Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work that they have done in putting this appropriation bill together.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, there is a bipartisan group of us that have been meeting on a regular basis with the inspector general for Afghanistan and Iraq. He has over 200 investigators trying to determine where the funds have gone for this Afghan infrastructure fund.

To hear the story, it breaks your heart. Of the last $100 billion that have been spent on Afghan infrastructure, they can't find where most of that money went. Why? Well, for several reasons. One is that Afghanistan is largely a cash economy. So if you want to do a project in any of the remote areas, you have to show up with a truckload full of cash.

Secondly, it is now certified as the most corrupt nation in the world. It is the number one narco-state in the world, supplying more heroin than the rest of the world combined. As the U.S. troops withdraw, there is no way to audit these funds, there is no way to inspect these funds, and it is an absolutely unmitigated prescription for unparalleled fraud.

It has got to stop, and today and tonight is the time to put an end to it. That is why I am offering my amendment here to stop any funds from going to this Afghan reconstruction fund.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, many of us here grew up in a time in this country when our parents and our politicians weren't afraid to invest in America.

I have been having a series of meetings, along with other Members here, with the inspector general for Afghanistan. He has 250 investigators. Of the last $100 billion in infrastructure that we have spent in Afghanistan, he can't find where the money has gone and/or where the projects have been completed.

Yet, here we are today, with bridges falling down, roads crumbling, and we are debating legislation that gives an 80 percent cut in our transportation needs, imposes severe restrictions onto a program that is so crucial to our long-term economic growth here in this country.

This program, the TIGER grant program, as you know, and the public needs to know, allows communities to compete for the funding of railroad upgrades, airport runways, highways, bridges, ports.

Recently, at a meeting with the Transportation Committee, we had about 10 transportation leaders from business and commerce before the committee, and I asked the question of every one of them--every one of them: Is there any disagreement here that our roads, our bridges are crumbling? No.

Make a note of it, Mr. Chairman.

Second question, is there anyone here who disagrees with the notion that this is jeopardizing our economic growth and our ability to create good-paying jobs and facilitate the advancement of business interests?

Nobody objects, Mr. Chairman. Make a note of it.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, is there anybody here--now, mind you, all of the Democrats and Republicans were there. Is there anybody here on this committee that rejects the notion that we need to find more revenue for our transportation, our infrastructure, not less? Nobody disagreed.

So where does this notion come from that we should pass an 80 percent reduction in our TIGER grant program? Clearly, someone is not listening to the business and commercial interests in this country, and they are making a tragic and serious mistake.

Recently, Duluth Harbor, in my district, was a recipient of a $10 million grant. As a result of that, we were able to restore an abandoned pier, dredge the harbor, so that the Great Lakes freighters could access it and extend the rail and the highway transportation accessing the terminal.

We are losing $3 billion in business income a year through the Great Lakes because we are 10 years behind on the dredging. The Lakers are only operating at 80 percent of capacity. We are talking about real jobs. We are talking about real business income. We are talking about our future as a Nation.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does contain some good and necessary increases in funding, such as the FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, but an 80 percent cut in this program that spurs innovation, that boosts American manufacturing, creates good-paying jobs, that is no way to invest in our future. That is no way to have a pro-growth, pro-jobs economy.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues: Let's come together here. We have common ground. Let's be bipartisan. Let's reject this 80 percent cut.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, my amendment prohibits construction of any projects in Afghanistan over $500,000--unless the U.S. Government can conduct proper audits, inspection, and oversight.

Up to $79 billion has been authorized for new projects in this bill, most of which are outside the area in which our personnel can travel and operate safely and therefore will most likely go uninspected and unaudited. To date, $60 billion of the $100 billion of these so-called nation-building projects are completely unaccounted for.

The blue area here in this first chart shows where our military and civilian personnel were allowed to travel and operate safely in the year 2009. The blue area in the second chart shows how dramatically the safe areas have been reduced.

Moreover, since traditional banking services do not exist in these non-blue, non-safe areas, contracts are financed with truckloads of cash. It is the perfect recipe for fraud, graft, and abuse. It is time to stop it. Our Nation's taxpayers and our soldiers deserve better.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act as a proud original cosponsor of the legislation.

I want to join the chorus of people here in their praise for Judge Poe and for Congresswoman Maloney for the tremendous work that they have done over a number of years bringing this important legislation forward; and, of course, to Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Scott likewise for bringing this forward.

It is too troubling to know that there are 300,000-some children that are being sold into sex trafficking in this country, and that there are only some 300 beds for them when attempts are made to rescue, as Judge Poe just pointed out. These children aren't in some foreign country. They are right here in our own backyards. These are our own children. We can do so much better.

While our national law enforcement officials are fighting this terrible scourge, there are many organizations like Men Against Trafficking in Duluth, Minnesota, in my own congressional district, who are out there providing safe harbor services for girls and boys that are rescued from this terrible scourge.

This legislation represents the fact that Congress recognizes that we can be of assistance in fighting this terrible scourge. We do so with this act--again, of which I am a proud cosponsor. But I am so proud of what Judge Poe and Carolyn Maloney have done on this.

What the bill does, it says that these children are the victims, they are not the criminal, as they have so often been treated in our society. They are the victims of child abuse, they are the victims of rape and violence and unmentionable crimes and terrible, terrible things. They are entitled to the protection, the medical services, the counseling, all that we can provide.

This bill establishes a Trafficking Victims' Fund, at no cost to the taxpayer, put on the backs of the real criminals in this: the johns, the rapists, the murderers.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I strongly urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, today, I rise to pay tribute to a former colleague, son of a miner, who rose to become the esteemed and respected chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--the longest-serving Member of Congress from the great State of Minnesota--my predecessor, our dear friend, Congressman Jim Oberstar.

Jim passed away quite unexpectedly over the weekend. My wife and I and several other Members of the House here were just with him on Wednesday night, and Jim was as fit as a fiddle, as fit as he has ever been.

I commented to another couple there that Jim does 1,000 pushups every day, in addition to riding his bike; and Jim laughed and said: No, I only do 100 pushups every day.

He was a remarkable person.

I am joined here today by my colleagues from Minnesota--Congressman Kline, Congresswoman McCollum, Congressmen Peterson, Walz, Paulsen, and Ellison--joining me in this brief tribute.

Mr. Speaker, Jim's respect in this House was really quite unparalleled. I recall one day last year when Jim came into the well of the House here and he was spotted by some of our colleagues. And someone started to applaud him, and the entire House burst into spontaneous applause--Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals. The only time I had ever seen anything like that happen before was when Hubert Humphrey walked into the House of Representatives, when he was on his death bed.

Jim had just a giant intellect, spoke numerous languages. He had a big heart. He was a passionate public servant and a man of enormous accomplishment. There is no question our Nation is a truly better, more decent, more compassionate place for every day that he served so selflessly, with such honor and dignity and good humor. We loved him dearly, and we will miss him terribly.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask that the House of Representatives observe a moment of silence to honor the incredible life of Chairman Jim Oberstar, our friend, our colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues concerned about our nation's aviation industry and the delicate balance in our international relations to the pending decision by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx regarding the application of Norwegian Air International for a Foreign Air Operators Certificate.

This important issue was addressed with utmost clarity recently by my friend, former U.S. Congressman Jim Oberstar in the following letter to Secretary Foxx. Jim Oberstar served in the U.S. House from 1975 to 2011 and was for many years Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He is known as the nation's leading expert on Domestic and International Transportation issues. Former Congressman Oberstar urges Secretary Foxx to reject the Norwegian Air International Application.

April 28, 2014.

Hon. Anthony Foxx,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: I have watched with great interest the

public debate over the application of Norwegian Air

International (NAI) for a foreign air operator's certificate

from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). As a former

chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, it is my strongly held view that the approval of

NAI's application would run contrary to the U.S.-EU Air

Transport Agreement and the labor article embodied in the

agreement, and contrary to the best interests of U. S.

commercial aviation. I respectfully urge you to reject NAI's

application.

During my 36 years of service in the U.S. House of

Representatives on the committee of jurisdiction over

international aviation trade issues, I witnessed dramatic

changes in the U.S. and global airline industries. Beginning

with deregulation in 1978 and continuing through the modern

era of mergers, code sharing, anti-trust-immunized alliances,

and expansive Open Skies agreements, much of the airline

industry today is globally interconnected; U.S. airlines and

their employees are directly impacted by the actions of

foreign competitors more than ever before. During my tenure

of watchfulness over the U.S. aviation industry, I sought to

ensure that liberalization was pursued in bi-lateral

agreements which assured a balance of benefits with our

international trade partners, protecting the integrity,

safety, and competitiveness of the U.S. aviation system.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. government began negotiating

bilateral Air Transport, or Open Skies agreements that were

intended to open aviation markets, promote competition and

tourism, create jobs and increase consumer choice for

international travel. These Open Skies agreements are

qualitatively different from other trade agreements which

deal with services in that they

are almost exclusively bilateral. As such, they reflect a

balance of benefits for the U.S. and our trade partner, often

with in-country and beyond operating rights, and they are

overseen by the Departments of State, Transportation, and

Justice, rather than the United States Trade Representative.

Given the complexity and size of the U.S. aviation market--

which accounts for over half of the world's aviation

marketplace--retention of this model is necessary to ensure

that the exchange in air traffic rights is done in a way that

promotes strong safety, labor and working condition

standards, while also ensuring an equitable competitive

environment for U.S. airlines. Critical to achieving this

goal has long been the continued enforcement of U.S. foreign

ownership and control and cabotage laws, along with strong

U.S. DOT and DOJ regulatory oversight.

The negotiation of the U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement, which

began in the middle of the last decade, presented many unique

challenges. While the European Union is an economic and

political union of 28 member states, each of these states has

retained its respective governmental aviation regulatory

authority. Therefore, rather than dealing with a single

aviation regulatory body and one set of labor and social laws

as we had with previous agreements, we were dealing with

multiple aviation regulatory authorities and sets of labor

and social laws. While there are base standards for safety

and labor laws, the individual nation-state laws still differ

widely.

Given the unique nature of negotiating with the EU, many of

my colleagues and I were concerned about proposed changes in

regulatory structure that would allow any EU airline to

operate from any point in the EU to any point in the U.S. and

to establish subsidiaries in other EU states. Despite this

``European status'' for operating and corporate rights, there

was no EU-wide law that governed key labor-management

relations aspects of these airlines. Instead, these aspects--

such as selection of bargaining representatives and contract

negotiations--were, and continue to be, subject to the

national labor laws of the respective European countries.

During the negotiations, EU representatives expressed

concern that such an arrangement could lead to ``forum

shopping'' where European airlines would seek to operate out

of countries with less robust labor and social laws. This

could allow airlines to seek the lowest common denominator in

terms of labor and regulatory standards thereby lowering

their own operating costs but driving down standards

throughout the EU. In other words, the EU was concerned that

new airlines could be launched using a NAI-like business

model.

This concern led negotiators to include in the agreement

Article 17 bis (``Social Dimension''), which states that

``the opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended

to undermine labour standards or the labour-related rights

and principles contained in the Parties' respective laws.''

It further states that ``the principles in paragraph 1 shall

guide the Parties as they implement the Agreement.'' The fact

that there was no equivalent to Article 17 bis in any of the

previous Open Skies agreements with EU member states is a

direct acknowledgement of the challenges posed by the

regulatory and legal arrangement within the EU.

Article 17 bis was a critical factor in the ``Agreement''.

I applauded its inclusion as an important and necessary step

in protecting against the use of market-opening aviation

trade agreements to lower labor standards throughout the

transatlantic aviation market: the largest aviation trade

market in the world.

Today, in light of NAI's application for a foreign air

operator's certificate, as well as the plethora of public

comments that the DOT has received on this application, I

believe that the inclusion of Article 17 bis and the concerns

that led to its inclusion were particularly prescient.

Mr. Secretary, you and the DOT International policy staff

are familiar with the details of NAI's application and

business model, but key facts are worth repeating: NAI is a

subsidiary of Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS), a low-cost

European carrier based out of Norway. When Norway became a

signatory of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement in 2011, NAS

was afforded the same access to air traffic rights under that

agreement as other EU carriers. Rather than expand its

operations with its existing corporate structure, its

workforce and collective bargaining agreements, NAS created

NAI and proceeded to register its long-haul aircraft in

Ireland and obtain an Irish Air Operator's Certificate--

effectively becoming an Irish airline despite the fact that

it has no announced plans to operate in Ireland.

This move allowed NAS to expand its long-haul operations

through NAI, but also to escape Norway's social laws and to

evade existing collective bargaining agreements with its

Norwegian pilots and flight attendants. For example, NAI's

pilots are based in Thailand and employed under individual

employment contracts that are covered by the laws of

Singapore. These pilots are then contracted to NAI. The

individual employment contracts prevent collective

bargaining, and allow NAI to drastically reduce labor costs

and gain an unfair competitive advantage over U.S. and

European carriers who currently operate in the transatlantic

market. The workforce arrangement for flight attendants is

still evolving, but what I have learned is that NAI is hiring

and basing its cabin crewmembers outside of its home country

in what is clearly a plan to secure substandard wages and

working conditions and to blatantly evade its collective

bargaining obligations in Norway. NAI is pursuing, quite

simply, what in maritime law is called a ``Flag of

Convenience'' strategy.

NAI has not denied that it registered in Ireland to avoid

the application of Norwegian labor laws to its crews. Other

economic justifications presented for selecting Ireland over

other possible places to incorporate, the validity of which

also have been effectively rebutted by several opponents,

appear to be intended to distract from this central and

undisputed motivation. The company is thus taking advantage

of the opportunities provided by the U.S.-EU Open Skies

Agreement in order to lower its own labor costs and undercut

the competition, the very scenario that EU negotiators feared

when Article 17 bis was included in the U.S.-EU agreement.

I believe that the evidence and arguments submitted in the

public docket provide the Department with ample justification

to deny the application.

During my years of service on the House Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, conducting vigorous

oversight of international aviation trade, I learned that

liberalization and market expansion could provide numerous

benefits to consumers, open business opportunities for U.S.

carriers and create jobs. But I also observed that effective

market expansion required the thoughtful and careful approach

of balancing reduced trade barriers with the assurance of

fair competition and the public interest. We understand the

strategic and economic significance of the U.S. airline

industry to our nation's well-being, and further understand

the unique challenges inherent in implementing the expansive

and complicated U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement in a productive

and responsible manner.

With this background, I believe that this is an important

inflection point for how we as a nation project and secure

America's role in the global aviation marketplace. The

negotiators for both sides in the U.S.-EU Open Skies

Agreement negotiations understood the risks and adverse

consequences that irresponsible liberalization could pose to

the airline industries and workforces on both sides of the

Atlantic. They resisted deliberate efforts to dismantle the

U.S. ownership and control and cabotage laws, and they

included, for the first time ever, a labor article in the

final agreement. In doing so, they made an unmistakable

statement that the terms of competition must not be set by

those who would seek to gain an unfair advantage at the

expense of quality jobs and high labor standards.

The Department should implement the Agreement in the spirit

of Article 17 bis and concern for both fair competition and

balanced trade benefits. Were NAI to be allowed to operate as

proposed, the dynamic of transatlantic aviation competition

will be changed for the worse, creating a situation where

Flags of Convenience become the norm, not the exception.

I urge you to reject the NAT application, and thereby

uphold the spirit and intent of the U.S.-EU Open Skies

Agreement and Article 17 bis. Thank you for your

consideration of my views on this vital international

aviation policy issue.

Sincerely,

Jim Oberstar, M.C.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present and voting on rollcall vote No. 184 (Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4486) I would have voted ``no.''

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

Where I come from, we believe that for those who we send into harm's way to protect and serve us in defense of our freedoms, we have a profound obligation to protect and serve them upon their return.

Last year's Military Construction and Veterans Administration bill did not do enough to fulfill this promise. Therefore I'm glad that this bill is an improvement.

This year's bill: increases funding for vital veterans programs here at home by $1.5 billion; significantly decreases unnecessary new military construction projects in places all around the world--new projects that the Pentagon itself says are not wanted and not needed; this bill comes closer to fully funding veterans mental health programs; as well as vital health care programs for the more than 3 million veterans living in rural communities; increases funding for technology to reduce the notorious backlog at the VA.

Mr. Chair, I rise specifically today to bring to light my grave concerns with the Regional Command-Southwest Command and Control facility in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

This facility offers 64,000 square feet of space for more than 1,000 military personnel, including accommodations for a three-star general.

Standing two stories tall, this windowless facility is larger than a football field, and was completed in 2013 at a cost of approximately $34 million.

According to Special Inspector General to Afghanistan John Sopko, this building is the ``Taj Mahal'' of command centers.

The unconscionable fact about this building, however--is that the military has no plans to use it.

Area commanders insisted three years ago that they did not need this building. They were in the middle of troop withdrawal, and they saw no reason to move in.

In Mr. Sopko's words, ``this is an example of what is wrong with military construction in general--once a project is started, it is very difficult to stop.''

Mr. Chair, we simply cannot allow any projects like this--projects that the Pentagon itself says are unnecessary--to receive funding from this Congress. It's shameful, it's wasteful, and it needs to stop.

American veterans of foreign wars like Afghanistan are sleeping under bridges--going without the life-saving health care and mental health services they deserve and so desperately need--and waiting for sometimes years for the VA to finally process their benefits claims.

Yet, during last year's debate on this bill, Republicans in the House rejected my amendment that would have doubled funding for veterans hospitals--and would have provided for extra personnel to address this atrocious backlog.

It is simply unconscionable that we allow this to go on while literally throwing billions of dollars away on buildings standing empty overseas.

Where is the outcry in this House? Where is the shock--where is the shame?

It is time we end these unsustainable wars of choice. It is time we cut back on our military footprint in unnecessary outposts around the world. It is time we prioritize those brave men and women whom we send into harm's way to protect us.

When it comes to these brave men and women, we must do everything in our power--we must leave no stone unturned to assure our nation's veterans have the very best medical care--counseling--housing--job training--and all the educational opportunities a grateful nation can provide.

Only the very best is good enough. That is how we keep our promise to our nation's veterans.

In closing, Mr. Chair, once again I commend those of us in the House who have fought for increases to veterans programs here at home, and for those of us in the House who are dedicated to ending these costly and terrible wars abroad.

And I strongly urge you and all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to continue to give veterans the benefits they so rightfully deserve now and in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Levin, for this Special Order and for bringing to the attention of our colleagues and the country the importance of providing unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are struggling and who are in danger of losing their homes and the ability to feed their families.

As a businessman over the last 32 years, I would like to point out to these people who somehow like to characterize these people as scofflaws who don't want to work and remind them that you don't qualify for unemployment insurance unless you are a worker and have found yourself unemployed by virtue of circumstances you had no control over.

You are so right that this is the right thing to do. It is bipartisan, and there is a pay-for here. We should have the good judgment and the decency to extend the unemployment insurance for these people. So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address another issue, and it is the fact that most of us here in the Congress grew up at a time when our leaders weren't afraid to invest in our country, to invest in human development, and because of them, education was affordable. Guess what? That is no longer true.

Now we are faced with a Ryan budget that cuts Pell grants for poor and needy kids who would like to get a postgraduate education.

Medicare. Nothing has ever done more to extend the lives of more people than Medicare. In a little over a generation, we went from a nation with a life expectancy of about 47 to over 77. What does the Ryan budget do with

Medicare? It eliminates it as we know it. It turns the elderly back over to the insurance industry.

Our leaders in the past invested in transportation, in health, in education. They created the strongest economy and the strongest and largest middle class in the history of the world, and now our bridges are falling down. What does the Ryan budget do? It cuts funding for transportation.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. The simple truth is that the Ryan budget guts funding for all of the investments that created and were responsible for the incredible national and individual success that our generation has enjoyed. It cuts everything from Head Start to health to essential air service, funding for basic research for health and technology--so many of the things that made us a great Nation. Now, after being the beneficiaries of what our generation before us did, we don't want to invest in the future of our children and their children.

It is time for a budget that acknowledges the real foundations of our prosperity, of our opportunities, and of our freedom here in this country. Let's put forth a budget that shows our gratitude for the next generation. Let's pay it forward. Let's be mindful of how many important things that leaders in the past did for us in laying this foundation. Where I come from there is a wonderful, old Biblical saying that says, ``For those to whom much is given, much is expected''--not less but more. Let's do for the next generation what the past generation did for us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 494, a bill to reaffirm the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

I am proud to say I have long supported the Taiwan-American relationship, perhaps longer than most Members of Congress serving today. In fact, I cosponsored H. Res. 494 on March 13 of this year, exactly 35 years to the day after I voted in this chamber to support the original Taiwan Relations Act in 1979.

At that time, during the height of the Cold War, the United States was an essential ally and friend of Taiwan. Even as our nation sought to normalize relations with Mainland China, we were not about to abandon friends and allies, going back to the darkest days of World War

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague Dan Kildee's efforts to reinstate the health care tax credit. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the House Republicans under yet another closed rule.

Having served in this Congress at an earlier time in my life, I am astonished how undemocratic this institution has become. Back in the day, if you had an amendment, you got an opportunity to offer it. You had an opportunity to debate it until all the debate was exhausted and then you had an opportunity to vote on it. What a tragedy that the people's House seems to hardly be a democratic institution any longer.

When this program that I am talking about here, the health care tax credit, expired in January, thousands of retired workers on the Iron Range in my district of Minnesota saw their pensions cut in half. These are former employees of companies like LTV and National Steel--giants in American manufacturing. Some of these hardworking men and women are responsible for pulling America out of the Great Depression, helping us win World War II, supplying the world with superior products made in America.

Mr. Speaker, let us have a vote. Let's start opening up the rules in this Chamber.

Mr. Chair, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 82, (on agreeing to the DeSantis amendment), I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Moore

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I want to associate myself with your remarks and those of the gentleman from California regarding what has happened at Volkswagen and the importance of the union movement in this country.

If anyone wants to know where the economic success of the middle class in this country has come from, you just need to follow the union movement. As the union movement grew and strengthened, so did the middle class and jobs and opportunities, and as we have seen the decline in recent years, we have seen a similar decline in income and jobs and opportunities.

If anyone thinks for one moment that elections don't have consequences,

they need to take a look at their history.

I come from the Iron Range. We have got a lot of mining and steelworkers up there. Back in 1948, if you will allow me to just do a little history here, and leading up to that, the steelworkers union proposed contracts that would allow them to negotiate pensions and health care benefits, and wouldn't you know, the NLRB, in 1947, said, no, you can't do that. That is not okay. That is off the table. That is not a subject for negotiation.

Guess what?

Not many people had pension benefits and health care at the time.

Well, it became a big issue in the 1948 election, and Harry Truman, as we all know, won the election.

Well, guess what? He had the opportunity to appoint a number of people to the NLRB, and that issue was brought before the NLRB again. And guess what? This time, the NLRB ruled that, no, it is appropriate for unions to negotiate for pensions, to negotiate for health care benefits; and that is a result of an election contest and the union movement, coming together, was a genesis of a generation that had prosperity and opportunities--perhaps unparalleled--anywhere in the history of this country.

I have submitted, back when my generation entered into the employment market, if you were going to be a failure, you had to have a plan. There was just such an abundance of opportunities, and I am sometimes ashamed and embarrassed that my generation doesn't want to step up and do for this generation and the next generation what was done for us.

So I commend you for what you are doing here today, and I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We could go on, and we could add more to the litany of the things that are causing the rest of us to subsidize the businesses in this country.

And I know about business. I spent the last 32 years of my life in business. I am a business guy. It breaks my heart to see working men and women having to go to the food shelves to get food to feed their family.

So I rise here tonight to talk about the minimum wage just briefly. You know, we hear about all these millions of new jobs that have been created in recent years. One of my constituents said to me the other day: You know, it is a darn good thing we have created millions of new jobs because a guy needs two or three of them to make a living.

Well, that is, in fact, what is happening; and it is of small comfort to someone who is working these minimum wage jobs to know that, if they can put two or three of them together, they can provide for their family, make the rent payment, the mortgage payment, buy the groceries and clothing for the kids; but you put in two or three jobs, there is no time left for the family.

A minimum wage increase is pro-family. It is pro-American. It is the foundation of what made this country the great country that it is.

Mr. Speaker, I hear all the time in my district, as I travel and stop at the cafes and the filling stations and the convenience stores, about these people that are working two and three jobs just to make ends meet, all because our minimum wage is simply not enough to take care of our families.

The lack of a decent and fair minimum wage is unfair to families. It is unfair to children. It is unfair to the elderly. It is unfair to the hardworking mothers and fathers, men and women in this country who go to work every day, providing the goods and services that we need so that we can continue on the path of the great Nation that we have been.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we raise this minimum wage. Where I come from, morality and ethics dictated. If someone is willing to go to work every day and every week and every month to provide essential goods and services for the rest of us and this Nation, they are entitled to a wage that would allow them to live with a modicum of comfort and dignity. That is what this is all about.

So, Mr. Speaker, let us vote on this issue. You know what the outcome will be. We will increase the minimum wage if we are given an opportunity to vote on it here in this House. I know there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats who will vote to do that. Let's restore democracy to this institution.

Let's allow this matter to be brought before the House. Let's have a vote on it. Let's give America a pay raise now. It is desperately needed.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and Members of the House.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in support of the President, the Republicans, and the Democrats in this institution and across this country who want an end to the war in Afghanistan. It has cost us trillions of dollars that we can ill-afford.

There has been $100 billion spent on infrastructure, yet the inspector general cannot find where the money has gone nor where the projects have been completed. There is $30 billion in the pipeline now. We need to end that.

We need to bring all the troops home. Bring them home now. Save that money. Put it toward deficit reduction and investing in America--our roads, our bridges, our schools, our health care system. Our priorities demand it and require it.

Afghanistan is now the most corrupt nation in the world. Afghanistan supplies more illegal drugs to the rest of the world than all of the rest of the nations combined. It is time to end our involvement and stop this shameful waste of America's taxpayer treasure and our patriots' blood.

Thank you, Mr. Pocan. I want to commend you for the tremendous service that you have been providing, bringing to the attention the important issues that relate to the working men and women in this country.

In particular, I want to address the failure to renew emergency unemployment benefits. Clearly, it is unconscionable. It is unforgivable.

As you and our other colleagues have pointed out, it is bad economics, and the characterization of these people as somehow being scofflaws that don't want to work is the cruelest and most unfair part of all of this.

We need to remind ourselves that, in order to be eligible for unemployment compensation, you have to have been a worker. You have to have gone to work every day, and you could not have left your job voluntarily. You could not have been removed from your job for fault.

You were a good worker who, by virtue of facts that you had no control over, lost your job, but you were someone who was willing to go to work every day.

In the 32 years in my little hiatus between when I served and when I came back, I engaged all that in business, and I employed anywhere from 25 to 50 people at all times.

We paid unemployment insurance because we know, in business, the cycles that flow, and from time to time, layoffs are necessary, and I was always happy to pay that unemployment insurance, knowing that these good people who showed up for work for me every day had some protection in the event of circumstances that were beyond my control and their control.

To deny these benefits is so unconscionable. It is such bad public policy. It is so unforgivable.

We are leaving 4.9 million people out there, and I remind everyone again, workers, that they are going to lose the benefits that they earned, that they insured themselves against, together with their fellow workers and employers.

Here they are. Maybe they are going to lose their home because maybe they

can't make their mortgage payments. They may be thrown into a diabetic coma because they can't buy their medicine, have to watch their children go hungry because they can't afford to buy food. That is not us. That is not America. We know better than that.

So I implore my fellow colleagues and our Speaker to bring this unemployment benefit extension before the House so that we can have a vote on it. Because I have no doubt that with the heart and the goodwill that is in this House, we will extend them. We will extend those benefits because we know for a fact that the simple truth is, there is only one job for every three people that are out there, and until we put together the pro-growth, pro-jobs economy that we need to put everybody back to work, we need to provide those who are in need and who have earned the benefits and are workers in our society the benefits so that they can take care of their families and their needs. If the Speaker will allow this to come up for a vote, I predict there is enough goodwill here among both Democrats and Republicans that we will pass this.

So, Mr. Pocan, thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you are watching. Let us have a vote on this. We will pass it. We will do the right thing.