to the american people. they forced down the throats of the american public a bill which is now law that was designed to fail. designed to fail, america. why do i say that? it was designed to push people off of private health insurance. designed to push people into a, what's now called a public exchange. that's going to force people into more and more government. it's designed to lead us just before obamacare was passed into law that he said he wanted to go. where everybody in this country would be on one insurance policy. one pool is what he said. that means socialized medicine, where bureaucrats here in washington, d.c., direct the health care for everybody in this country, that tell doctors

like myself -- i'm a general practice doctor -- how to practice medicine, who we can give care to, what tests we can do. and in fact, right now today the federal government tells me and other physicians across this country whether we can admit a patient that's on medicare to the hospital or not. it's not determined by the doctor and the patient. it's determined by a government bureaucrat that's not a doctor, not even a nurse or even a health care professional. but more importantly, what is obamacare going to do? i spoke to just recently the head of a manufacturing entity in my district in rural north georgia that hires over 400 people and he said, paul, the tax burden obamacare is going to put on me as a businessman, with all the big government

programs, the stimulus bill and bailouts and taking over the private sector, he said, paul, i'm trying to find a place to move my company offshore away from america. think about that, mr. speaker. if we continue down this road that this leadership and the democrats are leading us down, that plant will close. over 400 people in rural north georgia will be put out of work , they're going to lose their jobs. in fact, we knew that while we were discussing obamacare. we knew that it was estimated by experts that at least five million americans to 5 1/2 million americans were going to lose their jobs strictly because of obamacare, and that has not changed.

we must repeal it and replace it with something else. i introduced a bill, h.r. 3889, comprehensive health care reform system, totally constitutional. according to the original intent of the constitution. totally in the private sector. would radcally lower the cost of health insurance to everybody in this country. would solve most all of the problems with portability and uninsureability,est, would leave the doctor and -- etc., would leave the doctor and patient in control of their relationship. 106 pages. not like obamacare was. it's simple. you can read it and understand what that bill says. i -- our speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, says we have to pass obamacare to find out what's in it. last week we heard of this financial reform bill that we

got to pass it to find out what's in it. the american people got to deserve more, mr. speaker. they deserve to know what's in a bill. they need to -- and deserve how it will affect them. mr. speaker, we are killing jobs by bill after bill by bigger government program by bigger government program. it's going to hurt our economy, destroy our economy, and we are borrowing from our children and our grandchildren's future. mr. speaker, our children and grandchildren are going -- they are probably going to live at a lower standard than we live today if we don't stop this outrageous spending that's been going on ever since nancy pelosi has been speaker of this house. and even more so since president obama has been in office. it's got to stop. it's got to stop.

now, i've done many americaspeakingout town hall meetings all over the 10th congressional district in georgia just listening to my constituency. i've done these in small groups. we've done big town hall meetings. we've gone into factories and asked factories and companies to speak out and to tell us what we should be doing in congress right now today. in fact, i went to the coca-cola plant in athens, georgia, and spoke to the employees there and asked them to speak to me and encourage them to go on americaspeakingout.com. i did a town hall meeting in athens, which is the most liberal county in my district. in fact, politically it's a speck of blue and sea of red. very democratic county. it's where the university of georgia is. it's a very liberal county.

i did a americaspeakingout town hall meeting there. i told anybody to come because i wanted to hear. that's what americaspeakingout's all about. we want to hear what america thinks we should be dealing with here in congress. and offer suggestions of how to create jobs. we're asking, where are the jobs? the policies that's being brought by the democratic majority are taking away jobs. i already told you how obamacare will eventually put over five million americans out of work, mr. speaker just because of that one bill. the stimulus bill is going to put people out of work. it's put a few people to work. more government employees than private sector employees. but we're asking america to

speak out, to go on americaspeakingout.com, tell us what we should be doing here in congress today, to offer suggestions, to vote on suggestions that are already made or comments already made. america can make their own comments. these are just some of the things that -- these are sheets, actually, that my staff wrote to suggestions of legislation that people in the 10th congressional district of georgia suggested that we do. no energy tax. boy, i call it tax and trade. my democratic colleagues call it cap and trade. but it's about taxes. in fact, the president himself said that his energy tax, the tax and trade bill is necessary

to fund obamacare. it's all about revenue. the experts tell us that the national energy tax is not going to reduce carbon emissions worldwide. it's going to hurt our economy and it's going to put millions of americans out of work. and americans understand that and they said, no to the energy tax. no to the finance bill that was just signed into law this week. defund obamacare. no to seerblized medicine. repeal obamacare. pass alternatives to health care reform. i'd love to see my bill, h.r. 3889, be put into play. in fact, i reintroduced it as repeal obamacare to repeal all of this onerous bill, onerous law that's being to lead to socialized medicine in the country that the president said he wants to go to and replace it with something in the

private sector to maintain the doctor-patient relationship and to lower the cost of health care for everybody. alternatives to health care reform. keeping bills germane. even the liberals has said in athens, georgia, said we need to have germane. in other words, we shouldn't attach bills to things that aren't germane to the bills. in fact, we're waiting on the senate amendments to the emergency appropriations, they call it war sup bill, war supplemental bill, only $33 billion of that $75 billion has to do with the military and war supplemental. all the rest of it, all the rest of that $75 billion is bigger government programs, bigger spending that the democratic majority pushed through. americans, liberals, conservatives, independents,

republicans, democrats have told me keep bills germane. no to cap and trade. i can go on down this list, but the overwhelming thing i heard, mr. speaker, where are the jobs? what are we going to do to create jobs in the private sector? and i've heard my democratic colleagues just speak over and over again about how great this stimulus -- stimulus bill has been. it's been abject -- an abject failure. where are the jobs, mr. speaker? where are the jobs, mr. president? where are the jobs, my colleagues on the democratic side? they're not there. and in fact the policies and the spending that we see going on over and over again from bill after bill since this president has taken office will actually take away jobs and it's going to push jobs and manufacturers to go overseas.

i asked one manufacturer and said, what can we do to hire employees? he said, lower my corporate income tax rate. well, my democratic colleagues say that we need to tax the rich so we need to keep those corporate tax rates high. mr. speaker, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. it's 35%. second only to japan. and in fact i talked to manufacturer to manufacturer and they tell me, paul, if you just lower my corporate tax rate to 25% that would help me in being able to create jobs in my company. just lower it 10%. mr. speaker, i think corporate tax rates should be zero. in fact, mr. speaker, not only should corporate tax rates be zero but dividend taxes should

be zero, death taxes should be zero, capital gains taxes should be zero. we should have an immediate write-off of capital expenditure for businesses. not have this prolonged depreciation schedule that the internal revenue service code forces us into. they have to write the check. they should be able to write it all. if we could change just the tax law we would create jobs. and in fact i introduced h.r. 4100, the jobs act. my jobs act is an acronym for jump-start our business sector. and what it would do for two years it would cut in half the payroll tax for businesses as well as for individuals. it would lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. it would suspend the death tax, suspend the dividend taxes for two years, and it would lower the two lowest income tax

brackets down to 10% and 5% respectively. and if you think about that, mr. speaker, what would that do from a monetary perspective? what it would do is leave dollars in the hands of small businesses and it would leave dollars in the hands of the american public, the consumers. that would give the small businesses the opportunity to expand their business, to buy inventory, to modernize, to hire new employees. and it would give dollars to the consumers so they could buy the goods and services that they need. it would give some stability to our economic situation so we don't see the stock market jumping up and down as we do today. looks like a yo-yo. why is that? because there's so much uncertainty. and why is there uncertainty out there? it's because of what this

congress and nancy pelosi and company are doing right here and what barack obama is proposing for more and more government, more and more of the federal government taking over the private sector. uncertainty is creating a lot of fear. i've had businesses, small businesses, large businesses in my district tell me they're sitting on cash but they're afraid to hire new employees. why? because of obamacare, because of the debt, because of the outrageous spending, because of the financial -- so-called financial reform bill that was signed into law this week. they're afraid and i don't blame them. i've said in multiple floor speeches here that we have a steamroller of socialism being driven by nancy pelosi, harry reid and fueled by barack obama. we need to put that steamroller

of socialism in a parking lot. and if we would do so, if we put the steamroller of socialism that my democratic colleagues are driving, if we put that in a parking lot, we put certainty back in the financial sector and receive a growth in our economy. but with that uncertainty that our leadership of this house and the senate and the president are giving to the private sector, we're going to see the business sectser -- sector afraid. afraid to hire new people. some economists say we're fixing to go into a great depression. in fact, some even say we're going into a depression worse than we saw in the previous great depression. i hope and pray not. i pray that god prevents that. but whether we do or don't, i know this, the simple truth is, bigger government, bigger

government spending, more debt being created for our children and grandchildren that have to pay is not going to solve the economic problems of our country. we've got to stop the outrageous spending here that congress has been doing. that this administration's doing. that the previous administration was doing. i wasn't here during the first six years of the bush administration, i was elected in 2007. but i voted against the tarp bill, the toxic asset relief program, because i thought it was wrong. it hasn't helped. the second traunch that president obama forced through the congress, it hasn't helped. taking over g.m. and chrysler hasn't helped. taking over the student loan program, taking over the health care system hasn't helped. the stimulus bill has been an abject failure by and large, the

company that makes these huge signs to proclaim that barack obama and his policies are the messiah which cost lord only knows how much has helped that company but it hasn't helped the american taxpayer. it hasn't helped small businesses around this country by and large. americaspeakingout gives the american people the opportunity to give us ideas about what they think, what america thinks about what we should be doing now to solve the problems. you see, i'm excited about the so-called tea party movement in this country. i've spoken to many tea party rallies. but, mr. speaker, there's a great misunderstanding, particularly in the press, particularly with my liberal friends, what the tea party is all about. we started a tea party caucus just this week.

i was one of the original signers of membership into the tea party caucus. and i've done a number of interviews. just yesterday i did one on fox. i just did one this afternoon. i've done many interviews recently and it's very apparent to me and it's apparent to many of the questions that were asked during the news conference that we held yesterday after the tea party caucus started that there's a tremendous misunderstanding, particularly by my liberal colleagues and by the press, about what the tea party movement is all about. and i'm excited about it. the tea party simply is this, it's freedom-loving americans, people who just basically want to live their lives without all the government intrusion. they're t'd off.

and they see the so-called jobs bill that my democratic colleagues keep bringing to the floor of the house, i've already mentioned my jobs act which is an acronym for jump start our business sector, i believe every one of the so-called jobs bill that my democratic colleagues have introduced is an acronym for just one big slush fund because that's what it seems to be. but the american people are angry. they're angry about not being listened to. they're angry about seeing their freedom being taken away, their jobs being taken away. the previous speaker during the five minutes was touting how great the stimulus act has been. but it's not been great. they have to try to spin how disastrous the stimulus bill has

been. it's not created very many jobs. it's created some but not very many and certainly not very many in the private sector. the american people are asking, where are the jobs? when are we going to get this economy back on course? we've seen by a liberal icon, my democratic colleagues, one of their icons, one of this country's icons, john f. kennedy , considered to be very liberal at the time. today they call him a whackow, a crazy man, because he proposed tax cuts. i hear from my democratic colleagues that they want to tax the rich, they want to tax them even more. well, who are the rich? it's the small businesses of this country. most business men and women file their taxes as a sub-s corporation which means they

file their business taxes on personal income taxes. my democratic colleagues say they're making too much money, we wanted here to create a bigger socialistic government and quheas that going to do? it's -- and what's that going to do? it's going to kill jobs. it's going to take jobs away from millions of americans. and my democratic colleagues want to tax small business to the hilt. they're not happy with the high tax rates that small businesses are already suffering from. they want more taxes on the so-called rich, the rich of the little mom and pop grocery stores, the little hardware stores, the small community businesses, it's not the wal-marts, the at&t's, the

boings, those aren't small businesses. but we have developed a policy and the policy of the democratic majority is antibusiness, it's antifreedom, it's antijob creation. why do they want to do that? it's because they believe, in my opinion, that government's the solution to everything. you see, they think, in my opinion, that government has to tell them how to run every aspect of their lives. i'll give you some examples. we've already seen where our democratic colleagues want to tell us how much salt we can have in our food. i'm a physician and i have prescribed low salt diets to my patients. i don't use salt. i hardly ever pick up a salt shaker. i don't even saltwater melon or eggs -- salt watermelon or eggs

or tomatoes and i know as a physician we have plenty of salt for most of our body needs unless somebody has a particular reason that they lose salt in an abnormal way. even athletes for the most part don't need salt. when i was playing football in high school our coach would give us salt tabulates. that was absolutely the wrong thing to do. but my colleagues want to say they want to control salt in our food. they say they want to control what kind of light bulbs we can put, in fact, that's what they've done. what kind of light bulbs we can have in our lamps at home. they want to tell us what kind of cars we can drive. how much water comes out of our shower heads. they want to control every aspect of our lives, mr. speaker, every aspect.

there's a word for that, mr. speaker, that word is socialism. central control from washington, d.c.. we've had a greater takeover of the private sector since barack obama's been the president of the united states than hugo chavez, we've had a greater takeover of the private sector in this administration than the communist dictator hugo chavez has nationalized the private sector in venezuela. that's a shock to most people when you tell them that. but that's factual. we've had a greater takeover of the private sector under president obama than hugo chavez has done in venezuela. it's got to stop. the american people are understanding that. they're sick and tired of it. they want their freedom back. they want their nation back. they want their jobs back.

they're asking, where are the jobs? when are we going to put our economy back on the right to rack? that's what we're asking here -- right track? that's what we're asking here as republicans. we've got to stop this policy of bigger government, higher taxes, more intrusion in people's lives. and, mr. speaker, that's all we've seen over and over again from the democratic majority. and in fact not all democrats believe in that. i'll give you an example. during the debate on obamacare, i proposed, in fact, i wrote an op ed along with congressman dent and congressman chadding, one's from pennsylvania, one's from arizona, challenging our democratic colleagues to introduce the democratic bill that i had the language, all they had to do was write their name of the sponsor in a blank and introduce it. the democratic bill, they could

claim it to be obamacare, would do four things. cross state line purchases for businesses and individuals. number two, anybody in this country could join an association pool. all across the country, multiple association, to have the opportunity to buy and own their own health insurance through the association. number three, tone courage states to set up high risk pools to cover those who are uninsurable. and number four, to have tax fairness so that everybody in this country could deduct their health care off their income taxes. i had democrat after democrat tell me this, paul, that makes sense. it really makes sense. but i can't do it. i can't do it because my leadership would punish me if i did. if i introduced that bill and tried to push it through the

democratic caucus my leadership would punish me for doing so. i was told by democrat after democrat that they were focusing on only one thing and that's obamacare as we know it. the debate was over whether we were going to have a robust public option, a public option not so robust or a public exchange and that's what we wound up getting. which is actually a public option lite. public option on a diet. all three of those are geared and guaranteed to force everybody in this country into a government-controlled health insurance program controlled from washington, d.c. the only bipartisan vote on obamacare was no. we had democrats and republicans voting no. every republican voted no.

75% of america said no but we have it now as law. because ms. pelosi and the democratic leadership are not listening to america. they're not listening to america when america says, where are the jobs? we're doing, that i'm doing that, i hold americaspeakingout town hall meetings. republicans are going to be doing that all over this country during this august district work period. we want to hear from america. i encourage every american who is concerned about where we're going as a nation, is concerned about public policy, whether you're a democrat or a republican, independent, whether you're a liberal or a conservative, whether you consider yourself a moderate, i'm encouraging everybody in this country to go to americaspeakingout.com and speak out, give us your ideas about

how to solve the problems, the economic problems. give us your idea about how to solve this unemployment problem. i want to hear, that's the reason i've done many, i've even lost count, somewhere between 10 and 20 americaspeakingout town hall meetings and meetings with small groups and large groups over the last several months and i'll continue to do so. republicans are doing that all over the country. i wish my democratic colleagues would do the same thing. and listen to the american public. we saw last august our democratic colleagues went and hid because of the ire of the american public. most of them did. a lot of them did. some you can see that didn't,

you can seat result on youtube today, mr. speaker -- you can see the result on youtube today, mr. speaker. there was tremendous anger expressed all across this country to our democratic colleagues about that bill. i held multiple town hall meetings last august in the 10th congressional district in georgia, multiple of them and i was cheered because i was against obamacare. i was cheered. america has an opportunity to speak out now through americaspeakingout.com. but we need to change the policies, mr. speaker. we got to stop this socialization of nationalization of our private sector. we got to stimulate small businesses, and the only way we can do that is give them the money they need to expand their businesses, to buy inventory.

my jobs act, h.r. 4100, would do just that. i hope, mr. speaker, the american public that are watching right now will ask their congressman to co-sponsor it. i ask my democratic colleagues to co-sponsor h.r. 4100, and let's make it a bipartisan jobs act, jump-start our business sector. and the way we pay for that is to take the unspent stimulus dollars to pay for the tax reduction so it's paid for. it won't create any more debt. it won't borrow from our children and our grandchildren's future. it's a commonsense solution, but that's not what we're getting from our democratic colleagues. we're getting more government, more central control from washington, a bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes that are going to cost americans jobs. send jobs overseas for people

in the philippines or in china or wherever are going to be working doing jobs that americans can very well be doing but they're not -- americans are not having the opportunity to do those jobs because the policy of nancy pelosi, barack obama and harry reid is driving jobs offshore, driving jobs away from america. and we got to change those policies. we do that through tax cuts. john f. fitzgerald, president -- john fitzgerald -- i misspoke -- john fitzgerald kennedy, president kennedy cut taxes and what happened when he did? we saw a tremendous growth in the economy. president reagan did the same thing. tremendous growth to the

economy. george w. bush cut taxes. tremendous growth of the economy. the leadership of the house right now today wants to see those tax cuts put in place during the early years of the bush administration and won't see them expire. that's going to kill more jobs here in this country and it's going to mean that farmers and small businesses are going to have to close down and sell their assets just to pay their higher taxes that's going to be required. i'm told from some of my democratic colleagues that there are many democrats that don't want to see those tax cuts expire. there's some of our democratic colleagues that understand that allowing those tax cuts expire at the end of this year is going to cost jobs. so, again, the bipartisan approach to creating jobs is for us to at least keep those tax cuts because the jobs that

are going to go away if those tax cuts expire won't go away. so we will save jobs. well, nobody can know how many are saved. we've seen some kind of funny finance calculations or accounting here because i know of one instance, for example, one company got stimulus funds and they gave everybody in their company raises. they didn't hire any new persons. but the government counted every one of those increases in wages as a new job, as a new job. it's disingenuous, deceptive. that's what we see over and over again.

we got to stop that, mr. speaker. the american people deserve better. and i'm excited about the grassroots movement. if you want to call it the tea party movement. it's not just the tea party patriots, tea party express, americans for prosperity, freedom works, i can go on and on of different groups. there are many. what my liberal colleagues in the press don't understand is that this is a grassroots organization, effort, and all these organizations, it's american citizens across this nation in their local communities that are speaking out. they're saying that they have been taxed enough already. they see their jobs going away.

they want to go to work. they see that the policy that we have been handed by barack obama and nancy pelosi and harry reid is those policies are destroying jobs. they're putting millions of americans out of work. and what they see is more of the same and they don't want more of the same. they're taxed enough already. they want to see some changes. and i'm excited because i believe we are being to see some big changes in november. big changes on november 2. see, mr. speaker, the most powerful political force in this country today is written about in the constitution of the united states, and if you look at the document, if you look at the document itself our founding fathers when they wrote the document, those three first words of the constitution

were bold and much, much larger, about four times larger, three or four times larger than the rest of the text. what are those three words? we the people. we the people are speaking. they're saying, where are the jobs? republicans are saying, where are the jobs? what i'm hearing from the leadership on the other side from ms. pelosi and company, we are going to give you more government, more taxes, more government control. bigger government, more government jobs but less than the private sector is what the bottom line's going to be. mr. speaker, we got to stop this. we got to stop growing government and shrink it. we got to stop this outrageous spending. we have to repeal and replace obamacare with commonsense

solutions that will maintain the quality of health care in this country, continue to allow the doctors and the patients to make decisions instead of some washington bureaucrat that's going to happen under obamacare. we got to stop bailing out wall street and start bailing out small businesses by giving them the money that they need by allowing them to do business and leave the dollars in their pocket. mr. speaker, that's what's going to create new jobs. that's what's going to put our economy back on track. that's what's going to solve this economic downturn. i heard just when the president signs the financial reform bill, so-called, which is not, puts in place permanent bailouts for wall street, it's going to hurt main street banks, community banks, it's going to create bigger bureaucracies, more government

jobs, it's going to make it more difficult for small businesses to go to their local banker and get a loan. the president, my liberal colleagues blame the lack of financial regulations on the economic downturn. but that's not what caused the economic downturn. they're blind. they want to blame the -- the previous speaker just blamed the bush administration. it's all bush's fault. when are they going to take time? mr. speaker, when is ms. pelosi going to take responsibility? when's barack obama going to take responsibility for the disastrous, disastrous policies that they're forcing down the threats of the american people? it's past time for them to take

responsibility. they're not doing it. they're blaming the bush administration. what caused the financial collapse is government, the community reinvestment act, freddie and fannie, poor policy. there's some blame on wall street. absolutely. there's some blame even in main street, main street banks. greed is part of the cause of that, but it was policy that was established by congress under the carter administration with the community reinvestment act, then a reform -- so-called reform -- which made the community reinvestment act essentially forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay it back, poor fed

policy that kept the interest rates low so that freddie and fannie could set up these no documentation or low documentation loans. that's what created the bubble and the burst. so it's government. mr. speaker, the best way to control quality, quantity and cost of all goods and services is a free enterprise system. you have two things. on one hand you have government control, socialism. on the other hand you have the free market system. and the free market system will create jobs. if we allow it to do so. that's not what we're getting. we're getting bigger government which is going to kill jobs. we need to stop that, mr. speaker. we need to create what has made this country so rich, so

powerful, so successful as a political experiment. in all of history we got to go back to those foundational principles, those foundational principles that are expressed in the declaration of independence and embodied in the governing force of the constitution of the united states as it was intended. one got asked a question. if the -- god talks about he's sovereign. but how does he reign in public policy? certainly our creator reigned supernaturally but he also reigns through those of us who knows him as our lord and savior, those of us that look to our creator for direction, those of us who look to the judeo-christian principles that our founding fathers held and

that is based on accountability and based on the free market system, on free enterprise where people have the ability and opportunity to succeed but they also have an opportunity to fail. without an opportunity to fail you don't have an opportunity to succeed. and we see class warfare by our democratic colleagues where they hate the rich. they want to tax them to the hilt. they want to have a redistribution of wealth that as president obama keeps talking about. but what is he saying? he's saying that he knows how to run everything in human endeavor. that's what the leadership here believes. they believe in central planning. they believe government knows best. they believe that government should tell us what to eat,

what car to drive and how to live our lives and what kind of health care we can have. those policies destroy the free market, destroy small business. and we see examples all over the world. socialism has never worked, never will work, and i don't care whose socialism it is. whether it's stalin's, castro's, hugo chavez, or barack obama's. it's not going to work. it never will work. we got to stop it and it's up to the american people to stop it. the american people need to speak out. go on americaspeakingout.com. demand from your congressman, your senator that we stop this policy of creating bigger government, higher taxes, more regulations, more government, more control from washington. say no to all that and say yes to tax cuts, to the free market

system, to freedom. they want socialism. i want freedom. america wants freedom. we got to demand it, mr. speaker, and it's up to the american people to do so. america can speak out, can speak out to my democratic colleagues, can speak out to the president, can speak out to the senators. speak out by going on americaspeakingout. demand policy that's going to create jobs. i've been joined by my great friend and an excellent member of this body in the republican conference, my good friend, steve scalise, from new orleans, louisiana, and he knows about this inan, disastrous policy that this administration has put in place, how it has killed jobs in louisiana, throughout the gulf coast. directly as well as indirectly.

mr. scalise. thanks for joining me. mr. scalise: i want to thank my colleague from georgia for yielding and for talking about this important issue. and when we talk about jobs, today we had a long debate here on the house floor about unemployment and of course if you look at what's been happening this last year and a half, the policies that have been brought forward by this president and by this leadership here, the people that are running this congress, these policies have been creating a lot of the unemployment we have today and you look since the stimulus bill passed a year and a half ago that you and i opposed because we knew it would do nothing other than growing the size of government, $787 billion of money we didn't have that was not only spent to go to size of government but the president said it had to be spent to keep unemployment from breaking 8%. well, of course now we're approaching 10% unemployment after that bill, after that massive amount of debt dumped onto the backs of our children

and then we look at more and more policies that have been coming since then that are eroding, eroding the economic base of this country and of course we're experiencing some very direct consequences firsthand in our state of louisiana because of the president's ill-advised moratorium on energy exploration and of course the president came up with this plan after the explosion of the deepwater horizon, a tragic event that was both a human tragedy and now an environmental tragedy, which the president still to this day is not doing his job under the law in helping direct the effort to keep the oil out of a marsh which our local leaders are battling to do every day and unfortunately our local leaders tell us and i've spoken to many of them, they'll tell you, they're spending more of their time fighting the federal government than fighting the oil but the biggest insult lately has been this moratorium. because the moratorium, first of all, was actually opposed by the scientists and experts that the president put together after the explosion of that oil rig.

they were tasked by the president to come up with a 30-day report on safety improvements. and they actually came back with that 0-day report and they made some good -- 30-day report and they made some good safety recommendations that i support. but the other thing they said was they oppose the moratorium on drilling that the president came out with so when the president gets this report he doesn't agree with it because for political reasons he wants to ban drilling so he just disguarded the science and trumped it with politics. and so not only did they say in that report that they were opposed to the moratorium, i've spoken to a few of those scientists and experts and they said and they laid out a good case why the moratorium imposed by the president actually reduces safety in the gulf. so here you have a double wacky, kicking people when they're down. the -- wacky, kicking people when they're down -- whammy, kicking people when they're down. the president is coming up with policies that are hurting the people of south louisiana and then this moratorium, not only does it go against the safety recommendations of his own scientific experts, but it now

is costing us thousands of jobs. so there's an unemployment debate going on in this house today, well, one of the reasons we've got unemployment is because of the president's policies. he should rescind that moratorium. a federal court twice now told him to rescind it and he refuses to do so, he refuses to listen to his own scientific experts who say it reduces safety in your gulf because you'll lose your most experienced crews. you increase our dependence on foreign oil and it's imported by tankers and 70% of oil spills are because of tankers. now the president has increased the likelihood for future spills in the gulf with this moratorium that's running jobs out of our country. i yield back. mr. broun: thank you, mr. scalise. i appreciate that. it's going to make everybody's gasoline go up, it's going to make electricity price gups. i said here on the floor in a speech -- go up. i said here on the floor in a

speech that the tax and trade, it's all about taxes, it's going to hurt the most vulnerable people here in america. it's going to hurt the poor people, it's going to hurt the seniors who are on limited income more than anybody else. and it seems to me that this disastrous economic as well as environmental disaster that has happened in the gulf is being utilized by this president to try to force his energy policy, his tax and trade bill now being criticized by the liberals around the country because i've said it it's going to hurt the poorest people in this country and it will in fact, the president himself said -- it will. in fact, the president himself said, it will necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket. make electricity prices skyrocket. necessarily. that's what the president said

about the energy tax. it would necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket. who's going to have the hardest time paying their electric bill? the poor folks in america, those people on limited income, the senior citizens, which can least afford to have their gasoline go up, to have their electricity go up. it's going to be disastrous. and it's going to kill jobs. in fact, the president talks about all the green jobs that's going to be produced. well, spain put in a similar time of -- type of tax, similar kind of policy in spain and it did produce green jobs. but, mr. speaker, for every one green job produced i think it was 2.3 jobs were lost. a net loss of 1.3 jobs for every job that was created.

for every green job in spain that was created, every green job created, they lost 2.3 jobs. and that's what our president wants to force upon the american public. i'm wondering whether he's closing down the exploration in the gulf just to try to force through his energy tax. i don't know. but i had -- i've had people, as i've listened at americaspeakingout, my americaspeakingout.com town hall meetings, i've had people across my district say that they wonder about that. i was doing a americaspeakingout.com town hall meeting in athens, georgia, and a lady got up and said she wanted to see new drilling for oil and gas stopped, to stop in this country. we had about 100 people there.

i said, ok, let's find out what everybody else said. now, mind you, this is the most liberal county in my district. very democratic. i didn't carry it as a republican in the beginning of my elections. when there's a democrat and a republican on the ballot. did i carry it in the special election when i was first elected but not since. and i asked the public, we invited the general public, i said, how many of y'all in this audience want to see a stop in any new exploration for oil and gas? eight people held up their hands. then i said, how many of y'all want to see us lift the moratorium and start back to exploring and tapping into resources here in america and

continue drilling for oil and gas and continue developing natural resource on energy sources? everybody else, eight people out of, i think we had a total of 98 folks. so 90 people held up their hands and wanted to see it continue. eight people said they wanted to see it stopped. and over and over again i've talked during this special hour about how the leadership, ms. pelosi and company, have gone against what the american people want. they want to see jobs created. we ask them, where are the jobs? they want to see the economy stimulated, not government. we're asking that. mr. scalise, i know that you've seen the disaster of the moratorium on the jobs in louisiana but it affects all the gulf coast state, certainly not

only directly but indirectly. could you give us in just the few minutes we have left, could you give us some exarms of -- examples of those nondirectly affected people, the fishermen, the people on the platforms, etc. could you give us examples of those people who have been affected by this moratorium? mr. scalise: sure, i would, i'd be happy to air is that with my colleague from georgia and f.c.c. speaker pelosi earlier today actually said, unemployment creates jobs. now, the logic of that i don't think anybody can understand but that's what her statement was. mr. broun: real quickly, the people i talk to don't want an unemployment check, they want a paycheck -- paycheck. mr. scalise: that's exactly the people in the gulf want. they want jobs and they've got good jobs and they're being taken away by the president and what they've said is, keep this industry going, let's do it safely and there are good outlines of how to do it safely. most of the companies out there in the gulf and even deeper

waters than b.p. weren't cutting corners, weren't doing things the wrong way, were doing everything safe and they were shut down. b.p.'s the only one out there drilling right now. if you listen we had testimony, tragic testimony, from two of the widows who lost their husbands in that explosion in a committee i serve on and both of them said, it's tragic what happened, the rules should have been enforced that weren't enforced. the safety rules should have been followed but they said, don't shut down this industry. it's our way of life. we know it can be done safely. you need to insist that those rules are enforce wid they weren't. but don't shut down the industry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. broun: mr. speaker, where are the jobs? we need to have different policy to create jobs than what we've been given by ms. pelosi and company. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison. mr. ellison: hello, mr. speaker. i will claim the time on behalf of the progressive caucus

tonight. to bring a progressive vision about our great country, my friend poses the question, where are the jobs? that's a good question coming from the republican caucus because they're the ones who destroyed the jobs. the fact is the democratic caucus has been rebuilding jobs. i have proof. now, if you look at the -- this graph, very simple graph, what it shows is the red is under the bush administration, under the republican caucus, and as you can see, december, 2007, we see a steady decline in the number of jobs with the bush administration. the bush administration, because the policies of not regulating wall street, because of allowing the industry just run wild, because of tax cuts to the

wealthiest americans, because of deficit spending, they paid for two wars, a getaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and massive tax cuts, over $700 billion of tax cut which is they never paid for, we saw a decline in american jobs. and then when the obama administration comes in, we see ourselves digging out of this hole. it's slow, it's tough, it's very, very tough to come out and clean things up after the republican caucus has been in power. you know, the toughest job in the circus is cleaning up after the elephants. but the fact is that you see the obama administration and democratic caucus digging us out of this recession, private sector jobs have increased for the sixth straight month. where are the jobs? well, the republicans should know where the jobs were, they're the ones who said, we favor the rich over everyone else, we favor the privileged,

the comfortable, over everyone else. the working people have to go figure out what they're going to do because we're in it for the wealthy but the fact is that the democratic caucus is helping to pull our country out of this situation. and again it was proved on the house floor today, mr. speaker, because today what we saw on the house floor is democrats moving to pass unemployment insurance extension and our republican colleague, our friends in the party opposite derks spite all their pronouncements, say no to the american people who are in dire straits. what kind of heart is that? you know, mr. speaker, i just want to talk a little bit about our economy today but i think most of what we're talking about today is values. who also have what. we're talking about values. the value of how you weigh one kind of person versus another. the republican caucus, they say that they're for tax cuts. we heard my friend on the party

opposite say a little while ago he's for tax cuts and i find the gentleman a fine person and a pleasure to work with him personally, but we couldn't disagree more when it comes to economic policy. he says he likes tax cut, but not when it comes to working peoples' tax cuts. the american recovery and reinvestment act gave tax cuts to 95% of americans, 95% of americans got a tax cut under the recovery act. . they don't like tax cuts for people, only for really rich people. and they believe the rich folks who get the tax cuts are going to use the tax cuts after they buy houses and watches and stuff like that. they might just use some of it to maybe invest in a factory or something.

that's what they think is going to happen. it never happens that way. but that's what they think is going to happen. it's called trickle down. there's a name for this that the republican caucus is so in love with. it's amazing to hear how much they love john f. kennedy because of tax cuts. it's important for the american people to know we aren't against tax cuts. if tax cuts to the middle classes would stimulate, we will do it and have done it. we didn't get their support when we did do it, but the fact is this is another distortion that our colleagues are just absolutely committed to telling the american people, the democrats don't like tax cuts. we are fine with tax cuts but we want fair tax cuts that actually stimulate the economy. here's an economic lesson for you.

if you want to stimulate the economy, do you do a tax cut for the people who need the money and who will take it and then buy things with it and then at the store where they bought them from, there will be business at that store and at that store, the people who work there will see revenue coming into the store and the owner of the store will continue people on the payroll or do you give the money to someone who doesn't need it, who is wealthy by all definitions and can let that money sit there or by a luxury item or just go and by up other companies, mergers and stuff like that. if you want to stimulate the economy, you give tax cut to the middle class and working class, not to the rich people. that's what the republic cans oppose. that's what they are against.

would you think they know better. the republicans aren't just good at economics. they are good at other things, but economics, they aren't so good at. during the time that the republican caucus was in control, you know, they cut taxes and gave us the biggest deficit this country has seen. and yet when they came in office, they inherited one of the biggest surpluses we have seen. yes, it's true. bill clinton left the republican caucus a surplus. they came in well above the water and they handed things over well below. the american people don't have short memories. we remember 2006. do they think we forgot? do they think we forgot who would not regulate predatory loans?

the american people know that the house, senate and white house controlled by the republicans from 2000 to 2006 as american people were being preyed upon by scrupulous lenders pushing loans on them, deceiving them into deceptive practices in lending which set the stage for the recession we are in. because as soon as they couldn't refinance their home, they couldn't keep their homes and we began to see the foreclosure crisis. our friends who don't like regulation, they say give it to us back. here is a quote from one of our colleagues. now, as i said, i respect my

colleagues. i think they are good people. the question is not who is a nice guy and who isn't. that's not the issue. but here's a fact for you, a quote from congressman pete sessions, republican from texas. question, david gregory. i think what a lot of people want to know is if republicans do bet back into power, what are they going to do? you hear the party opposite say let us be in the majority. let us rule this place. we know what to do. they act like they have the answers. well, they say -- one of their caucus leaders says, we need to go back to the exact same aagenda after. really? oh my goodness. you mean to tell me we need to go back to some more wars we don't pay for? we need to be back in another

iraq? they are actually looking for another iraq right now. $10 billion a month that war costs us. they offered us reasons to go and none of them were true. so, literally 4,500 americans later, $1 trillion later, that's what their war in iraq has given us, disaster, the worst foreign policy failure in american history. more of the same? oh my goodness. we're going to have a pharmaceutical giveaway to the tune of $400 billion again? that's their answer to health care as they stand up here and talk about obamacare and beat on the health care bill, do you know that americans are benefiting already and they want us to go back to the time before health care reform when 56% of

all bankruptcy filings were from people who were suffering the load of medical debt. this is what they want the american people to go back to. my friend, my friend from texas says we need to go back to the exact same agenda. oh, no. it's better to keep the republican caucus over there in the minority complaining about everything that we do without helping it all, but at least they can't do much harm if they're not in the majority. david gregory asked -- if republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do? you heard it right from their caucus leadership, more of the same. why would the republicans literally thrown out of office in 2006? why were they tossed out, why the american people chased them

out? because of the absolute failure on every measure of governance. you shouldn't be surprised. they don't like government. they have nothing good to say about it. they think government is the problem. and it's hard to believe in in this in principle. they might be good at other things. i think a few years in the past, they had a pretty good congressional baseball team, but when it comes to governing, they just aren't good at at it. and whenever they are in power, we have failure in government. if you are wondering what they are doing, we need to go back to more of the same agenda. i'm grateful for my friend from text' candor because he told us what we have to expect because the republican caucus argues they should be running things. all they want to do is shine the

light on the democratic caucus and president obama and say, did president obama and democrats create heaven on earth in two years? did they create heaven on earth in two years, if they didn't, let us run it. that's not what is at stake. it's the democrats working out the problems and failures of their leadership or them who created the failure in the first place. imagine somebody out in the middle of a lake drowning. the life gaurledswims out there to grab them, holds on to them and pushes on them and then has to push on their chest to get them back into shape and the other life guard says, you are pushing too hard. i would say wait a minute, i'm trying to save a life that you almost lost and you are over here to talk about how it's being done.

the fact of the matter is, the democratic caucus is investing in americans, green energy, in our human capital, is investing in our infrastructure, investing in small business and we are slowly seeing ourselves climbing back to the america that we knew before the bush era as we see jobs going in this upper direction clear and unmistakable progress. a similar graph that i would like to show you that goes to show democrats despite difficult circumstances because republicans have done massive damage is this one. this graph shows net change in private payroll employment. net change in private payroll diplomat between 2004 and 2010.

and this is thousands of jobs. so add a couple of zeros after you see this. you see things really plummet because of the republicans and now you see democrats pulling the economy back in shape and we're back up to where we should be going. so is that's a little bit. here is another fact that i think is important for the american people to know. the economy has been picking up. in fact, this graph shows that after-tax profits, the property insurance, after-tax profits in billions. profitability has been going up. going up. the fact is is that american

g.d.p. has been increasing and the economy is starting to pick up. unemployment is high and more has got to be done. but the fact is that things are headed in the right direction. when you hear republicans stand up and complain about what democrats are doing and all they're doing is complaining about what we're doing, you should look at the numbers. the numbers are going in the right direction. the jobs are being added. gross domestic product has been increasing and we see the economy going in the proper direction. it's republicans' support for special interests, republicans' support to the most privileged and wealthy, republican support for all of these types of special interest things that has landed this problem and it's democratic resolve, along with the will of the american people that is getting us back into the right spot. should we go back?

absolutely not. now, my friend in the party opposite, before he gave us the microphone, he said something that must be challenged. you might have heard him say, oh, you know, if the tax cuts expire, if the bush tax cuts expire, then what's going to happen is that the farmers are going to have to sell their farm in order to pay the taxes. you heard him say that. mr. broun, fineman, but we disagree bitterly on the issues. he said that if the bush tax cuts are not extended or if they are allowed to expire, then farmers will have to sell their farms to pay payroll taxes. you know, this is the whole debate about the estate tax. and it's very important to remember that the republicans argued this thing before.

and they were challenged. the reporters said, ok, you guys are talking about saving the family farm because it's always about poor people and saving the family farm, but it never really is. but the fact is, they were challenged, save one family farm that has been taken away for taxes. they couldn't find one because it just isn't so. these bush tax cuts, the ones that help the middle class, the democratic caucus, believe need to be saved. the rich folks who -- they ought to expire and be similar to what they were during the clinton days. it makes sense to me and it's what we should do. now, i want to talk about unemployment extension

insurance. the house passed the unemployment compensation extension act and this emergency legislation will extend unemployment insurance benefits to millions of american families, 2.5 million. this is an important piece of legislation and it's on its way to the president's office. it is emergency legislation. because it's emergency legislation, we don't have to find a pay-for in the budget. we basically find the money even if we have to borrow it so americans have the money they need to make ends meet. this is money that will go to groceries. it will go to buying eggs, it will go to buying bread, oatmeal and cereal, toilet paper, paveg

household items. that's what they do with it. that's what folks do. and it's amazing to me that my republican colleagues would say no, it should be set off because they didn't want to set off all that money they gave away during the bush tax cuts, over $700 billion, plus another $400 billion for the big prescription drug giveaway to phrma and two wars. but now, when people are in an emergency situation and people are facing foreclosure and bankruptcy and people are in real trouble when they are out of work and their unemployment runs out, now, now our friends say, we can't open up the wallet, we have to worry about the deficit. this is an amazing thing. it's an emergency for people out

there and so we should act accordingly. republicans have blocked this bill for seven weeks. they have literally stood in the way. this bill could have been done earlier this week but republicans -- senate republicans delay tactics stopped it up until we were able to pass it today. republicans have blocked this bill for seven weeks, causing an estimated 2.5 million americans, actually it's more than that, congresswoman donna edwards has it to the person, she's got a website that tabulates it to the individual person, families, and the fact is, it's more than 2.5 million families to lose their lifeline that they have earned through their work in their working years. unemployment insurance is insurance. it's not a giveaway, it's not a handout. it's galling and appalling and

downright insensitive and insulting for anyone to imply that people who receive unemployment insurance are lazy. yet you have heard people in the party opposite say that folks just don't want to work and they're just sitting up, not really trying to find a job. that is ridiculous. there is -- there are five people applying for every one job. there's not enough jobs. we are trying to create more. the unemployment rate is unacceptably high. democrats are committed to chopping that rate way down but the fact is, until we're able to do that, we need real support and folks need to get in there and get some unemployment benefits to make it. the bill, which is virtually identical to one the house passed, the restoration of emergency unemployment act, would extend emergency unemployment compensation and extend benefit programs through november 30, 2010. it's a short reprieve. it's unfortunate, but folks

will benefit from the short period of time it's offered. unemployment benefits have periods of time, some longer, some shorter. but there are a lot of people who will benefit because their benefits will be retroactively restored to people who have started losing their benefits at the end of may. they'll be retroactively restored. as republicans are saying, yes we gave all our friends buckets and buckets of money, but we got nothing for you, sam, and jane, and your two kids. you lost your job, good luck, can't do any deficit spending, you know. but the fact is, is that these folks, some of them have been worried, what are they going to do? they've been without benefits since may. now they'll be retroactively restored, very important, very pleased to report that. republicans continue to fight for hundreds of billions of

dollars in deficit-busting tax cuts. the bush tax cuts were never paid for. and yet they want us to -- they want to oppose extending unemployment insurance benefits to hardworking americans. you know, the fact is, is that unemployment insurance benefits really are something that helps to stimulate the economy. it's not the best way to do it. having a job is. that's obvious. but every dollar in unemployment benefits creates at least $1.61 in economic activity. for every $1 in unemployment benefit, $1.61 goes into the economy. it's obvious, say somebody has no money. they're going to a food shelter, not getting anything at all. they're surviving on the charity of others or the best they can. but if they have unemployment insurance benefits, which they've earned because they

worked, then they have money to go to the store and they buy something and at the store, that helps stimulate the economy because you're spending real source of revenue with somebody which helps them maintain and add to their employment roll. this is a very important fact, we should know about it. this is something chief economist mark zandi, a pretty conservative guy himself, had to say before the house budget committee back september 1. the nonpartisan congressional budget office said extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy, creating, they say, up to $1 nt 90 in economic activity for every $1. mark zandi says $1.61. the congressional budget office says $1.9 0. the fact is, it's hard to know

with exact specificity but both agree there's a consensus among economic experts that unemployment insurance benefits the economy as a whole. unemployment benefits were responsible for creating 1.1 million jobs since the recession started and adding 1.7% to the gross domestic product of our country. unemployment insurance benefits has a stimlative effect on the economy. no doubt about it. the republican caucus trying to stop it really is dangerous to the economy. not only to the individual family, not just to jane and sam and their two kids, who are unemployed and need those benefits but also to all of us as a whole. let me explain one reason why. our economy is one where corporate profits, as i just pointed out before, have been up in the first quarter of 2010, up about 43%. there's a lot of firms that are sitting on cash.

they have money. but they haven't really added to their payrolls. why? because they're nervous. the consumer demand is still weak. consumer demand is not robust and strong. they're not really seeing the amount of volume and sales they've seen in the past because consumer demand is weak. now if our republicans had their way, what they would do is take unemployment benefits from people, which would then do what to demand? lower it. which would then make the firms think, what? oh, i've really got to sit on this cash, i don't know what's going to happen next. so unemployment benefits have the effect of priming the pump, of getting the economy stimulated and moving and not having them, not only create the crisis for an individual family but even worse than that, it creates a crisis for the economy because firms who have cash and are looking to add people but who are cautious and nervous are thinking, hey,

sales volume has gone down, i better not spend this money on add manager workers. it's very important to understand the psychology and economics -- that psychology and economics are tightly tied together. most employers, by the way, particularly small employeers -- employers, are reluctant to lay people off. for any employee with a heart, and most have them. they're people they don't want to lay anybody off. when they do, it's tough. it's nothing you want to go back to. you want to be real confident you can sustain those extra workers before you add on more people. this has to do with consumer confidence which has to do with things like unemployment insurance and therefore my point is that you need -- not only is a crisis for the individual family when you don't extend the benefits, it's a crisis for our economy because it undermines confidence and consumer demand, which our economy needs. so i think it's important that

the american people know this and they know that when the republicans, particularly the ones who are always, you know, active and religious and more holy than everybody else, they're voting against unemployment insurance, that's really kind of a head scratcher to me. anyway, today, there are 15 million people out of work. who got up -- who got an extension of unemployment benefits. today, 15 million people, 15 million people out of work got an extension of unemployment benefits, which contributes to paying mortgages, health care bills, utility bills, food costs, eggs, groceries, cereal for the kids. the democrats' unemployment bill provides -- and it is the democrats' unemployment bill, by the way, the republicans want no part of it. they don't want to be part of the unemployment bill. we'd love to share it but they didn't want any. the democratic unemployment

bill provides up to 99 weekly unemployment checks, averaging $300, to people whose 26 weeks of state-paid benefits have run out. the benefits would be extended through the end of november 30, as i said. in the new "washington post" abc news news poll reloo -- in the new "washington post" abs noll pohl -- the new "washington post"/abs poll 60% support it. i dare say, i'm glad i voted for the bill because i wouldn't want to go back to my constituents, unemployed people, and say, i know you needed help but i wasn't there for you, sorry. earlier this month, the house passed the restoration of the emergency unemployment compensation act to restore and extend emergency unemployment benefits.

that was passed again today and now it's off to the president. 83% of republicans oppose the bill. 83% of the republicans said, we can't do anything for you, sam, and jane, you are on your on. if you are well-to-do and need a tax cut, we tan talk -- we can talk but if you're not rich we don't have time to help you out. we've got to worry about the deficit. not that we have to worry about deficit in the top 1%, but if you're not, then we've got a deficit and we can't help you out. the analysis of the nonpartisan congressional budget office, as i mentioned before, suggests that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to give the economy -- get the economy moving again. it's something we have to do and something we need to do right away to make sure our economy is strong and make sure that americans are get getting back to work. very important. i'm so glad we're here to talk

about it. now, one of the things my republican friends like to say is that they like -- they only want private jobs, not public jobs. i want to bust that myth up for folks tonight, mr. speaker, because public jobs are important jobs. are they saying they don't like police? are they saying they're against teachers? are they saying they don't want anybody to fix the roads and the potholes all over the place -- and that potholes all over the place is just fine? are they saying they don't want the bridges to be fixed, they don't think the guss et plates holding bridges up should be replace sod they don't fall down like they did in my state of minnesota? i don't understand what they mean when they start attacking public jobs. i actually have to confess to you, mr. speaker, that i resent it when they attack public

workers. i think public workers do great work. i think public workers do a great service for the american people. when i had a break-in at my house -- at my house, i called a public workers, also known as a police officer, and that officer came to my house, he took my report he took the report of all the things that thief had taken from us, he was cordial, he was kind, and i felt a whole lot better seeing him there. he's a public worker. it is public workers like that police officer who are facing layoffs all across america. what about teachers? they don't like teachers? we're seeing classroom sizes increase and increase. there are over 250,000 teachers facing layoffs across america because i guess our friends in the party opposite, the republican caucus, feel that, those are not private sector jobs. teachers do a valuable service for our country.

teachers are important. what about medical professionals who work for public hospitals? or what about people who make sure that our roads are -- and our bridges and our other infrastructure are in good working order? all these jobs are important. what about people who work at the d.m.v., the department of motor vehicle. do you want your tabs on time, do you want your registration on time? these are all folks who perform a valuable and important public service and i think it's really ugly when we hear our republican colleagues say, oh, well, they just want public jobs. they admit we've had public jobs. i don't like the idea of them attacking public sector jobs. it's not right. .

we have to hire the people that they have had to lay off the last year and a half. not every state, but nearly every state has had massive deficits and these states have had to cut off a lot of state workers. the federal government can't cover all of those losses but essential ones. there are cities in this country who have police forces of one, two, three people. if they lay off one or two people, that is the whole department. this is a serious issue. we don't need larger class sizes as we try to educate young people. we don't need our fire department to have fewer firefighters. we don't need less cops and be less safe. since the recession began an statemented 500,000 americans have lost their jobs in local

communities because of tight local municipal budgets. that is local public workers that the republican caucus doesn't respect very much. the local think tank, more than 400,000 jobs will have to be restored to restore municipal jobs. they estimate by 2012, more than 400,000 jobs will have to be restored just to return to pre- recision levels. this is a critical loss of services. this means that yes, you have potholes and longer response times for police and fire. yes, you have infrastructure that's not in the same kind of repair that it used to be. yes, you have a street light that has not been replaced as your son or daughter is walking home, you want that street light

there if you are a parent. not even for your son or daughter, but for yourself, you want the street light. who replaces that. they don't replace by magic. my republican friends feel they just appear. cuts to public jobs also reduces employment in the private sector. this is an important point that bears repeating. cuts in public jobs reduces employment in the private sector. what is the point, mr. speaker? well, look, a dollar is a dollar whether i'm a cop or i work for a private security company, if i get my check and i spend it at the local store, it's revenue for that store and it will go to pay the workers at that store, and pay a profit to whoever owns the store.

now, if the public worker doesn't have a job, that's one pay check fewer that that store has to rely on in order to make it. so public sector jobs contribute to private employment. why? because public sector jobs contribute to the economy, just like private sector jobs do, too. it's not a good thing that public sector jobs are going now. not only is it a loss of vital social services in our cities, but it's also -- decreases consumer demand for the public workers who are now laid off and for our economy as a whole. again, the economic policy institute has important information. they have submitted that for every 100 public sector jobs, 30 private sector jobs are let go because of reduction in consumer spending.

for every 100 public sector jobs , 30 private sector jobs are laid off because of reduction in consumer spending. this forces local governments to choose between cutting services like public safety and raising taxes during an economic recovery, which i already talked about, no one likes to do. now, there's a bill out there that the people of america ought to know about that and that is the local jobs for america act. the goal is to create one million public and private jobs in local communities this year. this job legislation directs targeted resources to communities hardest hit by the economic downturn. federal funds will be provided to municipalities with the greatest number of people out of work to restore critical services like teachers, police and fire. our bill is about getting america back to work and making

investments for the long-term and the prosperity of our country. throughout the recession, local governments have been one of the hardest hit as cities have had to reduce budgets as revenues decline. local governments across the country lost 140,000 jobs. local governments lost over 140,000 jobs in 2008 and 2009 and the number keeps on growing. in 2009, 62% of all cities dealt with a budget deficit by delaying or cancelling construction projects. when a city says we aren't going to build that parking ramp, fix that road or build that community center, that means that the contractors they were going to hire don't get that job. so what that means is that the people who work in the private sector on the construction site, they're not working on that job and not bringing food back home

based on the money they earned on that construction job. the bill funds teachers, firefighters, child care workers and other critical workers. $23 million to help support teachers who are scheduled to be laid off very soon. $1.8 billion to support 5,500 law enforcement officers on the beat, $500 million to hire and train firefighters, $75 million to save or create 750,000 jobs to help the local communities fill those jobs where they need it, 50,000 on the job training spots to help businesses expand employment. the goal is to have family-wage jobs and get people back to work and promote good services for our cities which is safety and education and help the private sector by moving forward on

needy construction projects and making sure that public workers have their paychecks and make sure there is adequate consumer demand. the local jobs for america act will target funding serving communities with target rates 12% or when unemployment rates that are 2% or more than the -- higher than the national average. it is community by community. if your state has an unemployment rate lower, if your community is higher, you will be better. and the local jobs for america act will include on the job training for thousands of workers and target communities hardest hit by the recession. that is just one good idea that i think we need to use and i want to take you back and say, you know, i'm from minneapolis and my town, we boast the finest

series of lakes and trails and bike paths in the country. even that we are a cold weather state, we commute by bicycle more than any other city than portland, oregon. i know those people from portland are coming after us,, but we are determined to keep minneapolis in the first place on bike trails. my point is simply this. i was riding my bike along a bike trail and i stopped to ress and sip a little water and i saw a picnic table that really looked like it had been around for a while. what i saw on that picnic table, it said w.p.a., 1934. that picnic table had been around since 1934 in the roosevelt era program that put americans of that generation back to work and had caused that

picnic table to be built. some of you young people, what is w.p.a., go ask your grandparents. w.p.a. is the works progress authority. this was something that you put valuable people to work doing valuable work that needed to be done, making trails, making picnic tables, doing things that last to this very moment and americans all across america are benefiting right now. this is what the w.p.a. is. and if that generation had a heart for its people, it would respond to their needs and the needs of the unemployed by putting them back to work, i don't think this generation should do less. i think this generation should do at least as much as prior generations have done. let it not be said that americans have grown more stingy

over time. let it be said that americans still care about other americans, whether they're working or not. very, very important. now, mr. speaker, it is getting late in the hour. but i just think it's important to point out that from the progressive caucus' point of view, what we need isway need a stronger, morrow bus economy that has more people working at livable wages. when people don't have a job, they can get unemployment benefits until they can find the next job. we think of our people who are active and who do want to work and they are proud to have that job. but right now in america, we don't have enough jobs and we don't need the republican caucus

standing in the way of jobs. and i guarantee you, you don't find many people in the democratic caucus, although many people of faith in this caucus, stand up, but we don't talk about our values like some members of the republican caucus want to do. you have to live charity, you have to live commitment to other people and live empathy and just lecturing others about your religion is not a valueable -- valuable exercise in a country dedicated to religious tolerance. it is important to get back to real policies that work for real people. i'm so proud that the democratic caucus responded to the american people's needs for health care reform, responded to the american people's needs for wall

street reform as the president signed the bill yesterday. so proud that the democratic caucus was able to pass unemployment insurance benefits despite very little help from the republican caucus and i look forward to being back to talk about the progressive caucus and progressive values in the united states congress. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for 60 minutes. mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wolf: this administration must find its voice on human rights. on april 21, "new york times" columnist christoff offered the following words, if president obama is going to find its voice on sudan, it better be soon.

two weeks after the article ran, i wrote the president and i submit a copy of the letter, putting forth a number of recommendations in the hopes of salvaging the administration's languishing sudan policy. my concerns echo those expressed by six n.g.o.'s calling for secretary clinton and ambassador rice to exercise, quote, personal and sustained leadership on sudan in the face of a stale mated policy and warning u.s. credibility as a mediated. sadly the author's assessment can be applied elsewhere around the world. it seems president obama and the administration as a whole have struggled to find its voice when it comes to the promotion and protection of basic human rights and religious freedom. in these most cherished ideals which are at the heart of the

american experiment have been sidelineded by this administration's policy. this is difficult for people who yes or no to freedom and look to america to be their advocates. looking back to sudan in a nation i visited in 1989 and most recently in 2004 when senator brownback and i were the first congressional delegation to go to darfur, i remained concerned that the country is headed to a civil war if the u.s. fails to exert its necessary leadership. while there are certainly times i was critical of the bush administration's policy, it is indisputeable that president bush and former special enjoy danforth were not having the

comprehensive c.p.a. brought about the end of a brutal civil war which two million perished, most of whom were civilians. . a recent column titled, quote, in sudan, war is around the corner, end quote. speaking to this reality, he wrote, shortly after george bush entered the white house he decided to put the full diplomatic leverage of the united states to work in ending this war, one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 20th century he succeeded, end of quote. ed gars and pender graph noted that when the south is given the opportunity to vote for independence in january, as guaranteed by the c.p.a., the conventional wisdom is they'll waste no time in severing ties with khartoum this shouldn't come as a surprise considering

that president bashir remained at the head of khartoum, long an indicted war criminal, he was earlier this month also officially charged with orchestrating genocide in darfur. bashir's murderous aims in darfur are not without precedent. with six months to go, khartoum persists in dragging its feet, undermining and staaling the process at every turn. furthermore, the deeply flawed april elections do not bode well for the fate of free and fair and timely referendum process. failure to deliver on the long-awaited promise of a respectable referendum could have grave implications. while some of the administration's rhetoric has improved of late, notably in vice president bind's trip to africa, we have yet to see the administration apply real consequences to khartoum.

in fact, most sudan watchers would agree we have seen little to no evidence since the administration's release of their sudan policy that they have any intention of utilizing sticks, rather, they appear to be relying exclusively on carrots. a july 14 associated press article entitled, quote, promises, promises, u.s. fails to punish sudan, end of quote, describes the administration's track record on sudan this way, quote, the words of the obama administration were unequivocal. sudan must do more to fight terror and improve human rights. if it did, it would be rewarded. if not, it would be punished. nine months later, problems with sudan have grown worse, yet the administration has not -- has not -- clamped down on, if anything, it has made small

conciliatory gestures, end of quote. edgars and pender grart -- and pendergraft close with a chilling warning as it relates to the months ahead in sudan, quote, this is president obama's rwanda moment, and it is unfolding now in slow motion. it is not too late to prevent the coming war in sudan and protect the peace we helped build five years ago, end quote. president obama and his advisors need not rely on the warnings of those in the advocacy community and capitol hill when it comes to the high stakes in sudan in the days ahead. rather, than can look to the an qule threat assessment of the u.s. intelligence community that recently predicted that over the next five year, quote, a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur in

southern sudan, end of quote, more than any other country. a welcome step toward preserving the tenuous peace would be to provide southern sudan the air defense system that the government of southern sudan requested and president bush reportedly approved in 2008. this defensive capability would help neutralize khartoum's major tactical advantage, a virtual necessity in light of the scorched earth tactics and bombers that marked the genocidal campaigns in the past and would make peace and stability more likely following a referendum vote. during the campaign for the presidency, then-candidate obama said, quote, washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the c.p.a. with consistency and strong consequences. these words still ring true today. yet, apart from a recent national security council

statement expressing support for international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war crimes in darfur to justice, we have seen an administration and president struggling to find his voice on the most pressing human rights issue. special envoy grayson at a recent event on capitol hill reportedly went so far as to say that genocide charges against bashir will make his job harder. what about the people who died? who died as a result of this genocide? sudan is not an anomaly. consider china, a country where human rights and religious freedom and civil society continue to be under fierce attack by the country's ruling communist party. from the outset this administration chose to marginalize human rights in the context of u.s.-china bilateral

relations. on her first trip to asia, secretary of state clinton was down right dismissive of human rights concerns, saying, that, quote, those issues can't interfere, end of quote work economic security or environmental concerns. a firestorm of criticism ensued, human rights organizations were rightly dismayed. how had impassioned advocacy for the dignity of every person been relegated to a position of, quote, mere interference? and this in spite of president obama's campaign promise to be frank with the chinese and press them to respect human rights. in china we see an administration which seems unable to find its voice on human rights. a glance at the news from the last several weeks alone makes it painfully clear that that voice, the voice which speaks out on behalf of those enduring

tremendous persecution and oppression at the hands of the government has never been more necessary. a july 5 associated press story reported that a best-selling author and fierce critic of the communist party was take intoon custody by the police on monday for reasons that were unclear, end of quote. the a.p. report reported that on july 15, quote, dozens of blogs by some of china's most outspoken users have been bankruptly shut down while popular twitter services appear to be the newest target in the government efforts to control social networking. better a -- a disnant, an original signatory of a historic pro-democracy man tess toe -- manifesto, was arrested by chee these authorities on suspicion of inciting subversion of state power.

it also marks the deadly uighur community. they continue to face fear and oppression in the aftermath of the violence. according to multiple independent news sources, reporters report -- authorities reportedly installed 40,000 security cameras in the city in preparation for the one-year anniversary. in "the washington post," an author wrote an article titled, can anyone hear us, end quote, which documents firing on protesters that led to hundreds of deaths as well as mass beatings. the arbitrary detention of thousands and a 10-month communication shutdown that cut off the region from the outside world. he closes the peace with the following charge.

quote, the united states and the international community should also support the uighurs' three-month-old call for an investigation into the events of last july and the opening of meaningful dialogue with the authorities. the voices have been crying in the wilderness, it's time to listen. end of quote. it is indeed time to listen and it is time to act. it's time to add america's voice to the voices in china pressing for greater freedom and basing human rights. last week, i had the honor of meeting with two courageous chinese human rights lawyers visiting the u.s. for legal training and to brief policymakers on the efforts of those in china. these lawyers chose to represent at their own peril human rights activists, church rights leaders, bloggers, etc., who face persecution in the

form of trumped up charges and the absence of due process. the lawyer said their lives improved and those of the cohorts in prison facing other pressures by the chinese government when the west speaks out for their plight and raises their case by name. why does not the obama administration speak out for their plight and race their -- raise their cases by name? this sentiment is nothing new i remark that they are china's sakarovs. similarly these giants in the cause of freedom recounted how their lives in the gulag improved when the west and president reagan championed their cause and challenged the lies at the foundation of the soviet system. it seem this is administration, the obama administration, has forgotten the lessons of history to the detriment of china's young democrats. in their annual freedom of the

world report, the n.g.o. freedom house documented a litany of abuses perpetrated by the chinese government and then made the following observation. while these acts of repression are disturbing so is the absence of protests from the democratic world, when the soviet union arrested a dissident for suppressed religious expression, it drew widespread condemnation by figures raising from heads of state to trade union leaders, as well as by human rights organizations and prominent humanitarians. china's current actions, by contrast, elist little more than a boilerplate -- elicit little more than a boilerplate criticism and just as often provoke no response whatsoever. elsewhere in asia we see an administration seeming to align itself with the oppressors over though oppressed. look at vietnam. on july 19, a.f.b. reported

that kurt campbell, assistant secretary of state for eers asia affairs b said, quote, as i look at all the friends in southeast asia, i think we have the greatest prospects in the future with vietnam, end of quote. this is a strange affinity and statement to have with a government that our own state department said, quote, increased its suppression of dissent, arresting and convicting several political activists, end of quote, during the reporting period of 2009 country report on human rights practices. the state department report continues, quote, several editors and reporters from prominent newspapers were fired for reporting on official corruption outside blogging on political topics. bloggers would be arrested under vague national security provisions for criticizing the government and were prohibited from posting material the government saw as insensitive

or critical. the government also monitored email and regulated or suppressed internet content. the government utilized or tolerated the use of force to resolve disputes with a buddhist order and catholic groups with unresolved property claims, end of quote. today, secretary clinton is in vietnam for the asean meetings. initial news reports report she raised human rights concerns in her meeting with the foreign minister and with journalists. i appreciate that however, a new "new york times" story today pointed out that the timing of her comments on the sensitive issues, quote, suggested that she wanted to make her point and move on. if the administration is truly concerned about human rights and religious freedom in vietnam, they would take the concrete step of placing vietnam back on the countries of particular concern plist as

recommended by the u.s. commission on international religious freedom and the u.s. house of representatives. the chairman of the commission rightly points out that vietnam's human rights record has only improved, only, quote, when its feet were held to the fire, leo continued, but, quote, once vietnam with u.s. help joined the world trade organization in 2007, religious freedom and human rights advocates have experienced waves of arrests. waves of arrest? from our friends? in southeast asia? are the vietnamese who are prosecuting the catholic church, the yards, the bishops and killing people our friends?

well, consider north korea. without question this country is one of the darkest places on the globe. more than 200,000 north koreans including children are being held in political prison camps. it is estimated that between 400,000 and one million people, 400,000 and one million people have died in these camps, having been worked to death or starved to death. is anyone in this administration going to speak out and say anything or do anything about that? last summer an op ed in "the wall street journal" featured, quote, from a north korean refugee woman who said, quote, if i had a chance to meet with president obama i would first like to tell them how north korean women are being sold like livestock in china and, second,

to know that north korean labor camps are hell on earth. let me just repeat what she said again. she said, if i had a chance to meet with president obama i would first like to tell him how north korean women are being sold like livestock in china and, second, to know that north korean labor camps are held -- hell on earth. however, because north korea possesses nuclear weapons and threatens not only to use them against neighboring countries but also to share our nuclear weapon technology with such rogue states as burma and syria the international community, the u.s. included, has tended to down play or outright ignore the horrendous human rights abuses in north korea. in the interests of trying to negotiate through the so-called six-party talks and then to its nuclear program -- and end to its nukelary program.

when north korea falls -- nuclear program. when north korea falls and freedom comes a lot of people in the west and this administration i think will really feel guilty for not having spoken out and advocated for these people. but nothing has been achieved by these negotiations and the recent sinking of the south korean ship has stalled efforts to revive the six-nation talks. even in the face of north korea's nuclear ambitions it is inexcusable that its abhorent human rights record is relegated to the back burner and that north korea freedom act passed by congress has not even been fully implemented. why has the obama administration had so little to say about those trapped in these hell on earths?

now looking to the middle east we see an administration who's advocacy on behalf of persecuted peoples have been -- whose advocacy on behalf of persecuted people have been lacking. across the middle east where christianity was born and as followers once made up a sizable portion of the population, christians are now a tiny minority. end of quote. this is perhaps no more true than in iraq, with the exception of israel, the bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient iraq than any other country. abraham came from iraq. fradgically iraq's ancient christian community is facing extinction. the u.n. high commission for refugees estimated that some

250,000 to 500,000 christians have left the country since 2003 and about half the population and a large number also have been killed. while i've appreciated and very grateful for ambassador chris hill's commitment to this issue during his time as u.s. ambassador, and while i believe that michael corbin, the deputy assistance secretary state who is in charge with working on iraqi minorities issues cares deeply about the issue, and both are good men, i see a continuing unwillingness, unwillingness at the highest levels in the state department to acknowledge and ultimately address the challenges facing these ancient faith communities. in 2009 column in the "wall street journal," it was summed up this way, candidate obama

last fall sent a letter to condoleezza rice rise expressing, quote, my concern about the safety and well-being of iraq's christian and nonmuslim religious minorities. he asked what depths the u.s. would take to protect these communities of religious freedom. candidate obama said he wanted these groups represented in the iraq governing institution. does president obama believe these things? a long advocate of both the previous administration and in the current administration for the u.s. to adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation on these defenseless minorities. i've also pressed for a high level human rights representative at the human embassy in baghdad. such an approach is critical with u.s. presents in iraq drawing down and our bilateral regulations. among other things we must actively engage in, the government of iraq to press for

adequate security in places of worship and assure minority representation in local police units. these are just some of the steps that could be taken to assist in the preservation of these ancient faith communities. we have a moral obligation to do so. the obama administration has a moral obligation to do so. i was reminded again last week while meeting with a visiting high level delegation of iraqi bishops, their impassioned pleas must not be ignored. we do not want to see the eradication and the elimination of the christian community, the community in iraq. we need to protect them. turning now to egypt. eli lake pointed out in july 18, "washington times" piece, the obama administration ended support for a small fund

operated by the u.s. embassy in cairo that supported groups promoting egyptian democracy and that bypassed any clearance from egyptian government. they ended it. the director of democracy and human rights at the foreign policy initiative summarized the situation well in a recent weekly standard piece. she said, doing something for democracy in egypt would require a policy reversal in washington. the end of the bush administration and the beginning of the obama administration there have been a retreat and let me say, i was critical during the bush administration, more should have been done then, but equally now under the obama administration there's been a retreat including the cut in funding for democracy programs and an egyptian veto. they're going to let the egyptian government that's doing the persecution decide which group gets the funds. ironically u.s. support for

democracy promotion in egypt is dwindling as a time -- at a time when the people of egypt are increasingly dissatisfied with the current regime. "the washington post" story yesterday reported that, quote, a protest in alexandra last month was attended by 4,000 people. a high number in egypt, where plane people are afraid to join demonstrations, end of quote. the president of the international rerepublican institute who has history of caring about religious rights and freedoms echoes these sentiments about the administration's human rights and democracy promotion policy in egypt and elsewhere around the world. in recent testimony before the house committee on foreign affairs he said, and i quote, a lack of strong consistent leadership from the top of the administration has become apparent to the bureaucracy. one result is the cutting or slowing of funding for democracy programs in countries like belarus, cuba, egypt, iran, north korea, venezuela,

zimbabwe. another consequence is that our embassies abroad, and this is painful to hear, are providing less diplomatic support on human rights and democracy. asked about the u.s. position on democracy in egypt, our ambassador to cairo praises the country's press freedom. the american embassy in cairo should be an island of freedom. the american embassy in every country should be an island of freedom. those yearning for greater freedoms in egypt are not alone in facing the era -- ire of their government. so too does the christian community face these hardships. uscir, the commission that recently released a report describing a deteriorating situation for this community. they found that, quote, the reporting period marked a significant upsurge of violence targeting coptic orthodox

christians. the egyptian government has not taken sufficient steps to halter oppression of and discrimination against christians and other religious believers. where in many cases the punishers responsible for violence or other severe violations of religion freedom this increase of violation is the failure to prosecute those responsible forces a growing climate of impunity. even our own department has included that the last three years or more have been marked by a decline of religious freedom conditions in egypt. there has not been a significant change in u.s. policy. elsewhere in the region, morocco. morocco is actually an example where american citizens, many are people of faith, are receiving hostile treatment by the mo rackan government. over the last four months dozens of american citizens and scores of other foreign nationals have been deported and denied re-entry into the kingdom of

morocco for allegedly prove la advertising. authorities refuse to offer any explanation of the charges. among the individuals who are deported or denied re-entry were businessmen and educators, humanitarian and social workers, many who are resided in morocco for over a decade in full compliance with the law. additionally those deported were forced to leave the country within two hours of being i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks -- questioned about the -- by the authority, having to leave everything behind. over the past several weeks i've met with and heard from scores of moroccan christians. many feel their voices have long been silenced and these events highlight some of these pressures they experience. on march 19, i wrote to the u.s. ambassador to morocco, sharing my intent to meet the moroccan ambassador to the u.s. and urging ambassador to convey to the government of morocco that

members of congress are watching these events closely and the outcome could negatively effect our bilateral relations, end of quote. i've also spoke within ambassador cap land on several occasions and share with him my deep disappointment that the u.s. embassy and the state department had not been more publicly outspoken on behalf of these american citizens. it is the primary response -- responsibility in these united states embassies to defend and advocate for u.s. citizens and interests abroad. unfortunately the moroccan government has been utterly unwilling to compromise. perhaps they think they don't need to, given the high number of powered lobbyists, high powered lobbyists, including several former members of congress that the moroccan government has on retainer. i don't know how a former member

of congress could ever go out and represent the moroccan government knowing what they're doing to american citizens and feel very, very comfortable and do the american people know about this? i have urged and american people should understand, not only are they expeling americans from morocco, but they should also know that i've urged the millennium challenge corporation, the m.c.c., to suspend the five-year compact with morocco which is worth $697.5 million. that's right. you, the american taxpayer, are giving the moroccan government $697 million, they're expeling christians from morocco,

although they've hired a couple of former congressmen that unfortunately used to serve in this body, i mean, you can believe it, they're expeling americans and yet the moroccan government expects that we will give them $697.5 million? i will offer an amendment on this floor when the foreign operations bill comes up to suspend or cut this program and i urge any member who wants to vote the other way, go home to wherever you're from, whether it be the north, south, east or west and tell your constituents, that's right, i understand, i voted to continue to send all this money to morocco, $697 million, yes, i understand we have a deficit, yes, i understand we have great debt, yes, i understand they're expeling christians, americans,

from the country, but i'm still going to give them that money. the m.c.c. awards compacts based on several factor, including ruling justly. yet recent events raise the question of the moroccan government's willingness to follow the guidelines. a recent "wall street journal" op-ed rightly pointed out that during a time of economic hardship, the unemployment rate at 9.5%, u.s. taxpayers won't tolerate financing governments that mistreat americans solely because of their religion, end of quote. i appreciate "the wall street journal" doing that editorial. can the administration not find its voice when it comes to the rights of u.s. citizens being

trampled abroad? i've been assured the state department is raising the matter privately with the moroccan government. frankly, this is insufficient. the manner and means by which you erase communicate a host of unspoken messages. i hope the lobbyists for morocco, particularly those who have been former members of congress, are not influencing the state department and are not influencing the millennium challenge corporation. do we simply have a private meeting with the ambassador to ask him to look into the matter? or does the department's press secretary issue a statement expressing deep concern? or better yet, does president obama call the king of morocco and make it clear that treating american citizens this way will not be tolerated. he should pick up the phone and say to the head of the moroccan

government we will not give you $697 million in the millennium challenge grant as you're expelling americans from your country. each approach has distinct undertones which highlight the level of priority and seriousness the u.s. government places on the issue. privately raising the issue is a far cry from what we used to see doing it publicly. even as the administration is struggling to find its voice on human rights, changes within the state department threltens to institutionalize the marginalization of these core issues. the department of freedom of religion office has been without an am bass cor in leadership as has been required by law. obama named suzanne johnson cook to this post in june she has not been confirmed. 18 months, nobody's there.

with avoiding senior leadership at the office have been increasingly alarmed by the thought that the office is being subsumed into the department of demookcy -- democracy, human rights and labor. what is happening was described this way in a "washington post" online column. the ambassador won't report directly to the secretary of state as other ambassadors do. they won't report to johnson cook should she be confirmed. the position will be emasculated in direct contravention of the rule that created it. michael pozner said, i raised these concerns in detail and submitted a copy for the record. if the changes described by --

if the change december scribed move forward this could -- changes described move forward, this could violate the law. 24e ambassador at large position was established under the international religious freedom act of 1998 of which i was the primary author to promote religious freedom atpwhrosmede legislation specifically states that there is established within the department of state an office of international religious freedom that shall be headed by the ambassador at large. given the importance of religious freedom to human rights policy i am alarmed by the possibility that d.r.l. could be removing supervisory control from the ambassador at large of the office of international religious freedom. these reported changes come armed with a long ambassadorial

vacancy do not bode well for baha'i leader in iran's prisons or for the lead for the pakistan with discrimination. who will be the advocates for the baha'is? who will advocate for muslims in pakistan? this office is but one example of internal changes at the state department. not many people know this, but the congressionally mandated office to monitor and combat anti-semitism, headed by a special envoy, only has a single dedicated staff person. in the bush scradmrgs, there were three to five employees at various points. in april, 2010, cnn story featured the findings of a story released on the eve of a holocaust remembrance day which found the number of anti-semitic incidents more

than doubled from 2008 to 2009. at a time when anti-semitism is on the rise globally, the special envoy is replying -- relying almost exclusively on the already stretched thin erf office for her staffing needs making it more difficult for the office to fulfill its congressional mandate. it's the old -- old adage, personnel is policy. it's true. then you can surmise that the absence of necessary personnel is a shift in the policy priorities. there are staff vacancies elsewhere in the state department that are deeply troubling. on june 24, secretary of state -- i wrote secretary of state clinton about the office of special coordinator fority bet tan issues. i was prompted to write the let for the part because it came to my attention there was only one person working in the office.

have you seen how china has plundered tibet? and one person working in the office? congress codified the position in a special coordinator for tibetan issues as part of the tibetan policy act of 2002. not long after the establishment of the office, congress approved language directing that the office have three professional full-time staff members and additional support staff as needed in addition to the special coordinator. the current inadequate staffing levels 17 months into the administration were at odds with congressional intent. further the report on tibetan negotiations which is due to congress by march 31 of each year, and we're in july, has not been yet submitted. these developments are -- or

lack thereof send a message about the priority of this -- that this administration is placing on tibet. does this administration care about the plundering and persecution in tibet. i visited tibet. i have been there. i have seen -- i've seen what's taken place in the prison, i've seen them and talked to monk who was told me about their times. i have seen cameras on all the buildings. i have seen the areas bulldozed and large areas where they've taken away the tibetan culture. i've seen that. does not this administration care about that? that message is not inconsistent with a message that the white house sent last year in declining to meet with the dalai lama when he was visiting washington, the first time since 1991 that the nobel prize recipient and spiritual leader was not afforded a meeting with the president of

the united states. in closing, the complexities of foreign policy do not escape me. i'm well aware there are multiple dimensions to our bilateral relations with countries around the globe. if the united states of america cannot be relied upon to speak out on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced, then it is indeed a dark day for millions around the world yearning to breathe the sweet air of freedom. where the administration fails to find its voice, congress must stand in the gap. for decades, human rights enjoyed bipartisan support in this body. now, i fear these issues have fallen victim to bipartisan apathy. too often we underestimate the power of words or worse yet the power of our silence. the late robert f. kennedy, speaking in 1966, capetown, south africa, to a gathering of

students committed to challenging the injustices of apartheid famously said, quote, bobby kennedy, each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, crossing each other for millions of places of energy they build a current to sweep down the walls of oppression and resistance. america must stand up for the ideals on which our own experiment in self-government was founded. we must strike out against injustice whatever form it takes. we must believe that a even the mightiest walls of oppression can tumble. the hour is late and the stakes are high. will the administration accept this charge? will the obama administration

accept this charge? can president obama find his voice? will the ripples of hope that bobby kennedy spoke about once again infuse america's foreign policy? we'll see. with that, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from virginia, truly a conscience in this body for those profound words. of challenge, bring us back to the roots from which this great nation has grown. and i realize the time grows late and it is the last hour that we will be in session this week and if the gentleman would

indulge me, i know that we have a president who has said we are not a christian nation and i will not debate that. but it is so critical to look at our roots. so i would like to direct, mr. speaker, back to the words of roger williams, when he said that forced worship stinks in god's nostrils, it denies christ jesus yet to come that in these flames about religion there is no other prudent christian way of preserving peace in the world than by permission of different consciences. these are the words of our founders that set this nation in motion. that pointed us in the direction of religious tolerance. 1701, william penn, drafted the charter of privileges and said, first because no people can

truly be happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if a bridge to the -- if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious profession and worship and almight by god being the only lord of conscience, father of lights and spirits and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only can enlighten the mind and persuade and convince the understandings of people, i do hereby grant and declare that no person or persons inhabiting this province or territories shall confess and acknowledge one almighty god, the creator, upholder and ruler of the world and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the civil government, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or their person or estate because of his or their conscientious persuasion or practice.

going back to our heritage that this country was based on these principles, taught in the bible, discussed by our founders, and made the basis of our beliefs in religious freedom, thomas jefferson said, god who gave us life gave us liberty. and a can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of god, that they are not b to be violated but with his wrath. sn indeed, i tremble for my country when i reflect that god is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever, and it ought to cause every american to tremble when they think of the injustice we're allowing to be perpetuated on our citizens around the world, it ought to break the hearts and minds and

consciences of everyone. a united states president, and i quote, said these words, referred to a mr. levi, a galveston, texas, lawyer and president of the nationalbury gade group, drafted president theodore roosevelt denouncing a russian program in 1903, the czar of russia was so stung by roosevelt's message he formally refused to accept it. some americans complained that roosevelt had gone too far. he replied that there were crimes so monstrous that the american conscience had to assert itself. and there still are. no one is a better witness to the tyranny than the children of abraham 40 centuries ago, the jewish people were entrusted with a truth more enduring than any power of man. in the words of the profit

isiah, this shall be my covenant with them, said the lord, my spirit which is upon you, and the words which i have placed in your mouth shall not be absent from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your children no, from the mouth of your children's children sid the lord from now for all time. it is not an accident that freedom of vg one of the central freedoms in our bill of rights. it is the first freedom of the human soul. the right to speak the words that god places in our mouths. we must stand for that freedom in our country we must speak for that freedom -- country, we must speak for that freedom in the world. could the current administration and president dare to do any less than this president that is so reviled in this administration, president george w. bush? i would like to just finish with one other thought and that was

what was relaid to have happened in iraq -- relaid to have happened in iraq after united states troops liberated iraq, not for any purpose other than to liberate and to free the people there and to assure us that they would not be a threat to their neighbors or the rest of the world, president bush appointed a retired general named jay garner. jay garner had heard the story relaid before and i called him this evening to ask if i could retell it here. he was in charge of looking about, talking to people all around iraq and seeing what kind of government would be best suited for iraq so that we could help the iraqi people establish a nation of strength and a representative hopefully of government and he talked to people around the country and over and over people kept referring him to this huge man, a shi'a, a cleric, who worry the

black turban, the black robes and was a descendent, apparently, of muhammad, and everyone kept telling him he had to talk to this man. because everyone looked to him for insight, for words of wisdom and so eventually general garner went and visited with him. he had a number of people with him, including a reporter, he was often a freelance reporter, but at this point a reporter for "time" magazine. and apparently this cleric spoke very good english but he said he'd like to tell in his own language what should be done and he talked for quite some time in his language, everything was recorded and then he said, let me tell you in a nutshell what i've said. we need a constitutional process

, perhaps like yours in the united states wrrks we create a constitution -- united states, where we create a constitution, but it must be written by iraqis, the government must be of iraqis and it must be based on the lessons of jesus christ and bring all the nation together. general garner said when he left that interview with the people in the entourage he asked the others, did everybody hear what i just think i heard? and they said, yes, could you believe he said you needed a constitution based on the teachings of jesus christ? and he asked the reporter from "time," you going to put that in a story? he said, no one would believe that. but when you think about the wisdom of this great shi'a cleric, apparently shari'a law

does not allow for freedom of religion and worship when it's considered in context too often. that's the way it's interpreted. it's only the teachings of jesus that allow for a constitution, that allow for a freedom of worship whether you're muslim, whether you're following the teachings of muhammad or jesus or moses. it's only those teachings that give us the kind of constitution we have. but since we have that constitution and we have been given the foresight by our founders of what is required to do justice, to love mercy, we can do nothing less than what my friend from virginia has indicated. we must stand for those who seek

to worship as the directives of their heart lead them. and i thank my friend so much for the very touching time you've spent here on the floor and i hope and pray that this administration will take those words to heart. i thank my friend and i yield back. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for a motion. mr. wolf: i now move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning

>> good morning. today i am very proud to be here, having witnessed the president signed the wall street reform and consumer protection act yesterday. today, we took up unemployment insurance legislation, that was passed by the senate last night.

we are honoring the agenda of president obama and the democrats in the congress of the united states. this wall street reform and consumer protection act is a very major accomplishment. it is historic in what it does. it is important to household of america as well as to the financial institutions of our country. the president's statement yesterday at the signing i thought was perfect about the recognition that financial institutions are important to funding innovation in our country, but this must and can be done with transparency and accountability, and that never again can we put the american people and the taxpayers at risk for the benefit of some on wall street. because of that recklessness, the middle class lost over $one

trillion in terms of their homes, their pensions, their savings etc. jobs were lost, revenues were lost. i am very proud to be standing there when the president signed the legislation. among the pillars of the stabilization that the president put forth when he became president, first we had the recovery act the save or create a 3.6 million jobs, but then we had the president's budget which involved lower taxes, a reduced deficit, innovation in education, health care and energy. that last is the only piece left undone.

all of these are about the creation of jobs, health care, four million, about reducing the deficit, the education bizet's $60 billion to the taxpayer -- education peace saves $60 billion to the taxpayer. the energy bill will create about two million jobs. think of these five packages, the recovery package, health care, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, education and innovation, and energy.

wall street reform. it is a great list of accomplishments. their major, fundamental, they build a foundation to take us in a new direction for fiscal responsibility. let's say in a better way. we are not going to keep mountains of debt on to future generations. i am a mother and grandmother. i do not want to leave my kids and a debt, not personally, not officially. isolate the president for the legislative initiatives that he is so much a part of -- i salute the president for legislative initiatives that he is so much a part of. it should not have been so hard. imagine, today we are finally taking up unemployment insurance. the republicans have stood in the way of so many initiatives, including employment insurance. that is not an important because it is part of our compact with

the american worker, it is important because it is job- creating. when i talked about last week here was steps -- was that the unemployment insurance extension we passed previously helped create 1.2 million jobs. so it will be this time, because the money will be spent immediately. the purchasing power will affect the economy and it will create jobs. they have stood in the way and continue to stand in the way of the small business lending bill. what could make a bigger difference to main street than to have a community bank have the consensus to get -- the incentives to begin lending directly to small businesses? but the republicans are saying no. they already want to repeal the wall street reform which they say uses a heavy weapon to kill an ant. an aunt?

8.5 million jobs lost. so much devastation because of the reza -- because of the recklessness on wall street. they call that an aunt. if they could, they would go back to the policies of the budget ministration, on which they look back fondly. we are not going back. >> [inaudible] >> it has been a priority from day one. it was a priority for us last year to get past. the settlement is one about the black farmer and the native american settlement. it has been a priority for us for over a year and we have been trying to find the vehicle to do it. we have had it in the jobs bill. we have had it in the

supplemental. we will see. we must pass it. there is no higher priority because of the events of recent days. has always been a priority. >> why not take it out of the supplemental and pass it on its account? >> we could do that any day of the week. that is not what is happening in the united states senate. the republicans have rejected over and over again at any legislation that has had this settlement in it. >> there is talk of extending the bush era tax cuts for those earning below two hundred $50,000. -- $250,000. what is your stand on that?

>> my stance is that the bush tax cuts create -- contributed to the deficit, did not create jobs, and should be repealed. we should keep middle income tax cuts in place. because of the recovery act, americans are paying taxes at the lowest level since the 1960's. by the way, i will remind people that around $3 billion of the recovery act was tax cuts for the middle class. i believe that the high-end tax cuts have not created jobs. they have increased the deficit, and they should be repealed. >> to follow-up on that, some of your members have expressed unease about doing this before the election. do you think the house should act before october? >> look at what the senate does.

many of your questions will be predicated on what the senator does -- the senate does. it is our understanding that they will be moving. i am the last person to ask about the senate agenda. >> if i could follow up on the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, are democratic leaders willing or not willing to consider extending those? >> our position has been that we support middle income tax cuts. the tax cuts at the high-end have increased the deficit enormously and they have not created jobs. look at the inconsistency of what the republicans have said about these tax cuts. they insisted, until somebody finally caved, they insisted

that the unemployment benefits be paid for, but that the tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country should not. it is 20 times greater. $700 billion for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans who do not want to pay for it. they do not create jobs. i think we have a clear distinction here that if we want to lower taxes for the middle class and reduce the deficit and create jobs, extending the tax cut at the high-end is not the furtherance of reaching those goals. >> you talk about a great list of accomplishments, health care, reducing the deficit, energy, but there is a poll out today that four in 10 americans do not believe that president obama or the democrats should be left in charge. where is the cap -- where is the

gap? hallie refrain your message, if you need to, when you go -- how will you refrain your message, if you need to, when you go home to talk to voters? >> we are not going back to what the republicans say they would enforce a state takeover, which is the exact agenda of the bush administration, which they believe should be looked upon with fondness. we have arraigned in of the health-insurance industry. the republicans said know. -- we have reined in the health insurance industry. the republicans said no. we rank in wall street. wall street.n

the republicans said know. no. they want to repeal, repeal, repeal and apologize. republicans want to talk about repealing legislation that eliminated discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. we welcome that debate. they want to repeal legislation withprotect consumers credit cards and the interest being paid on that. we welcome that debate. if they want to have a debate on issues like unemployment insurance and what that means to workers to have played by the rules but lost their jobs through no fault of their um, we welcome that debate. but we are not going back. that is the choice of the american people, go back to the

failed economic policies of the bush administration -- which, by the way, are embodied in the budget that the republicans have put forth. privatization of social security -- is the 70th anniversary of social security. democrats are here to protect social security. the republican budget calls for privatizing social security. i think that the distinction between the two parties is a clear one and that members will make it clear. one thing is for sure, we are not going back to the failed bush policies that lost so many jobs. we've created more jobs in the first eight months of 2010 than

were created in eight years of the bush administration. we are not going back. >> what four or five big-ticket items do you think will be tackled during the lame duck session? >> are we going to be lame duck? are you making an announcement here today? so much will depend on how much republicans in the senate will obstruct what is brought forth in the senate. hopefully, they can go forward in a bipartisan way. we will see where we go from here. >> senator reid appears to be unveiling a bill that will not put a cap on the price of

carbon. is it a mistake to push the vote to june? >> no, it was not. this is one of our proudest votes. the house of representatives recognized that it was absolutely essential for us, from a national security standpoint, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, from a health care standpoint, to reduce our emissions, that was absolutely essential for us to step up to the plate and the number one, competitive and green technology, to rebuild america in a new, green a way that creates jobs. we have a moral responsibility to preserve this earth, and that is why we are working so closely together with the evangelical community who shares our view.

we staked out a bold position, one that was a consensus within our caucus, one the received some republican votes. we are very proud. i hope to see you later today 1:30 p.m. we have an announcement about the anniversary of the americans with disabilities act that i hope you will come to hear. thank you all. >> coming up next on c-span, today's u.s. house debate on extending unemployment benefits. the house oversight committee looks into the federal regulation of offshore drilling. democrats put forward their

proposal for an energy bill. president obama today signed a bill extending long-term unemployment benefits by six months. this was shortly after the house approved the legislation in a 272-152 votes. here is some of the debate before that vote. this is one hour and a half. aker and colleagues, this action should have occurred two months ago. this house acted to extend unemployment insurance on may 28 . for six weeks, for six weeks republicans in the senate blocked unemployment insurance. they stood not on the side but in the way of millions of americans. and during those six weeks over 2.5 million unemployed americans exhausted their benefits and they struggled to stay afloat

while continuing to look for work in this difficult economy. americans like this person from grand rapids, michigan, who wrote me, and i quote, i worked 22 years in automotive. 60 to 70 hours a week. supporting my family, paying my taxes, and working in my community. every single day i send my resume out to no avail. i have lost my home, one week, and my sense of the ability to take care of my family. or this individual from madison heights, michigan. my family is not living large. we are surviving. cutting unemployment insurance will take us out of survival mode and put us into homeless mode.

after working 20-plus years, this is the first time that we have asked for unemployment. and to add insult to injury, after their filibuster was broken, senate republicans insisted on running out the clock and delaying the full 30 hours before they would let a final vote occur in the other body. 30 hours for nothing. no excuse of theirs worked for working americans out of work. out of work through no fault of their own and looking for work. we have acted to extend unemployment insurance in republican congresses under republican presidents. so today we put this sad chapter behind us and now we move

forward to continue our efforts to support job creation and to continue to dig out of the jobs ditch inherited by this administration. and by this congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, my state of louisiana has placed four hurricanes, a recession, and now an oil spill. and every one of us in this body has faced and looked into the eyes of those who have lost their homes and lost their jobs. and every one of us in this body feels deep compassion for those who are in those dire straits and we all want to help. but republicans want to help those looking for work. we want to help those who are

struggling with this current economic slowdown. but we also agree with the american people that new spending must be paid for. this latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the american people want us to do. instead, the democratic approach adds another $34 billion in an already staggering $13 trillion of national debt. and that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient wasteful spending that we could cut to offset which is needed to pay for this. we want to do this but we want to do what the american people want us to do and that is to pay for it. republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. the majority leader himself, mr. hoyer, said on june 13, there is spending fatigue across this spending fatigue across this country