Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairlady for this excellent piece of legislation which I urge all of our colleagues to support.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a young person voting for the first time, freshly 18 years old getting a chance to vote, waiting in line and finding out that there are no more ballots because of one reason or another. Or imagine the person is a senior citizen who has plowed so much into our country, forged a way for us in this society, but yet they stand in line, no backup ballots, they can't vote because the machine broke down. Or what about a veteran, Mr. Speaker, a veteran who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan who stands in line trying to cast a ballot to select a leader of their choice in their community and the machine breaks down, no ballots, and they're not able to cast a vote.

This is a very commonsense, reasonable and responsible piece of legislation that goes to the very heart of what we are here to do in this Capitol today as the United States Congress which is to make sure that democracy marches forward. This is prudent. This is wise. This is smart. This is a dollar very, very well spent because it ensures that our country continue to reflect the rich diversity in this body so people can vote and pick their leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to support this excellent legislation.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, middle-income Americans are paying a high price for the Bush economic policies that have taken us deep into debt and to economic recession. While the prices of groceries, gas, education, and health care have all gone up, the purchasing power of a middle-income salary has actually fallen over the last 7 years.

Unfortunately, Republicans and President Bush continue to defend the status quo, refusing to support our efforts to help middle class families feeling the economic squeeze. House Democrats are working on new solutions to deal with this immediate economic crisis, and for long-term economic recovery. We have taken action to extend unemployment benefits, insurance benefits, and also so that workers can continue to receive important financial assistance while they look for jobs in these trying economic times. We have also passed legislation to address the Nation's housing crisis so that millions of Americans will not be forced into foreclosure this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats also support a second economic recovery plan, and we hope we can gather Republican support for it.

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, I was stuck in traffic trying to get to the vote and I ran out of time. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, with two former oil executives in the White House, is it any wonder why gas prices are at a record high? President Bush's energy policy, created in secret by Vice President Cheney and by Big Oil, leaves us dangerously dependent on foreign oil, and it hurts our economy and American families.

Washington Republicans only offer more drilling, even though 68 million acres of Federal oil reserves are already open and leased for development. New drilling won't lower prices for years to come. In fact, drilling in the pristine Alaskan Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield oil for 10 years, and in 22 years, it would only save consumers about 2 cents a gallon.

Mr. Speaker, if congressional Republicans really are interested in helping consumers at the pump today, they will join us this week in passing legislation that forces Big Oil to either drill

where they already have leases or to lose those leases. It's time Big Oil uses it or loses it.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush economy has lost nearly 325,000 jobs this year alone. With five straight months of job losses and the unemployment rate experiencing its sharpest spike in 22 years, it is clear that the economic downturn is hurting middle class people everywhere.

Last week, the Democratic Congress passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks to provide relief to millions of Americans who are finding it increasingly difficult to find a job.

Not only will this extension help 1.6 million Americans who have already exhausted their regular benefits, but it will also stimulate the struggling economy. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, it generates $1.64 in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, after last week's bipartisan vote, President Bush and the majority of the House Republicans should drop their opposition to this common-sense legislation so we can provide some much-needed assistance to those who are hurting under the Bush economy. Workers who are having trouble finding a job are not to be blamed for this struggling economy.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks to help workers out as they continue to look for a job.

Mr. Speaker, the grim numbers of five consecutive months of job losses is yet another sign that President Bush's economic policies have utterly failed the American people. The unemployment rate has surged from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May, representing the biggest one month jump in more than 2 decades, and climbing to the highest level in nearly 4 years.

These statistics are not just numbers to more than 1.5 million Americans who have seen their unemployment benefits expire simply because there are not enough jobs to go around. So today the House will vote to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks to help these workers. Democrats have been pushing to extend unemployment benefits since the beginning of the year, but have faced stiff opposition from the President and congressional Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, with job losses so far this year totaling 324,000, American families can wait no longer. Thanks to this Democratic Congress, today we are going to get some relief.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the freshmen, the Democrats of the Freshman Caucus are going to take the rest of this hour to talk about our economy. And it's an excellent way to move forward, Mr. Speaker, because the prior speaker had some interesting things for us to chew on, and we will help the American people to see that under Republican control, the economy has not fared well, that they're not good at running the economy, and the proof is out there for everybody.

We'll be able to show how, when Democrats are in charge, that we do have job growth, we do have strong economy, we do have an economy where we are reducing poverty. We have an economy where all Americans are doing better than they were doing before.

I think it is obvious to everyone if you reflect only a few years ago in the late 1990s--I think it was a different President in office than the one we have now--that the economy was much better than it is today and that it is these policies that we've seen over the last 8 years where it was a Republican House, a Republican President, that have really led us to the difficult situation that American consumers and workers are seeing today.

So we have a different vision. We have a vision that includes everybody. We have a vision that says that workers should have the right to organize. We have a vision that says we should have a fair trade policy. We have a vision that says that we need investment in our public infrastructure. We have a vision that says that we need universal health care coverage for all people. We have a vision for an economy, Mr. Speaker, that says that everybody counts and everybody matters.

And, you know, I really couldn't be happier tonight because I'm joined by my good friend from Colorado, Ed Perlmutter, not only a very excellent legislator but a really nice guy.

Ed, how you doing?

Will the gentleman yield?

Now, let me just ask you this question sir. You have studied this issue. I consider you one of the most learned persons on this issue in the Congress, and I just want to know, isn't this proposal of just drilling in the Continental Shelf, drilling in ANWR, isn't this kind of like trying to cure a disease by simply treating the symptoms of the disease? For example, if I were to have cancer, you could try to find a cure for my cancer, or you could simply try to alleviate the symptoms of the suffering that I am enduring but not really get to the root of the matter.

Is this kind of like--does that analogy work when it comes to just drilling for more oil and continuing to spoil our natural wilderness areas and to risk oil spills? Isn't that sort of an analogous situation?

Yes, sir.

Well, then, why are they crying about wanting to drill in ANWR and wanting to drill off the Continental Shelf when they have all of these places they can drill now? I mean, I know that there's got to be a million Americans watching this broadcast who want to know that question.

Well, you know, the gentleman from Colorado makes an excellent point, Mr. Perlmutter. And what you're describing is a slice of a Democratic vision for our country for a fair economy and a cleaner economy.

I think it's important when you mention construction jobs and retrofits and things like that, what you're talking about is the green economy, an economy that can include everybody, people who can do relatively menial jobs and also the innovators. Up and down the educational scale. But it's going to take training, it's going to take opportunity, and it is going to take courage.

You know, when Jonas Salk, who cured--came up with the polio vaccine, when he was--he could have spent his time making better braces for kids who had polio, right? But what did he do?

What did he do, Mr. Perlmutter?

So what we need is a vision for a green economy for now and in the future where we can increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, where we can invest in transportation and transit, where we can move people and not just cars, where we can take some of our old windy buildings where right out of the roof the heat's just going out, retrofit them for some green roofs.

Are these the kinds of things that you have in mind, Mr. Perlmutter?

Conservation.

Well, you know, Mr. Perlmutter, when you talk about these energy issues, it makes me think that this is where the country, I think, really wants to go. I mean, in these last several months we've heard a lot about change. It seems Americans want change. We don't want to be stuck in oil handcuffs. We want to go towards an energy future that includes everybody and that where we need to invest in our innovation, we need to invest in our brain power, you know, where we can have a into new opportunity in our country to make sure that we're not polluting the air, warming up the globe.

And again, as our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about, well, why don't we just drill off the Continental Shelf off Florida, they kind of imply it's just a matter of sunbathers not wanting to see an unsightly rig out there. Of course it is ugly to see that. But that does minimize the real concerns we're talking about; isn't that right, Mr. Perlmutter?

Don't the businesspeople say you've got to diversify?

I'm all for saying let's not build more leg braces; let's find some vaccines.

As we talked about the gas prices and things like this, we'll be talking more about that as we get closer to the end of the hour. But I also want to bring some other things into the conversation which I think are very important.

One of those things is that today the House tried to increase the unemployment insurance, and we tried to put it on the suspension calendar and pass it that way. Unfortunately, we did not meet the marker we were looking for. We needed three more votes to get there on suspension calendar, and we are not going to quit. As you know, the Democrats have a lot of fortitude, and we don't quit, and we are persistent and dogged in our efforts to stand up for the American people.

But the Senate recently did pass a 13-week extension of the unemployment insurance as part of a supplemental appropriation, and I think that it is really indicative of the situation people are finding themselves in.

As we're talking about $4 a gallon gas, we also have to take into consideration, Mr. Speaker, that we've seen 30 years of stagnant wages, except for that period in the late 1990s when we had a Democratic President. We have seen 30 years of stagnant wages except for that 1990s blip, and now that paycheck is being asked to do more, being asked to take on more child care, more health care, more fuel prices, more in terms of food prices.

Americans are in a difficult situation, and I dare say that now we have about 8.5 million unemployed people

who need help, and I think that it is a little unfortunate we were not able to pass that mark today with that unemployment insurance, but I'm sure that we're going to keep on trying until we get it.

I just wonder how the people in Colorado are faring. Are they unemployed, having a tough time there, and basically, as we see ourselves having creeping expenses for our food, fuel and things like that?

Well, you know, all of us are looking for better days. You know, I can tell you that my constituents in Minnesota let me know that we've been hit with the foreclosure crisis as well as stagnant wages, and I'm sad to report to you that the Nation's job market showed clear signs of recessionary conditions, as the jobless rate leapt up a half a percent in May alone from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. That's a lot of people, and that's according to our Bureau of Labor Statistics. And this monthly increase was the largest since the mid-1980s. It's been a while, pushing unemployment to the highest rate since 2004.

I don't like to rattle the sabers in terms of the partisan divide, but I'm one, speaking only for myself, who's prepared to say that, you know, the Democrats have a better vision for how to run the economy, vision in terms of the energy future, vision in terms of trying to get some unemployment insurance extended so that people can have a little relief as they try to find that next hard-to-find job.

But I think it's important that we see this thing in a broader context.

Right.

I've got to ask you a question. If you are training somebody to retrofit a downtown office building in, say, Denver or Minneapolis, and they're going to retrofit that building to be green and efficient, can you offshore that job?

We need a safety net. We need to have a caring Nation, and Americans are a caring people and a compassionate people, but we also are a working people and we want to work, and we also need a vision for our future because if you're unemployed right now, this might not be a bad time to think about getting some extra education, as long as you can get some unemployment insurance, and if you get that education, maybe you want to think about a green job for a green energy future.

You know, I want to add, too, while we're on the subject of jobs, the payroll contracted for the fifth month in a row, down 49,000 with most of the net job losses occurring in the construction industry, factories, offices, and retailers. Since the total payroll peaked last December, they've been down by around 324,000 jobs since the government sector tends to be less cyclically affected by downturns.

And looking at just the private sector, job loss can provide a more accurate gauge of the lagging economy's impact on job growth. Private sector employment has fallen over the past 6 months by over 400,000 jobs. I'm not happy to report that to you, Mr. Speaker, but it is the situation that people are facing, and I think it's important that this Congress be willing to respond to the needs of the people, which is why we needed three more votes in order to get that extension of the unemployment insurance passed as we tried to do today.

I think we're going to hit that mark. We're certainly not going to quit. I certainly believe that there are a lot of people out there who really want this policy. They certainly can get on the phone, get on the e-mail, and let folks who represent them know how they feel. But this unemployment extension is a big deal, but I think it's important as we push to extend unemployment insurance benefits that we tell folks that while they know they're dealing with putting the food on the table tomorrow and paying the rent tomorrow and paying the mortgage tomorrow, we want them to look to a better future, and that involves the green job economy that you've so amply described.

I also want to just say, too, as we talk about the economy and the job situation that, you know, we've got to have a real clear understanding about those indicators that tell us which direction the economy is going in. And I'm looking for a time when we can actually set policies in place that really will give Americans the kind of vision that they need, as we talked about just a little while ago.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. This President, who shakes his finger about supporting the troops, would never, never veto the GI Bill. Certainly you jest.

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, these are important facts you bring up. I kind of think of that period

after World War II, up until about 1973, as the almost, almost golden age of America. I say ``almost'' because it was marked by Jim Crow and other things like that, very important, serious issues. And we've come a long way. Our country's come a long way.

But you cannot ignore the fact that after World War II, you had the GI Bill. You had FHA. We had already established Social Security to make sure that no seniors had to live out their retirement in an undignified way. And we also had tax rates for the very wealthy that were much, much higher than they are now, and we also had a higher rate of unionization.

I know some folks don't understand how important that is, but the fact is, in 1957, 33 percent of all workers were in a union. Another 33 percent were paid like they were, and folks were living relatively well. We all look back at those old TV shows and kind of chuckle now at how corny they were, but they actually were doing pretty well economically in the 1950s.

And the fact is that some of these kind of policies are things we need today, but we have the advantage today to have greater equality which is so great, you know. It's a great honor of America that we have overcome some of those things of the past, those lack of equality issues. But as we've gotten greater social equality, we've lost in the area of income and economic equality, and we've got to revitalize our economy to make sure that everybody can share in it. And I think that green jobs are the way, but a compassionate response to people who are unemployed now is also part of the picture as well.

And you mentioned your dad. My dad was born in 1928, went to World War II, to the Pacific at a very young age, about 17 years old, but he did go. He was a military person and served in the Pacific, was in Hawaii and was a beneficiary of the GI Bill and was able to go to college, Wayne State University in Detroit, on that program. And it made him into a man who could put five boys through college, me and my brothers, and you know, it's an amazing thing.

You know, I am proud of my brothers. They're all doing well. They're all doing great. And the fact is, none of us would be doing this well if our dad had not been the beneficiary of an enlightened, compassionate, common-sense program like the GI Bill, and I'm glad that we're able to pass it through this House. And I pray that the President sees the light and passes and signs that bill.

Well, you know, soldiers are people, too. They want a future. They want an education. They want something to pass onto their children. They want to live a quality lifestyle. They want to own their home.

There has been actual progress on the ground in Colorado. I'm happy to report that in Minneapolis we have a wonderful VA hospital there, and we've seen things getting better all the time. But I want to let the veterans know that, as we talk tonight about the economy, we've talked about gas prices, we've talked about unemployment insurance, looking out for our veterans, making sure our veterans have economic opportunity, educational opportunity, health care opportunity is part of the whole dialogue. This is a working class prosperity issue, veterans' benefits. GI Bill benefits is a factor when it comes to trying to make sure that the American middle class, American working class has a real chance at doing well in this economy. So I want to thank you for bringing that out.

And I just want to say, you know, that it's important to understand veterans as an important component in our economy because when you just separate the soldier from the economy, you forget that the soldier is coming back. And they should have a good way to go when they get back.

You know, I also just wanted to mention, as we start walking into our final 15 minutes tonight, that we just had a Memorial Day. And on that day, I am proud to tell you that a number of our veterans are well aware of some of these programs; a number of them are well aware of the work that Congress is trying to do, not always with a cooperative White House, but on some things we have found cooperation, and we're thankful for that.

And I just want to mention to you as well that it's really tough on our veterans to have to deal with foreclosure. I've had a few vets in my district, while they were away, they had only their spouse to try to keep up the mortgage, and they've fallen behind. And I bring that up only because I think that it's important, as we talk about this, that we do mention that a part of what this Democratic Congress and the ``difference makers,'' this freshman class, has been a part of is trying to close the gap when it comes to the foreclosure crisis.

You know, I don't have to tell you, Mr. Perlmutter, that we're dealing with about 2,800 foreclosures a day. We're dealing with about 20,000 a week. We're dealing with a very serious problem. And I just want to point out that this foreclosure crisis is something that there have been bills introduced that try to forestall foreclosure for a veteran, for a soldier who's overseas, but it's something that really is affecting our entire economy.

We've passed bills through the House recently that will allow FHA to be put in a position to buy some of these mortgages and restructure them going forward. I think it's important that we point this out because the Congress has been responsive. You and I are both on the Financial Services Committee, and so we both know that we've been working on this housing issue quite a bit. And also, last December, I believe, we also passed a bill through Congress, an anti-predatory lending bill that I think should pay some good dividends if we could get that enacted into law.

But this foreclosure crisis is hitting our veterans and it's hitting all of our people. And maybe you would like to comment on that.

Well, you know, I'm glad you mentioned that it's not just the individual who is getting their

mortgage restructured with the FHA assistance who will benefit, actually, it's the neighborhood. Foreclosures really don't hit individuals alone, they hit neighborhoods. Because if you end up with a foreclosed home and an abandoned house, it's an attractive nuisance for people in the neighborhood who have bad intent. We know the price of copper. These houses are being stripped of their copper wiring. And oftentimes the copper strippers are not very careful about how they get it out. They've been known to nick and cut and damage gas lines and cause fires and explosions, not to mention other damage.

And so when you have a concentration of foreclosed and abandoned buildings in a neighborhood, it really does put downward pressure on the homes of everybody in the neighborhood, even the people who have been fortunate enough to pay every single mortgage payment on time every time. And so it really is something to help everybody, not just the individuals who are being directly assisted.

And of course, as you also know, when a house is abandoned, the city cannot receive property taxes on that house anymore. And so really what it's doing is coming up with a practical solution which will allow the bank to keep getting some of that money back, maybe not the originally intended amount, but a portion; of course half a loaf is better than none often. And so it's a practical solution to a serious problem. And it's just one more example of how Democrats and how freshman Democrats like you and I are part of solutions to try to improve our Nation.

And we're trying to bring benefits not only to our citizens, but also, as you mentioned before, our veterans, trying to make sure that our vets and all kinds of people who are going through this foreclosure crisis are able to keep their homes, neighborhoods are able to be stable, cities are able to receive property tax, city police departments aren't having to run out to properties and spend resources kicking people out of abandoned houses, or fire departments putting out fires. It really is a responsible way to sort of operate and try to improve the situation here.

Well, Mr. Perlmutter, it looks like we've got about 5 minutes left. Any parting shots?

Well, Mr. Perlmutter, I want to be a witness to what you just said. You have made a great difference. You, together with our freshman class--which I'm also a member of--have been here trying to improve the lives of Americans. And what we've been offering, yes, vision on energy policy, yes, vision on dealing with unemployment insurance and the jobs and the economy, yes, vision on veterans. But what we're really offering is a bigger vision of America, not just a litany of bills, but a bigger vision of our country, a bigger vision, an America that is fairer, that's more prosperous, that's more innovative, that takes care of its own. This is the America that we all know we can have because people like your dad and mine fought for an American that could be that way. And we believe that it is our generation's responsibility to make a better America for our children and our parents and everyone.

So it's been great hanging out with you, Mr. Perlmutter. Have a great night.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 4, 2008, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 379. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on the afternoon of Thursday June 5, 2008, I have an excused absence to attend my son's school graduation. If I were present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 384 and 385. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 386 and 387.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday June 3, 2008, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 367, 368 and 369. If I were present, I would voted ``aye'' on all three rollcalls.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize an outstanding student from my district whose research has helped develop a new biodiesel production method that will help move our country in the direction of energy independence.

Brian Krohn, a Senior Chemistry Major at Augsburg College in Minneapolis recently conducted a summer research project aimed at investigating new ways to produce biodiesel. His project developed a new, innovative chemical reaction that has never before been described in scientific literature. This new process--``Mcgyan Process,'' named for the three scientists officially credited with the discovery, can convert a much wider range of feedstock oils and animal fats into biodiesel. The Mcgyan Process can make more biodiesel fuel, faster and with a minimal environmental impact. The wider range of renewable oils that can be used through the Mcgyan Process also has the potential to foster additional environmentally sound discoveries that can help move our country in the right direction of renewable energy.

All of these discoveries were made possible by the research and ideas initiated by Brian Krohn and the learning environment fostered by Augsburg College. Brian's success should serve as a reminder of the potential that exists within every student. With the appropriate encouragement, support and a positive working environment truly amazing discoveries can occur.

Madam Speaker, we salute Brian Krohn and all our nation's remarkable students, teachers, and scientists who are persistently working to bring knowledge, ingenuity and hard work together to move our country toward energy independence.

Madam Speaker , I rise today to pay tribute to two of my constituents including one of the most remarkable women I know--and the extraordinary things she has done and continues to do. Koryne Kaneski Horbal of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, is a tireless force for equality who defines the word trailblazer.

She has served as Chairwoman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, founder of the DFL Feminist Caucus, and a Member of the Minnesota Democratic National Committee (DNC) where she started the DNC's Women's Caucus. President Jimmy Carter named her Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women where she served for four years. During that time she, and noted author and feminist, Gloria Steinem, became good friends and have since worked together on many projects. Koryne has been a contributing writer to MS. Magazine, and now serves as a consultant to Augsburg College, in Minneapolis. In recognition of Koryne's contribution to society, Augsburg College established the Koryne Horbal Lecture Series to continue opening the windows of opportunity for young women and men that reflect Koryne's commitment to a gender equal society. Fittingly, next month Koryne Horbal will receive a ``Humane With Respect'' honorary college degree from Augsburg College that she didn't have the opportunity to acquire in her younger years.

Koryne is a loyal and dear friend--and a loving grandmother. If you asked Koryne, of all her renowned accomplishments; all the barriers she's broken down; all the glass ceilings she's shattered; all the myths she's proven wrong; what she is most proud of? Undoubtedly, and without hesitation, she would say loving grandmother--to a young man named Bryce Horbal whom she has raised since infancy. Bryce is a 13 year old honors student at Columbia Heights Middle School in my district. This young man, who towers over his grandmother at over 6 feet, reflects the values that have shaped his young life--instilled in him with a nurturing and loving hand by his grandmother. Almost three years ago, this young man wrote a poem that shows us why the accolades and accomplishments Koryne has achieved pale in comparison to the grandson she has raised. Bryce Horbal is a young man of whom much will be expected.

Madam Speaker, Bryce Horbal's poem:

``I am the homeless man who lives on the corner of main street asking for spare change holding a bottle of scotch in my hand;

I am the child whose mother and father left them in an orphanage because they couldn't handle the responsibility;

I am the person peering over the edge of a building considering to jump off because life is too hard to live;

I am the soldier in Iraq who gets killed by a road-side bomb fighting for the United States of America;

I am the little kid in Africa with HIV fighting to live without food or water on their own.

I am the person holding out my hand to the homeless man on main street giving him my spare change;

I am the new family to the child in the orphanage who I have just adopted;

I am the arm that pulls the person peering over the edge backwards to the thing we call `hope;'

I am the person who jumps in front of bullets to save our troops in Iraq because every person in this world means something;

I am the cure for HIV and I have just gone into the little child in Africa along with food and water;

I am each and every one of you who cares about others.''

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the great State of Kentucky. He has been helping to lead our majority-maker class in this leg of our two-term service, and has been doing a fine job of it.

As I start, I want to invoke the memory of two young men, one Robert Dixon and another one, Quising Lee.

These are two young men who are from Minneapolis who were killed in Iraq. There have been 64 Minnesotans killed in Iraq, and Robert Dixon and Quising Lee are two gentlemen who lived in my district.

I'll never forget when I went to go see Quising Lee's family after he was killed. He went to North High School. He was 20 years old when he died, and he was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Robert Dixon was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq as well. I wasn't able to go to see Robert Dixon's funeral. I was here. My wife went for me. Kim, thank you for doing that. And she sat there and listened to stories about Robert Dixon and his life and his service to our country and the things he hoped for and wanted.

But I did get a chance to visit the family and go to the funeral of Quising Lee. Quising Lee, 20 years old when he was killed, went to North High School, had his whole life in front of him. Only 20 years old.

It's in the memory of those two young men from Minneapolis that I offer remarks tonight, and on behalf of those 64 Minnesotans that have been killed, and on behalf of those 4,500-some individuals, Americans who've been killed in Iraq, and on behalf of those, probably as many as perhaps 600,000, perhaps even 1 million Iraqis who've lost their lives in Iraq.

That's the spirit in which I approach tonight, my fellow majority makers, because, as you know, tomorrow is the big day we're going to be voting on Iraq appropriation once again.

Just for the facts, I think it's important to point out this will be a three-tier vote. One will be on appropriation for Iraq. I'll be voting ``no.'' The second will be on certain terms and conditions to get out of Iraq. I'll be voting ``yes'' on that. And the third will be appropriations for GI bill and things like that, and I expect to be voting ``yes'' on that.

And so I want to just lay this out tonight because I think people that are listening should know that tomorrow is a big deal. Tomorrow is a big day. We're all going to be casting votes, votes, I pray, of conscience, votes that are not based on licking a finger and sticking it in the wind, votes that we earnestly believe in. No matter what you may conclude about how you should vote tomorrow, I pray that you do it based on your conscience, consistent with your conscience.

And as we sit here tonight, you know, I reflect on the fact that I've been to Iraq once, been to Afghanistan once, look forward to going back. I think it's the responsibility of every Member of Congress to see the place that we have these soldiers struggling to survive in. I don't think it's right to just send somebody there and then just expect that they're going to be fine. We should at least go there, eat with them, sit with them, listen to them, their hopes, dreams, aspirations, what they hope to do if they make it out of there.

I think it's important for us, as Members of Congress, to go to the VA hospitals in our local communities and here in Washington, DC.

I think that what we're dealing with is serious issues, life and death. And more importantly, perhaps most importantly for me, we're dealing with issues of how our Nation works in relation with other nations in the world.

I believe that the United States should aspire to be a good neighbor in the world. I believe that our country, blessed with tremendous economic power, blessed with tremendous democracy, meaning not just elections, but the power to respect minority rights, the power to respect religious diversity, ethnic diversity. In America, we're not saying that people don't discriminate, but it's illegal if you do it, and good people fought and even died to make it so.

So I hope that tonight, as we reflect upon our great Nation, we reflect upon our role in the world, reflect upon not only the hard power but the soft power of America; that we all reflect on the sacrifices that were made to make it that way; and that we say that American history is not written yet, and that greater things are left for us to do.

And the greatness of this country is not bound up in guns and bombs, but, my friends, it's bound up in the goodness of the people and our desire to say that we cannot rest on having a democracy at home, but we should model it for the world, but not impose it or inflict it upon the world; and that we are not the world's police officer, but we could be a good example for what people might want to emulate, and that we should use our power to beat swords into plowshares and make war no more.

I'll be voting ``no'' on that appropriation tomorrow. And so I just want to turn it back, as we reflect tonight, as I reflect on the lives of Robert Dixon and Quising Lee. I know my friends from Kentucky and Wisconsin have some young people, or not so young people who they're remembering tonight as well.

Thank you. I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

As we talk about this merger of Northwest Airlines and Delta, I have a number of serious concerns I'd like to point out. One is that Northwest has a pilots' union, has a mechanics' union, has an airline attendants' union. Delta only has an airline pilots' union. And the fact is that Delta is the bigger entity. And so when they merge, what will happen with these organizations that are designed to make sure working people have some rights? I'm very concerned about that.

And I think that's one of the reasons why I think--and I hope and pray we can pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which we already passed through this House, but we have not yet been able to make into law.

I'm also concerned that Delta and Northwest in the future, if they merge, will never compete based on price or based on product. They will never compete because they will be one entity. They won't make each other better, and they won't make each other more efficient. They're just going to bond together and make some money. And of course, they're quite candid, and they tell you they are going to merge so they can get efficiencies. So what is that? Well, that means somebody is getting fired. That means somebody's got to go. You can't have two Employee Relations offices; you can't have two H.R. offices. Can't have two of everything. Somebody is going to go. And at the end of the day, a lot of folks who are paying property taxes, who are raising families, who are doing well, are going to be out of work and lose their jobs.

So I'm very concerned about this. I'm concerned about what consumers are going to pay in terms of ticket prices. I'm concerned about loss of jobs. I'm concerned about the fact that this Justice Department has never seen a merger that it didn't like, and we are seeing an increasing monopolization, oligopolization of our, what should be, competitive markets.

And I would love to see some of these free-market advocates get out there and fight for a competitive market. They seem to not be in favor of competitive markets. They seem to be in favor of really big business, not competitive markets, not free enterprise. These are things that are on my mind, and I think Americans want to know what is this Justice Department going to be about.

Because as I wrap up and toss it back to you, I would like to ask you gentlemen a question. Did you know that in 1980, the average CEO made about 42 times the average worker; but in 2005, which is the last year I have data, the average CEO made about 411 times the average worker? That is a problem. What do you guys think of that?

Did the rising tide lift our boats?

I think you're right, Mr. Yarmuth, and I appreciate you pointing that point out.

The article 1, that's kind of our theme this year, isn't it? Reasserting the power of the legislative branch.

I want to pick up on a theme that Dr. Kagen mentioned a moment ago as he was laying out how he was speaking with some workers in northern Wisconsin.

I was talking with some workers in Minneapolis recently, and we're kind of like cousins, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Folks had talked about how their pay has been stagnant and they haven't seen much of a pay increase except in the late nineties. But the prices of everything seems to be going up: health care, housing prices, and all of that. And what people did in the early part of this decade is they were able to get money out of their houses, right, which has led us into the foreclosure crisis.

But what are people doing now that housing prices are flat? Well, they're turning to credit cards. Charge it. They're putting it on the plastic. And I think this is a big deal because I think we need to know that people are essentially consuming not out of savings, they're consuming out of pay-day loans, credit cards. They used to do it out of the equity of their houses. And this is a serious problem, and people cannot consume out of their savings but have to consume out of debt.

And what it has caused us in our economy today, gentlemen, is that we have seen the credit card debt jump from 6.7 percent in the first quarter of this year, a credit card increase of 6.7 percent in the first quarter of this year to a whopping $957.2 billion. This is a very serious issue for our economy.

That's why we need a high-wage strategy. We need to put more money in people's pockets by reducing the costs of education, housing, health care, gasoline, and by saying that folks are going to have a fair, decent wage that they're going to be able to earn; and we need a strategy to pull those things together for the American people.

What do you think about an energy policy that would incentivize the production of cars that get 100 miles to the gallon? They're out there. The technology is there. There are a lot of things that we're looking at here in Congress that could help people go a long way. You plug that thing in at night when the load is a little lower, nonpeak hours. What about getting some of these light bulbs that don't use as much energy? What about converting some of these old windy buildings so they don't waste as much energy?

I've got to ask the gentleman to yield on this one.

What is the opinion of you two esteemed gentlemen on the $40.7 billion ExxonMobil cleared? I mean, that's not revenue, that's profit, and yet and still, this President does not want to take away their incentives, their oil subsidies. What kind of sense does that make? Can somebody please rescue me from my ignorance?

Well, let me ask you this, do you think there will come a day when the folks in the White House might just say, they might not need that subsidy after all?

That's the problem. He just doesn't know that oil is not $55 a barrel, but actually hit about $126 a barrel. He just doesn't know. Somebody ought to send him a news flash.

You put your finger on a very important issue. You used the word ``philosophy,'' and I think it's a good time to talk about the philosophical framework that I believe is crumbling before our eyes.

The idea that the middle class doesn't matter, that the wealthiest among us--and let me just tell you, I'm one who says, thank God that you were able to do really, really well. I'm not against people in the top 1 percent. I mean, I'm like great. But I think people in the top 1 percent say, you know what, I climbed up the ladder and I'm going to leave it there so other people can climb up the ladder, too.

But the philosophy that I think we have seen over the last 8 years is the philosophy that says, you know what, we're going to give every opportunity, every incentive to the people at the very tiptop; we're not going to make sure people in the middle are making it. And what eventually happens is that those people there in the middle don't have anymore money to spend. They are now spending out of debt, and then what happens is that they can't even afford the basic necessities of life, which then is going to have an impact on the consumer sector and on corporate America.

Seventy percent of the whole GDP is what we spend, consumer spending, but we ain't got no money. And so the point is, we are literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to say that we need new politics where the market is a part of our life but not a holy, sacred grail. The market helps to propel productivity, but is not all there is. But we have alongside the market, a regulated market, a market that makes sure that competition is

present, a market that says that consumers cannot just get stuck and gouged and pinched and pulled and taken advantage of, and a market that says that we want to have innovation and room for small producers so that there's this competition over goods and services and brand and innovation and, of course, price.

We need a new market that has the middle class as the VIP of this economy, not the CEO.

Oh, yeah.

That's why I really believe that we need a philosophy and a President who believes in the philosophy of the common good. The common good because, you know, as Representative Yarmuth refers to infrastructure, that's another word for our common wealth. That's our common wealth. That's what we all own together. That's the roads, the bridges, the dikes, the levees, the transit. That's the universities, the public school system. That could be a health care system that we own together, that's ours. And that's all of these things that when we invest in them, they pay dividends back.

Like you just said, that military spending is a one-way good. You shoot that bullet, and it's gone. But when you build that road, all of us who use it for even just our businesses, just to truck stuff over it, are using it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who go to school on it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who use it just for recreation, that's a return on our investment.

It's our common wealth, and we need to get back to the idea that, you know, America is a country where we have our common good and we share it, and we believe it and we have a common wealth that we share and we keep and we promote. And our market is a part of the common wealth, but it's in service to the people of the country. It's in service to tap into the creativity and the productive power of the people so that they can produce goods and services for the people of this country.

Our markets are another, not just to produce goods and services, but to improve our social life because in that way, when I'm allowed to do my thing, right, I can be more happy, more productivity, more creative. And if I had health care and if I had a pension and if I had a school system that my kids could go to, boy, I could sit in that garage and come up with all kind of cool stuff.

The fact is we've got to get back to this place where it's about the common good, it's about the common wealth, and not about just me for me and I don't care about anybody else. Greed essentially elevated to a political philosophy, we've got to get away from that. It has not served us well.

I would say, and we have about maybe 5 or 6 more minutes to go tonight. I just want to say it's always a pleasure to be on the floor with the difference makers, the majority makers. It's an honor to be able to stand in front of the American people and to project a progressive vision that includes us all, that allows us to share in a common good and a common wealth together and also allows us to, you know, embrace the fact that we are an economy, that our society embraces the free market as well, that we look at these two things as complementary and not one superior to the other, that we see them as something that enhances our life together.

And I just want to say, as you mentioned, Mr. Yarmuth, that I don't think Americans want to be under a corporatocracy. I think we like our national identity.

And I'll say that you should know that before the 1870s, the corporate entity was nothing close to what it is today. As a matter of fact, you couldn't even own one unless the charter was issued by the State, the same as it is today. That's the thing; we think of these things as somehow natural or inevitable, but corporations are creatures of the State. Without a State charter, they don't exist. And we should say that corporations should ask, does it work, does it make money, and is it the right thing to do? That is a perfectly legitimate question. And I look forward to the day when that question is asked by all of us.

So with that, I again thank you two gentlemen, and also salute the majority makers. And I look forward to a day when we have a cooperative and productive relationship with the executive.

Madam Speaker, it was on May 7, the day of the Indiana primary election just last Tuesday, I believe that was May 5, excuse me, May 5, that 12 nuns came to the voting booth to cast a ballot in the election. These nuns, women of the cloth, women who have dedicated their lives to prayer and service, only wanted to vote but were barred from doing so by Indiana's photographic identification law. This law, which is the most stringent in the United States, the most stringent of any State, requires that before you can cast a ballot, you must present a government-issued photographic identification card. This 98-year-old nun, American citizen, devoted to her country and her faith, was denied along with 11 of her colleagues.

I'm disappointed to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this problem didn't have to happen. Only a few days before this Indiana photographic ID law was put in place, the United States Supreme Court reviewed this law and found that it was reasonable for Indiana to force citizens to provide such identification.

Now, Madam Speaker, you might say, well, isn't this designed to just stop voter fraud? The answer is ``no,'' Madam Speaker. In the United States Supreme Court decision, the Justice that wrote the majority opinion admitted and acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter impersonation. And in fact, Madam Speaker, this bill was a bill to solve a problem that simply did not exist at all. This bill was confronting a mythical voter fraud that worked only to stop 12 nuns and many others from voting.

The bill that required the photographic ID clearly would disenfranchise people who were low-income and didn't have a photographic ID. It clearly would, and did, disenfranchise older Americans who may not have an ID or maybe were born at home and can't even find a birth certificate, which is what they would need to get such a photographic ID. It would clearly bar college students, who maybe haven't gotten a driver's license yet, from voting.

In effect, this bill prohibited people from voting who need a change in America. It stopped seniors who are against the donut hole of the prescription drug, Prescription Medicare Part D that is hurting our seniors. It's barring their way to the ballot box. It's barring our students' way to the ballot box as they struggle to confront galloping tuition increases and mounting debt. It's barring the rights of our citizens who cry for greater civil and human rights in our country. And it's basically standing in the way of voters who need a fairer, more equal, more just society.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, I wish those people who pushed this law forward would have simply admitted that they don't want to debate the ideas, they just want to stop voters from getting to the ballot box. They don't want to debate whether or not it makes sense to help rich people get even richer, to help big corporations get even bigger. They don't want to debate that. They just want to stop the people who would be opposed to their ideas from them ever being able to cast a ballot.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the New York Times which, on May 13, submitted this editorial: The Myth of Voter Fraud. And what this editorial shows is it is not just Indiana but many other States which are requiring this absolutely unneeded, unneeded photographic ID requirement. States like Missouri, Kansas, Florida, South Carolina, and now others are considering these bills. They must and should be stopped. They're not intended to stop fraud. In fact, if there's any fraud going on, Madam Speaker, it is that people in the category that I mentioned, the senior citizens, communities of color, low-income people, students, those people are being defrauded because actively in almost every election, we've seen schemes and devises reminiscent of Jim Crow to bar them from the ballot box.

And so, Madam Speaker, I ask you and all of the Members of this House to consider a bill that will preempt the Supreme Court's decision in the decision that upheld the Indiana voter law. It's what we need. It would improve the quality of democracy in our country.

And as I close, Madam Speaker, I just want to say our country is a great one not because of bombs and guns and a huge economy, it's a great country because this country has been advancing liberty ever since its inception.

In the beginning of this country, Madam Speaker, you and I know that only white men of property were able to vote. Just being a white male would not get you the vote. But then we saw the Jacksonian Revolution, and people without property could vote; and then we saw the Civil War come, and then black men could vote; and then we saw the 19th amendment, and then women could vote. And then we saw the barring of the 24th amendment which said that no more poll taxes could stand in the way of people voting. And then we saw the amendment that allowed people 18 years old to vote. Every generation we've seen increases in the right to vote except for this one. It's a sad day, Madam Speaker.

I yield back, and I call on this Congress to keep the doors to the voting booth open for all Americans.