Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the CR in larger context. What's going on? The American people have been watching us debating this stuff for days now late into the night. What is it all about? What it's all about, Mr. Speaker, is which direction will America go in? Will we cut back and scale back vital programs that help Americans do better and move into the middle class? Will we cut back and scale back vitally needed regulations to help protect us, allow us to have clean air and clean water and important other rights?

Or, Mr. Speaker, will we have an America where we have labor rights, where we can organize, where we can have adequate regulations that give us the opportunity to a decent standard of life in America? It is a stark choice. A dim view where the vision is a small number of really wealthy people and a vast number of really desperate people, or a large, robust, strong middle class which powers America into the future? What we are fighting about is the soul of this country, the direction of this country. And the Democratic Caucus is standing firmly with the people as we have seen the people of Wisconsin stand up and snatch back their destiny from somebody who would take it from them.

So, Mr. Speaker, today focus your attention, the people are rising up around America, and the Democratic Caucus is standing strong right here.

Madam Chair, on February 18, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 97. Had I been present, I would voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 267 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

I thank the gentlelady for the time.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at this amendment by Representative King, it's the closest thing to a jobs bill that I've seen since January started--and it's disappointing. The reality is that I wish we weren't debating this at nearly 3 o'clock in the morning, because I would love the American people to see that this is what substitutes for a jobs bill in this day and age.

The fact is that this is what the very fight is all about. Do we want to build a robust middle class or do we want to pay people the least we possibly can pay them to keep them desperate and drive wages down to nothing so that we have a very small group of really wealthy people and a vast group of really desperate people who would do anything to work and who could have their unions busted because you've got people who've got to do what they've got to do and cross that line?

This is at the heart of what it's all about.

This is the fight.

Shall we have a middle class and pay people decent wages or shall we continue on this drive to separate and increase wage inequality in this country so that the richest have so much and so that the rest of us just don't have much at all?

Davis-Bacon is good legislation because it strengthens our middle class so that people can actually have a decent quality of life, send their kids to school, be able to send them to college, and have decent retirements. It's about making a strong middle class based on a decent, livable wage.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, after 4 million foreclosures--and perhaps we're going to reach 7 million foreclosures--$70 million in loss of home value, after massive unemployment, after an enormous financial bailout bill that we had to do to save this economy, it's impossible for me to understand how it is anybody would not want to have a strong consumer protection provision in our law.

How in the world, after the massive recession that we went through, after all the damage that has gone through to hit this economy, which started in the consumer sector, Madam Chair, which started because consumers were taken advantage of with no doc, low doc loans packaged into securities and then hedged by these credit default swaps which Warren Buffet said caused millions in financial destruction, how would we want to undermine consumer protection?

The fact is consumer protection helps to make sure that we have a strong, sound, and safe system. And if it would have been in place, we would not be in this situation now. We are in this situation now for one reason and one reason only. It is the laissez-faire attitude that pervades the opposition to this fair amendment, and it should be passed. The Holt amendment is right.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out a few important facts about the for-profit educational sector, and that is that the low-income students make up about half of the enrollment for for-profit colleges and minorities comprise about 37 percent. So this really is a matter of low-income and minority students facing what are high-cost loans for students, and often 90 percent of the money comes from the Federal Government.

Now, as I listen to my friends in the Republican caucus, I would think that they would want the best value for the public dollar. This rule means that some money spent will result in the outcome that is sought in the beginning, which is gainful employment.

Too many of the students who go to these schools are coming out with nothing other than big debt, and no education, no gainful employment at all. And this is a problem. And I'm surprised that we would not say that, look, we are going to make sure that when the Federal dollar is put forward, there will be value coming back for it.

Now, I am no opponent of for-profit colleges. I think ones that are performing well are certainly welcomed in the market and serve a valuable role. But there are bad actors. And I think it's important to point out we have seen this movie before, Mr. Chairman. We have seen it when people said, Look, poor people, low-income people

of color need to get mortgages. And, well, you know what? Well, they can get subprime mortgages. Now, not all subprime mortgages were predatory mortgages, but some were. And enough were to be able to take advantage of people on a very severe scale.

This rule, if it goes into effect, if allowed to proceed forward, would make sure that these students and the government get good value for their money, and no for-profit college that is not relying on a business model that bilks the consumer, the student, should object. No college, no for-profit college that relies on a business model that actually is designed to help the students they propose to help should object to saying, Look, we're going to deliver what we say we're going to deliver, which is gainful employment.

This is no friendly thing for the poor and low-income students of color. This is an abuse. Not all for-profit colleges, but some. And the Federal Government has a responsibility to make sure that these students are not taken advantage of.

By the logic of some of the proponents of this amendment, we should say that, look, any loan shark, pawn shop, payday lender, we ought to just thank them because, you know what, they serve the poor. Well, they had better serve the poor in a fair, scrupulous way and not take advantage of people in a circumstance where they are at a disadvantage.

So I urge members to vote this amendment down and to allow the proper rulemaking procedure to go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to fellow Minnesotan William J. Davis in honor of his twenty years of service as President and CEO of Community Action of Minneapolis.

At the helm of Community Action of Minneapolis, Mr. Davis has advocated tirelessly for underserved communities; ensuring the concerns of so many, which are often overlooked, are heard. During his twenty years of dedication, innumerable citizens have received critical services vital to their well being: children and family development, weatherization, home electric savings and energy services. Under Mr. Davis' calculated and efficient stewardship, Community Action of Minneapolis has not only grown, but thrived.

Mr. Speaker, the stability of our cherished American life is contingent upon a functional and educated populace. Public servants such as Mr. Davis continue to ensure that opportunities to contribute at any level within our nation are extended throughout our society. The continued pursuit of equality has become a cornerstone of which we, as Americans, are tremendously proud. Our pride would be unwarranted without the profound contributions of public servants such as William J. Davis.

Madam Speaker, I come before the House today to talk about a critically important program that I think all Americans need to know about which is hanging in the balance as we approach this continuing resolution. The program I am here to talk about is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also known as LIHEAP.

LIHEAP is a program commonly believed to be an income-support program. But actually, Madam Speaker, it is not an income-support program. LIHEAP, which provides energy to low-income families, heating oil, things like that, is actually a health program and a program that is designed to make sure that citizens do not have to choose between heat and eat. You do not have to choose between dinner and a warm room. Many of us who are from places like Minnesota, my own home State, but also Michigan, Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, add to that many others--Montana, many others, and even some States that we think of as warm-weather States, but in the winter can get cold too--really, people depend upon these programs to really survive.

In my own State, if LIHEAP is cut, many people will simply go without. And of course I have statistics here, Madam Speaker; but rather than talk about statistics, I want to talk about a man who lived in my district who was actually not a LIHEAP recipient but was eligible for the program and didn't use it. He didn't have enough money for his heat, so what he did was he kind of jerry-rigged some space heaters, and he kind of made due. And this caused a fire, Madam Speaker, which resulted in his death.

And when I looked up what really happens, how often people die from space heaters, the numbers are not always consistent, but upwards of 32 percent of all home fires are because of space heaters; and about 75 percent of all home-fire deaths are due to space heaters, deaths.

People die when this happens because they don't have the energy assistance that they need. And our Congress, right now, under Republican majority, is talking about cutting this program even more.

Now, you think about a winter like this one, Madam Speaker, where there have been record snowfalls in many places around our country, and it's been cold since October in Minnesota. And the fact is that programs that provide LIHEAP funding are already running out of money. And if they were drawn back to 2008 spending levels, we would have run out of LIHEAP funding in January. In Minnesota it really does not warm up until around April. And so this is terrible.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you, if you look at young people, kids, statistics show that if a family does not have to put a bunch of money into heating the home the child's diet improves, and the kid has enough to eat before he goes to school, which means that that little girl or that little boy can sit in the classroom without their stomach growling and can actually pay attention to the lesson that's going on because their family has some home energy assistance.

Our seniors are poor. It's about the prescription, or it's about the heated room.

Madam Speaker, it's not right to tell Americans that the wealthiest and most well-to-do among us get their tax break extended, and the poorest among us, well, they can just go get another blanket. That's wrong. We're failing a moral test of our Nation when we do things like this.

Madam Speaker, I want to raise this issue that we consider what we are doing to our society. It's not welfare; it's not income support. It is a health program. It is a health program designed to make sure that Americans don't freeze to death in their own homes. It is a health program designed to make sure that Americans don't have to make awful decisions about medication, about food, and things like this. It is a health program. And it's a program that has done countless amounts of good for many, many people that helps seniors, that helps children.

I'm very proud, Madam Speaker, as I close, to quote a man from my State of Minnesota. His name was Hubert H. Humphrey, and he said, The moral test of a Nation is how it treats people in the dawn of life, our children; people in the twilight of life, our seniors; and people in the shadows of life, the poor and underprivileged.

If we cut low-income energy assistance, we've failed that moral test.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Flake's amendment to cut wasteful defense spending. Unfortunately, the underlying bill is just another part of the Republican no jobs agenda. Since the Republican caucus has taken over the majority, they haven't put one jobs bill on. I mean, they haven't done a poor job--they haven't done anything. It is as if they are not in favor of Americans having jobs. We know they are, but they haven't demonstrated it in anything they have done, which is the important thing.

Instead, as part of the Republican no jobs agenda, they bring up a bill to cut 1 million jobs, cut 1 million jobs from the American middle class. These cuts are Republican answers for the job crisis that they created. Cutting 1 million jobs. If you are a nurse, no jobs. If you are a teacher, no jobs. If you are a firefighter or police officer, no jobs. If your jobs are from American manufacturing, no jobs. And if you are a small business person, who is going to have any money to even go into your store? No jobs for them either. The list goes on and on.

If you want to know how we cut the deficit, it is by putting America to work, not by cutting Social Security. Make no mistake: When the Republicans say they are cutting costs, they are cutting Social Security, they are cutting Medicare, they are cutting Medicaid, until they cease to exist. Republicans want working Americans to shoulder the whole burden, the burden of a taxpayer-funded spending spree for the rich while protecting millionaires and billionaires who refuse to pay their fair share.

The Republican answer to the crisis they created is, you pay, American people. They must make you pay for Big Oil's billion dollar subsidies. They want to make you pay for higher drug prices. They want to make you pay for taxes to start a small business. They want to make you pay for CEO bonuses. They want Main Street to take the hit while Wall Street gets a bonus.

While Democrats work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and rebuild America, Republican Speaker John Boehner said, so be it if we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Is that what the American people said they wanted in November? The American people want Republican leaders to look out for constituents first, not corporate friends. And now the American people are saying, show us the jobs.

We have been seeing a no jobs agenda, a jobless agenda. Forty days in the majority, and nothing to create jobs. No jobs for the American people. Madam Chairman, we need to make this change.

Will the Republican caucus even today, Madam Chairman, say you know what, we are not going to cut 1 million people, 1 million public employees out of work. We are going to actually do something to create jobs? It appears not, Madam Chairman.

What we need to do is withdraw some of these massive oil subsidies. What we need to do is save some money by not rewarding the wealthiest among us and industries who have not been responsible corporate citizens and actually use it to put Americans back to work so that they can pay some taxes and actually reduce this deficit.

Make no mistake about it, Madam Chairman, we are concerned about the deficit: $200 billion of it goes to interest on the debt. That money could be going to programs that help people, to help children, to help seniors, that can make and strengthen and improve our infrastructure and our country. But instead it goes to this massive debt, built up by Republicans with their massive tax cuts to the rich, two wars and a big pharma giveaway. They created the problem. Now when we try to solve it, they want to put us back in the hole.

So, Madam Chair, I want to say that if this country--our country--has a deficit to fix, let's fix it by a bold, creative, courageous vision of America where we create infrastructure, we create work, we create jobs, rather than just cutting back the social safety net and taking away what little people have. We need to stop the Republican no-jobs agenda.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the valiant, heroic, brave people of Egypt who for 18 days took to the streets in Tahrir Square and used people power to stand up and to liberate themselves. For 18 days, they called on things like governance and to have a hand in their own destiny and their own democracy. Human rights, bread, dignity, things like that. I was so proud, watching the people in Tahrir Square of Egypt stand up and claim their dignity back, and I was proud to be able to say that so many Americans stood shoulder to shoulder with them.

I also want to add, Mr. Speaker, that it demonstrated that the people of Egypt reject the philosophy of al Qaeda, reject the philosophy of extremism, and used nonviolent tactics, tested the world over, to bring forth democracy. This is a wonderful testament to people who want freedom, justice, and equality to stand together peacefully. And it was so good, Mr. Speaker, to see people of multiple faiths--Muslims, Christians, other people, Jews--standing together to say, We want a new day in Egypt.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, my hearty congratulations to the people of Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I am coming down to the floor tonight to speak on behalf of the Progressive Caucus to talk about the real situation when it comes to our Nation's economy.

First of all, the Republican Caucus essentially created this massive budget deficit themselves through two wars and a massive tax cut for the very wealthiest Americans--the people who didn't need a big tax cut, who didn't ask for a big tax cut but who got one anyway, and who demanded, in exchange for poor people who were unemployed, getting unemployment extensions, that the richest of the rich get a bunch of tax breaks or get them extended so that, even when they die, they can just pass on massive amounts of money to their heirs and never have to do anything to help the society that helped them make all that money in the first place. I'm not talking about taking it all. I'm talking about something called the estate tax, which is something that every society has, and it just makes sense.

You have heard, Mr. Speaker, a lot of things that just ain't so-- aren't true--and are just invented.

We see our Republican colleagues saying very piously, Oh, we've got to make sure we don't pass on this deficit to our children and grandchildren. Well, they created the deficit. They created the deficit through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people and an Iraq war, which never, ever, ever should have been fought. So now what they say is the richest of the rich don't have to chime in; they don't have to help out; they don't have to give up anything. They just want to take it out of the poorest of the poor. Now they want to say, Oh, we have to have an adult conversation with our seniors.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That's insulting to me.

To say to a 65-year-old person who has worked his whole life, who maybe has pain in his back because of the hard work he has done and tell him, We have to have an adult conversation, I hope every senior in this country turns to the Republican Caucus and says, Sonny, young lady, don't you tell me about having an adult conversation. I'm the adult around here.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that an adult conversation means you're going to try to cut benefits for people who have worked hard and have paid into Social Security. That's not fair. That doesn't make any sense. By the way, Social Security doesn't contribute to the budget deficit. We actually borrow money from Social Security. Social Security is something that is the crown jewel of American politics and the crown jewel of our Nation. It is one of the finest programs that our country has ever seen, and it is something that says that our seniors will not live their golden years in abject poverty. It's an income source. It's how we honor our people who have been able to stick around and carve a path for the rest of us. Now some folks in our Republican Caucus want to have an adult conversation with them. That is an absurdity, and I think we ought to call it what it is.

In a few days, we're going to be dealing with the budget. In a few days, we're going to deal with the CR. The CR is the continuing resolution. The CR really represents a Republican pink slip for America.

The Republican Caucus had their way. They were against regulation. They deregulated everything. We said, You know what? Those things, those derivatives, they don't need to be regulated at all. They promoted this philosophy of no regulation of big business. What it resulted in is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression-- the worst one. A financial crisis and housing crisis all over the place were caused because the people who were supposed to mind the store refused to. They figured that, you know, all the folks who work in our Nation's economy--the businesspeople, the industry folks--would just always do the right thing. The market would solve every question.

Well, the market didn't solve every question.

Markets are important things, as people know, and they can be extremely helpful, but they need folks to regulate them because there are social activities that human beings conduct and engage in. Everybody knows, when human beings get together and do something, some of them will do the right thing, and some of them will not. That's why we have police. The police officer is not for the honest person. He's for the person who needs to be watched after. In every market, most people do the right thing, and some people do not; but we said no regulation, so the cop on the beat was gone, and even the good actors in the housing market were getting out-competed because the bad ones were willing to do anything, so it was a race to the bottom.

Then after the Republicans pushed their philosophy of laissez-faire economics, it failed us. That's why under President Bush there needed to be a massive bailout of Wall Street, because that philosophy failed us.

Now, all of a sudden, these guys act like, well, it's the Democrats' fault that the budget deficit is here. President Obama literally helped to lead saving this economy. We saved the American auto industry. You would think they'd say thank you. We saved Goldman Sachs. We saved all these big banks. Now you would think, by the bonuses they're handing out to each other, that they would have more appreciation than they've shown so far. Literally--literally--President Obama helped save this economy and put it back in shape.

Private job growth is going up. When the Republicans had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, in President Bush's last month in Congress, we saw 741,000 jobs lost. We were losing millions of jobs under Bush. Then as soon as the Democrats get in, we begin to add jobs back on, but we didn't add them on fast enough. Part of the reason is we couldn't get any cooperation from the Republican Caucus.

The fact is now they have gone out there, and they have told the American people it's not health care; it's death panels. Oh, it's not financial reform; it's the Democrats' bailing out people. Wait a minute. The bailout happened in the Bush regime. The Bush White House was in operation during that, and they just sort of bamboozled a lot of folks.

The fact is that once they get in, first thing they do is they read the Constitution. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. I love our Constitution. I'm a lawyer, studied constitutional law, taught it in fact; but I can read the Constitution on my own time. I don't need to take up floor time for that.

Okay. So then you'd think they're going to get to getting America back to work and doing some jobs after that. Well, guess again. What they do next after that is they want to repeal health care. They want to repeal seniors' ability to get that donut hole closed up. They want to repeal seniors' ability to get free preventative care. They want to repeal seniors' ability to be able to get some real help when it comes to meeting their basic needs in the health care system. They want to get rid of the system to squeeze out waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare so we can make it a program more solvent and to last longer.

They want to repeal all that. They want to repeal health care; but you know what, the Senate was never going to go for it and the President is not going to go for it. And they knew it and they knew it and they knew it, but that didn't stop them, Mr. Speaker. The Republican caucus went on ahead with health care repeal anyway, wasting hours on the floor when we could have been talking about jobs.

So, first of all, we take up floor time to read the Constitution, which you should do your own anyway, and then they take up time with this repeal effort, which they knew was never going anywhere. We haven't dealt with jobs yet. It's February 10 and we haven't seen the Republican caucus take up a single measure that would put anyone back to work. And you know what, I hope the American people are watching and paying attention very closely because they promised a lot, and so far they've given absolutely nothing.

The other day they brought in a measure to try to take money from the United Nations. The problem facing the American people is not the United Nations. It's no jobs. But our friends in the majority caucus, they went out and told the American people some stuff. They took advantage of people's pain, and they got themselves elected and then the first thing they do is abandon any effort to get the American people back to work.

So this week we've had nothing on jobs. This week we've had nothing on jobs at all, and next week they're not just going to do nothing on jobs, they're going to start putting in policies that are going to get rid of jobs.

So let's talk about it. The Republican pink slip for America will further devastate the economy. The best way to get the economy moving is to create jobs. You hear Republicans in the caucus say, well, the government doesn't create jobs. Well, tell that to a police officer, tell that to a teacher, tell that to a firefighter, tell that to a construction worker, tell that to somebody who makes sure that our streets and our lights on our streets are in good working order. Of course, the government creates jobs. But not only does that, the government helps create rules that actually help the private sector make jobs. This is just a fact.

You want to balance the budget and deal with the deficit, which I certainly do, start putting America back to work, but that's not what the Republicans are doing.

What they're doing is they are going after public employees, and they are going after programs that provide important and vital services to the American people provided by public employees. Republicans are giving a pink slip to America as they try to go after the public employees, as they try to stop and even end up cutting people who provide important public services to our country. The American people voted for jobs, and all they got was a pink slip.

The Republican budget cuts, which we are beginning to already hear serious rumbles about, mean cuts if you're a nurse, mean cuts if you're a teacher, mean cuts if you're a firefighter or a police officer or construction worker; but not only that, not only that, we're talking about, folks, more than that. Here's a list in front of my face. I have a list of 70 spending cuts to be included in the continuing resolution coming up next week if they can ever get around to it. They've been having problems with that recently.

Flood control and coastal emergencies, $30 million, they want to cut that. Wait a minute. These are people who make sure that when there are floods and when there are coastal emergencies, there is someone who will help people who are in peril and in trouble. This is not some nameless, faceless program. This is hardworking professionals who work on our Nation's coasts to make sure that things are not dangerous. Oh, that's $30 million. How many jobs does that cut? I don't know how many jobs it cuts, but it cuts $30 million from the budget.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $899 million. $899 million cut out of energy efficiency and renewable energy in a time when we need to be going toward green jobs. We need to be doing more with efficiency. We need to do something. We need to weatherize those old, windy homes so we don't need so much energy to heat them up or cool them down. In a time when we are driving toward the future, when nations around the world are greening themselves, our Republican caucus says cut $899 million, that $899 million which employs the American public and, of course, some private workers to help provide important services.

They want to cut the Office of Science by $1.1 billion. Science and innovation. Where do the members of the Republican caucus think the jobs are going to be? And if you cannot get people to work, then you can't get them to pay taxes; and if you can't get them to pay taxes, then we're not going to lower the deficit. But still, they want to cut the Office of Science $1.1 billion.

The Internal Revenue Service. They want to cut the Internal Revenue Service. Aren't those the guys who actually go get the money to deal with the budget deficit, Mr. Speaker? They want to cut the Internal Revenue Service $593 million. They want to cut the people who actually go get the money to help fill the budgetary holes. That is absolutely not logical. They want to deal with the folks who go get--who don't pay, who don't pay their taxes. They want to get rid of the people who go get that revenue.

International Trade Administration. Now, our country could do much more in the area of exports. International Trade Administration helps to produce and promote exports. That's us selling things to foreigners which makes money for our country which helps us push down the deficit. They say cut it. They don't have a vision for growing our economy. They have a vision, a dark vision of just cutting it, reducing it, lowering it. They have a defensive view of America and not a bold courageous view of America.

The COPS program. The COPS program, community-oriented policing. They want to cut it $600 million. How many of our Nation's brave members of law enforcement wearing those blue uniforms, protecting our streets all over this country are employed through a COPS grant? Quite a few. The Republican caucus says get rid of them.

What about NASA? Space exploration? So many important things come from space exploration, from satellites, all kinds of important things that we have learned here and get from NASA, $379 million. Get rid of it.

The EPA, you would think we can keep the program that keeps us breathing clean air. Nope, got to get rid of those; and, you know, I can go right on down the line.

What about WIC: women, infants and children? WIC. A poor mom and her kids better figure out what they're going to do because the Republican caucus wants to cut $758 million out of that program. That's just cold- hearted and mean right there.

And let's keep on marching down the list. HUD community development block grants which have helped cities all over this country apply funds to problems that are facing them and doing it on a flexible basis because it's not just for this program or for that you give the city block grant money. They decide how they apply those funds. Cut that $530 million.

LIHEAP contingency fund. This is so people who live in cold northern States can have some heat. Now you want to cut that program, so people can be in the cold? Literally in the cold and figuratively, too.

What about the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? I actually am a big fan of clean drinking water, Mr. Speaker, and the Republican caucus wants to get rid of that one to the tune of $250 million.

It goes on and it goes on and it goes on and on and on. Important programs that are literally powered by men and women who work for the Federal Government, tossed away and will result in the pain and injury to this very fragile economy.

You know, people listening to this broadcast tonight, Mr. Speaker, should know that if I am a public employee and somebody else works for a private employer and we both go to the local grocery store and buy groceries, the dollars spend the same way. You cut all these people out, you're going to cut consumer demand and you're going to send this economy back into recession.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, February 11, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I spent this morning talking with people at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference. This conference is dedicated to building jobs for Americans that are

sustainable, that are green, and that will help our country meet the needs of the future.

They talked about efficiency. They talked about saving money with weatherization and putting people back to work doing it. Manufacturing, windmills, solar, all these things are so vitally important, and also transit, all of these critically important things to make our employment grow and to help us stay green.

Unfortunately, however, Madam Speaker, we still have 14 million Americans who are unemployed; and in the time that we have spent in this new Congress, we have not spent any time talking about job creation, green or otherwise. The time is now to focus on jobs. I implore the majority caucus to begin the dialogue about jobs because we haven't talked about it at all.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 519 is wrongheaded and should be defeated. This bill cuts the United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act as part of a gimmicky House Republican YouCut proposal.

According to the CBO, our nonpartisan official scorekeeper, H.R. 519 has absolutely no effect on the Federal budget. It saves nothing. Not a penny.

So what would this bill do if enacted? It would put urgently needed security upgrades to the United Nations headquarters at risk. This bill would undermine the protection that we are trying to provide to the people who live in New York. Haven't they suffered enough already?

In fact, the State Department has already committed $100 million from this fund to help the New York Police Department, which requests the support to secure the perimeter against terrorist threats. And these threats are serious, Madam Speaker. U.N. facilities in Iraq and Algeria have already been attacked. And I must say, Madam Speaker, this is part of an extreme agenda that is anti-United Nations from the start.

So let me just say in conclusion, often my colleague Mr. King and I don't agree, but we agree on this one 100 percent. Mr. King said, and I quite agree with him, that this bill would undermine security in New York City; it is wrong and indefensible. And I would say that I think he is absolutely right.

Somewhere. But you know what, Congressman, although the weather is cold, our spirits are warm. Every time we hear about Making it in America.

This campaign that we are on----

You know what, if the Vikings aren't in it, I don't know.

I think the Vikings for the NFC north, hey, hope springs eternal next year, right? But we are happy to see the Green Bay Packers and the Bears fight it out, definitely. We are known as the black and blue division, and they definitely played hard.

But the truth is we are used to making things in the Midwest, whether you are talking about from Pittsburgh to Detroit, to Cleveland, to Milwaukee, to Minneapolis, we make stuff in the Midwest as you do in the West in California, and as they do in the East in Congressman Tonko's district, Congressman from upstate New York. The fact is that manufacturing and making things is an American value.

But, Congressman, the thing I want to say is that this campaign of Making it in America, before we make anything, we have to believe that we can make things in America again.

We have to believe that we can compete on quality, we can compete on efficiency, and that the goods manufactured by American workers are among the best in this world and can be better. It is a matter of belief, it is a matter of commitment, and it is a matter of vision.

So we set forth a vision, Congressman, and we say that, you know what, in this great Nation we can forge these, we can make this steel, we can build the roads.

We can have a vision that this country can build things that the whole world needs and wants. And if we have that desire, that innate desire at the cellular level, we will begin to see the innovative capacity of this country making the windmills, making the semiconductors, making the cars, making anything and everything. But it's matter of vision, it's a matter of will, it's a matter of commitment. And that vision and will has to be backed up by sound policy, hard work, and the spirit of entrepreneurship. And if these things come together we can certainly do it.

But I believe on this House floor, and in shops across America, unions and in management, people are saying, You know what? We can make stuff in America. America is still the world's leading manufacturer. That's important to bear in mind. We can't forget that we are still the world's leading manufacturer, and we have the highest quality steel, the best technology, the strongest workers.

But you know what, when people want to be penny-wise and pound- foolish, they might want to offshore jobs because they say, well, maybe we can get somebody to do it for less.

But can you get somebody to do it better? And the world wants something that's quality. The world wants something that's made well, that's made right. And that's what Make it in America is all about.

Bad policy.

Bad policy.

Congressman Garamendi, I don't want to go long because I do want to hear from all of our colleagues, but I just want to mention two quick points. I was inspired by Minority Whip Hoyer as he spoke.

Two points:

One is that manufacturing has historically been the high-wage sector for American workers. The middle class was essentially built because we were making things. The higher wages associated with manufacturing employment have been proven to be much higher than your average service jobs. So manufacturing is definitely in the interest of American working and middle class people, and it is something that I think we should get a lot of support for from around the country.

The other thing is that, in order to really bolster a strong manufacturing sector, we need a strong infrastructure. There are over $1 trillion in infrastructure needs around our country just to keep pace with maintenance. I'm talking about making sure the gusset plates on these bridges are working, that there's not the rust and the crumbling of concrete, and making sure that the bridges and the roads are safe. I'm talking about basic infrastructure.

Now, if we really want to go beyond that by building the transmission lines so that we can move power around and all the new innovative infrastructure--that smart grid--then there is a lot more to do.

The point is that I just want folks to know, before I leave it to our colleagues, that manufacturing is good for the middle class and also the attendant and connected jobs that you need to support manufacturing, like infrastructure development. There are also high- wage jobs that we need to invest in so that we can put America back to work.

Madam Speaker, repeal and replace? What about protect and improve? What about improving the bill that is there right now rather than repealing and replacing?

You know, the fact is the Republican Caucus is talking about replacing a bill, and yet whether it's preexisting

conditions or filling in the doughnut hole, I've heard several of them say, ``Oh, we want to keep that.'' But yet they don't want to protect and improve. They just want to repeal. Why? To protect the insurance industry. I can't see any other reason why they are doing this.

The Affordable Care Act is a good bill; and can it be better? Of course it can be better. But that's not what we're talking about doing today. We're talking about taking away benefits that Americans have in their hand. The Republican Caucus is snatching away people who want to get their children on their health care insurance who are under 26 years of age; snatching away free preventative care for seniors; snatching out of the hands of families whose children are trying to be able to get care who may have a preexisting condition; snatching out of the hands of seniors who are filling in the doughnut hole. They are taking away a benefit Americans have right now. This is wrong and it's a shame.

The fact is the Democratic Caucus when we had the White House and both Houses of Congress, within 2 years we brought to the American people a health care bill. When the Republican Caucus has the House for 6 years, between 2000 and 2006, they don't do anything other than do a big fat giveaway to PhRMA.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to claim the time. I do have a few things to set up, so I will be right back.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Speaker for allowing and granting me the time. It is a pleasure to come in front of the American people.

My name is Congressman Keith Ellison, and I want to talk a little bit about the Progressive Caucus tonight, the progressive message which we convey to the American people every week. We want to come before the American people to talk about progressive values and the 83 members of the Progressive Caucus.

The Progressive Caucus stands firmly in the position of supporting health care for all Americans. And therefore, we look at this repeal today, conducted by the majority, the Republican Caucus, as quite an unfortunate event in our Nation's history.

They repealed the health care reform bill, but the bill is not repealed. It's important for the American people to know that health care reform is being implemented and it is the law. But in order to make the law into the law, you have to pass it through the House, the Senate, and then be signed by the President. This repeal that they did today stops here. It's not going anywhere. Really, it's political theater. But it is an important indication as to what they would do if they could.

What they would do, and this is something I would like to describe right now so the American people can get an idea of what Republican leadership and Republican expansion of their power would mean.

First, let's talk about the deficit. You hear a lot about the deficit. And the deficit is important. The impact of repeal on the deficit is that it would increase the deficit by $230 billion this decade and a trillion the decade after that.

When you listen, Mr. Speaker, to the speeches of the Republican Caucus and they say something about job-killing deficits, it's always important, Mr. Speaker, to turn your attention back to what the Republican Caucus did today on the House floor, because it indicates how they really feel about expanding the deficit. They're okay with it.

The impact of repeal on the deficit expands the deficit by $230 billion this decade and a trillion dollars the next.

What does this say about credibility? What does it say about real intention? What does it say about who was actually trying to lower the deficit?

Health care reform is cost-effective and helps lower the deficit. Health care reform actually helps not only lower the national debt and deficit, but individual American's personal debt and deficit.

We can never forget, Mr. Speaker, that 60 percent of all of the people who filed for bankruptcy filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt. A majority of the people filing for bankruptcy filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt. This is an amazing statistic.

We can talk about the national deficit. We can even talk about the national debt, but let's talk about family debt. Family debt being driven sky high because of medical debt, people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt.

Now, with the health care bill, we will have exchanges that will compete and have price and quality transparency for people so that they can evaluate a good product that is affordable, so people who don't have the income can get a subsidy so they can go buy health care insurance. When we have all of these important provisions in place, we're not going to see people going into personal bankruptcy because of medical debt. This is something the Republican Caucus has not talked about, how Americans are drowning because of what the insurance industry has imposed upon them.

It's important to say that today our Republican colleagues repealed health care reform. I hope, Mr. Speaker, the American people watch with interest where their particular Member of Congress voted. Did your Member, the individual Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, vote to say, You know what? We're going to allow the insurance companies to rescind your insurance policy if you get a breast cancer diagnosis? Because the Republican Caucus' repeal today says that they want that to be able to happen. They want the insurance company to be able to say, You, ma'am, we found out you had breast cancer. Your insurance is going to be rescinded.

That's what they voted in favor of today by voting for repeal.

Today, they want to tell 24-, 25-, and 26-year-olds and their parents that, You know what? We're not going to let you be on your parents' health care insurance policy. You are on your own.

Yeah, we know this is a tough market. Yeah, we know graduating from college or high school now is not easy because, you know what? There's not that many jobs out there. Unemployment is still very high. But you know what? Too bad. You've just gotta figure out what you're going to do because you will not--we're going to take a benefit away from you that the Congress has already given to you, and we're going to snatch it out of your hands.

This is what the repeal means.

Today, seniors who can benefit from free preventative care, they're not going to be able to. The Republican Caucus has indicated that that's not what they want. Now, they haven't taken it away because they haven't repealed the law. They'd like to by the repeal they passed through the House today. But the fact is is that they're telling seniors, No, no, no. You're going to have to pay a big cost in order to get some preventative care which obviously will help--will encourage low-income seniors not to seek that care, and then they, of course, will end up being sicker and it will be more costly.

But not only by repeal did they hurt seniors, did they hurt young people, they're telling small business people, You know what? Those tax credits that we gave you, we're taking them back. Those tax credits that the Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congress and Senate and the Democratic President gave to you, we Republicans, we don't want you to have that, small business. We're going to snatch it out of your hands even after you have made plans to actually take into consideration the tax credits that are available to you this year.

So they're snatching benefits out of the hands of small business people, snatching benefits from young people who are post high school and college, snatching benefits away from our seniors, snatching coverage away from people who can't afford it, thrusting people back into the arms of personal debt, and throwing our whole economy back into the throes of national debt and deficits.

This is what the Republicans would do if they could. Thank goodness they can't do it because the President and the Senate remain in Democratic hands. But if they could, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear what they would do.

Now, the Democrats' top priority is not repealing anything. It's extending more rights, more protections for the American people, and then, of course, allowing the American people to make their own choice so they can be free, so you can be free as an American and not have to worry about health care because you have health care because the government is protecting you from insurance companies who would throw you into the street, give you an over-cost product and would rescind you and deny you coverage.

The Democrats' top priority would not be to monkey around with undermining health care. The Democratic priority would be to create jobs and put America back to work. That is what Democrats are working on right now, Mr. Speaker, and would work on even more so if we had the majority.

Today, the Republican majority, they have other priorities other than jobs. Their job, as they've already revealed today on the House floor, is to repeal patients' rights, to put insurance companies back in charge, and to explode the deficit as I've already indicated with this particular graphic.

The Republican priority is to look out and protect insurance companies. The Republican priority is to make sure that insurance companies have what they need. And the insurance companies spent $14 million a day to try to defeat health care after they, in fact, were defeated, and we passed health care. We're quite confident that they did not just take that defeat lying down. Here they are back again with the wholly owned subsidiary known as the Republican Caucus trying to do the bidding of the insurance industry once again.

The Patients' Rights Repeal aims to take away new health care freedoms that take us back to a system that favors the insurance industry. The Patients' Rights Repeal bill takes away something that people have already expected to get and takes us back to a system in which the insurance industry is in control.

Children with preexisting conditions are denied coverage in the bad old days. Young people aged 26 can't stay on their parents' insurance plans in the bad old days. Pregnant women and prostate cancer patients would be thrown off insurance rolls in the bad old days. Seniors pay more for their drugs. As a matter of fact, in the new health care bill we're filling in the doughnut hole, which is something, apparently, the Republican Caucus doesn't like, because they want to dig out the doughnut hole so seniors can fall back into that doughnut hole. And, of course, we already talked about exploding the deficit and making small businesses pay higher taxes.

Why would the Republicans want to do that? It seems so unfair, but that is exactly what they did today.

Republicans are focused on repealing health care reform instead of making jobs, and making jobs is what they should be putting their time and energy into.

Their agenda for America is not health care. It's no care. It's status quo care. No care if you lose your job. No care if you or your child have a preexisting condition. No care if you're a senior in the doughnut hole. That's what the Republican Caucus has in mind for you and your family. No care if you're under 26 on your parents' plan. No care if you get sick and your insurer drops your coverage. No care if your insurer hikes your premiums higher than you can afford. You are just out of luck with no care.

Now, the Congressional Budget Office does carefully show that the repeal of the Patients' Protection and Affordable Care Act would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and a trillion after that into the future. And the American Medical Association has recognized this problem. What they have said is the AMA does not support initiatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Who is the AMA? The American Medical Association. Who's that? That's America's doctors. They know how dangerous it is to repeal health care. They know because they are in the healing arts. Now, the insurance companies, many of them are in the money-making arts, so they got a different take on this thing. But the American Medical Association has come together and said that they do not support initiatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Expanding health care coverage, insurance market reforms, administrative simplifications, and initiatives to promote wellness and prevention are key to the new law that reflect the AMA priorities. So the people who do healing, actually heal people--let me tell you, no insurance company bureaucrat ever healed anybody. All they do is deny coverage to people and process claims. But the folks who actually bring healing, the docs, the people who the AMA represents, they are against repeal, as the Democratic Caucus is against repeal. And it's so unfortunate that we had to sit here today and witness the House effort to repeal health care reform.

They didn't do it. They're not going to do it. They're going to fail. This is all political theater. This is all showing off. It's all just, you know, political theater. But the truth is that it does indicate what they would do if they could. And we are bound and determined to stop them, to protect the American people, and to make sure that we have those important health care reforms in place that are going to make sure that Americans continue to go to the doctor, to get preventive care, to fill in the doughnut hole, to offer coverage to people until they are age 26.

As I said before, you know, I was privileged earlier this week to meet two little girls. They were suffering from leukemia. And these little girls, brave as they were, said, you know, look, if we didn't have the Affordable Care Act we would be denied or could well be denied health care coverage. These two little girls' father, who had to take family medical leave in order to help meet all of the medical needs of the family, as well as they had other children who didn't have those medical needs, that family ended up going into bankruptcy because of the piles of debt that were thrown on their shoulders.

And so the Affordable Care Act comes to address these problems; yet the repeal comes to heap those problems back on those families. And it's

too bad that it happened. They're not going to succeed, but it's very clear that by their repeal vote today what they would do if they could.

Now, the AARP, which represents our American seniors, they weighed in on this debate. And what AARP has said is: ``As the House prepares to vote this week on repeal of the Affordable Care Act, I am writing to make clear AARP's position. While we respect there are those who do not support the Affordable Care Act, AARP opposes repeal because the new law includes many vital provisions important to older Americans and their children.'' So there again, not only did the organization that represents America's doctors say no to repeal, the American Medical Association; but AARP, which represents America's seniors, says no.

And of course they should, because America's seniors need health care reform, the reforms that are in the Affordable Care Act. For example, seniors under the Affordable Care Act, we are filling in the doughnut hole, making prescription drugs affordable for our seniors. We have a wellness visit for every senior in America once a year to make sure our seniors are healthy. Wellness visits, dealing with prescription drugs, free preventive care means we have healthier seniors. Healthier seniors are happier seniors because they got enough money and they got more money than they would if we were under the reign of the insurance companies, as we were before. And so AARP is doing what they are supposed to do, representing the best interests of America's seniors.

The Heart Association: this is an association that deals with the functioning of the human heart, a vital organ in the human body. And this Heart Association comes to make sure that our hearts are protected. The Heart Association has this to say about this repeal debate: ``Patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months.'' And by the way, the Republican Caucus didn't even give the Affordable Care Act a chance. Ten months after we passed it, they're trying to get rid of it. They're not even waiting to see where it could be fine-tuned here and there. They just want to get rid of it all.

Now, that's not a good-faith approach to this debate. Some of them even came to the floor and said there are certain things about the bill they like. But they don't want to tweak the bill. They don't want to fine tune the bill. They just want to repeal it. So that indicates to me another key indicator of where the Republican Caucus's mind is with regard to Americans and health care.

But as I was saying about the Heart Association: ``Patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months. We believe these reforms, and additional forthcoming patient protection provisions, were long overdue.'' So the Heart Association says, hey, we didn't get this Affordable Care Act passed fast enough. That's their position. Long overdue, and needs to be given an opportunity to work. Absolutely, they are right. And if necessary, improved.

And of course nobody on the Democratic Caucus side says this bill was perfect. There has never been a perfect bill. Never been a perfect bill. But the Republicans don't want to say, look, let's get our heads together and make the bill stronger. They say repeal. And I voted ``no'' and was very proud to do so.

Back to the Heart Association: ``Repeal of the Affordable Care Act will have devastating consequences for patients and their families.'' That's according to the Heart Association, an association dedicated to the wellness of people's hearts. People who focus their time, attention, and resources on good heart health are opposed to repeal, as they should, because they have good intentions and are operating in good faith.

Of course, only 18 percent of Americans support full repeal, according to the latest Washington-ABC news poll. Only 18 percent. These are probably the folks who still believe the bill has death panels in it, which it never did. That was not true. Massive misinformation and disinformation around the Affordable Care Act. But only 18 percent support full repeal.

And the fact is that I would imagine that if you were able to sit those 18 percent of Americans in a room and really tell them what the bill did, they probably would be significantly lower than that. Of course, there was another AP poll that said 26 percent support full repeal. Still a significantly small number.

So the bottom line is that whether you talk about your average family, the Heart Association, AARP, American Medical Association and many others, this repeal bill that passed through today, but doesn't repeal the law--make sure, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that--was a low point in this Congress.

I look forward to a day when we can return to a Congress that says we believe that the American people have a right to be healthy, a right to be strong, a right to go to the doctor, a right to seek out preventive care, a right to have insurance companies be accountable, a right to make sure insurance companies don't just throw people off coverage when they need it most.

And I look forward to a day when that happens, Mr. Speaker, because on that day Americans will be in a much, much better place than we are today with the majority in the House that doesn't feel that the insurance companies need reform or accountability.

Now, I just want to talk a little bit, because some people mistakenly believe that somehow members of the Republican Caucus are more pro- business than the Democratic Caucus. That's not true, never been true, and we prove again and again that it's not true. But they say that stuff and some people believe it. So let me just share with you some personal stories about people who are looking at this issue from the perspective of small business.

Because despite the Republicans' rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act, business and business groups across the country are speaking out against the Republican efforts to repeal health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be the one that goes--not to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, because they are a little different--but to those local chambers of commerce, Rotaries, all across this country. I wouldn't want to be the one to go to them and say, you know those tax credits the Democrats got for you for health care? We are taking them away from you. I wouldn't want to be that Representative on that day, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Helen Darling, who is the president of the National Business Group on Health and a former Republican Senate staffer, said about business executives who called for repeal, she said, If they really understood it, they wouldn't. I don't think we will get a better solution in the U.S. in our lifetime. If it gets repealed or gutted, we will have to start over, and we will be worse off.

This is what Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health says about the bill. She says that small business people will suffer because of it.

Now, if you are a small business person and you can get a tax credit to help you with 30 to 50 percent of the cost of health care, you go get that, that means that you may save the money that you need to invest in your small business, maybe hire some more people. That's why when the Republicans were calling the health care bill a job-killing bill, all of us looked at each other and said, what bill are they talking about?

The fact is that the Affordable Health Care Act is a bill that is a job-enhancing bill. This is a pro-job bill. This is a bill that trains people to go to their health care professions that helps small business so they can hire more people. Helen Darling knows that, and she ought to know because she is the president of the National Business Group on Health.

Small Business Majority, which is an organization dedicated to supporting small business, their letter to lawmakers characterizes the repeal bill as ``an affront to our Nation's small business community.'' Well, of course it is. If you are a small business person, trying to add another employee, trying to buy some new equipment, and do it all while offering health care to your employees in your business, maybe you have got three, four, maybe you have

got 25, 30 employees? Of course it's an affront to you if the House Majority Caucus, the Republicans, want to take away your tax credit.

Absolutely, that's an affront. If you are trying to make it, imagine yourself working for some company for years. You say, you know what, I don't want a boss, I want to be my own boss. I am starting my own company and you know what, I am only going to have to have one or two, maybe three, four people with me when I get started, but we are going to make a go of it. And you know what, you guys? Human beings get sick sometimes so we have got to have health care.

And then the Democrats come and say, we are going to help you pay for that health care. And then the Republicans say, no, we are not and they snatch it away. Of course that's an affront to our Nation's small business community. The Small Business Majority is absolutely right in their letter.

The tax credits and health insurance exchanges in the Affordable Health Care Act will help drive down the cost and offer small business owners more choices, more freedom when purchasing insurance which will, in turn, allow them to ``spend less on insurance premiums and more on growing their businesses and creating jobs.''

Now, the caucus that claims to be about jobs and the deficit actually is operating directly opposite to both the deficit and jobs. That means that we have got to read the fine print. We can't just go by what people say because people sometimes say anything, Mr. Speaker.

The Small Business Majority has recently released results of a November 2010 survey of 619 small business owners. In their survey the key findings highlight that one-third of employers who don't offer health insurance said they would be more likely to do so because of the small business tax credits.

So, there again, the small business tax credits in this bill are designed to help small businesses take care of their employees and meet their bottom line and, will hopefully, turn a profit, so that they can help grow our community.

It's been a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, talking about the danger of repeal and the importance of the Affordable Health Care Act.