John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Shea-Porter, thank you so much. You were talking about the many options available to us, the choices we are making. In this tax policy, we are making a choice to invest in America's future, that is, the working men and women of America, or investing in the very wealthy. All of it with borrowed money. If America is going to make it, then we are going to have to rebuild America's industrial strength. These are choices. There are ways that we can rebuild America's industrial strength. One of them is to stop exporting jobs. Now, the American Tax Code until just a month ago provided a $12 billion annual tax break to American corporations who sent jobs offshore. Yes, that's right. How could that be? Well, it was in the Tax Code. The Democrats said that's wrong, and we passed a tax bill that ended that nefarious, useless, job-harming tax proposal. We brought $12 billion back into the Treasury, put a stop to the incentive for American corporations to ship those jobs offshore. Did the Republicans support that job-creating program? They did not. Only a handful. I mean, one handful actually voted with the Democrats to end a tax break that encouraged the off-shoring of jobs. An example of how we can bring jobs back to America is to set our tax policy in place so we don't encourage the off-shoring of jobs. Another piece of this is to use our tax money to build jobs in America. Very quickly, and then I want to turn to my colleagues in the final 15 minutes of this hour. We spend a lot of money. Our gasoline tax, our diesel fuel tax is used to maintain our highways and to buy buses and trains and light rail systems and things that move people. It is all well and good. But much of that tax money is used to purchase buses, light rail, trains that are made in foreign countries. My proposal is, hey, that is our tax money; let's spend it on equipment that is made in America. You want to build a bridge, use American steel. You want to buy a bus, our tax money, buy an American-made bus. You want to build a light rail system with our tax money, buy an American made light rail system. If we just use our tax dollars in a way that promotes American industry, we can grow America. I think of Walt Whitman and his beautiful poetry about the great industrial strength of America, the way America would get up in the morning and build. I don't think Walt Whitman would be very enthusiastic about American industry today given our policies. But if we institute policies that are make it in America so that America can make it, once again these are choices about where we are going. Manufacturing matters. Walt Whitman understood that the strength of America was in its industries. We have forgotten that, and apparently our Republican colleagues are perfectly willing to give American industries a tax break to ship jobs offshore. The Democrats are not. We ended that. Mr. Tonko, you and I have talked about this. You were there for the vote to end that tax break.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The gentleman from New York could not be more correct, that the policies of the Bush administration, their tax policies, created a huge deficit, two wars that were not paid for but rather money borrowed, most of it again from China, and a total backing away from the regulation of the financial industry led to an extraordinary crash of the American and indeed the world economy. What is being asked of us now is to put back in place the tax policy that was part of that great decline. And a point that you made, if I might just bring it out one more time here, is that that tax policy that was started in 2001 and is now being proposed by our Republican colleagues and our President is a continuation of the drift--excuse me, it's not a drift-- a cascade of wealth from the middle class, from the working men and women, to the wealthiest Americans. Is that wise policy? It certainly doesn't create jobs. There are very few economists except some very right-wing Republican economists who would argue that by giving more money, in this case $150 billion minimum, maybe $180 billion, to the wealthiest is going to somehow create jobs. Nobody would rationally argue that. However, on the other hand, it's been argued very clearly that one of the most stimulus, job-creating, encouragements to the economy is unemployment insurance. But our friends on the Republican side have said very clearly that they're going to put their foot right on the neck of the most unfortunate Americans, the unemployed, and hold them down until they're able to get their buddies, the wealthiest of Americans, an additional tax break. That is what is going on here. They are using the most harmed Americans in this economy, an economy that collapsed under the Republican administration, holding those unemployed down, putting their foot on their neck and saying, You cannot have anything until our wealthy backers have more. Shame on them. Shame on them. That is not good American policy. That is not even humanitarian. And we are up against the Christmas holidays. They are using this as a lever. It is dead wrong, it is inhumane, it is cruel, and it shows not one iota of compassion. Until they get their wealthy taken care of, those people who don't need more, they are going to hold 2.5 million Americans on the ground without food, without gifts for their families, without even a Christmas meal. That is what the Republicans have said. That is the deal which has been cut, and it is one we should oppose. Do I feel strongly about this? Yes, I do.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Ms. Carol Shea-Porter from the great State of New Hampshire. You have always been right on the issues. I think we need to really understand what is in this proposal that this House passed just last week, which was a very, very significant tax cut for the working men and women of America, the people that are out there every day, going to work, putting in their 8, 10 hours a day, bringing home the paycheck at the end of the week. The tax proposal that we put together takes care of children, providing the child care tax credit. It becomes permanent in our piece of legislation. In the one that has been proposed, it expires in 2 years. Then what happens to taking care of children? If you happen to be a student, in our proposal, the student loan interest deduction, it stays permanent. It stays there for the next generation. For those kids that want to go to school, their families can get this, not for just 2 years but permanently. So what was negotiated by the Republicans? A 2-year proposal in which this particular tax reduction for the working men and women and their children ceases. You want to get married? Well, you are married. Good for you. Our proposal would make permanent the extension of the marriage tax deduction. Right now there would be a new penalty imposed on married people unless we extend it. So we said, no; married people, married couples and those who file as couples would get a permanent reduction in their taxes. So you are a small business person. You have a company. You have a farm. You have a ranch, and you have the opportunity under our proposal to permanently, into the future, receive a lower capital gains tax rate if you were to sell your company. So for small businesses, this is what we propose for the small businesses and other people who might have investments. Now, that's not for the wealthy. It phases out at $200,000 of income for an individual and at 250,000 for a couple. In our proposal, not what the President negotiated with the Republicans, but rather in our proposal, there is a tax cut for those couples who file an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or less, and the alternative minimum tax would be focused to avoid the penalty that would exist in the alternative minimum tax. So what we did was to very carefully construct a tax reduction proposal that focuses on the working men and women, the great middle class, the middle income of America, so that they would have the benefits, not the very, very wealthy in America. Unfortunately, what's been negotiated is exactly the opposite. What's been negotiated is, instead of a permanent reduction that benefits the working men and women, the middle income of America, a proposal has been put in place that terminates in 2 years and provides an extraordinary benefit to the very, very wealthy top 2 percent, the billionaires, those who have an adjusted gross income over $250,000, literally the billionaires in America and the millionaires in America. How much is in it for them? Well, by a calculation that my staff and I made earlier today we said $70 billion a year that, as you said, Ms. Shea-Porter, would have to be borrowed. And who is going to pay for it? The working men and women in the years ahead. What would that $70 billion be used for? What's the alternative? The most critical investment any, any society can make is an investment in education. We know from the reports that just came out today that the American education system is not producing students who are capable of competing in tomorrow's economy. We are in the bottom half of student ability in math and science, where the future lies. What if we took that $70 billion that the billionaires don't need and instead invested it in education? I said earlier, average teacher pay, $50,000. Is that about what it is in your area? It is in ours. Senior teachers would get somewhat more. Junior teachers would get significantly less. But let's just say it's $50,000. If we took $50 billion of the $70 billion, or maybe it's $80 billion, that the extremely wealthy get and instead say, no, no, you're not going to get it, we're going to invest that money in our children, in their education. One million teachers. Do the math. One million teachers. Fifty billion dollars could buy 1 million teachers in the classroom beginning in January. Those that have been laid off could come back. Classroom size could be reduced. Isn't that better for America than giving the rich, the richest of the rich, $70 billion? I think so. Use the remaining 20 to improve our classrooms, buy the technology, put the computers in place. Twenty billion dollars would do it. And that's in year one. It could be repeated in year two. Mr. President, Mr. Republicans, you cut a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for America. A better deal, instead of giving the rich more, give our children something. Let me turn to my fellow representative from the great State of New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott. I notice that our colleague from the great northeast, New Hampshire, has arrived. I think you have had a lot to say about this issue in your tenure here. If you would please join us and share with us your thoughts.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very much. I just was taking one little piece, and I want to then turn to Mr. McDermott. The proposal that was announced today, the Republican-Obama tax cut proposal, would send $70 billion a year to the wealthiest billionaires and millionaires in America. What could that $70 billion be used for? Now, a teacher, let's just say a teacher gets $50,000 a year. If you took $50 billion of the $75 billion, you could hire a million teachers in the classroom beginning January 1, 2011. A million teachers. Choices are being made here. Do you want $70 billion to go to the wealthiest people in America, the top 2 percent, or would you like to use that $70 billion to build schools? Let's take $20 billion of the 70 billion, we will build schools, we will improve the classrooms, we will bring technology to the classrooms, and use the remaining $50 billion to hire a million teachers in our classrooms. Now, there's an investment that will last. That's the kind of thing we can do. Now, that's just an option. Mr. McDermott, could you please join us here and share with us your perspectives on this?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege of the floor and the opportunity to share some thoughts with my colleagues on the Democratic side. I was going to go to the tax issue which is before the American public. The President has cut a deal with the Republicans. And I know that on our side, we have some concerns about this, but I really think we need to spend just maybe a couple of minutes about what we just heard. We just heard the gutting of the health care reform program. Have no doubt about this, general public and the people out there: The program that was put together last year on health care is an effort that will be successful to provide health insurance for the 40 million to 50 million Americans that don't have health insurance and for the thousands each and every day that lose their job and lose their health insurance. The Republican Party is committed to gutting the health care program, and it's stage one. When they come into power in this House next January, they are going to begin a concerted effort of moving more and more wealth to the highest and the richest men and women in America that have already seen a quintupling of their wealth in the last 20 years. So let's have a very clear understanding of this. By gutting the health reform program, you will see stage one of the Republican effort to shift money away from the working men and women to those who are already fabulously wealthy. Not in the last 70, 80 years has America seen such an accumulation of wealth among the very, very few and a disproportionate holding down of the great middle class in America. The health reform program was an effort to provide one of the most critical things that every person and every family needs, and that is access to health care. We'll put that aside. We'll come back to that. But the issue of the day today on everybody's mind, the President doing his press conference, saying he's cut a great deal with Republicans. We don't think it is. Last week, this House passed a very, very important piece of legislation that laid out a significant tax cut for the working men and women in America, those people who get on a bus in the morning, get in their car, commute to work, spend their 8, 9, 10 hours working, come home and take care of their family. That tax package that this Democratic House passed last week is a good, solid tax package in it provides a reduction in taxes for the working men and women, the middle class of America, and it is simultaneously one of the most important stimuli that we can provide to get this economy up and moving. When coupled with the unemployment insurance, it is a very, very strong package. What's been negotiated with Republicans is a real serious problem for America. If you care about the deficit, then you'd better be paying attention, because the proposal that's before us, as negotiated by the President and the Republicans, is going to significantly increase the deficit. The program that we put forward will stimulate the economy and, in the out-years, significantly reduce the deficit. Let's just take a look at the difference. I put this one up last week when I was talking about this issue and we laid out the Obama tax proposal, which no longer is the case. Obama and the Bush tax cuts have come together. But on the Obama tax proposal, every working family in America that earns an after-adjustment--that is, the adjusted gross income--of less than $250,000 will receive a significant tax reduction in the range of some $6,000 for those at the top end and downward for those who are earning just $10,000, a very small tax cut, but nonetheless, a very significant one at 53. So this is what we voted on last week, one that put the working men and women, the middle class, to an advantage. Now, what's been cut, the deal that's been cut is one that puts this one aside and instead substitutes the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the Republicans have won the day with their supporters. We're talking about the filthy rich in America. We're talking about the billionaires who are going to receive an enormous benefit for the next 2 years. Average, for those who have an adjusted gross income over $1 million, the average tax cut for them is over $100,000 a year. So what are they going to do with it? Well, I guess they can go out and buy a Mercedes-Benz E-Class, one each year under the proposal that's made. But what is the cost to the economy? The cost to the economy is $150 billion, $150 billion that will have to be borrowed--probably from China--to finance a tax cut so the very, very wealthy in America can go out and buy two Mercedes-Benz in the next 2 years, or maybe they want a new villa in the South of France. Is this going to stimulate our economy? We think not. We think this proposal's a bad deal for America. Now let me just show you one other piece of this, and that is that this tax cut also will cause America to go further in debt. The deficit is a very serious problem, but this tax cut proposal has already been proved to not work, and the proof is in the decade 2001 to 2010. During the Clinton period, with taxes higher--these cuts were not in effect-- 22.7 million jobs were created. The proposal to give to the wealthy $150 billion additional tax relief generated 1 million jobs in the decade 2000 to 2010. So right there is historic proof that these tax cuts don't necessarily create economic growth. And the only economists that will say they do are the Republicans, who happen to have used the money from these very same corporations and individuals to finance the most scurrilous, secretive campaigns ever in America's history. That was the Citizens United case that opened the doors to secret money financing campaigns. What do you think they're going to do? Maybe they'll buy a Mercedes or maybe they'll use these tax cuts to come back to further undermine the working men and women of this Nation with the kind of proposal you just heard on repealing the health care reforms. Okay, enough from me right now. We'll come back at this issue. But I'm joined today by two of my colleagues, Congressman Paul Tonko, from the great State of New York, and Mr. McDermott, from the equally great State of Washington. Mr. Tonko, would you please join us.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. It was 13 months ago that I was given the great privilege of becoming a Member of the Congress. And it was 7 months ago that I was given another privilege of becoming a member of the Armed Services Committee. For the last hour and 10 minutes, we have heard from Chairman Skelton and from his colleagues that have expressed their appreciation based upon their knowledge and their experiences of working with an extraordinary man. I feel cheated that I don't have all of those years that my other colleagues have had to learn and to share time with Chairman Skelton. My 7 months have been just too short; but in those 7 months, I have found the opportunity for friendship, brotherhood, and the opportunity to work and to be mentored by an incredible individual. What you have seen here tonight is the outpouring of emotion and respect for a gentleman that has served this Nation and the armed services for 34 years in the capacity of a Member of Congress. That's an incredible record. Seven months of that I have had a personal experience of, and I value those moments intensely. I have had my hours on the floor talking about policy. I have not had such an important hour as this hour listening to the Members of this Congress speak of one of their colleagues. It has been a very good hour. Chairman Skelton, you are loved, beloved, for a very good reason. You are a unique individual.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the comments of my colleague from California and his desire to build jobs here in America. My comments today are really directed towards the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar, who will be leaving this House at the end of this year, an extraordinary individual who over his 40 years in this House has led the way for good American union jobs in the construction industry. Unfortunately, when it came time in the stimulus bill, not one Republican voted for the stimulus bill that created 1.5 million union jobs in the construction industry. Unfortunately, that was the case. You can't have it both ways, I suppose. Mr. Oberstar has led the way time and time again for worker safety, to make sure that Americans had the transportation, the infrastructure that they needed. I have had the great pleasure of working with him and learning from him. I am sure I join with every colleague in this House, Democrat and Republican, to say that we will miss him deeply, and his leadership will be lost upon us.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this resolution. I think every Member on this floor understands the critical importance of the National Guard in their own communities and in their State, and it's certainly appropriate that we recognize the 374th birthday of the National Guard. You had me on that one. I didn't know it was 374 until this moment. But I do know the history of my own State of California and the critical importance of the National Guard not only in all of the traumas that occur in my State, but also overseas and the wars.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 1740 introduced by our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Latta) which recognizes the 374th birthday of the Nation's military first responder, our National Guard. I looked at that, too, and I said, ``374? How could that be?'' Well, on December 13, 2010, we will celebrate the enormous contributions that our Nation's citizen soldiers and airmen have contributed to our national defense for over 300 years. Our forefathers relied on its citizen soldiers to protect this young Nation. Today we continue to rely on our citizen soldiers to protect the values and inalienable rights that Americans enjoy today. Our men and women in the National Guard not only volunteer to serve overseas in our national defense, they are also an integral part of our local communities, providing assistance, support, and protection to their neighbors and loved ones in cases of natural and manmade disasters within the United States. The history of the National Guard began back during the very earliest days of our Nation. The colonists adopted the English militia system which required all males between the ages of 16 and 60 to bear arms and contribute to the defense of their communities. In those early days, the militia provided the first line of defense in our Nation and it continues to do so to this very day. Throughout our Nation's conflicts, the National Guard has been an integral part of our country's national defense. During World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of America's combat divisions. The National Defense Act of 1933 established the National Guard as a reserve component of the Army. And in 1947 the National Security Act established the air component of the National Guard as a reserve component of the Air Force. More than 300,000 members of the National Guard participated in World War II. And over 180,000 members of the National Guard participated in the Korean War, and nearly 23,000 deployed in support of the Vietnam War. More than 50,000 members of the National Guard were deployed in the Gulf States in support of Hurricane Katrina. Today, almost a quarter of a million members of the National Guard have mobilized in support of Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. Today we are here to express our appreciation to those who served in the National Guard and their families, who are also making a contribution in defense of this Nation. We are here to express our gratitude and respect for those in the National Guard who have given their lives in defense of our Nation. Our sympathy and prayers are with their families and loved ones. Their sacrifice is noted and will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1740 and join us as we wish America's National Guard a happy 374th birthday. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1740) recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 374th anniversary.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1585, a resolution expressing appreciation of the House of Representatives for the service and sacrifice of the members of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, 349th Air Reserve Wing, 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, 615th Contingency Response Wing, and Travis Air Force Base. Affectionately known as ``Team Travis,'' the team includes 13,900 active duty reservists and civilians of the wings. Travis was established in 1942, originally named the Fairfield-Suisun Army Air Base. In 1951, it was renamed Travis Air Force Base, and its vital missions have continued. Travis Air Force Base has been called the ``Gateway to the Pacific,'' and brave men and women who have served at Travis know a thing or two about their neighbors, particularly those across the Pacific and in every corner of the globe. Brave men and women of the Travis Air Force Base have fought in World War II, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. More recently, Team Travis has played a major role in providing airlift, air refueling, and aero-medical evacuation in support of combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, flying 102,581 hours for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 70,940 hours for Operation Enduring Freedom. That's a lot of flight time. They have carried out vital humanitarian missions in Berlin, Darfur, Rwanda, and Haiti. Indeed, after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, 2010, Team Travis conducted the first humanitarian airlift mission, provided search and rescue personnel, medical experts, and supplies, and facilitated delivery of more than 1 million pounds of cargo during the duration of the Haitian relief effort. They also set up the logistics at the airport, which was destroyed. After the tragic 2004 tsunami that devastated much of South Asia, Travis delivered more than 2 million pounds of supplies, providing a full third of the entire U.S. relief effort. Given their broad contribution to humanitarian causes around the world, it's clear that the 60th Air Mobility Wing and Team Travis valiantly fulfill their motto of being ``America's First Choice.'' Not only is Travis a vital and valued base furthering American missions and humanitarianism abroad, it is also a very, very important part of the Solano County economy. Travis spends roughly $300 million a year in Solano County. They are the largest sector of the economy, and at least 5,600 jobs outside of the air base are included. For the past 12 years, our good friend, Ike Skelton, has been a consistent supporter of Travis, and I want to thank him for the honor of presenting this bill today and for his support in making it possible for this bill to move beyond this committee. He has been an extraordinary leader. Today, let's honor the Travis Air Force Base entire family while offering our condolences to the families of the bravest of the brave servicemembers of Team Travis and all of those who have lost their lives in the defense of the United States. Travis is home to thousands of heroes, and it is my privilege and honor to represent them here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1585. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1585) honoring and recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 615th Contingency Response Wing civilians and families serving at Travis Air Force Base, California, as amended.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very, very much. And I really want to congratulate you on the success of your reelection. And I know why you were reelected--because you have a heart. You've got a moral center that's focused clearly upon the needs of the men and women in your district who struggle every day to put food on their table, to take care of their children, make sure they have a good upbringing, the clothes, the education, and a roof over their head. I mean, that's really where we ought to be going. That should be our moral compass, and it certainly is yours, and I know it is yours also, Mr. Cohen. Because of that, you're back here. But there's some real serious issues that divide us here in this Congress. We saw one today--the issue of the unemployment insurance. You know, 143 of our Republican colleagues blocked that payment that would give men and women an opportunity to have enough money to take care of the holidays that are ahead of us, put food on the table, maybe buy a few gifts. There is another thing that we need to do, and we've been working at that for more than 2 years, in almost every case without any help whatsoever from our Republican colleagues, and that is to get America back to work. The Recovery Act, 3 million jobs, no Republican votes. The HIRE Act, another few couple of hundred thousand jobs, no Republican votes. Even when it came down to putting teachers in schools, to keep them there--in my own State, 16,600 teachers are in the classroom because we put some more money on the table to help the States and local communities--police and firemen the same, not one Republican vote. Talk about the deficit forever. Yeah, you can talk about the deficit, but it comes down to a point, are you willing to take action to deal with the deficit, and our Republican colleagues have said a resounding ``no'' thus far. They want a $700 billion increase in the deficit to finance a tax break for the wealthiest part of America's society. This is hypocritical. This is wrong. And it's time for us to go. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very much. Mr. Cohen, delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you about these fundamental American issues. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, because tax cuts, particularly at the upper income levels, don't equate to economic growth. You are quite correct, the George W. Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 helped create the extraordinary deficit that we currently have. There were a couple of other things, two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, that were not paid for by American money but rather by borrowed Chinese money and the tax cuts and the ultimate near collapse of the economy in 2007 and 2008. Those all added to the huge deficit. But it's also, just as you have pointed out, clear by the employment statistics that following the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that the number of people employed actually reduced by nearly 600,000 people over the period of the next 5 years. So, you know, it doesn't equate. Now, we need to provide the current tax cuts for those in the middle class that are earning less than $250,000. And, really, for every American earning $250,000 or less--if they make more, they're going to pay a little more--it's very, very clear that if we continue to provide the tax cuts for the very wealthy, it's not going to create more jobs. For those who need the money, they're going to pay their mortgage, they're going to make that car payment, they're going to buy food, they're going to buy clothing, they're going to invest that tax money into the economy, stimulating the economy. For those that are wealthy, I guess they will go buy another Mercedes-Benz, which I think is manufactured overseas.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It's easy enough to say, but when you're out hunting for a job, you know these are difficult times. And we're going to make efforts to turn that around, and we've talked about that a little already, but the jobs are not there. We need to move this economy forward, and then as we do so, those jobs will come back. And let's understand, this is not a bunch of welfare. A lot of people are against welfare. We understand that, but these are middle class Americans----

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, apparently those people that say that haven't been looking for a job.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It is a local store. If you have no money, you are not going to do one thing for this economy except be an additional burden to it. And so if you have an unemployment check--and let's keep in mind, that's something that the workers and employers have paid into so that when you lose your job, you have a continuation of income and you use that money to go down and buy some clothing for your kid, stimulate the economy, give the retailer--you buy bread, you buy food, you're able to pay your rent, you're not going to have to face that foreclosure and help drive down the prices of homes in your neighborhood. It's all there. It makes so much sense on the economic level. But on the human, moral level, about where we are as Americans, it's not the fault of that worker out there that lost his job that he doesn't have a job. Many, many reasons for it. Wall Street, greed on Wall Street, all of those things. We can talk about that later, but it's not that worker's fault. It's not his kid's fault. Can't we just muster enough compassion to give those families an opportunity during this holiday season and on into the new year enough money to stay in their home? What are they are going to do, go out and live in their car? They can't afford to buy the gas, I guess they can become the homeless. 143 Republicans this day said go homeless, go live in your car, don't worry about the holiday gifts, don't worry about your children because they will have no food, they'll have no place to live. What are they thinking in this House? 143 Republicans said ``no.'' They blocked, 7 days before Thanksgiving, they blocked an opportunity for 2 million American families to have enough money to put a holiday meal on their table, to put shelter over their family.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, Mr. Ellison, I was in my office. Of course this floor is constantly on the TV screen, so I looked up, and I said, Hey, there's my man. There's the guy who is from the great upper Midwest, who has seen the incredible downturn of the American economy. I know that you've worked hard for your district to try to bring in those jobs and to try to create the legislation that would bring the jobs into that district. As you were talking, I said, I'm going to go over and say just a couple of things in support of the message that you're giving today, a message that over the last 2 years has been one of a consistent effort by the Democratic House to stabilize the American economy. We did that with the Wall Street bank bailout, which a lot of people didn't like. I had problems with it, too. I think those Wall Street barons should have paid a heavy price, but the price that they could not pay and should not pay is the total collapse of the financial industry of the world because we would wind up, mom and pop at home, whether you have a 401(k), which unfortunately became a 201(k), whatever, we did that and it worked. Then you came right back, the Democrats in this House and the President came back with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 3 million jobs out of that, stabilizing once again the situation where the jobs were in free-fall the last months actually of the Bush administration in 2008, 800,000 jobs lost. But that began to turn around, and so in 2009 we began to see a turnaround, a lessening of the lost jobs. They continued to lose jobs, but nonetheless, each month that went by there was fewer and fewer jobs lost, and then in 2010 we've actually seen the growth of jobs in America once again, not only as a result of those two pieces of legislation, but dozens and dozens of other bills that I was fortunate enough to work on when I came here just over a year ago in a special election. It's been hard work. We've not had much help, and this is one of the things that I find so disappointing having come here just a year ago, and on all of those bills, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill, the HIRE act that gave incentives to employers to go hire people, the saving of the American automobile industry. The Republicans voted against these bills. On unemployment insurance, the Republicans voted against it. I mean it's easy enough I suppose if you have a job not to worry about the uninsured, but if you don't have a job, what are you going to do? How do you keep a roof over your family's head? How do you provide the food? Well, you do it by getting an unemployment insurance check, which, actually--workers in America and employers in America have paid into an insurance program year after year after year and that uninsurance program provides the insurance when a person loses their job. I couldn't believe it today on the floor. We have more than 2 million Americans whose unemployment check is going to run out during these holidays. Between the end of Thanksgiving and New Year's, 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment check. Now, the economy not's running the way we want it to run, and hopefully you and I will have a chance to talk about making it in America, making this economy once again, but today, on this floor, not more than 3 hours ago, we were unable to muster a two-thirds vote to pass an uninsurance check extension so that people would have food, shelter, clothing, maybe even a small gift for their children at Christmastime. What are we doing here? If we are such--we, not we, the Democrats voted en masse for this, but 143 Republicans, more than the one-third to block, voted against this. We're talking about the ultimate Scrooge. This would make Charles Dickens right up there on top with Scrooge on Christmas, on the holiday season, when we ought to be generous. 143 Republicans this day voted to deny 2 million Americans enough money to buy a gift for their child, to put a holiday meal on the table. Okay, fine, I understand where they're coming from--no, I don't understand where they're coming from. I don't get it but we need to move forward. We need to move forward. I know you have been talking about that. And we can do it. We can rebuild the American manufacturing industry. It's there for us to do it if we use wise public policy, and I know you have been talking about this, and I'd love to engage in a dialogue with you and see if we can share some thoughts here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, this is another issue that's going to be before the Congress in the next couple of weeks, and that is, what are we going to do about the 2001, 2003 tax reductions that expire on December 31? Those tax reductions were pushed forward by George W. Bush and the Republicans, who then controlled both this House and the Senate. And they wrote the tax law so that the middle-income got a little bit. It was worthwhile. It was a good reduction. But the real reduction went to those with the big bucks, those who had more than $250,000, $500,000, $1 million, $1 billion annual incomes. They got the big bucks. And what happened was, we saw, once again, the widening of the gap between the working men and women of the middle class and the high and the mighty, the top 1 percent of this Nation who now control 70, 80 percent of all the wealth of the Nation. They certainly have the big salaries. And do they need a tax break at the expense of an unemployed worker from a factory in your district, an unemployed worker from a factory or from a school in my district? I don't think so. Let's talk about what it is. For those making $1 million a year, the tax cut is worth $83,000 a year. Now, you tell me how many out there in middle America are making $83,000 a year. Well, we know that there are 2 million that are unemployed that certainly aren't. But if you took that money, that $83,000 for all those millionaires, you could create 3 million jobs that would pay $30,000 a year. Not a great deal, but a living wage for 3 million Americans. So we've got choices here. We've got choices. You are going to give the wealthy even more, $83,000 a year--that's just for millionaires. And there are billionaires out there who will make even more out of this tax cut. What are they going to do with it? Well, I guess they could buy a Mercedes-Benz E-Class which does cost about $82,000. Maybe we would like to think of them with a nice big, fat cigar. They could buy 2,000 of those cigars every year for the next decade, and they could light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. Now that's a worthy way to do it. Or would you rather have 3 million Americans earning $30,000 a year or, in this case, even an unemployment insurance check? And one of the things, Mr. Ellison, some days I want to stand up here on the floor and just scream and say, What are you guys thinking? Deficit reduction. Oh, my goodness, we just finished an election. And deficit reduction was on every advertisement. We have got to deal with the deficit. We have got to deal with the deficit. Well, what the Republicans are proposing is a tax break for those who earn more than $250,000 a year. Let me back up here. Every American taxpayer, every American taxpayer will receive a tax reduction up to $250,000. If they are making more than that, the tax break that they have had for the last decade would end. Now, my Republican colleagues want to extend that tax cut for the wealthy. What it means is an additional $700 billion of deficit over the next decade, $700 billion. So you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth here. Either you are a deficit hawk and you vote against a tax cut for the wealthy, or you are a hypocrite and you vote for a tax cut for the wealthy and increase the deficit by $700 billion.