Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in this time of debate around taxes and taxation, it's hard to figure out what's really true. Republicans say this; Democrats say that. Let me tell you what's actually the fact.

The fact is that the Republicans want to give the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans tax breaks that would add $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. They're saying they're going to stop tax cuts for middle class people unless the top 2 percent get their tax cut that would add $700 billion to the deficit. Now, that's not fair given that middle class people have faced foreclosure, have faced a drop in home value, have faced unemployment, have faced so many difficult economic hurdles.

Why do they insist on giving the top 2 percent a huge tax break that they don't need, only giving the top 2 percent that tax break? Middle class people need relief. Middle class people need it now.

Let me thank Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers, and also let me thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who see the wisdom of moving forward based on what we know about the disparity in crack cocaine sentencing now, what we've learned over the years, thank all of them for yielding to evidence, which I think is so important.

Before I ever came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I spent the better part of my life representing people in the courts of our country as a public defender and representing them in the courts of our country in Federal and State court, and I saw so many of these cases. I think what disgusted me the most is the human potential that would just be thrown away, as I would have to tell a young person who was caught with crack that if they'd had cocaine they would have a chance at probation, they would be able to really take advantages of treatment and perhaps reconstruct their lives. But because they had crack, their lives were going to be basically over at a pretty young age, thrown away in a cell to have really no real opportunity, be in prison for 10, 5 years for what another person would get probation for. And this made it incredibly difficult to argue that our system of law was fair, that we believed in justice, that we thought it was right and just to treat people the same for doing the same thing.

The fact is, the chemical difference between crack and cocaine is the differences between water and ice. It is the same thing, and you cannot explain to a people that for doing the same thing that they should get 100-to-1 more severe treatment. It doesn't make sense.

So let me just commend people on both sides of the aisle for correcting this severely disproportionate and unfair anomaly in our law enforcement, and I take no blame for anybody. But I will say that there are thousands of people, literally thousands of people, who may get a real chance at life because of a mistake in their drug cases, because of this law.

Let me thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let there never be another war, military conflict, or armed hostilities involving U.S. military personnel that are not openly debated, expressly authorized and consented to, and scrupulously overseen by this Congress.

We are the Congress. It is our job to do our constitutional duty. It is not second-guessing. It is oversight. It is engaging in the process of governance. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says that the President just gets to go fight wars without the oversight of the Congress. It is not unpatriotic. It is not being a poor citizen. It is our constitutional duty, if you are going to commit troops, to know why, when and how, and there are provisions in the Constitution and in the War Powers Act to make sure that Congress has the ability to exercise its constitutional responsibility. We can't shirk these duties constitutionally, not under the War Powers Act or anything else.

We are in Pakistan. We are there with troops on the ground, apparently, and we are there in unmanned aerial vehicles. We have to exercise our responsibility. We cannot escape what history has assigned to us. We can't turn a blind eye when we know troops are there and engaged. It is not responsible. It is not right.

The Pakistani public opinion is at an all-time low with regard to the United States. Why? We hardly know because we haven't dealt with this engagement in a forthright manner.

Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA was a monumental achievement in the fight for equality for every American living with a disability.

The ADA opened doors, literally and figuratively, for millions of Americans who faced limited opportunities to travel, work and receive an education.

It may be difficult for younger people to imagine the obstacles endured by disabled Americans prior to the passage of the ADA, while it did not eliminate the challenges of living with a disability; its passage provided far greater access and renewed hope for millions.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to those who contributed to the struggle for equal rights and equal access, a movement that ultimately resulted in the passage of the ADA. The efforts of disability support groups, non-profits, legislators and individuals across our Nation who advocated for changes represent the best in America. Their success 20 years ago is a blueprint for improving lives today.

Just as it is important to celebrate the freedoms and rights that our Nation offers, we must continue to advocate for the changes that are needed. As a nation, we should be proud of the rights that we have secured for our citizens, but never forget the struggle for those rights. I am committed to continuing the fight for equality for all Americans: with and without disabilities.

I thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak.

Mr. Speaker, my friends from the party opposite refer to deficit and debts. Well, you know, debts are important. The deficit is important. The national debt, all these things are critical. But I guess my question is, you know, when the Republican Caucus voted to give the most wealthy and most privileged members of American society a $700 billion-plus tax cut that they didn't pay for, they weren't that concerned about fiscal responsibility. Why no fiscal responsibility for the two wars? Ten billion dollars a month for Iraq, no fiscal responsibility for that. When the prescription drug handout was given to Big Pharma, $400 billion, no fiscal responsibility then.

But when the poor, hardworking people of America find themselves without work and come and say, you know what, still looking for work, haven't found one, and need some help from my fellow Americans, it's like, ``No, no, no, no. We cannot help you because we got to worry about the deficit.'' Why so much concern, so much heartfelt angst about what the wealthiest, most privileged Americans need but nothing but a cold heart and a closed purse for people who are in an emergency situation?

Mr. Speaker, I ask what about the debts of the people who are unemployed? What about them having to go to family and borrow money? What about them being captured by the payday lenders and the rent-to- owners and these kind of people, folks who take advantage of poor people when they don't have any money and they don't have any unemployment insurance benefits? What about their personal debt? The American people should respond.

I don't want to say that the party opposite is heartless, but this looks heartless. It looks that way. And I don't want my friends in the party opposite to look like they just don't care about poor people. So I urge everyone in this caucus to support and vote for this measure. It is important, it is the right time.

I will just say, finally, the fact is that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, $1.60 goes into the economy, which means we begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this deficit.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus tonight to bring a progressive vision about our great country.

My friend poses the question, where are the jobs? That's a good question coming from the Republican Caucus because they're the ones who destroyed the jobs. The fact is, the Democratic Caucus has been rebuilding jobs, and I have proof.

Now, if you look at this graph, very simple graph, what it shows is-- the red is under the Bush administration, under the Republican Caucus. And as you can see, December of 2007 we see a steady decline in the number of jobs with the Bush administration. The Bush administration, because of policies of not regulating Wall Street, because of allowing the industry just to run wild, because of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, because of deficit spending--they paid for two wars--a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and massive tax cuts--over $700 billion in tax cuts which they never paid for--we saw a decline in American jobs. And then when the Obama administration comes in, we see ourselves digging out of this hole. It's slow, it's tough, it's very, very tough to come out and clean things up after the Republican Caucus has been in power. You know, the toughest job in the circus is cleaning up after the elephants. But the fact is that you see the Obama administration and the Democratic Caucus digging us out of this recession.

Private-sector jobs have increased for 6 straight months. Where are the jobs? Well, the Republicans should know where the jobs were; they're the ones who said we favor the rich over everyone else, we favor the privileged, the comfortable over everyone else. The working people have to go figure out what they're going to do because we're in it for the wealthy.

The fact is the Democratic Caucus is helping to pull our country out of this situation. Again, it was proven on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker, because today what we saw on the House floor were the Democrats who moved to pass the unemployment insurance extension. Our Republican colleagues, our friends in the party opposite, despite all of their highest pronouncements, said ``no'' to the American people who are in dire straits.

What kind of heart is that?

You know, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about our economy today, but I think more of what we're talking about today are values and who values what. We are talking about values--the value of how you rate one kind of person versus another.

The Republican Caucus says they're for tax cuts. We heard my friend in the party opposite say a little while ago he is for tax cuts. I find the gentleman a fine person and a pleasure to work with personally, but we couldn't disagree more when it comes to economic policy. He says he likes tax cuts--not when it comes to working people's tax cuts.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave tax cuts to 95 percent of Americans. Ninety-five percent of Americans got tax cuts under the Recovery Act. Guess how many Republicans voted for it? Zero percent.

They don't like tax cuts for working people, only for really, really rich people. The reason is that they believe the rich folks who get all of the tax cuts are going to use those tax cuts, you know, after they've bought enough yachts and enough houses and enough Tiffany watches and stuff like that. They might just use some of it to, maybe, invest in a factory or something. That's what they think is going to happen. It never happens that way, but that's what they think is going to happen. It's called ``trickle down.'' There is even a name for this kind of economics that the Republican Caucus is so very in love with.

They talk about John F. Kennedy. It's amazing to hear these guys talk about how much they love John F. Kennedy because of tax cuts. Look, the Democratic Caucus is not anti tax cuts. It is important for the American people to know we're not against tax cuts. If tax cuts to the middle class will help stimulate the economy, we will do it. We have done it. We couldn't get any support from them when we did do it, but the fact is this is another sort of distortion that our colleagues are just absolutely committed to telling the American people--that Democrats don't like tax cuts. Yeah, we're fine with tax cuts, but we want fair tax cuts. We want tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy.

Here is an economic lesson for you:

If you want to stimulate the economy, do you give a tax cut to the people who need the money and who will take it and then buy things with it? Then at the stores where they bought them, there will be business at those stores, and at those stores, the people who work there will see some revenue coming into the stores, and the owners of the stores will be able to, therefore, continue keeping people on the payroll.

On the other hand, do you give the money to people who don't need it, who are wealthy by all definition, who can just let that money sit there or buy luxury items that they really don't need? Maybe they'll just go out and buy up other companies--mergers and acquisitions--stuff like that.

The fact is, if you want to stimulate the economy, you give a tax cut to the middle class and to the working class, not to the very rich people. That's what the Democrats did. That's what the Republicans absolutely oppose. That's what they are against. The fact is it is wrong. It is incorrect. It is bad policy. You would think they would know better. The Republicans are just not good at economics. They are good at other things, but economics they're not so good at.

During the time that the Republican Caucus was in control, you know, they cut taxes and gave us the biggest deficit this country has seen. Yet, when they came into office, they inherited one of the biggest surpluses we have seen. Yes, it's true. Bill Clinton left the Republican Caucus a surplus. They came in well above the water, and they handed things over well below.

The American people don't have short memories. We remember 2006. Do they think we forgot? Do they think we forgot who would not regulate predatory loans? The American people know that the House, the Senate, and the White House were controlled by the Republicans from 2000 to 2006 as the American people were being preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders who were pushing loans on them, deceiving them, tricking them into deceptive practices in lending, which really set the stage for the recession that we are in. As soon as they couldn't refinance their homes again, they couldn't afford those mortgages as they ballooned upward, we began to see the foreclosure crisis. That's what happened, but our friends who don't like regulation say, Give us the wheel back.

Interesting.

Now, as I said, I respect my colleagues. I think they are good people. The question is not who is a nice guy and who isn't. That is not the issue, but here is a fact for you. Here is a quote from Congressman Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas.

This is a question from David Gregory, the journalist. David Gregory: I think what a lot of people want to know is, if Republicans do get back in power, what are they going to do?

You hear these guys in the party opposite, Oh, give us back the reins of power. Let us be in the majority. Let us rule this place. We know what to do.

They act like they have the answers.

Well, one of their caucus leaders says: We need to go back to the exact same agenda.

Really? Oh, my goodness. Do you mean to tell me we need to go back to some more wars that we don't pay for? Do you mean that we need to get back into another Iraq? They're actually looking for another Iraq right now. Another Iraq? $10 billion a month that war cost us, and they offered us reasons to go, and none of them were true. So, literally, 4,500 young people later--Americans later--and $1 trillion later, that is what their war in Iraq has given us--disaster. It was absolutely the worst foreign policy failure in American history.

More of the same? Oh, my goodness. We're going to have a pharmaceutical giveaway to the tune of $400 billion. Again? That's their answer to health care. As they stand up here and talk about ObamaCare and as they beat on the health care bill, do you know that Americans are benefiting from the

health care bill already, and yet they want us to go back to the time before health care reform when 56 percent of all bankruptcy filings were from people who were suffering the load of medical debt? This is what they want the American people to go back to.

My friend from Texas says: We need to go back to the exact same agenda.

Oh, no. It's just better to keep the Republican Caucus over there, in the minority, complaining about everything that we do, without helping at all, but at least they can't do much harm if they're not in the majority.

David Gregory asked: I think what a lot of people want to know is, if the Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?

You heard it right from their caucus leadership: More of the same.

Why were the Republicans literally thrown out of office in 2006? Why were they tossed out? Why did the American people chase them out? Because of their absolute failure on every measure of governance.

Now, you shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are bad at governing. They don't like government. They have nothing good to say about it. They think government is the problem, and of course, it's hard to be good at anything you don't believe in in principle. So they're not good at governing. They might be good at other things. I think, a few years in the past, they had a pretty good congressional baseball team, but when it comes to governing, they're just not very good at it. The proof is, whenever they're in power, we have failure in government.

If you wonder what they're doing, we need to go back to more of the same agenda. I am so grateful for my friend from Texas' candor because he has pretty much told us what we have to expect. See, the Republican Caucus, they try to argue that they should be running things. All they want to do is shine the light on the Democratic Caucus and on President Obama and ask, Did President Obama and the Democrats create heaven on Earth within 2 years? That's what they want the American people to ask. Did they create heaven on Earth in 2 years? If they didn't, then let us run it.

But you know what? That is not what's at stake. It is either the Democrats' working out the problems and the failures of their leadership or the Republicans, who created the failure in the first place.

Imagine somebody who is out in the middle of a loch, drowning. A lifeguard swims out there to grab him, holds onto him and pushes him in, and then has to push on his chest to get him back in shape.

Then the person who failed to save the other person, the other lifeguard who sat around and didn't do the right thing, says, You're pushing too hard.

I say, Wait a minute, man. I'm over here, trying to save a life that you almost lost, and you're over here, confused about how it's being done.

The fact of the matter is the Democratic Caucus is investing in Americans, in green energy, in human capital. It is investing in our infrastructure. It is investing in small business, and we are slowly seeing ourselves climb back to the America that we knew before the Bush era as we see jobs going in this upward direction--clear and unmistakable progress.

A similar graph that I would like to show you, that goes to show how Democrats, despite difficult circumstances, because the Republicans have done massive damage to the economy, are bringing things back is this one. This graph shows net change in private payroll employment between 2004 and 2010. And this is thousands of jobs, so just add a couple of zeros after you see these 200, 400, just add a couple of, three more zeros. You see things really plummet because of the Republicans, and now you see Democrats pulling the economy back in shape, and we're back up to where we should be going. So that's a little bit.

Now, here's another fact I think is important for the American people to know. The economy has been picking up. In fact, this graph shows that after-tax profits in billions, the property insurance after-tax profits in billions. Profitability has been going up, going up.

The fact is that American GDP has been increasing. American gross domestic product has been increasing. The economy is starting to pick up. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. More has got to be done. I want to talk about that in a minute. But the fact is that things are headed in the right direction.

So when you hear Republicans stand up and complain about what Democrats are doing, and all they're doing is complaining about what we're doing, you should look at the numbers. The numbers are going in the right direction. The jobs are being added. Gross domestic product has been increasing, and we see the economy going in the proper direction.

It's Republican support for special interests, Republican support to the most privileged and wealthy, the Republican support for all of these types of special interest things that has landed us in this problem; and it is Democratic resolve, along with the will of the American people, that is getting us back into the right spot.

Should we go back? Absolutely not.

Now, my friend in the party opposite, before he gave up the microphone, he said something that really must be challenged. You might have heard him say, oh, you know what, if the tax cuts expire, if the Bush tax cuts expire, then what's going to happen is that the farmers are going to have to sell their farms in order to pay the taxes. You heard him say that. He said, Mr. Broun, fine man, but we just disagree bitterly on the issues.

He said that if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, or if they're allowed to expire, then farmers will have to sell their farms to pay payroll taxes.

Now, you know, this is the whole debate about the estate tax. And it's very important to remember that the Republicans argued this thing before, and they were challenged. The reporters, smart reporters said, okay, you guys are talking about saving the family farm, because it's always about poor people and the family farm. That's always why they say they do what they do, but it never really is.

But the fact is that they were challenged. Find one family farm that has been taken away for taxes. They couldn't find one because it just isn't so.

These Bush tax cuts, the ones that help the middle class, the Democratic Caucus, we believe, need to be saved. The ones that only benefit the well-to-do and the rich folks who've benefited so much by being in this great country, we think they ought to be allowed to expire and go back to rates that were quite similar to what they were during the Clinton days. It makes sense to me, and I think it's what we should do.

Now, I just want to talk a little bit about unemployment insurance extension. It's an important issue. Today the House passed the Senate amendments to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, and this emergency legislation will extend unemployment insurance benefits to millions of American families, 2.5 million, in fact. This is an important piece of legislation, and now it's on its way to the President's office.

Now, I reemphasize that it's emergency legislation. Because it's emergency legislation, it's not set off, we don't have to find a pay- for in the budget. We basically find the money, even if we have to borrow it to make sure that Americans have the money they need to make ends meet.

This is money, this is money that will go to groceries. It will go to buying eggs, it will go to buying bread, it will go to buying oatmeal. It will go to buying cereal. It will buy toilet paper, basic household items. That's what people do with their unemployment insurance money. That's what they do with it. That's what folks do.

And it's amazing to me that my Republican colleagues would say that, no, it should be set off, because the fact is they didn't want to set off all of that money, they didn't want to set off all that money they gave away during the Bush tax cuts, over $700 billion, plus another $400 billion for the big prescription drug giveaway to Pharma, plus two wars that they didn't want to pay for.

But now, when people are in an emergency situation, people are having to live with family, people are facing foreclosure, people are facing bankruptcy, people are in real trouble when they're out of work and their unemployment runs out, now our friends say, no, we

can't open up the wallet. We've got to worry about the deficit. You know, we can't help you.

This is an amazing thing. It's an emergency for people out there, and so we should act accordingly.

Republicans have blocked this bill for more than 7 weeks. They have literally stood in the way. In fact, this bill could have been done earlier this week, but the Senate Republican delay tactics stopped it, up until we're able to pass it today.

Republicans have blocked this bill for 7 weeks, causing an estimated 2.5 million Americans--actually, it's more than that. Congresswoman Donna Edwards has it to the person, and she's got a Web site that tabulates it to the individual person. Families.

And the fact is that it's more than 2.5 million families to lose their lifeline that they have earned through their work during their economic work years.

It's important to bear in mind that unemployment insurance is insurance. It's not a giveaway. It's not a hand out.

And it is galling and appalling and downright insensitive and insulting for anyone to imply that people who receive unemployment insurance are lazy. Yet, you have heard people in the party opposite say that folks just don't want to work and they're just sitting up and not really trying to find a job. That is really ridiculous.

There are five people applying for every one job. There's not enough jobs. We're trying to create more. The unemployment rate is unacceptably high. Democrats are committed to chopping that rate way down.

But the fact is that until we're able to do that, we need real support, and folks need to get in there and get some unemployment benefits so they can make it.

The bill, which is virtually identical to the one the House passed, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act, would extend emergency unemployment compensation and extend benefits for programs through November 30, 2010. So it's a short reprieve. I mean it's unfortunate, but folks will benefit from the short period of time of the help.

Now, unemployment benefits have periods of time, some longer, some shorter. But there are a lot of people who will benefit because benefits will be retroactively restored to people who started losing their benefits at the end of May. They will be retroactively restored. Important to point out as the Republicans are saying, yes, we gave all of our friends buckets and buckets of money, but we've got nothing for you, Sam and Jane and your two kids, we can't help you. You lost your job. Good luck. Can't do any deficit spending, you know.

But the fact is that these folks, some of them have been worried what are they going to do because they have been without these benefits since May. Now they are going to be retroactively restored. Very important. Very, very pleased to be able to report that.

Republicans continue to fight for hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit-busting tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were never paid for, and yet they want to oppose us extending unemployment insurance benefits to hardworking Americans.

The fact is that unemployment insurance benefits really are something that help to stimulate the economy. It's not the best way to do it; having a job is. That's obvious. But every dollar in unemployment benefits creates at least $1.61 in economic activity. So every $1 in unemployment benefits, $1.61 goes into our economy. That's a lot of money. It's obvious why. Let's just say somebody has no money. They are going to a food shelter. They are not getting anything at all. They are surviving on the charity of others, or the best they can. But if they have unemployment insurance benefits, which they earned because they worked, then they have money to go to the store and they buy something. And at the store, that then helps stimulate the economy because you are spending a real source of revenue with somebody, which helps them maintain and add to their employment rolls.

This is a very important fact. We should know about it. And this is something that chief economist Mark Zandi, who is a pretty conservative guy himself, had to say before the House Budget Committee back on September 1. ``The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found extending unemployment benefits to be one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy, creating, they said, up to $1.90 in economic activity for every dollar.'' So Mark Zandi says $1.61, the Congressional Budget Office says $1.90. The fact is these things are hard to know with exact specificity, but the reality is that both agree, there is a consensus among economic experts that unemployment insurance benefits benefit the economy as a whole.

Unemployment benefits were responsible for creating 1.1 million jobs since the recession started, and adding 1.7 percent to the gross domestic product of our country. Unemployment insurance benefits has a stimulative effect on the economy. There's no doubt about it. So the Republican Caucus trying to stop it really is dangerous to the economy. Not only to the individual family, not just to Jane and Sam and their two kids, who are unemployed and need those benefits, but also to all of us as a whole.

And let me just explain one reason why. Our economy is one where corporate profits, as I just pointed out before, have been up in the first quarter of 2010, up about 43 percent. There's a lot of firms that are sitting on cash. They have money. But they haven't really added to their payrolls. Why? Because they're nervous. The consumer demand is still weak. Consumer demand is not robust and strong. They're not really seeing the volume in sales that they've seen in the past because consumer demand is weak.

Now, if our Republicans had their way what they would do is take unemployment benefits from people, which would then do what to demand? Lower it. Which would then make the firms think what? Oh, my God, I really got to sit on this cash because I just don't know what's going to happen next. So unemployment benefits have the effect of priming the pump, of getting the economy stimulated and moving. And not having them not only creates a crisis for an individual family, but even worse than that, it creates a crisis for the economy because firms who have cash and are looking to add people but who are cautious and nervous are thinking, hey, you know, sales volume has gone down, I better not spend this money to add on more workers. It's very important to understand that psychology and economics are tightly tied together.

Most employers, by the way, particularly small employers, are very, very reluctant to want to lay people off. I mean it's always said for any employer with a heart--and most of them have them. They are people. They don't want to lay anybody off. But when they do, it's tough. And it's nothing you want to go back to. So you want to be real confident that you can sustain those extra workers before you add on more people. This has to do with consumer confidence, which has to do with things like unemployment insurance. And therefore, my point is that you need-- not only is it a crisis for the individual family when you don't extend those benefits, it is a crisis for our economy because it undermines confidence and consumer demand, which our economy needs.

So, I think it's important that the American people know this and they know that when the Republicans, particularly the ones who are always, you know, acting really religious and more holy than everybody else, they're voting against unemployment insurance, that's really kind of a head scratcher to me.

Anyway, today there are 15 million people out of work who got an extension of unemployment benefits. Today 15 million people, 15 million people out of work got an extension of unemployment benefits, which contribute to paying mortgages, health care bills, utility bills, food costs, eggs, groceries, cereal for the kids.

The Democrats' unemployment bill provides up to--and it is the Democrats' unemployment bill, by the way. Republicans want no part of it. They don't want to be part of the unemployment bill. So it gets to be our bill. We would love to share it, but they didn't want any. The Democratic unemployment bill provides up to 99 weekly unemployment checks averaging about

$300 to people whose 26 weeks of State-paid benefits have run out. The benefits would be extended through the end of November 30. November 30, as I said.

In the new Washington Post-ABC News poll that was released just a few days ago, more than 6 in 10 Americans, 62 percent, support Congress's action to extend unemployment benefits for jobless workers. Now, 62 percent is a lot. That's a very healthy, strong majority of Americans. And I daresay, you know, I'm glad I voted for the bill, because I wouldn't want to go back to my constituents, unemployed people, and say I know you needed help, but I wasn't there for you. Sorry.

Earlier this month the House passed the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act to restore and extend emergency unemployment benefits. That was passed again today, and now it's off to the President. Eighty-three percent of Republicans opposed the bill. Eighty-three percent of the Republicans said we can't do anything for you, Sam and Jane. You are on your own. If you are well to do and need a tax cut, then we can talk. But if you are not rich, we really, really don't have any time to help you out. We've got to worry about the deficit. Not that we have to worry about the deficit if you are part of the top 1 percent. But if you're not, then we've got a deficit, and we can't help you out.

The analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as I mentioned before, suggests that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to get the economy moving again. It's something that we've got to do, and it's something that we need to do right away to make sure that our economy is strong, and make sure that Americans are getting back to work. Very important. And I'm so glad we are here to talk about it.

Now, one of the things that my Republican friends like to say is that they only want private jobs, they don't want public jobs. But I want to bust that myth up for folks tonight, Mr. Speaker, because public jobs are important jobs. Are they saying they don't like police? Are they saying they are against teachers? Are they saying that they don't want anybody to fix the roads? And the potholes all over the place, just fine? Are they saying they don't want people to fix the bridges and they don't think that these bridges need to be painted so they don't get corrosion? And they don't think those gusset plates holding those bridges up need to be replaced so they don't fall down like they did in my State of Minnesota? I just don't understand what they mean when they start attacking public jobs.

I actually have to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I resent it when they attack public workers. I think public workers do great work. I think public workers do a great service for the American people. When I had a break-in at my house, I called a public worker, also known as a police officer, and that officer came to my house. He took down my report. He took the report of all the things that that thief had taken from us. And he was cordial, and he was kind, and I felt a whole lot better seeing him there.

He's a public worker. And it is public workers just like that police officer who are facing layoffs all across America.

What about teachers? They don't like teachers? We're seeing classroom sizes increase and increase. There are over 250,000 teachers facing layoffs across America because I guess our friends in the party opposite, the Republican Caucus, feel that, oh, those are not private sector jobs.

Teachers do a valuable service for our country. Teachers are important. Or what about medical professionals who work for public hospitals? Or what about people who make sure that our roads and our bridges and our other infrastructure are in good working order? All these jobs are important.

What about the people who work at the DMV, the Department of Motor Vehicles? Do you want to get your tags on time? Do you want to get your registration on time? These are all folks who perform a valuable, important public service, and I think it's really ugly when we hear our Republican colleagues say, oh, well, they just want public jobs. They admit that we've had public jobs. We've also had private sector jobs. But I don't like this idea of them attacking public sector jobs. It's not right. In fact, my opinion is we need to pass a local jobs for America act. We need a bill that says we're going to help State and local government hire the people they have had to lay off over the last year and a half. Nearly every State in the union, not every State but nearly every State, has had massive deficits and these States have seen themselves have to cut off a lot of State workers. Now the Federal Government can't cover all of those losses, but we can cover some of the essential ones.

There are cities in this country who have police forces of one and two and three people, and they've had to lay off one. So if they lay off one person or two people, that's basically the whole department.

This is a serious issue. We don't need larger class sizes as we're trying to educate young people to be more competitive in the global arena. We don't need our fire departments to have fewer firefighters. We don't need to have our streets have fewer cops and be less safe. Since the recession began, an estimated 500,000 Americans have lost their jobs in local communities because of tight local municipal budgets. That's public workers that the Republican Caucus doesn't seem to respect very much.

The Economic Policy Institute, which is a think tank, estimates that by the year 2012, more than 400,000 jobs would have to be restored just to return local government services to pre-recession levels. That's worth repeating. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that by 2012, more than 400,000 jobs would have to be restored just to return to pre- recession levels. This means a critical loss of services. This means that, yes, you have potholes; yes, you have longer response times for police and fire; yes, you have infrastructure that's not in the same kind of repair that it used to be. Yes, you have a streetlight that has not been replaced. And as your daughter or your son are walking home at night, you want that streetlight there if you're a parent and I know it. Not even for your daughter or your son; for yourself. If you're walking home, you want that streetlight working. Well, who replaces that? They don't get up there by magic. My friends in the Republican Caucus act like they just appear. No, they don't. Municipal workers put them there.

Cuts to public jobs also reduce employment in the private sector. This is an important point that bears repeating as well. Cuts to public jobs reduces employment in the private sector. What is the point, Mr. Speaker? Well, look. A dollar is a dollar. Whether I'm a cop or I work for a private security company, if I get my check and I spend it at the local store, it's revenue for that store and it will go to pay the workers at that store and pay a profit to whoever owns the store. Now if the public worker doesn't have a job, that's one paycheck fewer that that store has to rely on in order to make it.

So public sector jobs contribute to private employment. Why? Because public sector jobs contribute to the economy just like private sector jobs do, too. It's not a good thing that public sector jobs are going down. Not only is it loss of vital social services in our cities, but it also decreases consumer demand for those public workers who are now laid off and for our economy as a whole.

Again, the Economic Policy Institute has important information for us here. They estimated that for every 100 public sector jobs, 30 private sector jobs are let go because of the reduction in consumer spending. For every 100 public sector jobs, 30 private sector jobs are laid off because of a reduction in consumer spending. This forces local governments to choose between cutting services like public safety and raising taxes during an economic recovery which, I already talked about, no one likes to do.

Now there's a bill out there that I think the people of America ought to know about, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Local Jobs for America Act. The goal of the Local Jobs for America Act is to create 1 million public and private jobs in local communities this year. This jobs legislation directs targeted resources to communities hardest hit by the economic downturn. Federal

funds will be provided directly to States and municipalities with the greatest number of people out of work to restore critical services like teachers, police and fire. Our bill is about getting America back to work and making investments for the long term and the prosperity of our country.

Throughout the recession, local governments have been one of the hardest hit as cities have had to reduce budgets as their revenues have declined. Local governments across the country lost over 140,000 jobs in 2008 and 2009, and the number just keeps on growing. In 2009, 62 percent of all cities dealt with their budget deficits by delaying or canceling construction projects. Now when a city says, we're not going to build that ramp, that parking ramp; we're not going to fix that road; we're not going to build that community center, that means that the contractors they were going to hire don't get that job. So what that means is that the people who work in the private sector on the construction site, they're not working on that job. They're not bringing food back home based on the money they earned at that construction job.

The bill funds teachers, firefighters, child care workers and other critical services:

$23 billion to help States support 250,000 teachers who are scheduled to be laid off very soon; $1.18 billion to support 5,500 law enforcement officers on the beat; $500 million to hire and train firefighters; $75 billion to save or create 750,000 jobs to help the local community fill those jobs where they need it; 50,000 on-the-job training slots to help private businesses expand employment.

The goal is to have family wage jobs and help people get back to work, promote our good services for our cities, which is safety, which is education, and then also help the private sector by moving forward on needed construction projects and making sure public workers have their paychecks to make sure there's adequate consumer demand.

The Local Jobs for America Act will target funding to community based organizations serving communities with poverty rates 12 percent, or unemployment rates that are 2 percent or more higher than the national average. Now it's not State by State. It's community by community. So even if your State has an unemployment rate lower than the national average, if your community has one that is higher, then you would be eligible.

Local Jobs for America will help ensure that local communities can still operate essential services; and the Local Jobs for America Act will include on-the-job training for thousands of workers, and this bill would target communities hardest hit by the recession.

Now, that's just one good idea that I think we need to use.

I just want to take you back and say, you know, I'm from Minneapolis, and in my town we boast the finest series of lakes and trails and bike paths in the country. In fact, even though we're a cold weather State, we commute by bicycle more than any other city, including Portland, Oregon. Now, I know those people from Portland are coming after us on this great honor, but we're determined to keep Minneapolis in the first place on bike trails.

My point is simply this: I was riding my bike along the bike trail the other day, and I stopped to rest and sip a little water, and I saw a picnic table that really looked like it had been around for a while. What I saw on that picnic table was interesting. It was a plaque. It said, ``WPA 1934.'' That picnic table had been around since 1934, and the Roosevelt-era program that put Americans of that generation back to work had caused that picnic table to be built.

Some of you young people are like, What is WPA? Go ask your grandparents. WPA is the Works Progress Authority. This was something that put valuable people to work doing valuable work that needed to be done--making trails, making picnic tables, doing things that last to this very moment. And Americans all across America are benefiting from them right now. This is what the WPA is.

And what I'm saying about the Local Jobs for America Act is that if that generation had a heart for its people and would respond to their needs and the needs of the unemployed by putting them back to work, I don't think this generation should do less. I think this generation should do at least as much as prior generations have done. Let it not be said that Americans have grown more stingy over time. Let it be said that Americans still care about other Americans whether they're working or not. Very, very important.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to begin to wrap up my remarks right now because it is getting late in the hour. But I just think it's important to just point out that from the Progressive Caucus' point of view, what we need is we need a stronger, more robust economy that has more people working at livable wages; that when people don't have enough, don't have a job, that they can get unemployment benefits until they can find that next job.

We don't think of our people as lazy and who don't want to work. We think of our people as active who do want to work. And when they get a job, we know that they're proud to have that job. But right now in America, we just don't have enough jobs. And we don't need the Republican Caucus standing in the way of jobs.

There are many people of faith in the Democratic Caucus, but we live our values. We don't pontificate about our values like some Members of the Republican Caucus are wont to do. The fact is you have to live caring, you have to live charity, you have to live commitment to other people, you have to live empathy. And just lecturing to others about your religion is not a valuable exercise in a country dedicated to religious tolerance.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say it's always a pleasure coming before you and the people on the House floor. It's important to get back to real policies that work for real people. I'm so proud that the Democratic Caucus responded to the American people's needs for health care reform, responded to the American people's needs for financial Wall Street reform, as the President signed the bill yesterday. I am so proud that the Democratic Caucus was able to pass unemployment insurance benefits despite very little help from the Republican Caucus.

I look forward to being back soon to talk about the Progressive Caucus and progressive values in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, as was correctly pointed out, Republicans had ample opportunity to vote for tax cuts for Americans. As was amply pointed out just a moment ago, 95 percent of the American people got a tax cut under the Recovery Act, and 0 percent of the Republican Caucus voted in favor of it. So there again, when average Americans get a chance for a tax cut, no. When rich folks get a chance for a tax cut, absolutely.

By the way, those tax cuts don't have to be set off. During the Bush administration, well over $700 billion worth of tax cuts were not set off at all. And now we're just asking for a little bit of money for average working Americans who have worked for a benefit, Mr. Speaker, to get a little bit of help when they really, really need it. No, we're not asking for a set-off for unemployment insurance benefits because it's an emergency.

It's an emergency for that mom trying to get some cereal to put it on the table for her kids. It's an emergency for that dad who's trying to pay rent so they don't get thrown out. It's an emergency for that family who is facing foreclosure because they cannot pay their mortgage because they have been out of work. It's an emergency. It is appropriate not to have to set it off because those are the rules that we have been living by in this body for years and years and years. Now, because of partisanship, Republicans don't want to go by those rules, they want to make political hay and delay, delay people's help when their help should be coming.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is 2.5 million Americans have to wait another day because Senate Republicans have to make a political point. That is a

shame. That is too bad. If the caucus opposite, if the Senate Republicans really have a heart for the American people, they will prove it by stopping their unsympathetic and relentless delay of unemployment insurance benefits.

If the gentleman would yield, it's well-known fact that in Minnesota that everybody's above average, you know.

You know what I tell you, nothing about my comments would necessarily indicate that but you're right. I'm not bragging. I'm just telling how it is.

But let me just say this, one thing Minnesota and Wisconsin do have in common is that we have a lot of hardworking people who are very talented at making things. We can make goods. We can make products. People have made goods throughout the history of this Nation that have essentially armed America during World War II. The arsenal of America was right there in the upper Midwest, Detroit, Wisconsin, Minnesota, right in there as we were making the things that America needed to defend itself.

We also made the things that helped Americans have more convenient lives, have the best and strongest economy in the world. And I just want to say that we can make these things again. There is nothing that can stop us from making it in America all over again. It's a matter of vision. It's a matter of commitment.

I am telling you that I am so proud that today we passed a bill to take us a step in the direction of manufacturing in America today, making it in America, and then we can sell it in America or out of America or anywhere around the globe. What I call for is a commitment to manufacturing, enforcing our trade rules, making sure that other countries play by the rules, that we invest in education, training, and we adjust our Tax Code, as you so correctly point out, to make sure that we are on our own side, which I think only makes sense.

So with that, I want to thank you, Congressman, for bringing us together yet again to talk about the vital issues that affect Americans every single day. Your leadership is very valuable around here. Thank you.

You mean the State that the great Brett Favre so wisely left and then came to my State of Minnesota.

Where are the jobs? Well, my friends in the party opposite should know; they're the ones who lost them. The fact is that, in Bush's last month in August, he lost 741,000 jobs, an amazing feat.

My friends in the party opposite talk about debt. Is this the same party that had two unpaid-for wars, $700 billion in cuts for the wealthy unpaid for, a $400 billion handout to big PhRMA? Do they speak of debt? My friends of the party opposite sat by and did nothing while foreclosures, predatory lending, and explosions in executive pay brought us the largest number of foreclosures since the Great Depression, refused to regulate in any particular way, and now they say, ``Where are the jobs?'' and they talk of debt. This is an amazing amount of audacity.

I wonder, where are the jobs? They should know; they're the ones who lost them. We're trying to find them, and we're being successful.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my best wishes to the people of Somalia living throughout the world on the 50th anniversary of Somali Independence.

It is my pleasure and honor to represent a large and vibrant Somali- American community in Minnesota. I want to offer my congratulations on this special day as they continue to work to advance the cause of peace.

I am grateful for the contributions of Somali-Americans to Minnesota's rich tradition of diversity. The Somali-American community continues to enrich our state through its lively culture, optimism, and wisdom.

Sadly, Somalis in their homeland have endured a tremendous amount of strife and suffering. On this anniversary we must continue to focus on diplomatic efforts to create a lasting peace for the people of Somalia. I continue to have faith that renewed diplomatic efforts will lead to good governance, respect for human rights, and democracy for the people of Somalia.

Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 2010, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 418-420, but had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on all three votes.

Mr. Speaker, let me just correct one very, very serious flaw and that is to somehow blame the effort to house Americans for this crisis. This crisis, this financial crisis, has to do with a failure to regulate, a failure to give consumer protection to people who are getting mortgages that they couldn't pay for on tricky and unsound terms, because we are now going to have a consumer protection bureau designed to protect those very same consumers. We are bringing stability to the market. We are bringing people a chance to have a home that they actually can pay for on terms that they actually will understand.

This consumer financial protection bill is going to be something that will help people keep the money that they earn and to make sound financial investments and purchases that will allow them to prosper and grow unlike the ones we saw in the past where Republican leadership let the laissez-faire economy move right on along without consumer protection, without oversight, which landed us in this serious, serious crisis.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the financial crisis that we're in is a result of a

lack of oversight, a lack of regulation, a lack of clear rules; and this particular piece of legislation will bring real clarity. It will also help banks. It will help small community banks because they will be able to compete on equal footing. Their competitors will now be regulated, which they were not in the past; and small banks will be able to say that the products that they offer will be able to be offered to the consumer on a basis similar to those unregulated financial institutions which now will be regulated.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good time to say that this bill is an excellent step forward. It will help stop the nickel and diming of Americans. It will help stop the targeting of people for financial mistreatment, and it will bring greater stability to our economy.

If the gentleman will yield, I do just want to take up this issue of the spill. It is an important issue. And you just mentioned the very frank and I believe honest comments of Representative Barton, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in which he apologized to BP.

Some people might be thinking, you know, well, he apologized for his apology, so, you know, why don't we just drop it. But it doesn't start with Mr. Barton, it doesn't end with Mr. Barton. It actually started with the Republican Study Committee, which creates policy, agenda, and talking points for the Republican leadership. And that's headed by a gentleman who is a Member of this body named Congressman Price, Tom Price. He is the one, with the help of the committee itself, not just by himself, who released a statement calling the compensation fund that you referred to to help compensate small business people put out of business by this spill, and people who live on the gulf, people who suffered, a shakedown. So this term political shakedown emerges from the very leadership of the Republican caucus.

They say that President Obama is shaking down the British Petroleum, BP. And from that point, Price makes the statement, this is before Barton ever does, but Price says, ``BP's reported willingness to go along with the

White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this administration's drive for greater and greater power. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda.'' So this is where the whole shakedown conversation comes.

Then after that, Mr. Barton, following the party line, doing what the Republican Study Committee has said to do, says, quote, ``I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it's a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown.'' Now, it goes on, but in this statement of apology from Barton I never heard--and maybe I will leave it to the gentleman--any sort of apology or sympathy for the people who live on the gulf, who make a living there, who send their kids to school there, and who now see their economic life ruined.

If the gentleman would yield back.

It didn't stop after Mr. Barton made his apology, which seemed sincere. After that, Michelle Bachmann, our colleague, says to the BP president about the $20 billion escrow fund, she says, ``If I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there, `We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for the perpetual unemployment and all the rest.''

So I mean if you just contemplate that statement for a moment, here our friends on the other side of the aisle just got through talking about how it's BP's fault. That's what they say now. Right after the fund was developed by the President to make sure that victims of this, both economic and physical and others, had a basis of compensation, the Republican caucus's initial gut reaction, which is I think their most sincere reaction, is to say that it's a shakedown, it's to say we're not going to be chumps, it's to say that BP shouldn't have to pay unemployment.

I mean it didn't stop there. Let me add one more before I hand it back to you. Our good friend Steve King, Congressman King from Iowa: ``I think Joe Barton was spot on when he called it a shakedown.'' So then, no repentance, no remorse. Let me yield to the gentleman.

Well, if the gentleman would yield back, they do have a plan.

Their plan is the taxpayers can pay for it.

Right. The GOP-BP bailout is that the American taxpayers should pay for the expenses associated with BP's failure to observe its own regulations and the catastrophic consequences that it caused. So that their plan is the taxpayers can pay because heaven forbid we ask a privately held corporation to pay for its own damages.

If the gentleman would yield, yeah, BP is well heeled and doing fine based on the profits they have made. So I would yield back.

If the gentleman would yield; if you observed the safety rules and regulations that are designed to save lives and save our natural environment, it may take you a little more time, and yeah, it may cost you a little money. Maybe you won't have that enormous, exorbitant profit, but you will make good money, and people will be alive so that they can go home at the end of the day, and we will be able to have a Gulf of Mexico that bears some resemblance to the way the good Lord intended it to be.

Right behind you are graphic photographs. I mean, look at that bird right down at the bottom.

I yield back to the gentleman.

Do we need a drum roll first, Congressman Garamendi? I think we know. I'm just going to take a wild guess. The oil industry.

We would be a lot healthier. We wouldn't be burning hydrocarbons and spewing them into the air. Our planet would be healthier. We would see ourselves, our technology, and our creativity would blossom as we subsidize these renewable sources of energy. It would be a good thing.

Let's not forget about the efficiency. The fact is there are a lot of jobs to be had by retrofitting buildings and conserving the energy that we already have. A lot of jobs, a lot of putting a lot of people back to work in making homes and buildings energy efficient. And you put that together with renewable energy, that is an employment driver. That is an economic driver. That is an environment driver.

Well, I don't remember any ringing endorsement from the party opposite.

Well, they stand with BP against the residents of the gulf and the businesspeople there. They stand with the oil and gas companies, with their subsidies, as opposed to standing with the people who want a clean, green future. They consistently stand against progress. I mean the thing that I find so astounding is that they will come down to the House floor and continue to repeat these things.

Quite frankly, I am quite proud of President Obama for demanding that BP start an escrow fund so that we can have some relief for the people suffering such horrendous hardships on the gulf coast. I think it was an act of responsibility. It was what he should have done. The administration was responsive to this spill, and the administration did get engaged right away. The Congress is holding hearings right now to get to the bottom of what happened, to prevent it and to put policies in place to do something about it. Yet, all along the way, what we are getting are apologies to BP and, really, no help at all.

We are not discouraged, though. Congressman Garamendi, you know very well that we are stout of heart. Every time we get a chance to do something for this economy, for consumers, for the environment, the Democratic Caucus is counted on to do it.

Oh, brother.

If the gentleman will yield, that is so right. When you look at this whole financial crash, it is a chain of events, and it starts out in the neighborhood.

There is something that we need to talk about, something called a ``yield spread premium.'' What that is is the amount of money that somebody selling a loan can get if somebody steers you from a loan you may qualify for to a high-cost loan. So there are a lot of people who might have qualified for prime loans but who were literally steered.

Then you had another development, something called a NINJA loan--no job, no assets. Yet you could get money to buy a house. Then there is something called a ``liar loan''--now, that is a curious thing to call a loan--because it was stated income. You could just write down whatever you said your income was, and there was no verification of that income. Then, after you got into these loans, they had terms and conditions, like prepayment penalties, so that, if you wanted to get out of this loan and get a fairer loan, you really couldn't do it unless you paid somebody off down the line.

So people got into these loans. They were being sold. The people who made those loans really didn't need to make sure they were well underwritten. It didn't matter if any of these folks could pay the money back, because they would simply sell that paper on the secondary market.

Now, what was the effect in the neighborhood? The effect in the neighborhood was, once the housing values began to flatten and decline, people couldn't pay them. Once they couldn't refinance because they had negative equity in their homes, they couldn't make the payments, and they ended up getting foreclosed upon. It happened in neighborhoods all across this country. California, your State, was hit hard as well as Florida and Arizona. Yet, even in my State of Minnesota, we were hit very hard. People started being foreclosed on, and short sales began to happen. Property values began to decline, and neighborhoods began to go in the wrong direction.

And so there was a lot of difficulty right there on the front line. The front line was foreclosure of homes, abandoned properties, high grass, dead dogs. Expenses to the local government. Because if you have a house where people are paying property taxes, that's coming into this local government. But if you have an abandoned property, that's an expense to the local government. More pressure on local government budgets, intense difficulty, tough times on Main Street.

I yield back to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield while you're getting the chart. You know, Mr. Speaker, Congressman, you would have thought that America didn't lose 2.8 million homes to foreclosure last year, listening to the Republicans. You have would have thought that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and Freddie and Fannie and all these huge Wall Street titans didn't go down the tubes and cause a depressed market and hurt the economy. You would have thought that we didn't have 10 percent unemployment. You would have thought that there was nothing but responsible behavior, and all of a sudden the Democratic Caucus

is just trying to take over the banking system. We were really in a magical world here on the House floor. But, thank goodness the House Democrats, led by Barney Frank and many others, were putting the things in place to preserve our economy.

The Minnesota Vikings.

The Packers, they're next door.

I think you would have a lot of injured players. You'd have a really funny outcome. People wouldn't trust the outcome. Maybe teams would stop playing because they would believe that the rules didn't matter any more. And certainly you would give an incentive to the biggest cheap shot artists on the field, the people who are willing to do the dirtiest things--the clipping, all of those things--they would prevail.

I was just going to say, as an old football player yourself, didn't good refereeing make for a more competitive game? Didn't that allow competition to really flourish? You could find out who the better team was if you had a well-regulated football game. Is that right?

Well, as a woman, you certainly would pay a lot more than a man would of comparable age and condition. The fact is that there's a string between all of the things that we've talked to tonight. We started out talking about the oil spill. We moved on to talk about financial reform. Now we're delving into health care, but there's a string connecting them all. One is that the Democratic Caucus is consistently on the side of the consumer, of the investor, of the small business person. And the party opposite, the other caucus, is consistently on the side of the corporate giant, the huge well-moneyed lobbyist, and the people who stand to gain from the status quo. This is a consistent stream.

And so you continually ask the question, Congressman Garamendi, Whose side are you on? This is a fair question. The question must be answered that the Democratic Caucus is on the side of the people. The party opposite is on the side of the powerful, the well-to-do, the large giant corporate entities. And this is something that I think Americans have got to try to put their hands around, that there is a party who is going to be the one to say, We're going to restrain Wall Street; we're going to make them play by the rules; we're going to enhance the functioning of the marketplace by making sure that there are referees on the field and not in the locker room.

And this string is a consistency. It ties us together as a consistent, coherent theme and a message, that the Democratic Caucus is on the side of the American people.

Well, if the gentleman will yield, I want to say that, in my opinion, Social Security is one of the greatest pieces of legislation this country has ever seen, and so is Medicare. These programs are very important because they signal that we really are in this thing together and that we're not going to let our seniors descend to the level where they're eating dog food or making choices between medication and a meal. But it's going to require an aware population to get it, that, you know, there are real things at stake here, big things at stake here.

And the question keeps being asked: Who's side are you on?

Why don't you go through some of those critical things?

Well, I just want to say the gentleman, I think, is absolutely right. And I just want to say this as I think we're coming down to the final moments.

Look, the Republicans had their chance, and we are still reaping the bitter fruit of what their leadership has brought this country. They had 12 years between 1994 and 2006 in the Congress, and then they had 6 years with a Republican President. In that time, they did nothing about reforming Wall Street, though they had two Houses and the Presidency. They didn't do anything about reining in these banks. They didn't do anything about reforming regulation. They did nothing on health care.

And now they have the audacity to want to say, We want the wheel back. Yeah, we drove the car into a ditch, but we want the wheel back. We want to drive again. And you know what? It just can't happen.

I yield back to the gentleman.

No, the Vikings. I like the Packers, but more, I like the Vikings.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise today to mourn the passing of my friend and Minnesota criminal defense investigator, Fred Lewis ``Sonny'' Anderson, Junior.

Sonny was born and raised in Minneapolis and graduated from North High School in 1966. He went on to attend the University of Minnesota, where he majored in criminal justice. He served his country in the United States Army from 1968-1970, and later served his community for 25 years as a Criminal Defense Investigator with the Legal Rights Center in the Hennepin County Public Defender's Office. Sonny was an avid sportsman, and was a loving and loyal father, son, brother, uncle, grandfather and friend.

Sonny was the Chief Investigator during my tenure as Executive Director at the Legal Rights Center in Minneapolis, MN. Through Sonny's tireless and courageous work, many Minnesotans received high quality representation without regard to income or wealth. Sonny's pursuit of the truth was relentless. He stopped at nothing to find the elusive witness, document, or film footage for the sake of truth and justice. Sonny always worked for the indigent criminal defendant, but he believed that the quality of justice his clients received was a barometer for the quality of justice to which everyone is entitled.

Madam Speaker, Sonny had a profound impact on his country, his community, his friends and family, and will be missed by all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the importance of continued support for jobs for Americans.

When America faced massive unemployment in the 1930s, our government stepped up with the WPA and the CCC. It's time to continue that drive, as the Democratic Congress has been doing without much help from our Republican colleagues.

The fact is that local governments have been hardest hit in the area of job cuts. Local governments have lost over 140,000 jobs in 2008 and 2009, and the number keeps growing. Another 53,000 jobs will be lost by July 1 if we don't act. Another 128,000 will be lost by fiscal year 2011 if we don't act.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking our colleagues to step forward for people who need to do work. This summer we are looking at young people not having enough jobs, and we need this Congress to act. We've seen job creation, we've seen job growth, we've seen 290,000 jobs created last month; but this drive needs to stay alive. The Democratic Caucus is committed to it. We hope our Republican colleagues join us, but jobs must continue to be the first order of business.