Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the point was made earlier that the Progressive Caucus' budget, which addresses a gas tax, is somehow not a good thing to deal with our Nation. But the infrastructure needs of our country, over $3 trillion--according to the Society of Engineers, says that we need $3 trillion in infrastructure spending.

Let's do something and put America back to work by rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure.

I have a question for the gentleman: When does the Ryan budget create a surplus?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I reclaim my time.

I will yield for an answer to the question, not for a filibuster.

I asked the gentleman when the Ryan budget created a surplus. He could have given me a year; he didn't. That's because he's probably embarrassed about when that is.

Let me tell you when the Progressive Caucus budget comes to surplus: 2021. That is known as a responsible budget. We are making a surplus by 2021. And by the way, that is Heritage Foundation mathematics. It's not $16 trillion; it is $3.9 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Chair, point of order.

I would like the gentleman's words taken down for the reference to certain Members of this body as socialists.

Mr. Chair, the people's budget contains a provision for infrastructure development and the National Infrastructure Bank. I want to agree wholeheartedly with Congressman Blumenauer. We can not only put America back to work but we can strengthen the infrastructure that will make it safe to go across a bridge. We cannot neglect the bridges and the roads, the high-speed optical fiber cables and all these things that our country needs for a 21st century infrastructure. It's a jobs program. The people's budget is talking about jobs.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a debate of generational proportions. The promises that were made during the 1960s and before that, and even after that, about expanding our country, making it a greater country, widening its embrace, are now being abdicated. We are seeing a budget, offered by our Budget Committee chairman, that says to our seniors who have cut a path for all of us younger people, You know what? We can't be there for you any more.

We are seeing a budget where we say to our students, who are the intellectual drivers of our economy, we cannot be there for you any more. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of this budget, two-thirds of this budget, two-thirds of the cuts are from low-income programs that serve people who are making it, hardworking Americans who are trying to make it every single day. But that's where the cuts come from.

The question on the table is: What's the proper role of government? We believe the proper role of government is to look after our seniors. They believe grandma has to figure out what she is going to do. We believe that young people have to have an opportunity, and things like the Pell Grant are going to help them and help us. They believe if you are smart enough to go to college, you should pay for it by yourself, or maybe get a high-cost loan to do that.

We have a different vision of America. As a matter of fact, we have a vision that the people who are well to do and the corporations who have done so well should help out more. We believe in equity and a shared burden.

We believe in equity and a shared burden. In fact, the big five oil companies have received profits that are enormous when you look at them on this chart.

The gentleman keeps talking about tax reform. I would love to know, what corporate loopholes are you going to close? Are you going to close these Big Oil subsidies, or not?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of Civil rights activist, leader, and community advocate Elizabeth Ann Samuels. Elizabeth Samuels was known by those in the community of North Minneapolis as ``Mother Liz'' for her nurturing and strong demeanor and as a champion of human and civil rights.

A longtime resident of North Minneapolis, Mother Liz graduated from North High School and attended Augsburg College. Mother Liz served her neighborhood and the African American community in a number of key civic posts. For example, she spent many years as Director of the American Red Cross in North Minneapolis and also worked for the Coalition of Black Churches, the African American Leadership Summit, and the Willard Homewood Organization.

Mother Liz was deeply dedicated to her friends, family, and community and touched the lives of many people through her work, volunteering, and care-giving. I ask that we remember the spirit and passion for equality and peace that Mother Liz helped shape in the Minneapolis community.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 194 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order, not necessarily out of concern for unmet, unfunded mandates, although there are likely many in this bill; I raise the point of order because it's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we're being denied the ability to actually offer the amendments that we would like to to illuminate what's actually in this bill.

Republicans are playing partisan political games with America's future, America's seniors, and Americans veterans with the following: with America's government.

Since taking control of Congress over 13 weeks ago, Republicans have failed to introduce a single bill, not one single bill to create one single job. Instead, the Republican majority has hatched an unconstitutional scheme to fire nearly 1 million Americans and foreclose on the middle class.

Madam Speaker, I think it's ironic that today is April Fool's Day, because the Republican majority is playing an April Fool's joke on the American people. This unconstitutional Washington ``tricknology'' and ``trickeration'' reflected in the underlying bill would destroy at least 700,000 jobs according to the Economic Policy Institute, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economics, and even Goldman Sachs.

Let's be clear. The underlying bill of which Mr. Woodall is a cosponsor implies that the Senate has passed a bill which has already failed there. It assumes or deems that the President has signed a bill which he threatened to veto.

April Fool's, America. There is no Senate or Office of the Presidency today under the Republican majority bill. The Republican spending bill badly damages our fragile economic recovery, according to 300 economists of all political stripes, and threatens to send us spiraling into another Republican recession. And as we have heard earlier this week, the Republican answer to 14 million Americans who lost their jobs and can't find new ones is: Stop talking about jobs.

At this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) a simple question: How many jobs does this bill create?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentleman's decision not to answer my question.

I have the time and I have reclaimed it. I do appreciate the gentleman's decision not to answer how many jobs this bill is going to create because it certainly creates none. In fact, it destroys jobs. And it is really a shame. And I think that if the gentleman wanted to give us a number, even an estimate, just some sort of an estimate as to how many jobs this bill is going to create, we certainly could have a good dialogue about how America goes forward.

But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the gentleman cannot answer that question because the Republican majority has been exposed. They have a no-jobs agenda. And this bill they propose to deem and pass today would cut upwards of 1 million jobs and as low as 700,000. This is a no-jobs agenda.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I believe that the Republican no-jobs agenda is a serious affront to the American people.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Donna Edwards.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, would he be amenable to stripping out all but the Member pay issue that's contained within the bill? Would he be willing to do that?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

We will deal with the Member pay issue. Are you willing to do that?

Reclaiming my time, thank you for finally getting around to that ``no.''

Well, I think that makes the point here, Madam Speaker. The fact is that this particular Republican action is yet another opportunity to degrade and take away the basic social safety net of America while doing nothing to get Americans back to work.

Americans deserve to work. Americans thought that they were going to get a majority that would help them get back to work back last November, but they were sorely surprised when the Republican majority got in and decided to do nothing to help Americans get back to work. All the majority has done is strip away programs and things that will help Americans do better, to take programs and money away from police officers, to fire public employees. This has been their agenda, and this is too bad. I think that this is a shame, and it certainly is an abandonment of what people thought they were getting in November.

So, Madam Speaker, this particular point of order raised today does address the critical issues that must be addressed. But, at the bottom, we are still looking at 13 weeks with no jobs and Republicans offering legislation that literally would put nearly 1 million people out of work.

So I ask my colleagues to stand with the American people. Let's move America forward. Let's reject the rule and the underlying bill by voting ``no'' on this motion to consider this unconstitutional Washington trickery.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is just like saying, ``You know what, you said you were going to give

us a loaf of bread, but you only gave us a slice. So because you didn't give us the whole loaf, we're going to take all of the bread away, even the slice.''

Because the program isn't as successful as it could be, we ought to be getting in here and doing something about all the foreclosures across America as opposed to what the majority wants to do, which is get rid of even the meager program that exists.

This is unresponsive government. This is government that is turning its back and folding its arms on the American people. We've got 4 million foreclosures, and may end up with 7 million, and yet instead of trying to make a program work, we just get rid of the whole thing. This is a really sad day and a big mistake.

If you want to get up here and criticize the HAMP program, you can do that. But you know what: The HAMP program has come up with more than 600,000 active modifications. That's not nearly enough of what we need, but it has done something. Rather than get the program right, we abandon all those people who are underwater, all those people who are in foreclosure. That is a shame, and it's wrong.

Now let me say, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this program, this HAMP program that we're terminating today, this program, doesn't do anything to put Americans back to work. It doesn't do anything at all. The Republican majority has been here for 13 weeks and all they've done is cut programs that could put people to work. They haven't tried to fix anything that's not working. They've just tried to cut back on what America needs.

So that we will be in a position when people aren't working, they won't be paying taxes, we won't be even addressing this deficit because of the Republican no jobs agenda. It's really too bad. We were sent here to do something about jobs. We were sent here to do something about foreclosures. We're not doing anything about either, because the Republican majority refuses to address it.

One of the biggest problems with the HAMP program, now that we're on that subject, is that we did just allow incentives. We didn't really make the banks and the services do what they should do, which is to readjust these mortgages. People bought at bubble prices based on Republican majority decisions to not regulate, to abandon consumer protection, and this bubble market created expansive and big prices. The loans people got, we didn't see consumers get protected from no doc, low doc, NINJA loans. We didn't see any protection for the American taxpayer with any of these financial regulations involving derivatives. And yet when the bubble burst, the people are there to try to pick up the pieces.

But what does the Republican majority do? They just take away the one slice that might help some people instead of trying to do something to help the American people.

I hope the American people are watching this debate today, Mr. Chairman. I just hope they take careful note of who is on the side of the American neighborhood, who is on the side of the American people, and who's trying to take away that American Dream.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill today.

Mr. Chairman, the middle class is shrinking, and deficits are rising because Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated American homeowners and wrecked our economy. This is the 13th week of the Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans continue to ignore the people's top priority, which is jobs. Instead of working to keep middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on the American middle class. The American people sent us here to protect the dream, not to destroy it, not to perpetuate a Wall Street nightmare. Democrats are standing with the American people to create good-paying American jobs and to keep Americans in their homes.

This legislation is just the latest attempt by the Republican majority to end foreclosure programs to help middle class Americans. The majority's housing plan is very simple: foreclose on the middle class. Now that millions of families have already lost their homes, their plan is to hand out foreclosure notices to everybody else.

What's the Republican answer if you lose your home to foreclosure? So be it. What's the Republican answer if your neighbors lose their homes? So be it. What's the Republican answer if you lose your job? So be it.

Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York for a question. I am offering the gentleman 20 seconds because I want to ask him a question.

Does the gentleman want to answer the question?

How many jobs does this amendment create?

Reclaiming my time, the gentlelady hasn't told me the jobs that this amendment, this bill, is going to create.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

How many jobs is this amendment going to create or is this bill going to create?

I reclaim my time.

``No jobs'' is the answer from the gentleman from North Carolina. I appreciate his candor.

Let me just finish here.

We are here for the specific purpose of trying to create some jobs and to help the American people create their own dreams. That's about jobs. We've been here 13 weeks, and the majority caucus, Mr. Chair, hasn't created one single job.

I asked the gentleman from North Carolina how many jobs this bill is creating, and he just went off on a tangent somewhere. Now, I'm looking for some kind of a number. I'll even take an estimate.

How many jobs does this bill create?

I yield to the gentleman.

I reclaim my time.

Look, we are supposed to be creating jobs around here, Mr. Chair, and we're not creating anything.

The fact is we get spin and we get imaginary arguments and we get failed and flawed economic theory but no answer to the fundamental question, which is, when are the jobs going to start arriving around here?

Mr. Chair, it is a pretty simple question: How many jobs does this bill create? How many families will this bill help keep in their homes? In fact, Mr. Chair, I have three major studies here with me today which I would like to enter into the Record which state very clearly that the Republican spending bill eliminates nearly 1 million jobs. The Economic Policy Institute study shows that the Republican spending bill, H.R. 1, will cut nearly 1 million American jobs. Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics said that the Republican spending bill will cut 1 million jobs. A report from Goldman Sachs says that the Republican spending bill will cut nearly 1 million jobs.

Why is the Republican majority against jobs? Why won't they take a moment to do something about jobs?

[From the Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 9, 2011]

Republican Proposal to `Right Our Fiscal Ship' Throws More Workers

Overboard

(By Rebecca Thiess)

Update: Since this piece was posted last week, the

magnitude of discretionary funding cuts for the duration of

this fiscal year proposed by House Republican leadership has

grown substantially, especially considering the short time

frame for implementation. After the House Appropriations

Committee detailed $74 billion in cuts last Wednesday, a

number of conservative members demanded $26 billion in

additional cuts to make good on the ``Pledge to America,''

bringing the total level of cuts relative to President

Obama's FY 2011 budget request to $100 billion. A full $100

billion cut to discretionary spending would likely result in

job losses on the order of 994,000, using OMB's GDP

projections (CBO's projections are based on current law) and

assuming a fiscal multiplier of 1.5.

The new GOP budget proposes cutting non-security

discretionary spending by $81 billion relative to the

president's $478 billion request for 2011. Non-security

discretionary cuts of this magnitude would likely result in

job losses of just over 800,000. (2/15/2011)

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Does the author of the amendment need to be on the floor for his amendment?

So what is the answer to the question? Is that ``no''?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, let me close, then.

We've seen 13 weeks of the Republican majority. The American people made changes and expected jobs. They've gotten zero jobs bills at all. What they've seen is a Republican agenda that cuts 1 million jobs, cuts 1 million jobs, and on this critical issue of Americans keeping their homes, the Republican majority has nothing but to take away the small programs that exist. This is a shame, and I hope the American people are watching this debate today, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Quigley has an amendment at the desk, and I rise to offer his amendment on his behalf.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it's important that the American people are well aware that the Republican majority has had 13 weeks to introduce some kind of jobs bill, and they have introduced exactly none. Instead, what they've done is, we read the Constitution, and that's good except for we should probably do it on our own time. And then we have pursued an effort to cut American jobs, and now that we're dealing with housing programs, in the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, the Republican majority has nothing to offer except to take away the little program that does work.

The Republican majority's quick to say, oh, those 600,000 people who did get a modification, that's nothing, but to those people that's a lot. To those people, that's home. A responsible majority would say, well, how can we double the numbers, how can we triple them, how can we help Americans stay in their homes? But that's not what we have.

What we have today in America's Congress is a Republican plan to foreclose on the American dream. And so Congressman Quigley offers some very commonsense findings that should be contained within this legislation that point out the fact that as of February 25, $1.04 billion of HAMP funding has been disbursed; that as of January 31, there have been about 500,000-plus active and permanent modifications, about another 145,000 active trial modifications, for a total of well over 600,000 currently active modifications. The record should reflect that, Mr. Chairman, because the record should tell the truth. The record should tell the truth, yes, about problems that need fixing but also about the success that has happened.

It's a shame if we can't pass this very simple commonsense amendment, and we need to pass it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

To clearly correct the record, paragraph 5 says each current active modification has cost the Department of the Treasury approximately $1,518. That's an accurate statement, and I think the gentleman ought to read the documentation much more clearly because, to date, that has been the cost, and it's an accurate statement.

But my question is even deeper than that. What is the Republican majority going to do about the massive foreclosure crisis in America today? My question is, do you all stand by the proposition that it's just laissez faire economics, and that while we have socialism for the banks, we have hardcore capitalism for the American people? That's the question I'd like to hear the majority answer today. But this is an accurate statement. This has been, up till now, the existing cost of Mr. Quigley's amendment for each modification.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, in fact, the number $1,518 is accurate for the cost up until to date. That's how much the program has cost. Projected costs are a different matter. And I think if the

gentleman digs into the facts, he'll learn that.

But, again, let's talk about the bigger issue at work here. We're talking about a system in which, under Republican control, we have not regulated markets, have not pursued consumer protection, consumers getting into no-doc, low-doc loans, being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals whom the Republican majority refused to regulate. Under Republican majorities in Congress and in the White House, this chicken has come home to roost and has wreaked havoc on the American economy. And instead of trying to do something about it, the Republican majority is not doing anything about it.

It's one thing to get up here and say: You know what? That program isn't working very well, and here's somebody who thinks it doesn't work well. I'm quite sure that that story you read is probably true; but, you know what? There are a lot of people whom it did help. And more than that, why don't we fix it? What is the majority's program to deal with foreclosure? Do they have one, or do they just have criticism for what other people propose?

It's easy to be a critic. I'd rather write a critique to a movie than make one. I think making one is tougher, even a bad one. But being a critic is always easy, and the worst movie is better than the best review.

So let me just say, the Republican majority has a responsibility to respond to the American people. They have a responsibility to do something about foreclosures. And I'm hoping to hear somewhere, sometime, today, that they're ready to do something in favor of the American people.

The Republican no-jobs agenda has been exposed, Mr. Chair. The American people know they haven't done anything to create jobs or to protect homes. All they want to do is criticize programs that could use some improvement. They'd rather just get rid of them altogether.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise today to mourn the passage of my dear friend and fellow Minnesotan, Clarissa Mae Rogers Walker. Driven by a desire to change the world for the better, Ms. Walker spent her life serving many in need in the Twin Cities community.

Clarissa Walker began working as an operating room technician at the University of Minnesota Hospital. A few years later, Clarissa began working for Sabathani Community Center in 1968. It was at Sabathani that she discovered her passion for social work and she moved up the ladder in the organization because of her dedication and drive. She began as a youth supervisor, moving up the ranks to become a counselor, assistant director, acting executive director, and finally agency director of the Center.

Ms. Walker strengthened the Sabathani community by becoming involved in organizations geared towards helping the disadvantaged. For example: Ms. Walker created and led tax preparation programs which led to thousands of low-income residents receiving millions of dollars in tax refunds. This program, like so many others she influenced in her community, is still operational today. Ms. Walker was an active volunteer and board member on a number of national and local organizations devoted to social services for low income families.

Ms. Walker proved that one person can truly make a difference in a world where small deeds and individual strength can be overlooked and underestimated. Clarissa serves as an inspiration to all of us and has shown us that one person's determination to help those in need can truly change the world and the way we live in it. Her spirit of gracious fortitude will be remembered in Minnesota, and I ask that we draw on her strength and struggles in the work that we do for the American people at large.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me that we're here at this time when we've seen 4 million foreclosures across America, perhaps 7 million. We've seen neighborhoods devastated. And instead of the majority conference offering solutions to this foreclosure crisis, instead of them coming forth and saying, You know what, here's what we think we need to do for the American people to stay in their homes, all they want to do is destroy what Democrats have done. It's amazing. It's really something that I hope the American people pay very close attention to.

The gentleman on the other end says that, Look, somebody's going to buy the house that you lost in foreclosure. If we can be successful with programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, we will create an environment where people will not lose their homes because the value of their homes will not plummet. They will not end up underwater. And people will have somewhere that they can live and a neighborhood that they can be proud of.

But because the Republican conference is making itself abundantly clear, I think it needs to be clear to the American people whose side we're on. The Democrats are on the side of the American people staying in their homes. The Republican conference is on the side of throwing people out and foreclosing on Americans. And it's a sad, sad day in our Congress. We are in the middle of an enormous debate on the proper role of government. We believe the proper role of government is to have fair rules, to have real enforcement of our financial regulations, to have real consumer protection, and to intervene when people's neighborhoods are being destroyed by foreclosure.

The Republicans say, You're on your own. The market has all the answers. The market answers every question. Well, it doesn't answer every question, especially when the market doesn't have any cops on the beat, and when you let the people engage in all sorts of nefarious practices that caused the economic conditions that we're in today.

The Republican conference was in power when the regulations that led to this destruction were in place--and they did nothing. When the Democrats got in charge, we solved it. And now they're trying to disassemble it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to make this motion today because I'm opposed to the underlying bill, the NSP Termination Act.

Mr. Chair, in the course of this debate on the termination of foreclosure mitigation programs, including this bill, we've been enmeshed in a huge debate around what the proper role of government is.

The Republican Caucus clearly thinks that government has no role, that citizens are on their own, and that no matter how much devastation a particular phenomenon like the foreclosure crisis has caused, that citizens just have no help in the government. The government can't be there for them.

And, on the other hand, the Democratic Caucus, we believe that, in the proper circumstances, the government has an important role and does need to be there for the American people, and when we see property values dropping, whole neighborhoods destroyed, that we should do something about it.

This motion to strike the enacting clause, according to Rule XVIII, clause 9, ``if carried in the House, shall constitute a rejection of the bill.''

And, Mr. Chair, I urge that we do reject this bill. This bill is an affront and an insult at a time when Americans have seen over 4 million foreclosures across this Nation, devastating whole communities, devastating communities and wiping out city and municipal budgets, so that cities, when they have abandoned properties in their neighborhoods, are left with tearing them down and demolishing them on the nickel of the taxpayer in that city when, in fact, this is a community-wide problem.

There's no money in many cities to do the demolition. So what will happen is that an old, burned-out hulk will sit there and sit there as neighbors look on and see the property values in their homes plummet. And what we'll see, Mr. Chair, is people leaving dogs there. Perhaps the house will be an attractive nuisance. Perhaps some crime will be committed there, drug dealing there, dead animals left there, and neighborhoods will fall deeper and deeper in despair.

I grew up in the city of Detroit. I'm honored to represent the Fifth District of Minneapolis today, but I grew up in the city of Detroit, and I saw how the foreclosures in that city ripped that town apart. And the good people of that city had to sit by and watch folks burn houses. They would put them on fire, and years later, no money to demolish them that the city had, and it just helped folks say that, You know what? I'm going to leave this city because I can't stand to live here with that big hulk right next to my home. Who's going to help out?

Well, according to the Republican Caucus, that's not the proper role of government. And this is really what this is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard our friends in the Republican Caucus talk about jobs, yet they haven't introduced one single jobs bill, and we've been here for 11 weeks.

They talk about the deficit and go on and on ad nauseam about putting debt on our children and grandchildren. And yet, when they had the chance to raise revenue so that we could, in fact, pay the bills of this country, they were absolutely and adamantly opposed to it.

But now, when we see Americans have their neighborhoods slipping into oblivion, slipping into a situation where people can't live in their neighborhood and people can't sell their homes so they're just suffering, the Republican Caucus said, There's nothing we can do for you either.

They don't really demonstrate a commitment to jobs. They don't really demonstrate a commitment to even dealing with the deficit, at least not through revenue raising. They have a commitment to set Americans adrift, on their own.

I make this motion to correct the record on this Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This isn't a broken or ineffective program that should be eliminated. It is a vitally important program for local and State governments that need all the resources they can get to address neighborhoods that are overrun by foreclosures.

According to HUD, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has supported close to 100,000 jobs nationwide. They will be eliminated if we pass this bill. That's right. The Republicans, again, are cutting another 100,000 jobs for working Americans.

So, Mr. Chair, what does the Neighborhood Stabilization Program do?

It helps local and State governments renovate abandoned and foreclosed properties. It helps local governments revitalize communities instead of watching these neighborhoods deteriorate. It gives communities the ability to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

In my district, the city of Minneapolis has put NSP funding to good use. Thomas Streitz is the director of Housing and Policy Development for the city of Minneapolis, and he explains: ``The Neighborhood Stabilization Program has enabled the city of Minneapolis to stabilize neighborhoods throughout the city affected by foreclosure. Funding to date has impacted more than 530 properties, and with the additional funding sought, 56 more properties could be rehabilitated, bringing even more homeowners back into neighborhoods.''

I believe the NSP is a good investment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because the Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to keep middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on the American middle class. The American people sent us here to protect the American Dream, not to perpetuate a Wall Street nightmare. Democrats are standing with the American people to create good-paying American jobs and to keep them in their homes. Democrats are working to ensure that every American who wants a good job, can find one, and that middle class Americans can afford to buy a home and live the American Dream.

The legislation on the floor today proposes cutting funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Republicans want to foreclose on the middle class, and my amendment forces Members to look at how this legislation will impact their State. So far, for each Member, if you read my amendment, you will see how much funding may be

cut from your State. My feeling is that before Republicans vote to cut funding for a successful housing program and a foreclosure mitigation program, they should know how much funding is at risk for their State and what the people back home are going to think about their vote.

This legislation to cut housing funding makes it clear that the majority is not focused on creating jobs. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program helps local communities redevelop abandoned and foreclosed properties, and that funding helps to create jobs. It takes workers to demolish an abandoned building.

Overall, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has created about 93,000 jobs. This legislation to cut NSP funding is just another bill offered up by the majority that will actually cut jobs. The unemployment rate is currently 8.9 percent. This rate is far too high. It is wasting human capital. People's skills and talents are sitting on the sidelines instead of being put to good use and earning a good paycheck. Unemployed Americans are ready to get back to work, and we must use every tool at our disposal to create new jobs.

Instead of creating jobs, the Republican majority is launching an attack on American workers and foreclosing on the American Dream. The Republican plan to cut funding and cut jobs won't help our economy. It's going to do the opposite. It's going to hold back our economic recovery. The continuing resolution passed last month by the majority would cut $60 billion from programs and agencies that help the middle class and working families.

Economist Mark Zandi has estimated these cuts would result in the loss of 700,000 jobs. We can't afford to add to the already unacceptably high level of unemployment in this country. Republicans in Congress are pushing a reckless and irresponsible plan that protects tax breaks for millionaires and giveaways for corporate special interests at the expense of the middle class.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Two particular points, Mr. Chair. One is that, first of all, there's never been a program from any State, Federal, or local program that did not need review. I can tell you that in the city of Minneapolis, and in many other places, this program has been high quality and has been well, well run.

Now, the question is interesting because if the gentleman wanted to talk about inefficiencies in a program, we could talk about fixing those programs. We're not talking about fixing the NSP program. We're talking about eliminating it. So I think if this was a sincerely made point, that we would be talking about how we can improve the program. We should mend it, not end it.

Secondly, this amendment that I'm offering tries to inform Members as to the losses that their communities will endure by cutting the program. This program elimination will be felt across America in local communities where foreclosures are happening, and in those particular communities Members should know what is going to happen: that expenditures for demolishing and rehabilitating abandoned homes are not going to be there any more. And I think it's important the Members should know. And I think it's important that the people who live in the Members' communities should know.

And so I ask that the amendment be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, the middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because the Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated some homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to keep the middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on the American middle class.

The amendment I have right here in front of you describes findings which talk about the positive benefits of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This program is a good program, and no matter what may happen here today, the record should reflect the benefits of this program. This program was good, and the amendment offers language which sets forth findings, and the findings state the positive impacts of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including assisting local governments, supporting jobs, and impacting approximately 100,000 properties.

The highlights of this amendment about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program talk about the positive benefits to the communities that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program benefited--it helped local governments, and the fact is, Mr. Chair, local governments really did benefit from this program, and the record should reflect and the bill should report language that talks about those benefits.

I'd like to just say this as well, Mr. Chair. The fact is that it is true that once an abandoned property is sitting there on the tax rolls after a certain amount of time somebody may at some point buy it, as the gentleman on the other side says. But what happens in the meantime? In the meantime, the grass grows, dead cats and dogs get left there. In the meantime, the windows are broken. In the meantime, people's property values plummet. In the meantime, we have an attractive nuisance where young people might be pulled in and taken advantage of. Horrible stories have happened, Mr. Chair.

So the gentleman has been right in his argument that sometime in the future maybe somebody will buy this rundown, abandoned, stripped-out property with no copper left in it, with neighbors who have just been decimated in the value of their homes, but that would be a far cry from what we could do. And if we're going to terminate this program, which has helped so many local governments, we should at least put language and findings in the record which reflect the positive aspects of this program, including the 93,000 jobs that we're getting rid of and

the 100,000 properties that we've already helped, and the more that we could help.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. Chairman, let me only add this: that this language, which should be put in the bill and this amendment calls for, sets forth in the record the positive impacts of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which should be memorialized in the bill, things like job creation, saving the neighborhood, saving local governments exorbitant costs. The Republican caucus has not created a single job, and now they're even eliminating jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for providing the time so that we can share our views and opinions about the world we live in and about the importance of Congress' being responsive to the American people.

Tonight, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a caucus in the United States Congress, 83-member-strong, who can be counted on to stand up for peace as opposed to war, who can be counted on to stand up for working and middle class people and economic justice and a fair distribution of our Nation's resources, who can be counted on to stand up for civil and human rights, who believe that color, culture, sexual orientation, and things like this are not important as they relate to the worth or merit of a human being, and we can be counted on to stand up for these ideas that make our country great.

In fact, for every great movement in our country, whether it has been the

civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, whether it has been the right to expand the vote to 18-year-olds, whether it has been the fight to end slavery or to support the rights of working people on the job, including our public employees so imperiled today, it has been Progressives who have made these struggles. It has been conservatives who have always fought progress. They fought against ending slavery. They fought against integration. They fought against women's rights. Always the conservatives have been the ones against moving our country forward, and they are today again.

So we are the Progressive Caucus, and we are proud to be Members of this Congress. We are proud to be able to stand up and articulate a people-focused, American-focused agenda that we know and believe is going to be to the benefit of the American people. We are the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are very pleased to be Members of the Congress, standing up for the American people.

Tonight, I am here to talk about the Progressive message.

The Progressive message. The message that we are going to share tonight is protecting the American Dream. Protecting the American Dream, stopping corporate tax cheats, and having a sane budget. That's what we want to talk about tonight, protecting the American Dream.

What is the American Dream? The American Dream is the dream, not the fantasy, but the dream that if you work hard and you live life by the rules, that you will be able to be successful in America; that you will be able to get a job, go to school; that if you live long enough and are blessed to do so, that you will be able to retire with Social Security and Medicare; that your children and grandchildren will be able to get a quality education at a public school if they want to; and that, no matter what color they are or what culture they are or what religion they are, they are welcomed, because Americans are Americans are Americans. That's the American Dream.

This is a dream shared by people who go back 14 generations in America, like my family does, or people who are brand-new arrivals in America, the newest person who just got their green card or just got their citizenship, sworn in and just got naturalized yesterday. The American Dream. This is the dream we are talking about.

Now, I believe that the conservatives in this body have another kind of dream. Their dream, based on the policies that they pursue, is to get the rights of workers away from them. They are all applauding what happened in Wisconsin so that in the workforce and workplace you have got no democracy; you have no say-so on what happens to you. They want to have us working for China wages. They want us competing with the people in the Third World, and they want to drive wages down so that we can be price competitive with people who basically don't make anything.

They want to have a Tax Code that allows the richest of the richest to keep their money and not contribute to society, and push the expenses of society onto the working and middle class people. They envision a society where you have a tiny elite and a vast number of Americans who are desperate and will work for anything, because they will have gotten rid of the social safety net that we as a society come together and put in place. They want to get rid of LIHEAP, which is home heating oil; get rid of Pell Grants, which help our students from moderate and low incomes have a chance to get ahead; get rid of foreclosure mitigation programs so that Americans could try to keep their homes; get rid of all this stuff that helps people and just say, Yeah, you can work, but you had better work for whatever the big boss pays you, and you can't have a union. And if you are lucky enough to be among the top 1 percent, then life is going to be good.

This is the Progressive message. That is what we are here to talk about today, the American Dream. But the dream I am talking about is rooted in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I have got to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I love coming here to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Whenever I am privileged enough to be able to be on the House Floor at 10 a.m. or 12, whenever we open, I always feel good about saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I teach it to my children, the Pledge of Allegiance. And my favorite part of it--and of course I love the whole thing. But my favorite part of it is when we say, ``liberty and justice for all.'' I love that part of it. ``For all.''

Now see, the conservatives in this body, they like to talk about liberty. And then when they are talking about liberty, they are not talking about a woman's right to choose, because that is liberty. They are not talking about the freedom of worship to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Baha'i. No religion at all. They don't believe in that. They believe only one way to seek the Divine, and they get more radical with it every single day. They don't believe in liberties like that. They don't believe you should be able to say whatever you want to say. They don't necessarily believe in the liberties that I am talking about.

They believe in property rights. That's the liberty they are talking about. They mean that you ought to be able to own as much as you want. And if you can buy the whole State of Texas, Oklahoma or Minnesota and you have got the money for it, you ought to be able to do it. That is what they are talking about. They are talking about property.

Now, I believe in property rights, too. I am a very firm believer that you ought to own your home, you ought to own your business. You ought to be able to have some things that are yours, and they are not for the government to control. I share that belief with them, not to the extreme they believe it, but I do believe that there is an important role for property rights. I also believe that there is a right for personal liberties, too, and they are not so hot about that.

But it seems like they end the whole discussion after ``and justice for all.'' They are okay with the liberty part as long as it is property rights, but they are against the ``and justice for all'' because it is the ``and justice,'' not ``or justice.'' ``And justice.''

Justice has to do with treating people equally--all colors, all cultures, all faiths. Justice means that you marry who you want to marry in America. It is not the government's business. Justice means treating people with fairness. That is what it means. Justice in the economic sphere means that all of us have to share the burden of expense of this great country of ours and that none of us can reap all the goodies of being in America but don't have to pay anything when it comes to footing the bill. That is justice.

Now, this last part, in some ways, is the best part, ``for all.'' For everyone. Last week, we had some hearings in the Homeland Security Committee where one particular religious group was pointed out for persecution, actually. That was a sad day. For all, though. America is about for all. For everybody. All Americans of whatever faith group, of whatever color, of whatever, rural or urban, straight, gay. All of us. Liberty and justice for all. It ought to make you feel good.

And when you think about liberty, this means you can do what you want to do. My conservative friends think it only means property, but it really means property or personal liberty. Justice means we treat people fairly in America. You have got a right to a fair trial. Even if you are accused of a crime, we can't take your liberty or your justice away or your money until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice.

We have the Fourth Amendment that says the government has to have a reasonable basis and has to get a warrant before they go snooping on you. That is justice. Justice, the right to a lawyer. These things are important. And we don't give up on justice. Even if you are a person accused of something really bad and it looks like you really did it, still you get justice in this America I love so much. And it is for all. Everybody. We have no exceptions.

It seems like some of my friends on the conservative side of this body would have ``and liberty and justice for all except gays, Muslims, and immigrants.'' That is what it seems like their opinion is. That is how they behave anyway.

Anyway, I am just going to leave that up there for a moment because I am going to refer to it. But I want to

say, the fact is that Democrats aren't afraid to stand up for the middle class. We are not afraid to say that Americans, if you want, if you are ready to work hard, ought to be able to get a piece of that American Dream. If you are ready to study hard, we ought to do something to make sure that you can go to school and get a quality education. And the government, the American Government has a role, a certain responsibility to make sure that is there for you.

One of the big debates we are having in Congress now, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: On the one side, we have people on this side of the aisle, and they are under the impression that the government can't do anything for you, shouldn't do anything to help you out.

On the other side, we believe in mixed government. Yes, the government should be there for you, but you should be able to do--I mean, of course you have liberty and you have the private sector and the mixture with the public sector together. They say the private sector. We say private and public sector. This is the debate going on in Congress right now.

When I think about the things that we worked on today, they wanted to get rid of all the foreclosure mitigation programs. In America, 4 million foreclosures, and perhaps 7 million before it is all done, and we literally voted on the House floor today that all those people can just let the market deal with their problem. That is it.

Now, we didn't let the market deal with its problems when they came here and asked for $700 billion for Wall Street. We didn't let the market deal with them. They get some socialism when they are in a jam.

But really, when that bailout happened to those banks and Republicans voted for it, Democrats too--I voted for it, full disclosure--what happened is we said, Look, you have been irresponsible. You have done the wrong thing. You are like a person who has been smoking cigarettes in bed. You are like a person who has been drinking and got busted, and you are in jail.

And like that person who smoked in bed, your house burned down. But I can't run out and lecture you about how smoking in bed is wrong. I have got to go get some water and put the fire out, because the fire you started can burn my house down if I don't do something.

And just like that friend who got drunk and was out, you call me up at 2 o'clock in the morning and say, Man, I am really wasted. Yes, I am going to tell you off and tell you how wrong you are, but I am going to get up out of bed, and I am going to pick you up because I don't want you to get in the car and hurt yourself or hurt somebody else.

So, yes, I voted for the bailout. I voted for the bailout because, if Wall Street went down, it was going to take all the rest of us with it.

But the point is, under the Bush administration, they asked us to step up, and they asked all of America. This is a representative democracy. We represent our districts. And they asked the American people, through us as their representatives, to say, Could you please help Wall Street out? They were very irresponsible, but if we don't help them, we are all going to suffer. So can you help them?

And the American people, through us, their representatives, came up with the majority that said, Okay, we will help. We don't want to go through this again. We want our money back. We have rules we are going to impose, but we are going to help. And today, guess what? We pretty much are going to get all that money back.

But when the American people needed a hand, as soon as the Republican caucus got in the majority, they started tearing down all the foreclosure mitigation programs. This is a sad day, and it is wrong. It is morally reprehensible, and I am sad they did it. I fought against it. I voted against it every time I could. But we go by the rules, and the rules are the majority decides. There is another election coming up, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, there are two things that should be pointed out about the Republican caucus. They say two things, two things that don't make much sense. Well, they say a lot of things that don't make much sense, but they say two things in particular. One is that they are fighting for jobs. They are not fighting for jobs, because if they were fighting for jobs, you would see them introduce at least one jobs bill. We have been here for 11 weeks. They have introduced exactly zero job bills. None.

I know people listening, Mr. Speaker, might think, well, maybe. I am sure they introduced at least one or two. No. Check it. None. They have introduced none. Absolutely none. They have introduced no bills for jobs. In fact, they introduced these spending cuts that are going to cut jobs.

We showed today the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which they cut and voted to eliminate today, offered 100,000 jobs across America. One of those people was looking forward to that job so they could put groceries on the table, pay their rent, take care of business. But we cut that program out, and they are all fine with that.

The budget they introduced, H.R. 1--that bill--experts, even conservative economists, say, will cut 700,000 jobs. They are not even embarrassed about it. It is amazing.

Then they also say we've got to cut it. We've got to cut it because-- you know what?--We have got this enormous debt, and we don't want to put this debt--and they always say this, they always say this--on our children and grandchildren. They always say it. You know what they are about to say once they start saying it. We are broke. We can't put this debt on our children and grandchildren.

You know what? America is not broke. America is the biggest economy in the world. As a matter of fact, this economy is three times bigger than the Chinese economy. You wouldn't know that listening to them, because they are always running around like Chicken Little. Oh, my god, the sky is falling. The sky falling. America has got doom and gloom.

Well, I don't believe America is doom and gloom. I believe the best days of this country are yet to come. I think we have got to stop all this crying, and we have to understand that we have to grow ourselves out this deficit, not just cut everything so that we get rid of the social safety net that people rely on in order to climb up the ladder to the middle class. That is right, Mr. Speaker. We can't allow that to happen.

We have got to say that there are two things that Republicans say but are wrong. They are, one, not about jobs, because if they were, they would have introduced at least one jobs bill. They are not about cutting the deficit, because if they were, they wouldn't have forced President Obama into this bargain where they basically extended tax cuts for the richest, extended all of the tax cuts, which cost this country $858 billion. And they forced him into that bargain all so that we could extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work because of Republican mismanagement of the economy.

This is the reality. They say they are about the deficit. When we try to do anything to get some more revenue in, they are against it. They want to extend tax cuts for the richest Americans, and they are letting $858 billion go right out the door. If we had just let those tax cuts expire, it would have gone down to the rates when Bill Clinton was in office. And, do you know what? We had a booming economy then, because Democrats are just better at managing money than the Republicans are.

During the Bush years, we had slow job growth. We had very abysmal job growth. Middle class people had flat pay. We didn't have any increases. Of course, rich people had huge growth. They had precipitous growth in their income. It is amazing how much income the rich got during the Bush administration.

I will never forget that, at a big fundraiser that George Bush was having, he was talking to a body of people where there was an $800 a plate dinner, and the President said, ``Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.'' You know what? He wasn't lying when he said that, and he went into office and he took care of those people too.

So, they are not really about deficits, because if we didn't extend any of the tax cuts, we would eliminate the deficit in 4 years. I am for that. I will sign up for that. If we did not extend any of the tax cuts and if we let them all expire, the deficit would be wiped out in 4 years. But you know the Republicans

aren't serious about deficit reduction, so they would never do that.

So they are not serious about jobs. They are not serious about deficit reduction. I will tell you what they are serious about. They are absolutely serious about giving the richest Americans as much as they possibly can. That is what they are serious about. They are serious about giving the richest Americans as much as they can, and they are serious about taking and depriving lower income and working class Americans of a social safety net. They are serious about those two things, but they are not serious about jobs or deficit reduction.

But we in the Progressive Caucus are serious about liberty and justice for all. I really like this board, so I hate to take it down, but I will put it back up.

Now, I just said that the Republicans, conservatives, are absolutely not really about deficit reduction. They are really about cutting out the social safety net, cutting out aid for students, cutting out aid for poor people who need heat in our northern climates. They are for that kind of stuff. And they are for cutting out Head Start.

What they do is they extend these Bush tax cuts, and then they say, Oh, we don't have any money. And then they say the only way we can solve the deficit is through cuts. So you, grandma, you sonny boy who is in school, you little kid who is in Head Start, all of you guys are out of luck.

But that doesn't happen to some people.

Now here's a board, Mr. Speaker. And this board is what I call an interesting board. This board has on it Bank of America, General Electric, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo. Mr. Speaker, in my pocket right now, I have $25. That's what I've got in my pocket. I went to the ATM today because I need a little bit of money. That's all I got.

Mr. Speaker, I got more money in my pocket than all of these companies paid in taxes. Mr. Speaker, I got $25 in my pocket, and it's $25 more than Bank of America, General Electric, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, and Wells Fargo altogether paid in taxes. I need you to look this up, Mr. Speaker. I need you to investigate this. You might think, Oh, that's just a politician talking. I'm telling you. And I will back this up. They didn't pay any taxes.

And guess what? The Republican caucus is telling us that the students can't have any Pell Grants, that we can't afford a foreclosure mitigation program. They're telling us that we've got to cut Head Start, and we've got to cut home heating assistance. They're telling us that we've got to cut the basics that people rely on. We've got to cut research programs. We've got to cut programs that are going to help us investigate new scientific breakthroughs. But these guys don't want to pay. You don't want to pay anything?

Wait a minute, Bank of America. Wait a minute, GE. Aren't you guys proud to be American companies? Didn't you guys benefit from being here in the United States? Don't you feel good about being here in the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, where you're free to pursue profit all you want? All we want to do is ask you to do a little something for people who are still trying to climb the ladder. And, apparently, the Republicans say, Don't worry about it, guys. You don't have to pay anything. Oh, my goodness. This is really quite amazing.

Mr. Speaker, this board here is a challenge to all these companies and any other ones--the big ones that didn't pay any taxes. It's a challenge. It's a challenge to support tax policy to help America. It's a challenge to support the policy of ``and liberty and justice for all.'' They benefit from being here. They're protected by our Nation's fighting men and women in our military. They're protected by local police. If any one of their members gets injured or hurt or sick on the job, the emergency medical services come to their rescue.

They drive their big trucks and probably put more wear and tear on our roads than the regular citizens do. They use as much water as anybody else, sometimes even pollute it. In their cafeterias, they rely on the meat that's going to be served to be inspected by our government agencies.

Yet they don't want to pay nothing. And the sad thing about it is they probably wouldn't mind paying, but the Republican caucus insists that they pay nothing. Look at it, Mr. Speaker. They didn't pay. But on April 15, me and you are going to pay. We're going to pay big time. But guess what? Those companies didn't pay.

Also, it's not just corporations. It's individuals. I have no problem with Mr. Trump. I'm sure he's a nice person. Doesn't really seem like it on television, but he probably is. That's probably just an act. And I'm sure Ms. Hilton is a nice person, too. I've got nothing against them personally at all. Nothing bad to say about them. But I don't think they need a tax break. I don't think they need a tax break. I think they should pay their fair shares. I think the billionaires should pay their fair share.

As we are in the middle of a mighty budget battle, Mr. Speaker, I think patriotic Americans should say, We need a progressive Tax Code that asks the most privileged of all of us to pony it up, too. If you're going to ask Mildred, who bangs it out nine hours a day at a diner on $9 an hour for money for taxes; if you're going to ask teachers and cops, firefighters, and EMTs to bang it out and pay up on April 15, I think Donald Trump and Paris Hilton should pay up, too.

Now, I don't have any problem with these people. I hope nobody thinks that this is a personal attack on them. It's not. It's just the statement that in all your houses that you own--both of them probably have many--somebody has got to heat them houses, somebody has got to protect those houses if somebody breaks in them. Somebody has got to come put the fire out should, heaven forbid, it should ever happen. The road has got to be built; the sewer lines have got to be maintained and put out there.

That's the government. That's our American Government. And I just think these good folks here ought to feel good about writing a check so that the cops and the teachers can stay on the job; so that the kids who need a Pell Grant can get it; so that the kids who are in Head Start can have a program; so that there can be home heating assistance for our seniors. I would just think that they would do that. And I hope that they do. Again, nothing personal.

Mr. Speaker, I've looked at the Republican program, and I've looked at it carefully. I ask myself about their program, and I say to myself, Mr. Speaker, you know what? I don't want to just say their program is this or that; I want to look at what their program is and see what is actually there. And then after we can see what is there, then we can determine what actually their program is.

We can't go by what they just say, because they say, Oh, we just want to take the debt off of our children and grandchildren. Oh, we just want to get rid of this debt, or we don't have any money. None of that is true. But what is true? I think it's important to really dig into what's actually true, and I think it's important for us to really try to figure out what their program is based on their behavior.

So what I have come up with is the plan for a Republican recession. This is their plan. They want a permanent tax break for billionaires at the expense of working families. I'm sure these billionaires are nice people. In fact, you don't see too many billionaires down here saying, Hey, I need more money, Keith. We hear the Republicans saying that, who are supposed to be elected by the people. Which people?

The second thing is put BP, British Petroleum, in charge of our energy policy because the last speaker got up, going on and on about BP. I would check the facts. But here's a fact that you don't need to check, but you should. Leaders in their caucus--leaders on the Energy and Commerce Committee and their caucus--accuse President Obama of doing a shakedown of BP when you have to clean up the oil spill in the gulf, and now we have Members attacking him. That's an interesting fact right there. I found that quite remarkable.

Anyway, put Goldman Sachs in charge of our economic policy. Put insurance companies between you and your doctor. They always are saying, Oh, government takeover. They want to repeal health care, the Affordable

Care Act, which will put you back at the whim of an insurance company bureaucrat. At least the government you can vote on. You can't vote on the insurance company. That's a privately held company.

Bonuses for CEOs who ship American jobs oversees. Privatize Social Security. Oh, yes, they did. Raise the retirement age. Gut Medicare. And some of them have even stood for repeal of the 14th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

This is a Republican plan. This is what they stand for. This is what they're about. This is what they believe in. I think that they should be proud and come down here and claim it and say, Yeah, we are for the very rich. We're not for you working class people. Because that's their program. That's what they stand for.

The conservative position is to call for tax cuts and deregulation because they believe that will unleash the competitive economy. Tax cuts and deregulation resulted in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. But even though we've seen massive drops in home values, we've seen 8.9 percent unemployment, the longest unemployment since the Great Depression, even though we've seen so much economic devastation, they're back here right now calling for the same old thing. It's crazy, it's amazing, and it's actually quite scary.

But we stand for the American Dream. We stand for liberty and justice for all. Folks, unless you actually live by it, it's just words. You've got to put meaning into these words in order for them to really make a difference. Liberty and justice for all. Shared prosperity. Shared costs. Not just one or the other.

Bank of America, as I said, didn't pay a single penny in Federal income tax in 2009.

Despite receiving billions from the Federal Government every single year in taxpayer giveaways, Boeing didn't pay a dime in U.S. Federal corporate income tax in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

Citigroup, deferred income taxes for the third quarter in 2010, amounted to a grand total of zero. At the same time, Citigroup has continued to pay its staff lavishly. A gentleman by the name of John Havens, head of Citigroup's investment bank, is expected to be the bank's highest paid executive for the second year in a row. He got $9.5 million. Citigroup is a big TARP recipient, by the way.

ExxonMobil, Big Oil tax dodgers, used offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to pay their fair share. Although ExxonMobil paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, not a single penny of it went to the American Treasury. This is the same year that the company overtook Wal-Mart in the Fortune 500. Meanwhile, total compensation of ExxonMobil's CEO was $29 million.

General Electric, 2009, the world's largest corporation, filed more than 7,000 tax returns and still didn't pay anything to America's government. GE managed to do this with the aid of a rigged Tax Code that essentially subsidizes companies for losing money. With the aid of Republicans in Congress whose campaigns they financed, they exploit our Tax Code to avoid paying their fair share.

And who do Republicans blame? The middle class. Republicans blame public employees, who are really America's everyday heroes. Public employees are America's everyday heroes. Think about it. If somebody breaks into your house, who are you going to call? A public employee, who's going to help apprehend the people who stole your stuff, known as a police officer.

If your house starts burning, who are you going to call? A public employee, also known as a firefighter. If your kid wants to go to school, public school, who's staying after working on that algebra, working on that geometry, making sure that kid gets that lesson, who believes in that child's ability to learn. Who's doing that? Teachers.

Heaven forbid, you get a heart attack or a stroke and you need an emergency medical technician. Who's that? A public employee. These public employees, who have been viciously slandered in Wisconsin and in other places, they don't deserve that. They're hardworking people and they help us every single day. When we are running out of burning buildings, they are running into them, and I think they deserve better than what they've been getting. That goes for Federal employees, too. These are the people who inspect our water, who take care of our national forests and our parks. These are people who make our government run. I think they do a pretty good job.

In order for them to have a decent life, in order for them to do well, in order for them to be able to prosper--to hear the Republicans talk, you'd think that being a government employee, a public employee, a person who's an American hero, who takes care of us every single day, you'd think that they're just the ones living lavishly and getting too much. They've got nothing to say about these bonuses. You ever hear anything on the Republican side of the aisle talk about how it's ridiculous for the CEO of ExxonMobil to be making $29 million a year? You don't hear that. You don't hear that.

But I think that it's time for those folks, those millionaires and billionaires, to start ponying up. That's why today I was happy to join Jan Schakowsky and several other Progressive Caucus members to introduce the Fairness in Taxation Act. During these times, millionaires and billionaires should be giving in charity, not getting charity. They should be giving in charity, not getting charity. The middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because Republicans are giving a pass to the special interests who aren't paying their fair share. It's time to put that money in the hands of people who work for a living. The Fairness in Taxation Act is part of a plan to level the playing field.

According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of March 2, 2011, with 81 percent of support, the most popular way to reduce the deficit is by placing a surtax on Federal income taxes for those who make more than a million a year. And if you don't think there's plenty of people who make more than a million a year, you'd be surprised to know that if we taxed them, it would raise about $78 billion.

It's time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. The middle class is disappearing, and it's no accident. Over the last 30 years, there has been the most dramatic and deliberate redistribution of wealth from the middle class up to the millionaires and billionaires. Not since 1928, right before the Great Depression, has income inequality in this country been this ridiculous. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families, despite enormous gains in productivity, meaning that we're making more within the same amount of time, because they're working us harder and we're just doing more. We've got technology and we're just pretty good at what we do.

Where did the money go? Where did the extra money go? The money went to the richest 1 percent which owns 34 percent of the Nation's wealth, more than the entire bottom 90 percent who owns just 29 percent of the country's wealth. The top one-tenth of 1 percent, I'm talking about the richest of the rich, now makes an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans is $31,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who tune into C-SPAN make $31,000 a year. They have relatives and friends who make $31,000 a year. You might be a brand new teacher making $31,000 a year. You might be a brand new cop making $31,000 a year. But the top one-hundredth of 1 percent makes $27 million a year on average. They can't pay anything. They don't want to pay to help Head Start. They don't want to pay to help Pell Grants. It's a shame. I would think that they would pony up and want to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that it is always a pleasure to come before the House for the Special Order for the Progressive Caucus, but tonight I just want to leave one thought, and that one thought is liberty and justice for all. No exceptions. Everybody.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 17, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote No. 173, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 165. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we've now entered about the 55th day when the Republican majority has been in control of the House, and they've yet to introduce a single bill to create a single job for anyone anywhere.

The Republican majority has, however, introduced cuts to our national budget that will take away vital programs and cut jobs--cut jobs like cops and nurses and teachers and things like that.

The Republican majority doesn't seem to be interested in jobs, and their no-job agenda will not escape the view of the American people.

The American people sent us all here to make sure that we have a more perfect Union, that we have prosperity in our land. We don't have it because unemployment is just too high, and the Republican majority is not doing a thing about it.

It's time to get on with the business of creating jobs and get rid of the Republican no-job agenda.

Madam Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 155. I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, House Joint Resolution 44.

This bill is just another part of the reckless Republican no-jobs agenda. Instead of focusing on creating jobs, Republicans are trying to cut nearly 1 million jobs across the country. Republicans have been in control of the House for now more than 2 months. They have been in control of the House for now more than 2 months, and they have failed to bring up a single bill to create a single job.

I mean, they haven't done just a poor job. They haven't done anything. This bill is just a mini-version of a larger Republican drive that America soundly rejected a week ago. I am absolutely against starting down a series of short-term cuts, of short-term CRs, that result in a bleed of the American middle class. This is death by 1,000 cuts--a slow bleed.

As Speaker Boehner stated earlier this week before the National Religious Broadcasters convention, ``If they won't eat the whole loaf at one time,'' he said of the Democrats, ``we'll make them eat it one slice at a time.''

This is what this short-term CR is all about, one slice at a time, with the goal of shoving a whole loaf down the throats of the American people. The American people don't want the Republican layoffs. They want jobs.

Let's be clear. The bill before us today is just one more fight in this battle to keep American jobs. It's the

same job cuts that Republicans passed a week ago. This is just a 2-week version of it. The Republicans' reckless ``so be it'' attitude on spending destroys jobs that threaten America's economy. You don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the report released by the chief economist at Moody's, Mark Zandi, if you want to know about the Republicans' ``no jobs agenda'' CR, which would cut 700,000 jobs by year's end if they make us eat one slice at a time and which would reduce economic growth.

Let me quote economist Mark Zandi directly: ``While long-term government spending restraint is vital and laying out a credible path toward that restraint very desirable, too much cutting too soon would be counterproductive.''

The economy is adding about 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month; but until that number reaches about 200,000 on a monthly basis, ``imposing additional government spending cuts before this has happened would be taking an unnecessary chance with the recovery.''

Mr. Speaker, we're now going into the 10th week, having been in Congress in session for many days now--we've actually had 7 weeks where we've actually been in Washington working and another several weeks where we've been at home in our districts working--and we haven't seen one single, solitary Republican jobs bill yet.

My question is, when are they going to get to the business the people elected them for? The Republicans ran on a ``where are the jobs?'' agenda. I remember it ringing in my ears so many weeks ago. And now, here we are 10 weeks in, and they haven't done anything.

Mr. Speaker, I was in my district last week talking to people about jobs and talking about unemployment. I was in the WorkForce Center. I was at job sites talking to people. And I'm telling you, people with jobs are nervous and afraid that they might lose them. And people without them are losing hope. They are losing houses. They are losing their lives, really.

I implore the majority caucus, Mr. Speaker, to get on the question of jobs and stop this Republican ``no jobs'' agenda. It's time to bring some jobs bills to the floor and to heed the call of the American people: Jobs now.