Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the retirement of a broadcasting legend in my district, Don Weeks of historic WGY radio in Albany and Schenectady.

Don's career in radio started in 1959 and grew to include work as a Top 40 DJ, a TV weatherman, and work in an advertising agency. It was during the last 30 years, however, as host of WGY's top-rated morning news program that Don cemented his legacy as one of the most congenial and recognizable personalities in the Capital Region.

He entertained listeners each morning with his laugh-out-loud sense of humor; his friendly, inquisitive interviews; and with his unrelenting communication to the community. For 30 years, Don was the voice and the face behind WGY's annual Christmas Wish fund drive, which raised millions for local charities.

Don was awarded the National Association of Broadcasters Marconi Award for Medium Market Personality of the Year and named Best Personality by the New York State Broadcasters Association.

To Don and his wife, Sue, I wish you a happy and healthy retirement. It certainly is well earned, my friends.

Yes. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together this evening for an hour's worth of discussion.

Obviously, I think we need to stay extremely well focused, laser sharp in our focus on what's affordable and what return we get for the spending that is being called for for tax cuts. Now, I know that, as you pointed out, when we saw the Bush tax cuts for which we borrowed from China to pay for, we saw that there was very little return coming from that investment. The analyses that have followed those tax cut years indicate that we just simply did not get that trickled down.

However, conversely, with the Obama tax cuts that were part of the Recovery Act, which was the largest single middle-income income tax cut in this Nation's history, the strength that came to the economy was very much measured. We saw where that effort to assist middle-income families paid great dividends. There were those efforts made to stop the bleeding of the recession. People began to spend in their regional economies. People were spending on those day-to-day necessities. And so I think it was beneficial to our American economy, certainly to our individual States' economies, and certainly to the regional effect that it had.

So I think we can make a very strong case about investing in the middle strata, in that income demographic that will allow for a great return. And so we need to contrast there the Obama taxes and the Bush taxes and look first at the outcomes that have been generated, the benefit to the economy in general. And I think it's very clear that when we assisted that working family economy, when we assisted the middle income strata in our country, there were great dividends that were paid by that investment.

Then, to the affordability, $700 billion to $900 billion worth of investment, of spending for a tax cut where there may not be a great return simply will compete with other forces: investing in job creation, job retention; investing in research so that we can compete in a global economy; making certain that our unemployment insurance opportunities, the stretching out of that dividend is affordable; making certain that we go forward and address the deficit situation.

People who have called for deficit response are now looking at what we're doing with this tax cut discussion. And I think it's very important for us to have the priorities that will speak to deficit reduction, development of an innovation economy, research and development investments that allow us to stay a world-leading Nation in this global economy.

And as to your point made about Citizens United as a case, I believe that as we give breaks here to that economy we are going to see more propensity, we are developing the opportunities for people to invest in these campaigns in a way that will stop progress. Because the voices of progress on this floor and down the Hall in the United States Senate will be snuffed out by the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United that enables people to invest in campaigns that are the opposition to sound health care reform, Wall Street reform, job creation efforts that we have been making, the small business loan activity. All of this will be turned backward. It will be snuffed out if we continue to assist these efforts like the Citizens United case that enables people to invest in individual campaigns, and corporations, both domestic and foreign, that can get involved in these campaigns.

Think of it, you take on Big Oil, you do the reforms on the floor, and in the next election you should fully expect that this Court decision enables people to invest to the sky's limit where they choose. The same would be true with big banks and big pharmaceuticals, big insurance companies. So by giving these opportunities to those who are going to use these dividends in that manner, we are again challenging and threatening the voice of progress in this House and in the United States Senate.

So I think there are really good reasons for us to be very analytical, very theoretical, very focused in how we package this program for tax cuts. And at this time I think the record stands clear that affordability and accountability for what we invest in, what's returned is realized, are all part of the decision-making process and have to be front and center as we move forward.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi.

From your district in California, Representative Garamendi, to Representative Shea-Porter's district in New Hampshire, to my district in upstate New York, the middle income community, the working families, are all resonating with their message, that it's their turn. We borrowed, as was indicated by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire, in the decade that preceded this administration from China to pay not only for tax cuts but for two wars and for Medicare part D, for a doughnut hole that now is driving seniors to the brink of poverty. Where was the fairness in all of that? Because their bearing of the burden is far greater as a percentage of their income household-wise than the upper income strata. So the consequences here are borne unfairly.

And so I think that what you've described here in the contrast is an opportunity to start anew, with a new focus, where children and students, married couples, seniors, working families, all are given highest priority, where they can dream the American Dream, where they're empowered. And when we empower our middle income community, we're empowering all of us. Someone needs to build the product. Someone needs to buy the product. And if you deny the purchasing power of our middle income families, we have destroyed the economy of this Nation. And so it makes great sense and provides great opportunity to go forward with this new thinking. Otherwise, we revisit the failed policies of President Bush's administration, where we saw no job growth, where we saw the decline in business, manufacturing began to fold, where we lost one-third of our manufacturing base. We need to go back to those policies. What's driving the deficit today is unemployment. And if we can invest in research and development, if we can invest in basic research, in the innovation economy, then we will provide hope for our working families across the country.

I think what's often lost in the discussion on the great package that we did was that everybody, everybody, will get a break, a tax cut, on a level of income including those who are millionaires and billionaires, will get a tax break on the first $250,000 in that household. So it's not like we're denying anyone. We're just saying, let's empower that middle income crowd, that community, in a way that gives them their share now, of a stake in the investments that are made here in Washington and then shared across this great country. That is the kind of shot in the arm that's required right now. Because we see these tremendously difficult statistics out there. It took a long time to get into this mess. And I know that the expression made by the voters in this last election was that it didn't happen quick enough; the recovery didn't happen quick enough. Well, this is a revisiting of the failed policies of the past that drove us into the worst times since the Great Depression. Our colleague spoke earlier about the divide between those who are comfortable and most comfortable. That has grown to the widest that has been known in, I think, days since the Great Depression. And we have seen more concentration in the top 1 or 2 percent of wealth in this country of the economic recovery, of profit. We just saw a record profit established in the last quarter. Since record keeping over the last 60 plus years, there was more profitability for our business community in this country in the last quarter; when you annualize that, it breaks all records. So we need to look at all the statistics out there. We need to be very cognizant of what's happening and

what isn't happening. And I think the way we do that is through the soundness of the policy that we advanced, that really promotes I think the sort of effort that enables us to strengthen the purchasing power of our middle income community. And we also attempted in this House, without help from the Republicans, to provide a stretch-out on that unemployment insurance program. So we are doing those elements that respond with great sensitivity to the unemployed who are still searching for employment. We attempted every which way to stretch that opportunity from this House. We have advanced a tax cut for those households, couples under $250,000. Everybody can qualify in that tax cut because it caps at that threshold and works itself through across all of the income levels of families in this country. So we have done, I think, a very reasonable package, we have done it with great focus and great hope that it will drive the growth of the economy and produce hope in terms of jobs created and retained and will not bring us back to those failed policies. I think we have forgotten the trillions that were lost. There was $18.5 trillion lost in the last 18 months of President Bush's tenure. That was a huge, devastating blow to this country. There were 8.2 million jobs lost, which are tough to recover from. But we have had many successive months of private sector job growth. So we need to continue along the thoughtful sort of policies; and the progress that has been achieved, while incremental, is a steep climb toward recovery rather than falling deeper as was the case when we hit rock bottom in March of 2009. We have been recovering and I think now is the time to just add to that effort, not lead us backward into the failed policies of the past.

Absolutely. And I loved the converting of tax policy into a job focus.

My question rhetorically to the opposition party has been the marketing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was all around jobs. These are the job-creating tax cuts. My rhetorical question is: Where are the jobs? We saw one of the most dismal stretches of job loss and job creation under that Bush Presidency than ever recorded in the Nation. And to Representative Shea-Porter's point, left with an historic largest deficit. So that was complications beyond belief, a multitude of problems that then endured and gripped the household budgets and the profitability of small businesses across this country to the point that we sunk to the lowest of records in March of 2009.

So now our focus rightfully should be about job creation and retention. My district, the 21st Congressional District in the State of New York, houses the eastern portion of the original Erie Canal, barge canal. It gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns. These mill towns became the epicenters of invention and innovation.

So that pioneer spirit is in the American DNA, I am convinced. I cannot accept for a moment that our manufacturing heyday is a thing of the past. We can be the kingpins of manufacturing. We need to invest in that manufacturing element so that small businesses and manufacturing centers can be that driving force for job creation and retention.

How does it happen? You modernize with investments.

I served as president and CEO at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. I saw what happened when we partnered with the business community to enable them to cut energy costs for production. It's easy. We have shelf-ready opportunities today that can then retrofit into these manufacturing centers and enable them to be more profitable, more efficient. That means, as profitability, the transitioning over to more jobs and more ideas that can come from the manufacturing elements in our given neighborhoods and our communities, in our regions, in our congressional districts.

So it can happen, but you need this plan of attack that will go to putting American workers into deeply rooted jobs that will be here to grow in this country.

We saw what happened when we helped businesses take their large industries--take their jobs--offshore, and we paid them to do that. So I applaud the efforts that you have created and in which others have joined in this House to create the package that says ``no'' to that sort of investment, but ``yes'' to American workers and working families and ``yes'' to our small business community, which is the backbone of our economic recovery.

We profess small business to be the springboard to economic recovery. If we believe that, let's act accordingly and not take this step backward that gives tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of investments in the small business community, investments in the working households of families across this country and, certainly, at the expense of investments in children, in students, in working couples, in married couples, who will get a break from our tax package bills, and in senior citizens, all of whom deserve our sensitivity here in this Chamber so as to do what is best for the middle-income community of this country.

Again, to repeat myself, empowering them by strengthening their purchasing power strengthens all of us from the least comfortable to the most comfortable. I think it is the map, the blueprint, for a successful comeback from the lowest, toughest economic point that we have seen as a Nation. Now, to crawl out of that pit, we need to do it thoughtfully and with laser-sharp focus, and I think our legislation advanced in this House does that.

I have enjoyed working with the two of you, with other Representatives and with the leadership in this House to make that effort so that we can have the smartest and most analytical response.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 8, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the remarkable accomplishments of Reeva and Bernie Nowitz as The Israel Center, a program of Jewish Educational Resources of New York, JERNY, prepares to honor them later this week.

Bernie Nowitz is a retired pharmacist. As the former president of Burns Pharmaceuticals in Rensselaer, New York, Bernie served my constituents faithfully for 24 years. After his retirement, he worked as a pharmacy consultant and then as a volunteer for the Schenectady Free Clinic. He has served as a board member of Jewish Family Services, and is a past president of Temple Beth El in Troy, where he currently serves on the Religious Committee.

As part of a fact-finding mission, Bernie traveled to the former Soviet Union and Austria to understand the plight of Jewish refugees. He has also traveled to Israel with the Volunteers for Israel project on two separate occasions. Bernie and his wife, Reeva, have been strong supporters of Israel since their first trip 35 years ago. They have been long-time supporters of JERNY and Hadassah as well.

Reeva Nowitz, who is also being honored by JERNY, was Vice President of Burns Pharmaceuticals, working alongside her husband. Since her retirement she has been involved with the Jewish Federation, serving as president of the Women's Division and has been on the boards of the Jewish Federation of Northeastern New York and the Daughters of Sarah Foundation. She is the current president of Temple Beth El in Troy and helped in the formation of the Albany Area Jewish Cemetery Association of Northeastern New York.

Reeva and Bernie are shining examples of Americans who actively demonstrate their commitment to their family, their community and their faith. Bernie often assists Reeva with her duties at Temple Beth El of Troy where

she has served as president for several years. Together with the other families that make up this small but active congregation, Temple Beth El has come to be known in the community as a place where friends and family gather each week for informal services. There, spiritual leader Alan Bell works with the members to develop weekly educational and religious activities for members and non-members alike. The services are inclusive and accessible, bringing children and grandchildren into active participation during worship.

The Nowitzs have lived the dream of seeing their love survive many decades, as their children grow to be fine adults and their family blossoms to include grandchildren. They have been members of Temple Beth El for more than 50 years and attended Hebrew School there. Reeva was born in nearby Cohoes. Bernie was born in the Bronx and moved upstate to Troy at age three.

Reeva and Bernie have been married for more than 46 happy years and have been part of the Temple Beth El and Troy community for that entire time. They have been blessed with two daughters, Cheryl and Nicole, Cheryl and Nicole. Cheryl is married to Anthony Klein and they live in Palto Alto, California with their children Alex and Daniel. Nicole works in real estate in New York City.

I ask my colleagues to pause to congratulate Reeva and Bernie for being among the honorees at the Israel Heroes Dinner on Thursday, December 2, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for fairness, for equality, and to simply stand up for what is right. I support a tax cut for our Nation's working families and middle income community. In my district, that includes 98 percent of taxpayers, over 342,000 individuals. What I do not support, and what our Nation simply cannot afford, is a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

In fact, Republicans are holding hostage the extension of unemployment benefits at the expense of tax cuts. Six thousand eight hundred individuals in my district make over $250,000 a year. Conversely, 6,400 individuals in my district will lose their unemployment benefits at the end of this month. The choice--6,800 billionaires and millionaires, or 6,400 hardworking families that will not be able to pay their bills, put food on their table, or heat their homes on a cold winter's night. I stand with the middle income and working families of my district.

And what happens to the local economy? If we do not extend unemployment benefits, my district alone could see the loss of tens of millions of dollars in economic benefits, including small business losses each and every month.

Mr. Speaker, the moral and economic choice is clear. I stand with our working families and our middle income community.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 581 and 582, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with one question for former President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress: Where are the jobs?

With inspirational titles promising economic growth and job creation, the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages fell well short of their names. From 2001 to 2007, the economy grew at its slowest pace since World War II.

The Bush tax cuts failed to bring the growth they promised, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want a no-questions-asked extension of

this failed policy. Not so fast. Sixty-six percent of all growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1 percent of Americans. Did that trickle down to the rest of us? All you have to do is ask a family in Albany or Schenectady or Troy, New York that I represent. My district will say it most certainly did not.

In the debate over extending tax cuts, the choice is clear. I stand with the 98.1 percent of households in my district, the middle-income community, the working families. I hope my colleagues on both sides will review their own district numbers and do the same.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together on a very important topic. ``Make it in America'' manufacturing matters, absolutely. I think what has been promoted also as a subtheme here has been the investment in basic research, R&D, and in scientific research, making certain that we can move forward with cutting-edge, ahead-of-the-curve sort of technology that enables us to create jobs on the radar screen that simply are not there today, and it allows us to advance, I think, an energy agenda and an environmental agenda that allow for us to grow jobs.

Now, as you were making your introductory comments, I was thinking about America COMPETES, which is the legislation we did on this House floor several months ago. I think 98 percent of our Republican colleagues voted against the measure. We got just about no support. Yet it was supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce. They understood the wisdom of investing in R&D and basic research and in providing for the modernization of our manufacturing sector.

I am convinced, like you, Representative Ellison and others, that we can make it smarter in America, which will allow us to be very sharp, competitively speaking, on the global market scene. I think that we can do it in a way that allows us to advance jobs in this country simply by embracing the intellectual capacity of this great country.

In my home district of the 21st Congressional District in New York-- the upstate region, the capital region--we are home to GE Corporate. I just witnessed their moving forward with plans to do advanced battery manufacturing, which will be the linchpin to all sorts of energy innovation. As we do that, we can grow jobs here in America by investing in R&D, by coming up with new product lines, and by making certain we're ahead of the curve on science and technology opportunities that are available to this Nation.

In the construct of the 21st Congressional District, I represent the old passageway--the Erie Canal, the route of freight-hauling--that really built America and inspired the westward movement. In so doing, in building that canal, we also gave birth to a necklace of communities called ``mill towns,'' and they became the epicenter of invention and innovation. So it is within our DNA, that pioneer spirit, here in America to continue to do that, and I think we need those incentives that we talked about.

This leadership and this House during the 111th Congress gave birth to a number of ideas, including America COMPETES, closing tax loopholes for investments taking jobs offshore, taking them into other locations. We want to close those loopholes and absolutely promote the Small Business Jobs Act. Those were great cornerstones of development that will allow us to grow jobs, and as we know, we've had 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

We've now surpassed the million mark for private-sector jobs, and that's a great accomplishment in light of the 8.2 million that were lost during the Bush recession. And speaking of President Bush's track record, they were losing jobs. They were losing a net--we had a net zero gain of private-sector jobs during that administration. This 1 million is a great mark as we move forward in this calendar year to turn this country around, and we need to just continue along that road of progress.

So it's great that you have brought us together, and I'm happy to join you during this hour.

That's absolutely the progress we wanted to witness, and was it fast enough? It's never fast enough for us after we've lost 8.2 million jobs, after the American households in the last 18 months of the Bush presidency lost $18.5 trillion. That was pain that was very deep, deep and dark, and it's never fast enough, but it is certainly a rise in the right direction and a movement that needs to continue along that road of progress.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for an enlightening discussion on job creation, making it in America, and tax policy that can empower our middle class. The strengthening of the middle class, enabling them to have more purchasing power, has got to be the guiding force as we continue to do work in the closing stages of the 111th Congress and move into the next session of Congress. It is absolutely essential. I think it is what everyone heard out on the campaign field this past fall and summer. People were concerned about the economy.

Again, we have surpassed that 1 million count for new jobs in the private-sector realm, but after 8.2 million jobs lost, it simply isn't getting us there quickly enough.

I understand the impatience. I understand the fear. Obviously, people need to have a job. The dignity of work enables them to dream the American Dream of house ownership and allowing them to encourage their children and help their children pursue their careers through perhaps higher education. So it's important that we respond to that dynamic of empowering the middle class.

I think there's some telling statistics that are really highlighting the concern that people are expressing these days. Some 83 percent of all United States stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the public. Now that is a very lopsided statistic. We're also told that some 61 percent of Americans always or usually live paycheck to paycheck. That is up from 49 percent just a year ago and then 43 percent just 2 years ago. So that climb from 43 to 49 to 61 percent of those who usually or always live paycheck to paycheck is a concern or at least ought to be a concern to the Members of this body.

And so it is important for us to make certain that we break some of those barriers and we allow for some of the benefit to flow to the middle class. Sixty-six percent of the income growth, for instance, between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1 percent of all Americans. And when we look at the difference between the Obama tax cut and the Bush tax cut, the Bush tax cut borrowed money from China to enable us to give as a government the top percent of wealth--top 1 or 2 percent of wealth of America--to receive their tax cut. We borrowed. It was off- budget, as you indicated earlier. So we borrowed to pay for a tax cut; to spend for a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans. Now when we look at the Obama tax cut, it was the largest historic tax cut for middle-income America.

Absolutely--and oftentimes a fact missed on many out there. It was the largest such tax cut for middle-income America, a historic statement. You compare that Obama tax cut to the Bush tax cut that borrowed to spend for the tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans. And so now we shouldn't be surprised when we see these stats that show more purchasing power there for the wealthiest, who are now usurping all of the purchasing of stocks out there. One percent reflecting the 83 percent of all United States stock, for instance.

So we need to do better than that. And I would suggest that all income strata fare better when we have a strong middle class. You need someone to purchase your products. You need someone to build your products, to manufacture your products. We need a strong middle class. We need to invest in that opportunity. And I think all of that recovery that we're hoping for becomes all the more expedited.

It was shown to us in the Clinton years. By creating economic recovery, by producing jobs, you solve the Nation's deficit. President Clinton inherited a deficit from the first Bush administration, and he handed over a $5.6 billion surplus to the next administration. And then what did we inherit but a record deficit that was then passed on to the Obama administration at their beginnings in 2009 with, again, a recession that was more painful than any economic consequences in the past 70 years.

So the track record is such that you have seen Democrats working with the Democratic administration to build us out of deficit situations, create a surplus, and then have it spent down again and giving priority to those engines--economic engines that simply don't work. When the Obama tax cut--again, historically large for the middle class--was implemented, we saw that what the economists, from far-right thinking to far-left thinking, as a team had suggested would happen. We actually saw that happen. And these economists were right on. As soon as the middle class was given its tax cut, that tax cut was brought back. It was spent back in the regional economies. And we saw the beginning of the end of that bleeding of the recession. It ended the bleeding simply by creating that recovery, having those dollars recirculate in regional and State economies across the country, the telltale indicators then proved that the bleeding of that recession had stopped. And it was that empowerment of the middle class that enabled, I think, the economics of it all to work.

So we should take lessons from history, and we can take that Obama tax cut and contrast it with the Bush tax cut and see what really happened. And your whole statement about those thresholds, those households of $250,000 or less, with that as a threshold we can see the empowerment that comes when we concentrate on that portion of the tax cut that I believe will have a trickle-down value. The $700 billion price tag on the upper income strata in terms of spending on a tax cut for that strata is a hefty one and we need to understand, analytically understand, what the payback would be. What is the dividend; is there a lucrative dividend by spending such money on that given strata of tax cut.

And I would suggest to you also that we need to accompany that sort of analytical thinking and that sort of dividend associated with the spending that would be done on a tax cut so that we maximize the benefit for the economy. But we also have to think of the stewardship, the sound management that was part and parcel to the Clinton years when we contrast that with the management post-Clinton or pre-Clinton. It is absolutely essential to incorporate concepts like PAYGO so that you pay as you go. You are forced then to come up with the ideas that will produce the revenues in order to initiate the new spending.

Absolutely.

Exactly. And it creates that sort of stewardship over the budget that doesn't find us in situations where we paid for two wars, we initiated a part D Medicare doughnut hole which impacted our senior population with their pharmaceutical needs and gave a tax cut to the wealthiest of Americans and did it all off-budget. And so that when this President assumed office, one of the first tasks assigned the administration or embraced by the administration so as to truth in budgeting and honesty in budgeting is to bring it online, which grew the deficit, but it was a truthful budget. You can't continue to have an off-budget, borrow from China or whatever, in order to pay for programs and say, Okay, we'll pay for it into the future. The PAYGO concept requiring us to find the revenue sources in order to do these orders of programing or tax cuts will be accompanied by the mindset, the logic of just how do you pay for it. And PAYGO means being fiscally responsible.

Sure.

Let me just state this, that the landmark Small Business Act, which is intended to create jobs--we're anticipating 500,000 jobs--allows for investment in exporting, which I believe is critically important; it allows for investment in our modernization of manufacturing and small businesses, and it allows for the unleashing of some $300 billion worth of loan opportunities to our small businesses.

We profess small business to be the economic engine, to be the springboard to the economic recovery. To the credit of Speaker Pelosi, whose leadership has led this House through the 111th Congress, we have made that our focus. We came out of a deep, deep recession, and, unfortunately, there wasn't enough time for us to feel the effects of the progress made by such legislation. I just think we need to pursue that path to progress.

Thank you very much, Representative Garamendi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of 10 brave women and men who were killed in a tragic attack in northern Afghanistan in August, and to express my support for the resolution by the gentleman from Pennsylvania which we will consider here today.

This team of dedicated humanitarian aid workers was led by my constituent, Dr. Thomas Little. Tom and his wife, Libby, lived and worked in Afghanistan for more than 30 years. They raised three daughters there, Katie, Molly, and Nellika, and ran an organization that has long provided the majority of eye care services in Afghanistan. Though I am proud to call them constituents, Afghanistan has been their home.

Like so many parts of America, New York's 21st Congressional District has witnessed far too many deaths overseas this year, a fact no less true across the districts of Afghanistan where Tom Little worked with sight and lived with vision. Tom and his team were heroes, and I am honored to recognize their service and sacrifice to America, Afghanistan, and the ideals that unite us all.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor the 100th anniversary of the Civil Service Employees Association.

I want to publicly acknowledge this organization whose endeavors have served the best interests of the workforce in the State of New York. Labor unions have played an essential role in ensuring the prosperity, safety and liberty of workers in my home state, as well as our Nation, and around the world.

This great group of civil servants was first organized on October 24, 1910. The Civil Service Employees Association's founding was the first known instance of state employees organizing. One hundred years later, the Civil Service Employees Association is one of the largest, most influential unions in the United States.

It is New York's largest public employee union, representing 300,000 active and retired, public and private employees. Its members are an integral part of every locality and provide essential services throughout the state.

Today the association's members are the backbone of their communities, supporting every kind of charitable cause, service organization and community activity. With a membership of dedicated employees, the record of the Civil Service Employees Association in public service is one to be celebrated.

Mr. Speaker, while Democrats work to help our country return from the Republican recession, our top priority is to create jobs and restore responsible fiscal policies that support the middle class.

The key part of our pro-growth agenda is helping small businesses. Small businesses are indeed the economic engine, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the past 15 years. The role of small businesses is especially important as we strive to create jobs and move this economy forward. With the right resources and the right opportunities, small businesses can respond quickly with opportunities that create jobs.

Democrats have already enacted eight tax cuts for small businesses, including tax credits, payroll tax holidays, incentives for capital investments, and other measures to help small business thrive. We passed these measures despite strong opposition from House Republicans and will continue our fight for small businesses despite their votes against the small business community.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together. You are right, I do represent the area that houses the Erie Canal bed that was the main route to the westward movement, and it's a necklace of communities called mill towns that were the centers of invention and innovation. That pioneer spirit still exists, I am convinced, in America.

During our recent work-period break, where we all went back to our districts and had a 6-week stretch to connect to our constituents, I did Tuesday tours. The Tuesday tours were about manufacturing, making it in America, and where we need to invest and where the success stories might rest.

It's amazing to see the stories that were impacted by the Recovery Act, work done by water efficiency, energy efficiency, the MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,

which, by the way, the previous administration wanted to zero out.

I went to a group called X-Ray Opticals. Because of MEP programming and SBIR, Small Business Innovation Research, monies, this group is employing people they never dropped during the recession. They were a steady pulse, and they are exporting.

Just when we want to say we are not exporting and, oh, the die is cast and, oh, woe is us, we lost our manufacturing sector, we lost a third of our manufacturing jobs over the last decade thanks to the weakened policy on manufacturing. But we still have enough jobs that places us on the top of that manufacturing list globally, but we can't afford that present trend which would see us losing more manufacturing jobs.

We have turned that around. Those one-third of manufacturing jobs lost in the last decade equates to 4.6 million jobs lost.

But now, with the Recovery Act, with a new focus on manufacturing, I think there is a stronger sense that we can move forward and proclaim accurately that we want to make it in America.

Representative Garamendi, let me just tell you that at X-Ray Opticals they are exporting to Asia and to Europe. They are dealing with testing for toxins. They manufacture equipment that is the testing product for toxins in toys, in fuel and a number of items where they can save manufacturers in another realm a lot of money in the up-front part of their process.

And again, it's a high-tech operation where they had the investment and the partnership with the Federal Government so that we can do it smarter , not necessarily cheaper. We can do it smarter, and then we are competitive at the global marketplace.

Another venture was a state-of-the-art operation within the baby food industry. In my district, we have a new facility that qualifies for a silver status LEED building, a green building that has water efficiency and energy efficiency as a major aspect of the work they are doing, saving them cost of production and allowing them to stretch again that opportunity to translate it into jobs. Now, that was a government partnership to provide for water and energy efficiency, another sort of assistance we can provide manufacturing.

And then a third visit, if I might just share this one with you, was an outcome of the ARPA-E grant money that came with Recovery Act money. Now, get a load of this. Before I came to Congress, there was an opportunity for us to really do the ARPA-E program beyond just rhetoric, but the Bush Presidency just proclaimed we are going to have an ARPA-E program with never ever funding it. And finally, we had $800 million appear from the Recovery Act that went to the actual implementation of ARPA-E.

DARPA, the Defense-related advanced research project opportunities, created situations like Internet for the Defense system and stealth bombers. We took that success that goes back to the NASA days and now overlaid that into the energy thinking, into the energy realm.

And so ARPA-E, with its research project initiatives, is enabling this industry, SuperPower in Schenectady, another tour location, to advance superconductive cable and also storage for intermittent power.

Sure. It came right from the Recovery Act.

It is exactly the same thing. The majority in this House supported the Recovery Act.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no'' to progress.

Absolutely.

Well, let me tell you, Representative Garamendi, what this means is that with that recovery money, with the stimulus money that the Democrats support and the Republicans said ``no'' to, we were able to, for once now, finally, appropriate moneys for the science, the technology, and the basic research.

What they will do at SuperPower is develop that final model that will then be deployed into a manufacturing concept that will allow us to create the storage potential for exactly what you were talking about, solar energy and wind energy, which is intermittent in nature. If we get the storage issue, the battery issue resolved, it becomes even more powerful.

So it's not just about taking a garage idea and creating a manufactured product out of it, but it's also creating jobs, which then enables us to create better energy solutions.

So all of this, in a big picture format, is a whiz-kid idea where everybody from tradesmen to Ph.D.'s all get their hands in the action, where we develop a product line which requires manufacturing jobs, but then that product will enable us to respond more favorably and fully to the energy solutions that we can do here domestically and be more energy self-efficient and energy independent. It all comes together in a master plan that uses the American workers' intellect from skilled labor on over to the Ph.D. And it all happens with our saying ``yes'' to a partnership like that of the stimulus package.

I think not only is that true, but also I believe during the Bush Presidency there was a strong focus on a portion of our economy, on our jobs, and somewhat a weak commitment to other sectors. As we all know, when you break down the jobs or the economy issue, it's agriculture, it's manufacturing, and it's service sector. I think the emphasis on agriculture and manufacturing was extremely weak.

We see the problems in the agricultural community. I see them in my dairy sector in my district. It's painful to see the lack of attention that has been paid to a fair price for dairy farmers.

In manufacturing, it was ignored heavily. They wanted to, as I said, zero out MEP, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which produced a lot of success for X-Ray Opticals, where now they are exporting. But they put all their emphasis in the service sector, and where they did, they turned their back to regulation, to overview, to kind of stewardship of a sector of the economy that, when left to control itself, brought down, because of greed, the American economy, and it wreaked damage upon us.

So what I would say is that we need to put the focus back into manufacturing. The programs we have done here, after the damage that was allowed to occur, are now going to bring back a strong response to manufacturing. And I can't say well enough how strong the Democratic agenda has been here to grow the Make it in America campaign.

Make it in America is something that people have been asking for. And they can't understand, why is it our manufacturing can't work here? Well, we see where the intellect is being invested in, where we are growing a strong partnership with small business, the springboard to our economy. They are providing the great percentage of new jobs in our society.

So, finally, the Democrats bring a working agenda that will be a profitable situation for all of us with job creation and the kind of stability and local infusion that is essential after it was ignored for far too long.

I thank the gentleman.

I stand here this evening in strong support of H.R. 847. I want to commend my colleagues, Representatives Maloney, Nadler, Crowley and the entire delegation from New York in a bipartisan way for working on this bill.

It is so essential. Just hours, days after the attack on America, 9/ 11, I was at the time serving in the New York State Assembly. The Speaker of the State Assembly and a delegation of representatives from the House traveled to that site to show support to the workers.

I can still recall the pain and the anguish that surrounded that site. I can still see the determination in the eyes of the workers. I can still understand the sense of character, the efforts made, the strength, the courage, the bravery, the resilience of those workers.

If, in fact, we believe 9/11 is an attack on America, then we as an American public need to respond to the workers who showed the strength and the bravery to aid us in that very, very dark moment.

So I stand in support of H.R. 847 and ask that everyone in this House show support to the workers. They deserve our respect, our resources, and let's support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today just a few weeks in advance of the 75th anniversary of Social Security. This bedrock promise, earned with a lifetime of hard work, should be available for our Nation's seniors and future generations. However, my friends on the other side of the aisle are once again attempting to privatize Social Security.

Returning to previously rejected ideas, Republicans want to create a casino economy and play Russian roulette with your hard-earned benefits. If they had succeeded, for instance in 2005, seniors would have lost trillions more in the stock market meltdown of the Bush recession. Instead, nobody lost a penny of Social Security.

In the area that I represent, many people are hurting. Families and seniors are facing uncertainty and anxiety ranging from their mortgage payments, to credit card bills, and more. Let us not add to that anxiety by returning to failed ideas of the past. We must keep America moving forward.

There is a very clear choice here. We can hand the Social Security system over to Wall Street and continue raising anxiety, or we can strengthen the current system. I stand with our Nation's seniors to strengthen Social Security for the years to come.