Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

On behalf of the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, let me offer my heartfelt condolences to those brave Americans who lost their lives in the tragedy at Tucson, and let me offer wishes of a very speedy recovery for those people who are wounded, including our own friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords. And also, let me offer congratulations to those heroic people who jumped up to help their fellow Americans at a time of tragedy and need.

It would be very human for anyone to be a little bit shy about coming to a public event after hearing about a tragedy like this. But I think that in the spirit of Gabby Giffords, we should reaffirm and rededicate ourselves to public access, public engagement.

I don't think it would be honoring her great work that she and we expect for her to carry on if we didn't get right back out there and engage in a spirited conversation about the shape and destiny of our democracy. And so I think it is important to make a very bold statement that we will reaffirm our dedication to having a robust, open access, and free democracy by not letting forces of fear and hatred, desperation and madness deter us from this very important and noble enterprise.

God bless America, and we wait for and we look forward to a speedy recovery from our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords.

Let me thank the gentlelady and ranking member for the time.

I rise in opposition to this rule, but in one way I'm thankful for it because it does help to go right to the heart of the matter, right to the thing that divides us most. On the one hand, Republicans want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and shrink government services. On the other hand, Democrats want to have adequate funds to fund services that are necessary for the American people.

Under this rule, which I ask all Members to oppose, the Republican rule, tax cuts will no longer have to be paid for. They don't have to be budget neutral. So tax cuts passed by the House can increase the deficit. Also, under the Republican rule, increases to mandatory spending must be paid for by reducing spending somewhere else. Therefore, if the House wanted to extend the child tax credit to minimum-wage families, then the Republican new rules would not allow this to be paid for by closing a corporate loophole. Instead, they would have to be paid for by taking away from some other group of people. This is wrong. And it speaks to the heart of what divides us. And I'm glad we're doing this today.

Madam Speaker, on January 5, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 5. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 2010, due to travel delays, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 657 and 658. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on both rollcalls.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand with colleagues to honor a Minnesota icon, dean of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation and my good friend, Jim Oberstar. When I was first elected to Congress in 2006, Jim was one of my first mentors, always there with helpful advice and counsel.

Jim was also there on the sad evening of August 1, 2007, when the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and injuring near 100 more.

I worked closely with Jim that evening and the days following along with my fellow colleagues in the Minnesota Delegation to immediately respond to horrific bridge collapse and then, with Jim's help, the House passed the next day a bill to provide funds to rebuild the bridge.

This story that I share with you tonight about Jim's work on the Interstate-35W Bridge is just one of many that I have from my four short years here in the House.

So Jim, let me say on behalf of my constituents from the Fifth District and the entire state of Minnesota, thank you for your incredible service to Minnesota and the entire nation for the past 36 years.

Your contributions will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, on November 17, 2010, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 573 and I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I am proud to come before the House today to address you and the American people regarding our Nation and regarding the state of affairs facing our people. This is an hour I claim on behalf of the Progressive Caucus.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is that group of Members of Congress who believe that, yes, it's true, we all must be included in the great American Dream. The Progressive Caucus is that group of Congresspeople who believe that peace and diplomacy and development are far, far away preferable to war and fighting and strife.

The Progressive Caucus, we are the ones who say, yes, we should have child nutrition; yes, we should have food stamps for people in need; yes, we should have real commitments to small business and small farmers, not big business and the farming agricultural industry.

The Progressive Caucus is that body of Members in this Congress who come together around peace, around economic justice, around the issue of civil rights. We are the ones who say Don't Ask, Don't Tell must be repealed. We are the ones who say, as a Congress, that the American people are one people and need to be included in this great American Dream; that the arms of America are broad enough for all of us. This is what the Progressive Caucus is. This is what we believe.

We are not the ones who say that some Americans are not okay based on who they love or what their religion is; and we are not the ones who say that economic prosperity should only be for the wealthiest among us; and we are not the ones who urge war. We are the ones who urge peace. We are the ones who urge economic justice. We are the ones who believe that the poor must be within our thoughts, particularly at this time of year.

We are the ones who argue that we must extend unemployment insurance benefits, which, sadly, went down on the floor of this House earlier today. This is the Progressive Caucus, and this hour we claim on behalf of the Progressive Caucus to talk to Americans about the importance of having a progressive vision for America. Even in this time after the elections were so difficult for so many, the fact is that we remain vigilant. We remain on the job projecting a progressive vision for this great Nation.

And this hour we speak on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, and this is the progressive message, three progressive messages today for everybody, three messages we want to hit.

The first message is the unemployment extension. I want to talk about that. The other one is the Bush tax cuts extension. And the third point is the absolute deluge of dirty money which totally swept through this last election cycle, corrupted our politics, all to the tune of about $75 million, some of it from sources no one knows where they came from, and the absolute urgent need for transparency and to get corporate money out of American politics. Those are my three topics tonight.

Let me start by talking about unemployment benefits. Today, we had a vote to extend unemployment benefits which will expire at the end of this month, in November. This comes at a time when Americans are looking forward to what their Thanksgiving dinner is going to be like. This comes at a time when many Americans are looking at Christmas, Hanukkah, holidays, time to be together. But 2 million Americans, if we don't find a way to somehow get unemployment insurance benefits extended, which again failed on the House floor today because of Republican opposition, will have a very grim holiday.

This is a national shame. This is a travesty. This is something that is too, too bad.

Today on the House floor, unemployment extension benefits were up on the House floor, and we had to pass them by two-thirds vote because they were on the suspension calendar. It's necessary to put things on the suspension calendar because if we go through regular order, we can bet that there will be a Republican motion to recommit which will cause all kinds of damage and mischief. So the unemployment insurance extension was put up that is expiring in a few days. And you would think that something like extending unemployment benefits would be very easy because we have 9.6 percent unemployment, so many people are facing no opportunity to have any income if these benefits are allowed to expire at the end of this month, of course compassionate Congress would step right up. You wonder why we wouldn't get 100 percent of all these Members to vote for extension of unemployment benefits. But 150 of our colleagues on the Republican side voted ``no'' to extension of unemployment insurance

benefits, and because of that, we didn't pass it.

So now many of us who stay up at night worrying about what Americans are going to do, put food on the table for their families, have some more nights to worry, because the truth is we are not able to pass the extension of unemployment on the House floor. An overwhelming number of Democrats voted for it, and even some Republicans voted for it, to their credit. But we didn't get enough of that caucus, and so we ended up seeing that bill fail.

Obviously, the unemployment extension is hitting snags in the Senate. But if we could have passed it here, it would send a very important signal to the Senate that they must take up this measure, they must pass it through for the sake of the people, of the Americans, 2 million of them, who are seeing unemployment benefits expire even by the end of this year.

I want those Americans to know, nearly 2 million Americans to know that there are people in this House of Representatives who care desperately about them and their children. We put the measure on the floor and voted for it, needed two-thirds vote, couldn't get the support of our colleagues, and it didn't go. And sadly, I want to say that I hope those 150 Members who voted ``no'' think about you in the weeks to come. It is difficult, it is desperate, and I think that Americans, Mr. Speaker, need to raise their voices and look at the vote count to see who voted with them and who didn't.

Nearly 2 million Americans will lose unemployment benefits by the end of the holidays if Congress doesn't find a way to act. At this point, we may well have to act even if under a good, best case scenario after the extension of the benefits, after the benefits lapse. We have done it before. We may need to do it again. But the fact is that that is the situation.

According to the Department of Labor, 1.98 million workers, that is nearly 2 million workers, nationwide will lose benefits by the first of this year, January 1. By the end of February 2011, in only a few months, over 4.4 million workers will lose benefits.

Now it has devastating effects for individual families, no doubt about it, mom, dad, perhaps both, perhaps single-parent families not having any unemployment, in this tough economy not able to find a job. But it also has a devastating effect for our whole economy, because when people have unemployment insurance benefits to go buy groceries and pay rent, they can pay their landlord, they can pay the grocery store. And if you can pay the grocery store, then the grocery store has made a sale. And if the grocery store has made a sale of groceries, then they can keep those folks who work for the grocery store. And if the folks who work for the grocery store can keep their job, then they can buy some groceries. And if those folks can buy some groceries, then other people can. And maybe they can pay their rent, and maybe that will mean that the landlords who perhaps rent to them will be able to maintain their building and be able to pay the utilities associated with running that apartment building that they might live in.

But if they can't, then the person doesn't get their unemployment benefits, they're not shopping as much, their shopping goes down, then the people who work there lose their jobs, then they can't pay their rent, now the landlord is not getting their rents in, now the landlord is looking at the building going into foreclosure because they can't even keep the mortgage up on that.

Now let's talk about housing. Let's talk about we have seen about 2.8 million foreclosures in 2009, about a similar number this year, on pace for that if not more. Those people who are counting on that unemployment check are counting on using that money to pay that mortgage. More foreclosures. This was incredibly irresponsible to not pass unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Americans saw what happened today and demand that Congress pass unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits is good economics. It will cost our country more than it would have to spend to extend these benefits. It will cost our country more in terms of lost jobs, lost revenue to State, local, and Federal Government because of people who are not working anymore who now may become an expense. It will cost more money. It is incredibly shortsighted. It's bad economics. And when it comes to the individual effect on the family, it's just heartless. I have sympathy for people that heartless. I think you should be more compassionate than that, Mr. Speaker.

February 2011. We're halfway through November, we have December, then we have January. February 2011, 4.4 million workers will lose their unemployment benefits with devastating effect to their family and our entire economy.

Economists agree that ending emergency unemployment insurance benefits programs now hurts the economy. Even economists say it. This is not simply Keith Ellison on the House floor saying this. Economists who study this stuff every day say, do you know what? The effect of ending these programs is going to hurt our recovery and hurt our economy. The Department of Labor analysis by Wayne Vroman, who is an economist, well trained economist, found that unemployment insurance benefits boost economic activity by $2 for every dollar spent in 2009. So if we do extend unemployment insurance benefits in the year 2009, that would mean that there would be $2 in economic activity. Now that's a pretty good deal. That is what you call a multiplier effect, which is very beneficial.

Reducing unemployment insurance benefits will reduce our gross domestic product. It will hurt our economy in the same way I just explained a moment ago. For people just tuning in, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what will happen is that if people don't get the unemployment insurance benefits, they cannot spend, and the local retailers cannot maintain their staff, who then will end up laying people off. This will extend and increase unemployment. It's already 9.96 percent. How much more do the people who voted ``no'' want it to go?

Goldman Sachs has estimated that if the extension were allowed to expire, it would reduce economic growth by half a percentage point. Now, half a percentage point of economic growth, that just sounds like some statistic. But what that means is fewer refrigerators bought, fewer cars bought, fewer loaves of bread bought, fewer eggs bought, fewer people hired, fewer people who are going to be able to run the risk to start the small business that they've been thinking about. This means this is a bad thing for our economy. It means real pain to real people. That's what it means to see gross domestic product fall and economic growth slip by half a percentage point.

Another noted economic organization that does economic analysis has estimated that allowing the extensions to expire would reduce gross domestic product by about $14.1 billion. Again, almost half a percentage point. This is a consensus of people who are economic experts.

Now, let me just tell you this. Some people who voted ``no'' are operating under a very false belief system. They think that unemployment insurance benefits are somehow living really high and you just got all kinds of money and basically you got so much money you don't even want to look for a job.

Basically, they're saying paying people unemployment insurance benefits, a little help from your fellow Americans when you're in a bind, somehow stifles the incentive to work. Somehow government subsidies--there's never an argument against those companies that get tax breaks to do offshore drilling. They're never something that's a disincentive for people who are well-heeled, high, mighty, and well-to- do. But whenever it comes to us who work really hard, anything the government gives us might make us want to work less. Absurd.

But the average weekly unemployment benefits--about $303--are barely 70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four and, on average, replace less than 50 percent of a worker's prior earnings. I am going to repeat that because there's numbers in there and I don't want anybody to not get it. The average weekly unemployment insurance benefit--about $300, a little more than that, about $303--is barely 70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four. So if you've got mom, dad, and two kids, and you're getting unemployment insurance benefits, you're not

making the poverty line by about 30 percent. That's about 70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four and, on average, replaces less than half of the worker's prior earnings.

So people on unemployment insurance are not getting over on anyone. These are people who pay in while they're working. This is a benefit they worked for. This is a benefit all of us come together, all of us put in a pot, and say, you know what, if any one of us loses our job, we're going to use this to help you maintain while you're in that situation. This is a good program. This is something that every industrialized, civilized country, unless you're just an impoverished nation, any decent country would do this. And yet here we are saying ``no'' to these people.

And here's another thing. Some folks will say, Well, you know, if we cut them off, maybe they'll work harder now. Maybe they'll look for a job. They're looking for a job. You can't get unemployment insurance benefits unless you're looking for a job. That's one of the rules of the program. But with every five job seekers for one opening, with five job seekers for every one opening, workers are unemployed because there's simply not enough jobs yet. Even though in the last several months we've been adding private sector jobs, about a millions jobs we've created since the recovery began, there's still not enough jobs.

You see, during the Bush era they just did that much damage to the economy. They lost about 800,000 jobs in the very month that Barack Obama took office as President of the United States. So we're just climbing out of this very deep hole that the Republican Congress and George Bush put us in. But even though jobs are increasing, there's still about five people looking for every one opening for a job. In other words, even if every job opening were filled by an unemployed worker, over 11 million workers would still be looking for a job, because even though we have been doing a good job, the damage is so severe that we've got a long way to go.

Now it's important to understand that even nonpartisan organizations who look at these questions have a lot to tell us about it. The independent Congressional Budget Office--they don't work for the Republicans, don't work for the Democrats. They just work for you, the American people, to try to give us the best information they can. The independent Congressional Budget Office found that research suggests that the effect of recent extensions in unemployment insurance benefits on the duration of unemployment for recipients was rather small, meaning the people don't stay on unemployment long. They use it while they need it, and then they get another job. The duration for unemployment--people just need it to get by. Sometimes it goes longer than expected, particularly in an economy like this where we have so much foreclosure crisis, so many hits to our economy.

But, you know what? People are looking for work. They're trying. They're doing everything they can. They're doing the best that they can. And this government of ours, which represents our people--of, by, and for the people--should be there to extend unemployment benefits on an emergency basis when we have a job crisis like the one we have right now. And it's a shame and a national disgrace that this Congress could not get two-thirds of the vote of this Congress to pass unemployment insurance benefits; 150 people voted ``no.'' One hundred fifty Members of Congress voted ``no.'' And because they refused to step up to the plate and do what was right for the American people, about 2 million of our fellow Americans by January 1 are going to be going without. They're going to have a very grim set of holidays. And my heart aches for them. But, by February, 4.4 million will be in extremely dire straits.

And so I just want people to know, Mr. Speaker, that the people don't have to take it. They can call, they can write, Mr. Speaker. As you know, we live in a democracy. It's a free and open society and people can let their voices be heard to their government that this kind of behavior in Congress is not okay. Mr. Speaker, they can do that. And if they did, I think it would be a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has never terminated federally funded jobless benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is today. Let me say that again: Congress has never terminated federally funded jobless benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is now, 9.6. Since the unemployment insurance system was founded 75 years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress has never terminated an emergency unemployment program when the unemployment rate was even above 7.5 percent, let alone 9.6 percent. Because it's irresponsible to the individual family and because it's devastating to our economy at large.

Even following the 2001 Bush recession, the Republican-controlled Congress maintained temporary Federal unemployment insurance programs until the unemployment rate went down to 5.8. What is the difference between our Republicans of today and those of even just a few years ago? Maybe some people think, Mr. Speaker, I don't know, maybe they think their political chances are better the more pain poor people have to face.

If the current temporary program would be allowed to expire by the end of November, which it is set for, it would be shorter than temporary programs enacted in numerous years of recessions. This year, if we let this program expire, we would have cut the emergency program shorter than we did in 1990, in 2000, in the 1973 recessions. Why are we so stingy now, Mr. Speaker? I don't know. I don't know. But I bet you if the American people exercise their First Amendment rights, some people would listen, because sometimes politicians can't see the light until they feel the heat.

Unemployment insurance benefits have dramatically decreased poverty, Mr. Speaker. And we're at a time when we have record poverty. But because of unemployment insurance benefits, we fought back that poverty and provided economic security to millions of middle-income American families. Unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2009. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because that's another one people really need to be focusing on: unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2009. This is a good thing. And now we're looking at ending the program by the end of this month. That's wrong. Without these benefits, the increase in poverty from 2008 to 2009 would have been nearly 6.9 million rather than 3.6 million. So poverty would have been twice what it was without our acting in the earlier times that we did. Because we acted already, we were able to cut poverty to half the rate that it would have been. But now we're letting it expire.

Now I also want to say almost a million children were kept out of poverty in 2009 because of unemployment insurance benefits. Almost a million children. We're talking about little ones that are trying to go to school, trying to learn, developing brains. And because they were able to get the basic decency from their government in unemployment insurance benefits, they were able to stay out of poverty. But a million children, a million little ones going into winter, going into the cold months, going into the holidays are going to have to face that poverty because our Congress would not act.

I just want to say that that's wrong. The American children deserve better from their government than they got today on this House floor.

I want to move on to tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, I want to repeat some of the more salient points because maybe some folks just got on C-SPAN. I just want to say 2 million Americans stand to lose benefits during the holiday season because Congress failed to extend unemployment insurance benefits--2 million. Mr. Speaker, 2 million Americans stand to lose unemployment insurance benefits this holiday season, and 2 million more could lose them by February 2011. These Americans buy goods and services, stimulating our economy, which keeps people employed, which keeps rents being paid, which keeps mortgages being paid, and which keeps our economy moving toward recovery. Because we're not acting the way we should, we are putting this recovery in

jeopardy. Is electoral success so important that you're willing to put 2 million more people into poverty? It's a shame.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to juxtapose this question of our refusal to pass unemployment insurance benefits with what seems to be the thing that everybody feels like talking about around Washington, which is whether or not we are going to extend tax cuts, tax breaks, for the richest Americans. Right now, the debate is:

Shall we extend the Bush tax cuts up to $250,000, which means that people who make more than that will be able to have their tax breaks extended for the amount below that, or will we just extend them for all, up to the top 2 percent, which would mean extending them for everyone?

If we extended them for everyone, that would cost us an extra $700 billion. The people who are most adamant and who scream the loudest about deficits, debt, and spending are the first ones who want to make sure that the richest Americans get their tax cuts to the tune of $700 billion. Mr. Speaker, we don't have the $700 billion, so where are we going to get the $700 billion? We're going to borrow it. Our Republican colleagues want us to borrow $700 billion and give it to the richest Americans. So we wonder, Who are we going to borrow it from? Probably from the Chinese. I don't know. We don't have it.

Also, according to their pledge to America, they want us to cut education by about 20 percent. Is this a recipe for a competitive America? Those people will say, Oh, we want America to be competitive. They say that they want America to compete, so we're going to add to the debt to the tune of $700 billion. We're going to borrow the money, and we're going to cut education. The richest Americans can--I don't know--buy more boats, stay in more luxury hotels, buy big, fat cigars, and buy bottles of Cristal. I don't know what they do. I'm not one of them. The point of the matter is it's wrong, and we ought to be embarrassed to talk about it.

Now, some of our friends say, Oh, yeah, we've got to give the top 2 percent a tax break, too--they'll say--because it's going to help boost jobs.

Wait a minute. Didn't we have these tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003? Don't we have massive unemployment? Their program has failed. The evidence is on the wall. It's there. Their program has failed. If tax cuts are so great, why did we lose 800,000 jobs in the last month that George Bush was the President of the United States? No. Forgive me. 841,000 jobs. Can't leave out those 41,000 jobs, because there were 41,000 people in those jobs. Why did we lose about 4 million jobs during the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency if cutting taxes were such a great idea and a panacea for everything?

I'm going to say, Mr. Speaker, that cutting taxes is not a bad thing at all. It depends on who you cut them for. Cutting middle-income taxes might actually help people. Cutting taxes for the richest Americans is damaging to this economy and is unfair to the rest of us, and there are a lot of wealthy people who agree with me. Because you know what? They know that the economic ladder has got to stay in place. You can't live in this great country and make all the money that living here has given you the opportunity to make and then pull that ladder up behind you once you've made it all. It's wrong to do.

You know, we Democrats/Progressives don't have any problem with people coming up with a great idea and marketing it. People like it, so they buy it. They make a lot of money. Okay. That's fine. The question is, once you have used our roads to move your products around, once you have used our public schools to educate your workforce, once you have relied on our military to protect you, once you have used our police force to protect your firms and all your assets and property, once you have used our emergency medical services if, heaven forbid, you get a heart attack from all that work and you need that service, once you use all of these government services, once you drink the water which some government worker has inspected to make sure is safe, once you eat the meat which some government worker has inspected to make sure is safe and you benefit from all of that and then you say, ``Oh, I don't want to pay any taxes. I don't want to pay any taxes. I want to keep it all just for me,'' there is a word for that--and it is ``greed.'' There is no other word for it. I shudder when greed has been elevated to a political philosophy.

We're not talking about a complete government takeover, which some people are so happy to try to accuse us of. We're talking about a mixed economy where the public and the private sectors are in reasonable balance. That's all we're talking about. We cannot borrow $700 billion, give it to the richest 2 percent of Americans and then cut our educational system and say that we are that balanced, reasonable, mixed public-private sector economy. We can't do it.

So I say that this middle-income tax cut--again, if you do make lots of money, if you are the top 2 percent, your tax cut will be extended from zero to $250,000. That's the thing. Everybody is going to still have an extension, but you won't get it if you're above that. So that's what we mean by a middle class or a middle-income tax cut. It's very important to understand this. This is not something that's against the rich folks. Hey, look. You know, there are a lot of good rich people. The fact is many of them understand that the ladder of opportunity must be there for everybody else, but there are some who figure, I've got money. Skip you.

That's wrong. We need people who understand that this great country has allowed them to make the money that they made and that the ladder of opportunity needs to stay where it is.

I was talking to one fellow who said, Oh, we should have a tax cut for everybody, not just for the 98 percent and down. We well-to-do people do so much for the economy.

I said, Well, wait a minute. Didn't the rest of us do so much for you? Didn't you brag to me about how you went to college on the GI Bill? Who did that for you? That was the public. That was the American people. Didn't you go to State University of ``Whatever''? Didn't you tell me you were a member of the State patrol for a while before you went into your business?

This is a real conversation I had with somebody who benefited so much from the public but then didn't want to hand anything back.

Right now, I'm joined by one of my very favorite Members of Congress, the Congressman from the great State of California.

Congressman, what do you say tonight?

Well, you know, Congressman, I just want to thank you for joining me down here for the progressive message. It's really always a joy to be with you. I was spending a little bit of time talking about how this denial of the unemployment insurance benefits extension absolutely has a devastating effect to the individual family. It also has a devastating effect to the economy because consumer demand is bolstered by people having some income, even when they're unemployed.

Congressman, thank you for pointing those things out. One of things that continues to stay on my mind is how some of the rationale for this ``no'' position that was taken by so many of our colleagues in the Republican caucus is that with, well, you know, if you give people unemployment insurance benefits, maybe that will dissuade them from looking for a job. Do you have any views on that particular mode of thinking?

It's easy to say when it's not you.

That is right.

Now, Congressman, you're not talking about one of those big lobbyist jobs. You mean a real job that makes you put your back into it, right, that so many Americans have to turn to, to be able to meet their daily needs.

Congressman, thank you for making those points.

I just want to see if I can also get your views because as we're talking about denying families basic money right before Thanksgiving, right before New Year's, right before Christmas, right before Hanukkah, right before so many American holidays, we are also really talking about whether we should extend tax cuts to the top 2 percent to the tune of about $700 billion for us which we don't have and we'll have to borrow. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this.

Now, Congressman, another thought I wanted to get your views on here, it's been puzzling me. These folks say it with such conviction that they must believe it. They say, Well, if we cut these taxes, this will lead to an economic boom. But that is trouble because, why did we end up in such an economic malaise, because we've had these tax cuts in place since 2001 and 2003; and this decade has been the decade of the slowest economic growth since World War II? So if tax cuts are the answer for everything, why didn't we have great economic growth, and why do we have such an economic recession now since we've had these tax cuts in place?

I think you're right. Congressman, let's now turn to our good friend from the great State of Tennessee. Congratulations on your reelection, my friend. Congressman, we've been talking about economic justice, the denial of the unemployment insurance extension, the Bush tax cuts. What are your thoughts tonight?

Well, I'm going to leave the last word to Congressman Garamendi, but I just want to say before we close out, because we are getting close to the end of the hour, this Democratic Caucus is resolute. In this last election, you know, okay, we got our nose bloodied a little bit. But you know what? We are focused on the best benefit and the welfare of the American people. We will not bend. We will not bow. We will stay here talking about Making It In America, talking about jobs, talking about renewable energy, talking about manufacturing, talking about infrastructure, fighting back these unjust economic policies which skew our economy so that we pull up the ladder of economic opportunity. We're not going to allow it.

I'm going to let Congressman Garamendi give the last word. And I want to thank you, Congressman Cohen. You are a joy to work with, a pleasure, and your wit, your charm, and your knowledge are always a benefit.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call attention to the corrosive, pernicious, and corrupting effect of dirty money. What is dirty money? That is money that comes into American politics in the millions, multiples of millions; money that comes in offering to fund campaigns that smear, distort, and deliver untruths to voters; and money that was made much easier to come into our political environment through the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC.

We need to take action to make sure that Americans know who is funding these messages that are coming across their airwaves and that the identity of these sponsors is disclosed so that people can make a good choice. Never let the day come that any public servant has to face a torrent of nasty, nasty commercials over the airwaves without the voters even knowing who paid for them, who sponsored them, and who wants them to believe the untruths put in many of these ads.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on passing H.R. 3808, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, be limited to 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Well, Congressman, let me just thank you for holding down this Special Order and congratulations to you and Congressman Tonko. In California, you-all conveyed the message, and I want to congratulate your whole State for your success from our side of the aisle.

But unfortunately I'm going to have to be here for a short while tonight,

but I just wanted to come down and share a few moments with you and the Speaker and the American people, talk about the importance of maintaining and holding on to that vision of making it in America because we did it before, we can do it again, but it will not happen by magic. It's going to take some things.

It's going to take, first of all, some investment in education. It's going to take some investment in our Nation's infrastructure. It's going to take some real investment in our small businesses so that they can get it moving, and it's going to take some real investment in our belief in ourselves to reclaim this mantle of manufacturer for the world.

This can happen. We've done it before. America still is the leading manufacturing Nation in the world, but we've seen other nations creeping up on us. We can do it but these investments are going to have to happen.

In this Congress, we made tremendous investments in, as you already pointed out, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Important. We call it the stimulus for shorthand, but the fact is it was reinvestment. Reinvestment is one of the R's in that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to bear in mind that investment is what we need at this time so that we can continue our upward trajectory for jobs.

I hope that our friends on the other side of the aisle who are going to get the gavels after they assume leadership continue this effort to try to reinvest in America for the sake of manufacturing. We will see. They will have the chance. But the fact is that this Democratic Congress put this country on a platform and a foundation for future growth in jobs and manufacturing.

There was mention a moment ago of the investment act. Not only did we invest in scientific research, we invested in infrastructure. We not only invested in infrastructure, but in our health care bill we invested in making sure that we have the educational wherewithal to take care of our people into the future. Tremendous investments in education, for medical education, so that we can take care of our people. That, again, will fuel manufacturing because part of manufacturing is medical device manufacturing so that we have the educational talent to make those instruments that are life saving in this world.

So you put the health care bill, together with the Recovery Act, what you're talking about is a recipe for making things that will help life- saving research take place through American innovation and manufacturing.

So I just want to commend you for being down here week after week. Whether you have a bunch of people helping you or whether you're by yourself, you have an enduring commitment to making sure the American people know that manufacturing is not declining--well, it has been but it doesn't have to be declining--in America. It can be ascending in America if we make the investments in education and research and the things that we talked about earlier.

I want to say that being from the Midwest, and I'm so proud to be from the State of Minnesota, wonderful State. We already had a little bit of snow there. I know you all don't know what that is in California. It's white, fluffy stuff. The fact is we even in the State of Minnesota are investing in wind. We are investing in biofuels. We are investing in all sorts of green energy producing methods that also require that we're going to be manufacturing new technology but also transmission lines to transfer the energy that we make based on our innovation.

In the course of the time between August and now, we've been home a lot, working hard but back in our districts, and I had the opportunity to go to a number of manufacturing companies in my district. 10K Solar, they know who they are. They're in Minnesota. They are a cutting-edge solar innovation manufacturing company. Other companies are making new fascinating things with wind technology. And this is the kind of thing we want to stimulate. This is what is going to continue to make America the great economic power that it has been, and I just hope that we can get some real bipartisan cooperation to continue this drive so that we can continue to make America that country that is the envy of the world.

And so unfortunately, Congressman, I'm going to have to leave you to carry the weight tonight, but again, I just want to thank you for your commitment and just say that I draw inspiration from the pictures that you're about to explain right now.

Madam Speaker, on September 16, 2010, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 529 and 530, but had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on both votes.

Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2010, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 534, but had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Madam Speaker, I claim the time on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for this Special Order where we will deliver the Progressive message. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is that body of Members of Congress who come together to talk about those things that make America the wonderful country that it is, where we have equal opportunity, where we believe that all people, all colors, all cultures, all faiths, belong in America, where we believe that economic justice for the middle class is an important priority, where we believe health care is something that all Americans should be able to partake in, not just those who can afford it. Where we believe that poverty is something that our great country, our wealthy country, can eliminate if we muster the political will to do so. Where we come together as a caucus and say things like food stamps, income support for low-income people are good. They are a sign of the charitable hearts of Americans, and that there is nothing wrong with these important programs.

In the Progressive Caucus, we say that war is not the answer, that diplomacy is what America should be working for, that we should pursue diplomacy, that we should try to talk it out and not shoot it out, that the lives of our soldiers are so precious that we should never commit troops unless it is absolutely necessary to defend the Nation.

This is the Progressive Caucus, the progressive vision that says, yes, consumer justice is an important thing for Americans and that, yes, regulations that are rationally related to the health, safety and the fairness of our society are important. We don't say there is something wrong with taxes. We say taxes are those which are necessary to live in a civil society. They are the dues that we pay to live in a civilized society.

So this is the Progressive Caucus, which is in contrast to the other caucuses, some of which believe that rich people don't have enough money and that poor people have too much. That's not us. The Progressive Caucus stands for the great American middle class. It believes in eliminating poverty. It believes, as Martin Luther King did, that war is the enemy of the poor and that

we should always strive for peace. It believes in the fact that our environment is a sacred gift, that we have to care for it, that we can't just pollute, pollute, pollute, and that we have to be environmental stewards. This is the Progressive Caucus.

Of course, the Progressive Caucus comes to you on Thursday nights to deliver the progressive message. So, tonight, we are going to be talking about taxes. The progressive message tonight is about taxes and taxation. In the next few days, I believe we're going to hear quite a bit about taxes and you're going to hear quite a bit from the Republican Caucus about taxes. They're going to tell you how absolutely necessary it is that Americans at the top 2 percent of the income scale actually, you know, get more money and how even they are willing to stand in the way of the middle class people getting tax cuts so that the top 2 percent can get some tax cuts. They are willing to hold hostage the tax cuts for middle class people, as we are just emerging from this recession, so that the top 2 percent can get a tax break. We are going to be talking about that tonight. That is the progressive message.

Let me just say, when the Republican Caucus says, You know what? We want to have tax cuts. We want to prevent all of the tax cuts from expiring, and we want to keep every tax cut for everybody, the Progressive Caucus says, You know, just for the middle class. The rich folks, they don't need any more tax breaks. Things are already going well for them.

The reality is the GOP plan is tax breaks for Donald Trump and Paris Hilton. Now, I'm not saying they're bad folks. They're good folks-- maybe. I don't know them--but I can say they don't need a tax break. The fact is they probably need to pay more taxes. The fact is that the GOP plan is tax breaks for billionaires. Do you think that Donald Trump and Paris Hilton need a tax break? I don't think they do. I'll tell you, I think the regular citizens of my district in Minnesota need one. I think that those police and those firefighters need a tax cut. I think the people who work hard every day to make our country safe need some tax assistance, but I don't think the billionaires need a tax cut.

In fact, I think that those public employees who make sure our streets are safe, who make sure that the potholes are filled in, who make sure that they put the fires out when we're in danger, who teach our children, and those hardworking small business people may need a tax cut; but I don't think that Paris Hilton and Donald Trump need one. I think they'd be fine without one.

Here's the thing about it, Madam Speaker. These tax cuts for the top 2 percent that the Republican Caucus wants to continue will cost the American taxpayer $700 billion. You should also know, Madam Speaker, when the Bush tax cuts were implemented, they didn't set them up with offsets. They didn't find money somewhere else to reduce the budget in order to give these tax cuts. They just gave the tax cuts. The Democrats have a program in place called ``pay as you go,'' so we're not going to increase spending unless we reduce it elsewhere or unless, of course, it's an emergency. The Republicans didn't have that philosophy. They said, We're just going to give rich people more money because we think that rich people don't have enough money and the poor have too much money. So that's kind of how they do business. They won't tell you that, but that is their operating principle.

So my question, Madam Speaker, is quite simply this:

Do we want tax breaks for billionaires, like I showed you in the picture a moment ago, Madam Speaker, or do we want them for teachers so that teachers can have a reasonable number of kids in their classrooms in order to teach them math, science, computers, and in order to teach them what they need to know to be equipped for a 21st-century economy? Public school teachers, now there are some hard workers for you.

Police officers are brave men and women who go out on the streets of this country to make folks safe every day. That's right, police officers. When the rest of us are running out of the building, they're running in the building. Police officers not only fight crime, but they also find people who are lost. They also do things like make sure they inform neighbors about who in the neighborhood is dangerous. Police officers do things like inform neighbors on how to set up a community watch so they can help police themselves. Police officers, I think they could use a tax break.

Firefighters are another group of first responders who run into burning buildings when all of us are trying to get out of there. They're brave men and women who are inhaling smoke, putting their own lives at risk and cutting short their health so that they can protect the rest of us. These folks, they could use some tax help. I don't know about the billionaires; but these folks, with all they do for us, yes, I would vote for a tax break for them in a minute.

Also, we need to save money and not give that 2 percent of tax breaks away to billionaires so that we can do more job training. We've got a green economy coming. It's already here, but we have a lot of people who don't know how to do those jobs. They don't know how to install a solar panel. They don't know how to install a windmill, and they don't know how to do weatherization to make our homes more energy efficient. They need to learn how to do it, so we should use that money that the Republicans want to give to the billionaires and put it into some job training so some young people and maybe not so young people can learn skills that will help them feed their families in the 21st century.

Small business investment: we need to get small businesses back engaged. They are the number one employers in this country. About 70 percent of all Americans work for small businesses. The fact is that these small businesses are the engine for change. Why don't we talk about giving them some help? Why don't we think about making sure that they can retool, that they can get some new equipment and can get some inventory?

You know, I love the small businesses in my district. I like to go visit them. They're doing all kinds of great things. They are remanufacturing engines. They are doing things like fixing cars in small shops. They are restaurant owners. I went to a mail house the other day that does bulk mailing for people. They're doing all kinds of innovative things. They're making semiconductors. They're manufacturing. Let's help our small businesses, which are the engine for job growth.

Better schools. Clean energy. Health care. Infrastructure investment. Let's not give that $700 billion away to Donald Trump and Paris Hilton. Again, no personal cut on them. I'm sure they're fine people. Though, my point is: instead of giving it to those billionaires, wouldn't it be better to take that $700 billion and put in some roads and some bridges and to fix them and repair them?

In my State of Minnesota, we had a bridge fall down, and 13 people were killed. We need better infrastructure in America. Wouldn't it be better to take that $700 billion that the Republicans want to give to the billionaires and put it into infrastructure?

What about college affordability? As a father of two college-aged young people--one 22, a senior in college, and one 20, a sophomore in college--let me tell you that college is too expensive these days. Young people are running up debt. They go to college for 4 years, and they pay it off for 40 years. It's ridiculous. Wouldn't it be better if we took some of that $700 billion that the Republicans want to give to Donald Trump and Paris Hilton and put it into college affordability?

My question is: What are your priorities? Madam Speaker, I ask: What are your priorities?

The priorities should be teachers, police officers, firefighters, job training, small business investment, better schools, clean energy, health care, infrastructure, college affordability. These are the priorities of the Progressive Caucus. This is what we are going to fight for. This is what we believe in, not giving tax breaks to people who really don't need them.

While we're on the subject of taxes, it may surprise some people to know that it is the Democratic Caucus that voted in the stimulus bill to give 95 percent of all Americans a tax break. I think people are surprised because the political labeling that has taken place is

that, okay, Republicans are for tax breaks; Democrats are not. That's not true.

Democrats are for tax breaks for you, Madam Speaker, for the average American. Republicans are for tax breaks for Paris Hilton and Donald Trump. That's the difference. We want average Americans who work hard every day, who make things, who cut hair, who manufacture the goods, who work at those factory jobs, who do those jobs like fire, police, teaching, public works, we want those folks to have a tax break, but the Republicans want to have the top 2 percent have one. That's the difference.

Every congressional Republican voted against a tax cut for 95 percent of American families because all of them voted against the stimulus. All of them voted against it; therefore, not one of them voted for the average American family to get a little bit of help on their taxes. That's too bad.

I think it's important that as we begin this debate about tax cuts, that the American people, Madam Speaker, know who it is who wants to help them in this time when foreclosures are too high and when unemployment is so high. The American people have a right to know who is on their side and who is on the side of Donald Trump and Paris Hilton. Again, this is no personal cut on these guys. They might be fine folks, for all I know, but I know that the people who pick up the garbage, the people who give these young people a chance, who build those small startup technology firms, I know that those regular folks who are the small business people, the public employees, I know they need a tax cut. I'm not so sure about the top 2 percent. I think they're fine folks, but they don't need a tax cut.

Madam Speaker, I think another important fact for people to know is that Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became President. That's according to Bruce Bartlett, who was the domestic policy advisor to President--guess who--Ronald Reagan. President Ronald Reagan's advisor said Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became President. Why? Because Democrats have been lowering taxes for middle class people. We're not so much on lowering taxes for the richest Americans, but for people who need some tax breaks to get by, to put groceries on the table, to make it through the day, to make it through the week. We've been in favor of it. This is a fact and a quote from Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan: Federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became President. That's an important thing to know.

Finally, I get to my last board, Madam Speaker, then I'm going to make a few more remarks, and then we might wind up early. But I just wanted to say that folks are paying lower and fewer taxes under President Obama than under President Bush, and this is something that is very important for people to bear in mind.

I placed this board here because I know that you hear a lot of stuff, folks that are listening to Fox News, that are listening to Rush Limbaugh. They may think, oh, well, the Democrats are the tax-and-spend people. Not so. Only when you're talking about taxes for the richest Americans, which we believe everybody should pay, not as a punishment, but because if you don't pay taxes, who is going to pay for the military to protect this country? Who is going to pay for the police, the firefighters? Who is going to pay for the EMS workers? Who is going to pay for our public school teachers? You've got to pay some taxes. They're necessary for society to operate properly. And there is nothing wrong with them and they are not a punishment. If you use the roads, you use the security, you use the schools, you use the clean water, then you should say, well, yeah, this is what we've got to do.

My point is the Republicans only want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and don't really think about what life is like for the middle class. But under President Obama, Americans have paid fewer taxes than under President Bush. You pay fewer taxes under President Obama than under President Bush--very important--although this may not apply to the wealthiest Americans.

And I just want to add, Madam Speaker, that some people think, you know, maybe Mr. Ellison is being mean to rich people. I'm really not. I think Americans who have been privileged and have been lucky and have been blessed to live in this great country, to open up a business, to do well, I think that's laudable. I think that's important. I think that's great. All I'm saying is, if this great country provides the protection from foreign enemies for you to have your business, provides fire, police, security for you to run your business, if this great country provides you with clean water, clean air to run your business and thrive and grow, provides you with employees who were trained and educated at public schools, then don't tell me that you shouldn't have to help. This is an important fact for people to realize. And the Progressive Caucus, we're not ashamed to say that taxation is a good thing and that it ought to be fair, it ought to be just, it ought to be as low as possible, but it's not an evil and a punishment the way the Republican Caucus likes to present it.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, that the Republican plan is the same plan as it was under President Bush. They want to give welfare--that's welfare--to the wealthy and add trillions to the deficit. The Republican Caucus likes to talk about debt and deficits, yet they're willing to add $700 billion to the deficit by extending tax breaks to the richest Americans. They are cranking up their message machine to say this in the next several weeks and over the course of the next several months as well. It's important that Americans know the truth about taxes, and I think it's important that the American people know the truth about the debt and the deficit.

Republicans are going to say, oh, my goodness, we've got this massive, massive debt. We've got this massive deficit. They're going to say $1.4 trillion. But ask them how much of it is on Obama and how much of it is on them. About $1.3 trillion is on them. The Republicans, because of two wars that they never paid for, massive tax cuts that they never paid for, a giveaway to big pharmaceutical companies under Medicare part D that they didn't pay for, and they didn't even allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies, that's why we have an enormous deficit. They are to blame for it. These guys, they want to run the deficit up, and then as soon as the American people put them out because they're not good with the economy, they want to blame the Democrats when they put us in the worst hole economically since the Great Depression.

Now, I don't blame the Republicans. I just say that they're not good at economics. I love Republicans--my dad is a Republican; he and I are great friends; we talk all the time; we argue a lot--but they're not good with the economy. They think that you can cut taxes and still get services. They don't understand that when you cut taxes, you can't get services. They think that when you cut taxes down below where you can meet the basic needs of society that you can still provide quality service that people need. They think that you can cut taxes and not end up with a deficit problem. They're just mistaken about that.

I think that the proof that their ideas have failed is the trouble that we saw ourselves in when President Obama took office. When President Obama took office, that month, January of 2009, that month this economy lost about 780,000 jobs. A few weeks before that, we had to vote on a bank bailout of proportions that we have not yet seen, $700 billion. This is because Republicans don't like regulation. They don't like rich people to have to follow the rules. They don't want rich people to have to pay taxes, and they don't even want to write rules for rich people to follow.

And so we ended up with a massive deficit which they created, which they blame Democrats for now. We ended up with 2.8 million foreclosures in America in the year 2009, and we ended up with catastrophic damage to our economy. And yet since the Democrats have come in, we've added private-sector jobs. We've been increasing jobs steadily even though the unemployment rate is still intolerably high, even though Democrats have to continue to

put people back to work, and we're committed to that process, but Republicans still won't join in and help.

Democrats in Congress are standing with the middle class and small businesses to address major issues confronting our Nation and to take America in a new direction--creating good American jobs, providing tax relief for middle class and small businesses, closing loopholes that send jobs overseas, and building a strong foundation for the American economy.

As I said before, congressional Republicans are bringing back the economic and fiscal policies that were created during the Bush recession, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, with job losses of nearly 800,000 a month and nearly double our national debt.

Now the Republican caucus is even floating a plan to give permanent tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while holding President Obama's tax cuts for the middle class hostage.

This is something that we shouldn't tolerate. This is something the American people have to rise up for. This is something I think, Madam Speaker, that the people of the United States need to say, Wait a minute. We can't let ourselves go back to them bad old days when the Republicans were killing jobs and driving up the deficit and running a very unfair, inequitable economy.

Republicans, when they've been asked, okay, if you do take back the House, what are you going to do? They say, We're going to do what we did to get you in the mess we did in the first place. I appreciate their honesty. But the fact is, this is not something that the American family can bear.

They want to repeal and privatize Social Security, Republicans want to cut benefits and jeopardize retirement security for American seniors and workers. Don't forget it was only a few years ago they wanted to take Social Security and gamble your Social Security money in the stock market. The American people rejected that idea. Think about what has happened to the stock market in the last few years and what would have happened if they would have been in charge and been able to get their plan through.

They say they want to repeal Wall Street reform. Now, we went through a huge process with Wall Street reform where we put consumers back in play to get some protection, where we brought accountability to large firms, where we brought the rating agencies under accountability. And yet Republicans want to repeal it.

The fact is is that the recklessness that the Republicans allowed Wall Street to deteriorate with led to the worst economic meltdown in generations, cost 8 million jobs, and cost $17 trillion--that's with a ``T''--in household wealth, because even if you pay everything and never miss a mortgage payment or a rent payment, if somebody is foreclosed on your block, you just lost household wealth, even if you've been perfect in your payments.

So the fact is is that we can't allow the Republicans back in place. They want to repeal health care. And repealing health care would be particularly bad.

It's important for Americans to know that as of this date, as of September 23, health care is helping the middle class. Did you know that during the status quo, Madam Speaker, before we passed health care, that 60 percent--and this is a fact, please check it out--60 percent of all bankruptcy filings were due to medical debt. And most of these people had insurance. They just went over their lifetime limits or their annual limits. They just couldn't pay the deductibles, and they ended up snowballing, and they couldn't pay, and they ended up bankrupt because they got sick. There's something wrong with that. Democrats came together without any help from Republicans to change.

Now, people are a little nervous about things when they change. You go from one thing that you know, even if it's bad, to something that you don't know, even if it's probably good, and people just get a little nervous. They don't know what's going to happen. So I understand people being a little anxious.

But let me just remind people. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions as of now. Not in 2014. In 2014 they won't be able to deny people with preexisting conditions at all. But as of now, as of today, insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to kids with preexisting conditions. Health plans cannot limit or deny benefits or deny coverage for a child younger than the age of 19 simply because the child has a preexisting condition like asthma. Now, that's a good thing. Why would they want to repeal this? They want to take this from the people, Madam Speaker.

You know what else they want to take from the people, Madam Speaker? They want to take it away. They want to allow insurance companies again to be able to put lifetime limits on people's benefits. Health plans can no longer put a lifetime dollar limit on benefits of people with medical conditions like cancer.

I had a lady tell me, You know what? When my money runs out, I'm going to go die on the Capitol steps because my country won't be there for me. Now her country is here for her.

Also, Republicans want to take this away: That an insurance company cannot cancel your policy without proving fraud. Now, if a woman gets a diagnosis of breast cancer, a man gets a diagnosis of prostate cancer, the insurance companies used to be able to say, You're out. We're going to rescind your policy. They can't do that any more. Health care plans can't retroactively cancel insurance coverage--often at the time you need it most--solely because your employer made a mistake or a typo. They're going to have to prove that there was fraud.

Insurers can't deny your claim without a chance for you to appeal. If they deny your claim and say, Oh, we're not covering that. So your doctor says you need this procedure. The insurance company says, We're not going to cover you on that. You should at least be able to appeal it to somebody. As of today, Madam Speaker, you have an appeal. You have a third party you can go to and say, My doctor sent me here. I took the procedure that the doctor wanted me to have. And now they say they don't want to pay. You don't have to take their word for it any more, Madam Speaker. You can go over their head.

You can receive free preventative services such as screenings, vaccinations, and counseling. This is a good thing because everybody knows an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Everybody knows that. Wouldn't you rather have your sugar checked before you end up with diabetes? Wouldn't you rather have your blood pressure checked before you end up with heart disease? Wouldn't you rather have a screening for your cholesterol and make sure you're staying healthy? This is a good thing.

And you know what? Insurance companies shouldn't charge you for it. A lot of the reasons people don't get these preventative screenings, Madam Speaker, is because they don't have the $20 that it's going to cost them. So they don't check that sugar, or they don't check that blood pressure, they don't check that cholesterol. And it gets worse, and it gets worse, and they end up in the emergency room.

Today, as of today, you can receive free preventative services such as screenings, vaccinations, and counseling. This is going to save our country millions of dollars. How many people's lives are going to be saved because they got to it early? This is a great thing. This is a great day.

Young adults can stay on a parent's plan until they're 26. You know, Madam Speaker, I told a number of people I have a son who is 22 years old. He was, of course, 21 before his last birthday. My son turned 22 on March 13, but about a month before his birthday, he got a birthday present from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And the birthday present was a letter kicking him off my insurance. Now, that's not good. That's really tragic.

But as of today, he can come back on my policy. He doesn't have to worry about what's going to happen if he gets sick. What if he got a summer job painting, and he fell off the ladder? What if he developed a bad cough? What if anything? He broke his ankle a few years ago. What if it started flaring up? Now he doesn't have to worry about that. He's still on mom and dad's policy.

As of today, Madam Speaker, people can choose a primary care doctor,

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise today to mourn the passing of my friend Fred Shaw. A stand-out student in China, Fred first came to the United States seeking an advanced degree in Civil Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He moved to the Twin Cities in 1947 to complete a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota.

Fred made his first mark on the Minnesota business community in 1974 when he co-founded the Shaw-Lundquist Contracting firm, which stands presently as one of the most prominent general contractors in Minnesota and is the largest Asian-American-owned contractor in the nation. The motto of his company, ``Be honest, fair, and reliable and treat people right,'' is a lesson in which everyone can find truth. In addition to his business endeavors, Fred played a pivotal role in the advancement of minorities in business having been a founding member of the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) of Minnesota and the Chinese American Business Association. Fred's dedication and tireless work will continue to inspire minority groups in the business community for years to come.

Furthermore, Fred will be remembered as a great supporter of international education. He and his wife Jennie established a scholarship with the University of Minnesota China Center which helps send students to China for academic study.

Madam Speaker, Minnesota has lost a true trailblazer in the promotion of minority businesses with the passing of Fred Shaw.