessary investments into the 21st century. That's what we need to be doing, not just relieving industry of the responsibility to respect our environment and our lungs.

So I just want to say, and to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I hope the folks watching C-SPAN don't fall for the okeydoke, and be very, very careful in listening to this debate, and don't allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that they can either have a job or they can have lungs, but they can't have both.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. All it says is that if we're going to delay these important rules, these lifesaving rules, then the EPA would be required to publish in the Federal Register the public health impact of delaying this regulation.

For example, one of the public health impacts of clean air standards for cement plants is the prevention of 17,000 cases of asthma. All we're saying is that transparency, information given to the public, so the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will be.

I can see no reason why Republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense amendment like this because, quite frankly, if they feel this is such an important measure that they clearly acknowledge based on their response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged that there will be health impacts, they most certainly would have to agree that telling the public what the health impacts will be would be a fair and important thing to do.

So my amendment is very simple. As we delay these important environmental regulations, they are proposing delaying these important environmental regulations to protect people from dirty air emitted from cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination, how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. How much cancer. What will be the health impacts of delaying these important rules; let's print it in the Federal Register.

I'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer; yes, we're giving you heart attacks; yes, we're giving you asthma attacks, but we have to do it because we believe it'll save jobs. You have to be sick so somebody might theoretically be able to get a job in a cement plant.

The fact is, as I pointed out many times, it's a false choice between a job and a regulation. It's a false choice between economic activity and clean air and a healthy environment. But since my friends on the other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health impacts.

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

I just want to make a few points in rebuttal.

First of all, Congresswoman Capps offered an amendment that contained the EPA findings on the health impact, and that was opposed pretty vigorously. We could have known for the public record; we would have had it there. That was opposed, though. So the response that we just heard from the other side of the aisle is interesting, to say the least.

The other important point, the fact is, if you believe this is an important measure to pass, why not disclose this to the public, let the public know what we're getting into, and I would think this would be a commonsense measure and would get approval from all sides.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 12: Page 6, line 24, insert ``, except that

the date for compliance with standards and requirements under

such regulation may be earlier than 5 years after the

effective date of the regulation if the Administrator finds

that such regulation will create more than 1,000 jobs'' after

``regulation''.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 13: Page 7, line 5, strike ``non-air

quality''.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 14: Strike section 5.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 22, strike ``non-air

quality''.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 13: Strike section 5.