Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Richmond, I understand that my time is about to expire. But our men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and fighting in Iraq, they're fighting to defend that flag. They're fighting to build a more perfect Union. It's shameful that Members of this Congress aren't fighting for that flag, aren't fighting for a more perfect Union, aren't fighting to expand opportunities for our men and women when they return from Afghanistan and Iraq. There is nothing more tragic in this current hour, Mr. Speaker, than the idea that our men and women could come home to unemployment, could come home without health care, could come home to homes that are in foreclosure, Mr. Speaker. The 112th Congress needs to do something about that. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for participating in this Special Order.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, yesterday my Republican colleagues introduced a continuing resolution that would increase the defense budget for the entire year while funding the rest of the government for just 1 week and drastically cutting just about every other vital program. That's no compromise. For months the Republicans have said that as we reduce spending everyone has to take a haircut, including the Defense Department. But now the Republicans propose increasing military spending. The Republicans claim they want to fund the government for the rest of the year. But this bill is for 1 week with drastic cuts to programs that serve our most vulnerable. Madam Speaker, if you say one thing and then you do another, that is not negotiating in good faith. That's not a real compromise. In fact, The Washington Post reported that in the Republican caucus this week, the possibility of the government shutdown was greeted with cheers and with applause. They want a shutdown. Over 13 million Americans are unemployed. They don't have time for this, and they don't have any more time to waste; and we shouldn't be wasting the time and the resources that they gave us. So if the Republicans won't compromise at the negotiating table, maybe we should get everyone down here to the floor to discuss this, to discuss the condition of the unemployed and to discuss why a government of, for, and by the people should remain open.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I recently have given several Special Order speeches about my view of the Constitution and making my argument for why I think it should be amended to include certain basic rights that the American people currently lack, such as the right to a high-quality education, the right to health care, and equal rights for women. I believe these rights should be given to the American people as a matter of moral and social justice. However, even more than that, I believe that there's a strong economic case for why these rights should be granted by this Congress. If we guarantee the right to an education of equal high quality to every American, and give the Congress the power to implement that right by appropriate legislation, then, Mr. Speaker, we will set off a true race to the top as States, cities, and the Federal Government are compelled to meet under the standard. The nature of the problem: in 50 States there are 95,000 schools. There are 15,000 school districts; 3,141 counties; 19,000 municipal governments, and 30,000 incorporated cities. In all of that government there are 60 million children who are being asked to be the very best that they can be. With my amendment, that means more teachers and teachers' aides and tutors for our kids. It means the construction companies and roofers and architects will be engaged to build new schools and improve old ones. It means technology companies benefit as computers and laptops are purchased; and, yes, iPads, Kindles, and Nooks replace textbooks. I realize that there will be a cost to all of this, but I believe that if we can find the resources for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and military action in Libya, then we can find the resources to educate our children and the American people. Most importantly, for 308 million Americans, we can't afford not to. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to put my proposal tonight in some historical context, if I can. I want to suggest that through the course of human history, law is actually going somewhere. I want to suggest that at points in time from the earliest civilizations, progress has been made incrementally towards freedom, towards justice, and towards human rights. I want to put our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the context at vital points in time. These documents are not the end all and the be all of democracy and freedom. No, Mr. Speaker. The very ability to amend our Constitution suggests that the Founders of our country see things the way I do--that the document they crafted was a landmark in human history, but not a perfect, final draft. So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a walk through history to talk a little bit about where law and human rights have been, where they are, and where they're going. A couple of themes are going to emerge that as history shows that law is heading in a certain direction, we're going to see an action by a majority in this Congress heading in the opposite direction of human law through human history. Like all civilizations, the roots of democracy and human rights lie in what is known as the Middle East--the Mesopotamian Empire. Although those early civilizations were decidedly not democratic and not inclusive of human rights, the evolution of law as we know it started there. Around 2350 B.C., Before Christ, Mesopotamia was ruled by Urukagina's Code, the oldest known set of laws. They are referenced in documents from the period as the consolidation of ``ordinances'' that claimed that kings were appointed by the gods, and affirmed the rights of citizens to know why certain actions were being punished. Some 300 years later, around 2050 B.C., Ur-Nammu's Code was the earliest known written law. Only a handful of articles can be deciphered, but evidence suggests an advanced legal system with specialized judges, testimony under oath, and the ability for judges to assess damages to be paid to victims by the guilty party. In 1850 B.C., we saw the first known legal decision involving murder of a temple employee by three other men. Nine witnesses testified against them, and three were sentenced to death. In 1700 B.C., Hammurabi's Code was carved into rock columns in Babylon. The underlying principle was ``an eye for an eye.'' Some 282 clauses regulated an array of obligations, professions, and rights, including commerce, slavery, marriage, theft, and debts. Punishment by modern standards was barbaric, including cutting off hands or fingers as a punishment for theft. In 1300 B.C., the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament say that the Ten Commandments were received by Moses directly from God. Contained in the book of Exodus, those Commandments became the basis of modern laws against murder, adultery, and stealing. Around 1280 B.C., in India, rules passed down orally through generations were formally written down as the Laws of Manu. They were the basis of India's caste system, and punishment was used sparingly and only as a last resort. Interestingly, members of the higher castes were punished more severely than those in the lower castes. In 621 B.C., Draco's Law was written for the Athenians. The punishment was so severe--often death--that we derived the word ``Draconian'' from it. However, Draco's Law introduced the concept that the state, not private parties or vigilantes, had the exclusive role in trying and punishing a person for a crime. Shortly after Draco's Law, the Spartan King Lycurgus give his oral law to the world. Lycurgus' Law held that women had a duty to have children. But if the children were deformed, they would be killed. Those who lived became wards of Sparta at age 7 when they began preparation for military duty. In 550 B.C., Solon, an Athenian statesman and lawmaker, redefined and refined Draco's Law by ``democratizing'' it, making it more accessible to the citizens of Athens. Around the same time, in 536 B.C., China created the Book of Punishments, which limited the ways in which somebody could be punished after being convicted of a very serious crime, but still allowed for tattooing, manipulation, the amputation of feet, and death as legal punishments. In 450 B.C., the Twelve Tables in Rome were created. These formed the basis of all modern law. Under these laws, a system of public justice was developed whereby injured parties could seek compensation from guilty defendants. The lower classes--the plebes--were given greater protection from abuses by the ruling classes--the patricians-- especially with regard to debts. The Twelve Tables also prohibited marriages between classes, severely punished death, and gave fathers the right of life or death over their sons. The Tables survived for nearly a thousand years until they were destroyed by the invading Gauls in 390 A.D. One hundred years later, in 350 B.C., the first Chinese Imperial Code of Law, the Code of Li k'vei, dealt with the issues of theft, robbery, arrest, and other general subjects. It served as a model for the Chinese T'ang Code, which came about a thousand years later. In 339 B.C., the trial of Socrates played a role in the development of law. Accused of corrupting the minds of youth with his logic and of not believing in the gods, Socrates was a scapegoat for the loss of the Peloponnesian Wars. He was sentenced to death by a vote of 361-140, but his trial advanced the idea of the role of ``conscience'' in legal proceedings. Socrates was afforded the opportunity to speak to the jury and engage them in a dialogue. And, instead, he chose to give the jury a speech, criticizing them for their lack of sensitivity. While it may not be contemplated as part of the traditional legal history, the life of Jesus Christ informs my personal understanding of the law. Under Jesus' law, pure motives, a mature love and grace unmerited, as well as nominal justice, good behavior, and honorable ends became important. Jesus was not replacing Moses' Law, but was seen as fulfilling and perfecting it. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says, ``Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished.'' In Galatians, Paul writes, ``For the whole law of Moses is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' In Romans he writes, ``Love is fulfilling the law.'' Thus, this Judeo-Christian understanding of the law is both a commitment to justice and the application of a knowledgeable understanding of love is important to the spiritual framework that underlies and undergirds much of my understanding and this Nation's philosophy towards the law as well as the purpose and the function of the law in society. All law after the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ is profoundly impacted. We make a transition from Before Christ to Anno Domini. Jumping ahead to 529 Anno Domini, Justinian's Code organized Roman Law into a series of books called ``Corpus Juris Civilis.'' This legal collection was guided by Greek and English common law, the two main influences on contemporary Western jurisprudence. Many legal principles in use today, including the very spelling of the modern word ``justice,'' emanate from Justinian, the Emperor of the Byzantium. The 17-article Constitution of Japan, written in 604 A.D., shaped that country's morality and law. Paternalistic in orientation, it espoused such legalisms as ``peace and harmony,'' that they ``should be respected because they are very important for intergroup relations'' and ``equality, speediness, and integrity should be maintained in court procedures.'' One distinction that characterizes two different legal traditions is that much of traditional Asian law seeks to prevent disputes; whereas Western law seeks to resolve disputes. It is very important, Mr. Speaker. A distinction between Asian law is that it seeks to prevent disputes; whereas Western law seeks to resolve disputes. In 653 A.D., the kingdoms that make up modern-day China were consolidated, and the T'ang Code, revising earlier existing Chinese laws and standardized procedures, was created. It listed crimes and their punishments in 501 articles. One of those allowed just two forms of capital punishment for a convicted criminal: beheading or hanging. Shortly thereafter, in 700 A.D., China invented the use of fingerprinting as a means of identifying people. In 1100 A.D., the first law school came into existence. The basis of English common law in 1215 A.D., the Magna Carta, was signed by King John. It forced the King, for the first time, to concede a number of rights to the barons and to the people. Its 61 clauses included freedom of the church; fair taxation; controls over imprisonment, habeas corpus; and the right of all merchants to come and go freely except in time of war. Its most important clause was No. 39, stating that no freeman shall be captured or imprisoned except by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Now even the King was restrained from merely exercising his will against another person. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was enacted, the precursor of our American Bill of Rights. It prohibited the arbitrary suspension of Parliament's laws, and more importantly, limited Parliament to the right to raise money through taxation. In 1692, the Salem witch trials captivated Salem, Massachusetts. The fervor resulted in more than 300 accusations of witchcraft, with 23 executions as a result. It thrust the justice system into the popular mind in a way never seen before. In 1740, the infamous South Carolina Slave Code, which regulated the use of slaves, became the model for slavery in other States. It said: ``All Negroes, Indians . . . and their offspring . . . shall be and are hereby declared to be and remain forever hereafter slaves; and shall be deemed . . . to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners.'' Then in 1765, law became more accessible to the common man when a British barrister named Blackstone wrote down the entire English law system in an easy-to-read, four-volume ``Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.'' Blackstone's work was easily exported to the new British colonies and was the basis for the governments there according to many legal scholars. In 1772, the Somersett case captured the world's attention. James Somersett, a slave in Massachusetts, escaped from his master while on a trip abroad in England. He was recaptured and imprisoned, to be sent to Jamaica, then a British colony; but three English citizens claimed to be his godparents. Three white citizens claimed to be the godparents of an African American slave, and they filed a suit, alleging that slavery was not legal under British law. They won their case. Somersett was freed, and slavery was finished in Great Britain. The reaction in the colonies was profound. Partly in response to the Somersett case, the colonies in America revolted. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence by the American colonists from Great Britain created a new day for human rights. It asserted ``all men are created equal'' and have ``certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.'' But we know that the writers of the Declaration did not intend those words to apply to all men and certainly not to women or to the American slave. The Constitution of the United States of America was signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, and was ratified by nine States on June 21, 1788. It formed the legal basis for the first republican form of government in the history of the world. It defined the institutions of government and the powers of the executive, the judicial, and legislative branches. Its shortcomings with respect to slavery, along with the power struggles between the Federal Government and the States, are well documented. Nevertheless, the Constitution and its inherent ability to be amended have been the model for many other nations in attaining their independence, and represent one of the most important steps in the development of law and human rights. The American Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was approved and ratified in 1791. These 10 amendments, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, declared rights in the areas of free speech, free press, free religion, the right to trial by jury, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights has influenced many modern charters and bills of rights around the world, and stands as one of the bedrocks of not just our democracy but of human rights history. In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and stated unequivocally that the Court had the power to strike down actions taken by American State and Federal bodies that, in its judgment, were unconstitutional. This principle of ``judicial review'' represents, in my opinion and in the opinion of many legal scholars, the biggest advance in American law since the Constitution was ratified. It serves as a model for the balance of powers that many other nations have adopted. One year after Marbury, France adopted the Napoleonic Code, which canonized many of the victories of the French Revolution, including individual liberty, equality before the law, and the ``consent of the governed'' character of the state. It had great influence beyond France, with Quebec, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, California, and Louisiana adopting parts of it. The Geneva Convention of 1864 set forth basic human rights standards during times of war, including protection of military medical personnel and humane treatment of the wounded. It was later supplemented by a Prisoner of War Convention. Though it has been violated and ignored on numerous occasions, the Geneva Convention remains an important legal document and a milestone on the march of law and human rights. In 1865, following the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passed, and the States ratified, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending legal slavery. Prior to that, the 10th Amendment was the turning point in the Constitution of the United States. Those rights not written in the Constitution are in the purview of the States. The addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution established a new paradigm. If slavery, as conservatives and Southerners argued, is a State right, then States' rights can never be human rights. The Constitution, with the addition of the 13th Amendment, changed the present order and the divided time. I'm in Congress today, and Barack Obama is President of the United States because of the Constitution and its capacity to change time and space. In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which puts forth a legal code of internationally recognized human rights. It serves as a basic guide to the fundamental rights of all people. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we've seen many, many more landmarks in human rights that have been reached. We're even watching the Middle East now seek even greater human rights against monarchies and kings and other leaders who are despots and not believing in the basic rights of people. While we've failed to ensure full equality for all women in this country, we are making progress towards pay equality. I believe we need to amend the Constitution to ensure that women have fully equal standing with men. We've enacted hate crimes legislation, and many States have moved towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians. We have much more work to do on that front. And as I began my remarks tonight, I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we need to amend our Constitution to include certain rights that the American people should have but don't. As I just said, we need to include equal rights for women; we need to include the right to a public education of equal high quality; we need to include health care as a right for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, it might surprise some Americans to know, which we learned in Bush v. Gore, that we don't even have a fundamental right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, only a right to not be discriminated against in the States while voting. So, from the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, through the development of Europe, Asia, North America, and the rest of the modern world, we have seen greater democracy; we've seen more inclusion; we've seen more freedom; we've gone from vigilante justice, to ``an eye for an eye,'' to the modern criminal justice system. The death penalty was a common response to crime in many of the earliest civilizations, and it persists to this day in many places around the world, including here in the United States. My home State of Illinois, thanks to Governor Pat Quinn, recently banned the death penalty. I personally support that, but I know many of my colleagues would not. There is an element in this Congress that is heading in the opposite direction of human law and human history, but the arc of history continues. The development of law and human rights did not stop with the writing of our Constitution, and it did not stop with the writing of our Bill of Rights. The Constitution is not a static, set in stone, take it as it is and only as it is document. It, like the overall development of human rights and law through time, is organic. It's dynamic. It's living. It's forward-looking. It is adaptable to the challenges of a new day and a new world. In fact, in their infinite wisdom, the Framers of the Constitution set up the very mechanism by which the march of justice and human rights could continue: an amendment process. It's not an easy one, and it's not one that should be taken lightly, but I believe we should, indeed, revisit our sacred document and amend it to include fundamental freedoms for the American people. Thus, human law and political rights have evolved through history to ever higher forms and the granting of more rights. This has also meant that responsibilities and obligations have moved away from external sources and appointed governmental power to the voice of the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people. The word ``democracy'' is comprised of two Greek words: demos and kratos--people, strength or power--people power. It means we the people have the strength and the power in the end to elect people to make our laws and rules. We the people have the right to declare what rights we have and what rights we don't have, what rules we will live and play by, and under which laws we will be governed. A representative democratic government is a political structure and arrangement whereby the supreme governmental authority is accepted, and the rules are made with the consent of a majority of the common people. Thus, the contrast between organic, evolutionary, and political nature of the law versus the static, strict constructionist, and natural view of the law should be clear in terms of the creation and preservation of political rights in human development. The approach of conservatives to play down or advocate an antipolitical, antilegislative, and anti-Federal Government philosophy of social change is, therefore, certainly not a strategy designed to advance the public interests or real economic interests of the majority of the American people. These conservatives and tea party activists who will descend upon Washington tomorrow are acting on behalf of the special interests of the few who do not want mass democratic participation and action. This antigovernment and undemocratic conservative approach is a strategy to undermine progressive and economic change intended to benefit the public good. In a living democracy, we must continually criticize and reform our politics, our government and policies to keep them relevant, effective, efficient, accessible, accountable, and responsive to real people's needs. This is very different, however, from criticizing politics and the government, per se, as irrelevant and ineffective as instruments of change or protecting old rights as opposed to advancing new ones. It is quite clear that the strict constructionist constitutional approach of conservatives like Mr. Quayle and Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Meese, Mr. Bork and George W. Bush seem to be frozen in time, backward-looking and fearful philosophical views of government, history, and the Constitution. Strict constructionism, Mr. Speaker, runs contrary to the whole legal development of rights in human history. Strict constructionists look back to the Founders' original document only, before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and other progressive amendments to the Constitution were added, before nonlandowners could vote, before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Strict constructionists, as former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said at an event celebrating the 200th anniversary of the writing of the Constitution, ``believe that the meaning of the Constitution was 'fixed' at the Philadelphia Convention.'' That would require us to know their original intent and rigidly preserve the Founding Fathers' philosophy, even though they were all men, most were slaveholders, and they allowed slavery in the Constitution. A strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution also means a reaffirmation of States' rights as the preeminent guiding legal principle. A broad interpretation, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as forward-looking, as living, as positive, and a hopeful document. We respect the past and the positive contribution that the Founders made. We seek to understand their intent and the full context in which the Constitution was written, and we seek to understand to the fullest its original meaning. But we also know that it has been changed and improved along the way in order to be more inclusive of all the American people. Therefore, we also know that we have an obligation today to improve it even further. The more people are made aware of their rights to which they are entitled, the rights which have already been written in national and international law, the more politically educated and conscious people become of these rights, the more politically active and organized the common people become in the struggle to achieve these rights, and the more accessible and responsive our democratic institutions of politics and government become to the democratic will of the people, the faster and more nonviolently we as a society will be able to achieve a new and higher set of human rights. Mr. Speaker, since this Congress has begun, I've been coming to this floor talking about one issue, and that's high unemployment. And in order to wipe out unemployment, which we've been recording from 1890 to 2011, we need a massive jobs program in this country. I recommend a jobs program that benefits all Americans: the rebuilding of 95,000 schools in this Nation to an equal high-quality standard; putting roofers, brick masons, electricians, teachers, carpenters to work; providing unprecedented technological access to the Internet and modern forms of communication to 60 million children across our country. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, tea party activists and conservatives in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, many of them don't see it that way. But I see something different. I see an America that can build runways for airplanes in States all across this country and build an interstate transportation system by one national Federal standard. We simply can't build schools and provide an equal high-quality education for 60 million children in 50 different States in 15,000 locally controlled school districts in 3,100 counties in 19,000 cities across this country one school at a time. If there's enough money to fight the war in Iraq, if there's enough money which this Congress keeps writing the check for to fight the war in Afghanistan, if there's enough money to spend $550 million in 1 week bombing Libya, then, Mr. Speaker, we can find the money in this Congress to rebuild these schools, reduce unemployment, put 15 million unemployed Americans to work, and change the course of our country. If we can put 15 million Americans to work, we can wipe out the Nation's debt, its deficit, and provide a long future for the American people. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to our democracy is unemployment. We all know the numbers. We all have far too many constituents who don't have jobs and can't provide for their families. Too many Americans are without work, and more and more of them are losing hope. Unemployment benefits are running out. Fear is creeping in. But for some of the unemployed, their tireless job search has been coming up empty because some employers won't even consider them for openings. Recently, The New York Times reported that one employer listed a job that included the caveat: ``No unemployed candidate will be considered at all,'' and a Texas electronics company said that it won't ``consider/review anyone not currently employed, regardless of the reason.'' It is reminiscent of a time when signs read: Blacks need not apply, or Women need not apply. Mr. Speaker, I think it's high time that we fix that. How are the unemployed supposed to find work if they don't even get considered for a job? How do we expect the unemployment rate to go down when the unemployed aren't even available or allowed to compete for a job? Along with Congressman John Lewis, I'm introducing legislation that will amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants because they are currently or were currently unemployed. The Civil Rights Act of 2011 will not give a job to those who are unemployed, but it will give those who are unemployed through no fault of their own the opportunity to compete for a job on the merits of their ability. Mr. Speaker, we talk in pleasantries and political correctness about ``these difficult economic times.'' We debate policy and hold hearings on how to move America forward, but recently the Bureau of Labor Statistics had to modify its current population survey to be able to include responses reporting a duration of unemployment over 2 years. We are making room for the reality of chronic unemployment in America in very real ways, while promising it will get better. I think we need to do more to make sure that people have opportunities. Nearly 9 percent of Americans right now are unemployed. That's 13.9 million Americans that we represent as Members of Congress who are looking for the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. They are looking for Washington and to Washington for leadership and to keep things from getting any worse. They are writing our offices begging us to help them jump-start America. They are not just looking for a hand out. They are looking for a way out, just a chance so that they can take care of the rest. They are hoping that the next interview will mean a new start. Mr. Speaker, the job market is troublesome; but we cannot allow companies to arbitrarily pick who will come out of the economic crisis by disqualifying unemployed workers. It should not be their right to discriminate this way. We, as a Nation, face triumphs and challenges together. It seems to me that to allow such a practice is counterintuitive to everything that Congress is working towards. Why create jobs if those Americans currently without jobs are not eligible? Just because an individual was unlucky to be laid off or had the misfortune to graduate into a jobless market does not mean that we should just cast them aside. This employment practice adds insult to injury for Americans who are desperately looking for jobs, for college graduates who debate if their education was worth the cost, for families who are trying to make more on less. Those who live on Main Street of America had very little to do with the onset of our economic crisis. In response, they are doing what generations before us have taught, carrying on, hoping that the darkness will give way to light. Mr. Speaker, if we allow employers to block consideration for those who are unemployed, we let that light get a little dimmer. We allow the American Dream to be tarnished. We send a message to the American people, those who are currently unemployed and those who are one bad break away from unemployment, that we will bail out banks but not support them as they fight to take care of their families. The Civil Rights Act and the amendments that have followed demonstrate what makes America exceptional. Here, regardless of the color of your skin, the god you pray to, your ethnicity, your age or sex, you will be judged on your performance. We haven't always lived up to our principles, but it is the collective momentum towards these values that makes America great. Discrimination against any American is an affront to the very idea of America. A new class of citizen now needs protection from the superficial bias that is not based on the ability to perform. Using current employment status as a requirement for application or consideration is shameful. There are 13.9 million Americans currently unemployed; that means 13.9 million Americans are considered by some employers to be no longer viable for employment. They are dismissed out of hand. But, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to believe that every unemployed individual is unqualified for a job. It is an arbitrary way of narrowing an applicant pool by finding a loophole that allows discrimination. I ask each and every Member of Congress to stand with me and to say to those 13.9 million Americans who are unemployed, you are not forgotten, your chance has not passed. We should pass the Civil Rights Act of 2011. We should not allow the opportunities that all Americans deserve to be taken away. Current joblessness should not disqualify you from employment. Your ability is more valuable than any label ever placed upon you.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, last month our Nation created 200,000 new jobs. That's good news. But our country needs to create 335,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth and to reduce unemployment to what it was before the recession. In communities like mine, unemployment is at least 15 percent, and the numbers do not include those who stopped looking for a job. In order to hear the stories of the unemployed Americans, I have asked them to send me their resumes to resumesforAmerica@mail.house.gov so I can submit them for the Record. I heard from Peter Haas of Parlin, New Jersey, who said, ``I am sending out resumes every day. No response from any company out there. I think no company is hiring at all. No response, not even an email.'' Ms. Christine Stumpf of Chicago said she's had only one phone interview in a year of looking, and she can hardly believe it. Why is it so hard to find work? Maybe it's because the unemployed are not even being considered for many jobs. It's been reported that some companies will not even accept applications or grant interviews to those currently without a job. I hope unemployed Americans will send me their resumes and stories to resumesforAmerica@mail.house.gov to keep stories of the unemployed in front of our government, in front of Democrats and Republicans. Peter Haas 14 Skytop Gardens Apt. 4 Parlin, NJ 08859 Cell: (949) 878-1953, Home: (732) 588-5145, E-mail: ph@phpeterhaas.com Significant Experience: 11/89-03/2006 The Waldorf-Astoria in New York Hilton Hotel Director--Food & Beverage Operations (6 years) Assessed company staffing needs and recruited staff through various methods Coordinated the successful and complete training for 140 or more employees within the establishment Successfully trained team members on customer service, teamwork, and leadership in the hotel Assisted with training, monitoring, and developing employee skills within all service departments Implemented policies and procedures for the restaurants, bars, and banquets within the Waldorf Astoria Monitored compliance with health and fire regulations regarding food preparation and serving, and building maintenance in lodging and dining facilities Performed all aspects of marketing and promotions for restaurants, bars, cocktail lounge, and banquets Reviewed operational procedures to determine ways to improve services, performance, and safety Estimated food, liquor, wine, and other beverage consumption to anticipate amounts to be purchased and used for food & beverage operations within the hotel Successfully maintained and updated food, wine, liqueur, and equipment inventories in a monthly time Monitored budget and payroll records and review financial transactions to ensure that expenditures are authorized and budgeted Restaurant Manager--Managed restaurants, bars, fine dining, and casual dining (5 years) Coached assistant managers and supervisors on management and communication skills Successfully maintained all service standards according to Hilton Restaurant services and policies Trained, supervised and evaluated new staff for restaurant operation and services Monitored restaurant sales activities to ensure customer satisfaction and service Maintained quality control by evaluating satisfaction records with restaurant sales and constantly sought new ways to improve employee performance and service Banquet Manager--Managed all banquet functions, liquor purchase, inventory, and sales (5 years) Directed recruitment and retention of new employees or potential supervisors and current employees Monitored all sales distribution throughout the hotel and customers satisfactory in banquet services Successfully improved banquet operations and customer satisfaction within the banquet department Monitored the budget for any banquet function within the client's arrangement and negotiated event Quickly and effectively solved customers' questions, comments, and concerns Steward Department Manager--Managed restaurant, banquet, and kitchen supplies (2 years) Assigned employees to specific duties to maintain quality service throughout the hotel Ensured all health regulations are maintained and updated within the establishment Tracked inventory stock and reordered as inventory dropped to a specific level Responsible for restaurant, kitchen, and banquet supplies within the Waldorf Astoria Coached steward supervisors on management and communication skills within the department Responsible for scheduling, budgeting, and training employees for safety regulations, standards within the steward department Performed weekly department meetings to evaluate ways to improve service standards Ensured that all requisitions and services are completed according to Hilton Hotel policies and standards Maintained acknowledged all sanitation, dishwashing maintenance, and safety standards (Most recent experience: 04/06-03/09) 04/2006-01/2008 Ecolab Corporation in Austria-Vienna (Moved to Vienna to be near family when mother ill) http://www.ecolab.com/ District Manager--For Hospitality Services & Business Development Contacted strategic business and operational projects, managed public and investment relationships, prepared presentation, and developed business plans directly for the

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by associating myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia and the gentlelady from Maryland on a very thoughtful presentation that they offered the body this evening. Mr. Speaker, there has been some controversy in the blogosphere and on conservative talk radio shows about some comments I made last week regarding my belief that every child in this country should have the constitutional right to an education of equal high quality. Let me be clear. Last week, I raised the possibility that such a right might lead to an education standard in this country of an iPad for every child just like it could lead to standards of class sizes and athletic facilities and music classes and other important resources for our children. Let me be clear on a few things. These devices are revolutionizing our country, and they will fundamentally alter how we educate our children. Mr. Speaker, this is an iPad. It is an incredible device, so incredible, in fact, before I could open it up after I recently purchased it, Apple came out with the iPad 2. Mr. Speaker, this is the Kindle, a device from Amazon that allows you to download books and to read them. Before I could finish opening up my Kindle, Kindle came out with an even smaller Kindle, neither of which has been activated at this time. Mr. Speaker, it will not be very long before every child in this country is educated using one of these devices or something similar. Why? Just go to your local Borders bookstore, that is, if there's one left. Recently, Borders announced it was closing 200 of 508 stores, including one in my congressional district. If the recent history of the music business is any guide, then other bookstores and libraries, both private and public, may not be far behind them. That's because the future of publishing isn't in hard copy books any more or magazines or newspapers. It's all digital. The iPad, the Kindle, the Nook, and other similar devices make it possible to access any book, any periodical at any time any place. As digital downloadable music has gained in popularity, we've seen a fundamental shift in the music industry. Now there are hardly any physical stores where we can buy CDs or other music products anymore. We've gone from the 78 to the 45 to the long-playing LP to DVDs, and now to downloadable music. The same will be true for publishing. Books will soon become obsolete. So the school library will soon, unfortunately, be obsolete. Schools are likely in the future to use that space for more classrooms. Maybe it will help alleviate our classroom size problems. But for certain, architects in the future will likely be designing future schools without a library. Hard copies of textbooks will become obsolete. Instead of incurring the costs of buying them and storing them and instead of forcing our children to lug around huge backpacks full of heavy books, we'll just download them onto a device just like one of these. This is going to happen in the future. In fact, it is happening right now. In my district, at Chicago State University, thanks to the innovation of President Wayne Watson, the freshmen class of students this past fall, every single freshman received an iPad. Over time as new classes enroll, the administration at Chicago State University hopes that all students will use electronic devices for textbooks and to submit assignments. It could be a textbookless campus within 4 years. ``Imagine the cost savings for schools,'' President Watson said. ``Give a child an iPad, a Nook or a Kindle or any of these devices when they are in the first grade, and he or she could use it all of the way through college. All of the cost of buying hard copy books for the course of that child's educational career would be simply wiped out.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, because I suggested this idea, I have been called a communist and a socialist and any number of other things, but let me tell you why that is misleading and malicious. Let me go back to what I talked about last week. Last week from the House floor, I talked about the greatest capitalists in the history of our world. In my opinion, the greatest capitalists in the history of our world were the men who founded our country, our Founding Fathers. They were engaged in all manners of trade and commerce that ranged from farming cotton and beans and corn. And even before the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, even before the Bill of Rights in 1791, even before the Declaration of Independence, from 1492 until 1776, and certainly and even more tragically in 1619, 19 scared Africans arrived on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia, 157 years before the Declaration of Independence. Their desire for commerce and capitalism even had them trading people. They traded among themselves and with others across the world. And when they rebelled against the government of England and established their own country, they had a choice in an unregulated, unfettered free market system or a system of government with checks and balances and regulations and rules. So much for the antigovernment movement in our Nation. Our Founding Fathers were not antigovernment. They chose government, but they chose government with an overall structure of freedom and personal liberty along with regulation and rules, which leads us to the Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is one of the great landmarks in human rights and personal freedom. It certainly is that not only in domestic history but in world history. It protects free speech, freedom of and freedom from religion, the right to assemble and to petition the government. It also happens, and often not talked about in our country, it also happens to be the greatest economic program in the history of our country. Think about it. I asked the Congressional Research Service and their experts responded by saying to a specific question: How many jobs in the United States of America are tied to the First Amendment? Initially they said: It is practically incalculable. He said any job, and I quote, ``with a public presence'' could be considered protected under the First Amendment. And, therefore, the Congressional Research Service conservatively estimated that approximately 50 percent of all jobs in the United States are tied to the First Amendment. Imagine, or just stop and think about it. Every newspaper in this Nation and the jobs that emanate from those newspapers are tied to the First Amendment. Books, Internet publications, every TV station, social media, public speaking, Sirius Network, AM/FM radio, advocacy, lawyers, movies, CDs, DVDs, VHRs, VHSs, Comcast, Blu-ray, MP3 players, Democrats and Republicans, telephone services, cell phones, Droids, pagers, music-- classical, R&B, pop, country western, hip-hop, techno, karaoke--the United States Postal Service, Federal Express, UPS, print advertising, Times Square, New York City, commercials, iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, art, museums, photography, education, colleges and schools, theaters, plays, musicals, and on and on and on, they have their basis in the First Amendment. That doesn't even include freedom of religion, the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, all religions, nonprofit organizations, 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, charitable giving. All of this is First Amendment activity. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment, with American innovation through time, from the founding of our country to this very date has unleashed over time the greatest economy that the world has ever known. The Founding Fathers set in place a system that through our value system would give birth to more than 50 percent of all jobs in the United States of America. And that system has worked remarkably well for a long, long time. But now there is a problem, Mr. Speaker. These devices will cause the loss of jobs at bookstores. Borders is closing almost 50 percent of its stores. It is going to cost the jobs of librarians and libraries, publishing houses, printers, book binders. And where do we think these devices are made? They are not made here in the United States. They are most likely made in China or other places. So if you are not an American and if you believe in the value system that emanates from the First Amendment, including all of the jobs that emanate from the First Amendment, and you are outside of America and you are looking in, you need only wait for American innovation as a result of our own freedom system to take advantage of selling to the United States at some cheaper labor costs a product that helps strengthen our First Amendment. It comes, however, at the cost of jobs. Significant jobs. So the First Amendment, the amendment that has unleashed such great economic activity and brought about such amazing innovation and helped America become the greatest economy in the world, is now known for helping the Chinese economy grow and create jobs and prosperity and, ironically, challenge America's place in the global economy. We all know our economy has struggled over the past few years. The financial and economic crises have been devastating for many Americans. The unemployment rate still hovers near 9 percent. And in communities like mine, it is near 15 percent. How do we turn our economy around? I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we follow the mold of the greatest capitalists and turn to our Constitution; turn to our bylaws, the bylaws of the American enterprise. That is what President Roosevelt did as he began his fourth term in office. Mr. Speaker, here is what President Roosevelt said on January 11, 1944, in his State of the Union address. January 11, 1944, unemployment is beginning to come down, but throughout President Roosevelt's administration, we see the highest levels of unemployment in the history of the United States, the period known as the Great Depression. But as we are coming out of that Great Depression, President Roosevelt, after having served nearly four terms as President of the United States, has some insights on how future generations of Americans must address unemployment. Today, unemployment hovering at around 9 percent. Let's hear what our President had to say: ``It is now our duty to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for winning a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than we have ever known before. We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people''--and this is January 11, 1944--``whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed and insecure.'' ``This Republic had its beginning''--1788, 1791--``and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights.'' Here Roosevelt is giving deference to the idea that the First Amendment through the Great Depression is responsible for most of the Nation's jobs. ``Among these rights,'' President Roosevelt says, ``is the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. ``As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however,'' the President acknowledges, ``as our industrial economy expanded, these political rights proved inadequate to assure us''--that is, every American--``equality in the pursuit of happiness. ``We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ``Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. ``In our day, these economic truths have become accepted as self- evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station, race, or creed. ``Among these are: ``The right to a job; the right to earn enough food to provide for one's family; the right to every farmer to raise and sell their products; the right of every businessman, large and small; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age and sickness and accident and unemployment; the right to a good education; all of these rights. ``And after this war is won,'' he said, ``they spell security. We must be prepared to move forward''--forward through time, a time that President Roosevelt himself would not live to see--``in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. ``America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these rights and similar rights are carried into practice by our citizens.'' Mr. Speaker, what if we amended the Constitution, if we amended the bylaws of America, to include the right of every citizen to an education of equal high quality? What would that do for architects, and roofers, and bricklayers and manufacturers, as school districts across this country seek to meet the equal high quality standard by building new schools and improving existing ones? What would it do for the NASDAQ, as schools improve their technological capabilities with laptops and computers and iPads and Nooks and Kindles and other devices? There are 60 million children in the Nation's public school systems. Sixty million. I believe that, like the First Amendment over time, an amendment guaranteeing every American the right to a quality education for all students would provide a huge economic boost for our country, just like the First Amendment at the inception of our country is responsible for 50 percent of all jobs, if we truly want to compete with China, with India, with other countries around the world, if we truly want a population that is better educated than any other population on planet Earth, capable of paying more taxes, eliminating unemployment, rebuilding schools, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding hope in our communities, and by definition every time we build a newer first class school, we change the property values of every home around that school. In America we just don't sell housing anymore, we sell housing plus schools at the same time. I wish every Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, in my home State would visit New Trier in the northwest suburbs. New Trier High School represents quality of education that is provided unlike any other high school in the Nation. There are state-of-the-art classrooms, with small class sizes. It has top quality athletic facilities including two aquatic centers. That's swimming. The school rents it out for fees, raising revenue to help offset some of its cost. There are 17 varsity athletic teams for boys and 17 varsity athletic teams for girls. New Trier is noted for its drama, for its music, for its visual arts programs. Students are given the opportunity to develop all of the aspects of their talent. They are given a full educational experience that molds boys and girls into young men and women. The academics at New Trier are unrivaled. In 2006, the mean SAT verbal score was 620, and the mean SAT math score was 650, meaning that 1370 was an average score at New Trier. The school literally churns out Ivy Leaguers. Mr. Speaker, I think we need more New Triers. We need all of our schools to have the facilities, the resources, the rigor of New Trier. I certainly need it in my congressional district on the south side of Chicago. And if there is someone out there in America who wishes they had a school like that in their congressional district, I wish they would just go touch their television set, Mr. Speaker and say ``amen.'' But we can't get there, Mr. Speaker, under local property tax regimes that fund our schools. In the 50 States and territories, there are 95,000 public schools in 15,000 school districts, in 20,000 cities--all different, all separate, all unequal and all funded differently. At New Trier, roughly $15,000 is spent on every child per year, which is nearly double the State average. That's because New Trier is located in one of the wealthiest areas in my State and, therefore, has the resources to fund such a high quality education. Now I don't want to take, Mr. Speaker, anything from New Trier. My vision on the floor of this Congress is that the United States of America should be building 95,000 New Triers across our country--that's 95,000 schools putting millions of Americans to work in high quality education--for as long as there is an America, not for the 112th Congress, not for the 113th Congress, but for all of these Congresses, and there have been 112 Congresses that have made the First Amendment responsible for 51 percent of all jobs in this Nation. It has taken 112 Congresses for 51 percent of all jobs to be vested in the First Amendment. What's the great thing about my amendment? The jobs that are associated with building 95,000 schools are not likely to end up in Beijing. Because building schools has something to do with putting Americans to work. That's very different than building iPads, or using First Amendment values that tend to leave our own country and, yes, they spread good will throughout the world but it takes our quality of life and our standard of living with them. And that's what Mr. Roosevelt is talking about. I mean, he is the President that had to address unemployment. So what Roosevelt is looking for are jobs with domestic content. But he recognizes that the Constitution of the United States, however much we honor it, is insufficient on the question of economic rights for all Americans to ensure that future generations of Americans will be the beneficiary of the highest possible education standard that the world has ever known. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, it will create new jobs over time. As teachers are hired to provide that high quality education and schools are built and rebuilt and technology is purchased and maintained, that will unleash over time immense economic capitalistic activity that will drive job creation and corporate profits for generations to come. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a cost. But if we can find money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we can find money to bail out Wall Street, if, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, we can find money to put a man on the Moon, then we ought to be able to find money to put a man and a woman on their own two feet right here in America and guarantee our children an equal high quality education like that of New Trier. Mr. Speaker, only the Constitution of the United States can guarantee that kind of education system and at the same time unleash incredible job growth and economic activity. With the few minutes I have remaining, I have been dedicating this session of Congress to the unemployed. A lot of unemployed people have been sending me their resumes, and the cost of inputting their resumes into the House Record, for which I am asking them to continue to send me their resumes and stories, is astronomical. And I wonder sometimes, Mr. Speaker, why the Congressional Record isn't digitized, why we still have to cut down trees to print all of these speeches delivered by Members of Congress. Well, the cost would be significantly less if the Congress of the United States would catch up to the Nation's education system and start digitizing the Congressional Record. I'm not totally unconvinced yet that we're not dragging our feet into the future on purpose. With that said, I want to read a few stories of some people who have been going through, well, a whole lot of hell, Mr. Speaker, in this economy. These are the stories of our men and women who have served. This is from John Bridges: ``Representative Jackson, I appreciate your effort to show the country what's happening to the veterans by entering their resumes in the Congressional Record. A bit of background for you: I was raised in Tilden, Illinois, and joined the U.S. Navy when I was 17. And after 22 years, I retired in the Dallas, Texas, area. I then went into the wireless telecommunications industry for over 12 years before being laid off at the end of August, 2010. ``I have not had any success with any position since that time. I've had one interview with the VA, and an upcoming one with the University of North Texas. However, I have not heard back from anyone, so I'm assuming that the positions have gone to other individuals. Thank you, and good luck with this effort, as well as your service to the Congress.'' Thank you, Mr. Bridges. We're going to do what we can, I hope, one of these days in this Congress to find you a job. How about a former sergeant from the United States Marine Corps, Robert Green: ``Congressman Jackson, Jr., thank you for thinking of the veterans, whose sacrifice for our country should always be respected and honored the way one veteran honors another. ``My story is that after getting out of the Marine Corps in 1980 I landed a job as a welder working in Arizona on a power plant. I went to night school, obtained my certificate of completion for the trade I was working in and continued to use my benefits to add classes at the local community college level while raising my family and trying to live the American Dream. After nearly 30 years of work in the construction industry I found myself laid off. ``I had not completed the degree program, but had the experience and enough credits for a 2-year degree in the industry. I had worked hard to establish a role of senior project manager on a construction project; yet without that degree, most companies will not even give me a call. ``It is my hope that this idea not only heightens the concern of veterans, but sheds light on the college industry's business model that keeps people forever pursuing degrees that, despite their personal life changes, nothing changes. Thanks again.'' Former sergeant, United States Marine Corps, Robert Green. ``Congressman, I am currently a government contractor with the 505th Training Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Florida. We're undergoing a Research Management Decision, RMD 802, which includes the realigning of resources for fiscal year 2010 and 2014 to decrease funding for contract support and increase funding for approximately 33,400 new civilian manpower authorizations, 10,000 of which are for the defense acquisition workforce. I and three other 30-percent-or-more disabled veterans are being replaced by workers and will be terminated from employment effective the 25th of February, 2011. All three of us have served our country for over 20 years and have been an integral part of the 505th Combat Training Squadron for years. It's going to be a difficult task to find work because of our age and our disabilities. ``I myself, having young children and limited opportunities for work, find myself wondering if everything that I've worked for and the American Dream of keeping my house and putting my kids through college has now become a nightmare. Thanks for promising to post the veterans' resumes. And I believe that even though you're not promising jobs, at least you're trying to bring visibility to the plight of our Nation's veterans.'' Mr. Tracy L. Palmer--put his life on the line for the United States of America. The least we can do is try and find Mr. Palmer a job. ``Good evening. My name is Thomas Gadbois. I recently read an article about this program in the Marine Times. I served in the Marine Corps from 2001 to 2002 before receiving a medical discharge. I was separated after having a seizure disorder. During my time in the Corps I served as a radio operator, a platoon sergeant, and worked a complex entry control point while serving in Iraq in 2007. I've been searching for a job for over 1 year now, and my family and I recently relocated to Okinawa, Japan, where the job search still continues. ``I would like to thank you for starting this program. There are so many veterans out there that can be productive members of our society if the Congress of the United States would just find something for them to do.'' Out of respect for your resume, which is going into the Congressional Record tonight, my hat is off to you, Thomas Gadbois. We're going to do what we can to try and find you a job. ``I served as an active duty member, full time, in the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard for over 20 years, Mr. Speaker, as an ordnance mechanic. I took advantage of the VA programs after retiring in 2000 to start a second career in the information technology field. I applied to all technology positions at a local VA medical center as they were available. My application was not even considered. I never gave up and tried for at least 10 more years. ``In my last job, I was making $44,000, but it was just enough for the both of us. Now I am forced to tell potential employers I will take a minimum of $15 per hour just to get interviewed. I see American companies wallowing in their greed, Mr. Speaker, to outsource jobs to other countries because it's cheaper, and that's what we're getting into, cheap products instead of investing in the talents and the skills and the knowledge of the American worker. This has to stop somewhere. ``Respectfully yours, Pasquale Filoromo, TSgt United States Air Force, retired.'' They go on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to submit extraneous materials for the Record relating to the subject of this Special Order, including the names of these veterans that I specifically offered tonight.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates are too high in our Nation: around 9 percent nationally, and within our minority populations, that rate is even higher. Finding a job is already difficult for hundreds of thousands of Americans, yet a growing number of employers are excluding jobless applicants from consideration--making the job search nearly impossible for those who are unemployed. Companies have begun to post descriptions of vacancies including statements like ``unemployed applicants will not be considered'' or ``must be currently employed,'' leaving those in the most dire need of a job high and dry. It's a practice that I utterly oppose. Congress must put an end to it. It reminds me of when blacks, women, and Asians were told they need not apply. Mr. Speaker, how on Earth can an unemployed person find a job if he or she is barred from applying? Unemployment discrimination is as profound as racial discrimination. This is an appalling form of discrimination that deeply harms all Americans, hinders companies from finding the best workers, and further disables our economy. It should not be tolerated in America or anywhere else. I again call on those plagued by unemployment and joblessness to send me their resumes and their stories to ResumesForAmerica@mail.House.gov. americaresumesfor From: Joseph Drake [j.fdrake@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:19 PM To: americaresumesfor Subject: My Resume and Story Dear Congress: I am 60 years old, too young to be retired, too old to be unemployed. In the current economy and at my age and health my chances of re-employment diminish. I wasn't planning to retire early, but rather late, because of my small amount of savings. Now, when I do get a job again, I will have to postpone retirement even longer. I had almost no contacts about employment in spite of applying for about 6 to 12 jobs a week since I lost my job. My economic circumstances had gradually eroded so that I had to start living in a rooming house. Since I returned to Seattle, in 1993, I have largely worked in either retail or parking and had worked for Ampco Parking for 13 years. I haven't had even 72 hours of work since I lost my job last September, and am almost completely dependent on my unemployment check. My bills are piling up. I am planning to start selling my book collection and some of my Videos and DVD's. I am planning to discount my landline and depend solely on my cell phone. I have lived a diverse and interesting life. Like Obama, I was once a community organizer. I organised A Tenants Union in Santa Cruz, CA once, and then worked in organizing low income workers and neighborhoods, helping their causes and providing services. I have always been someone to volunteer, stating in high school or get involved, and to think of the needs of others. I volunteer at my church on movie nights, as an usher, and on the Peace and Justice Committee. I have also been a journalist in the past. Now write two blogs and do other online writing. One of the blogs is about my unemployment and life in the margins of America, drawing perspective from the Catholic Worker movement and the social teachings of the church and the bible. My other blog is about the arts. Although I have my own political and religious bias expressed in my blogs, I have my non-Catholic, even non- religious friends, and many conservative friends. In fact some of my blog followers are conservatives to disagree with my solutions, my way of interpreting the social teachings of the church, but admire my concern for the poor and sympathize with my situation. I will probably post a copy of this email for them to read and put a link from my Facebook page to the blog post. Now I am one of those in need, going to food banks, getting my coffee at Jack in the Box for 55 cents by asking for the senior discount, cutting every corner and buying only what I absolutely need. I hang out in lines with desperate looking characters. I am uninsured, as Cobra was too expensive for me when I lost my job and I have what was supposed to be a sprain to the finger, but which was probably X-Rayed from the wrong angle, and seems like a permanent injury and deformation. While I can work and use my hand, I can't type with my small finger, or close it completely. Short of going back to the ER and getting more unpayable bills, without benefits I have no means to treat it. I am hanging in their with the support and prayers of a great church community, my family and friends, my Facebook friends and blog readers. I try to be thankful to God every day for each little thing he provides me and to focus on the bigger issues--like the struggles of the Egyptian people, our nations problems, everyone else who is poor or unemployed. I am hoping, that like the 1930's, we will end the decade as a less selfish, more cooperative, more optimistic nation that when we entered these hard times. I will pray for our nations leaders tonight, that all of you get granted the wisdom to help our suffering people. I have attached, saved in SkyDrive, my general purpose resume. I have of course have other resumes, but my general one tells my story. God Bless you and God Bless all the poor and unemployed, Joseph Drake.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me express my appreciation to you and to the leadership of this Congress for allowing me 30 minutes to speak to my constituents, but also to speak to the American people about the central issue that confronts our Nation and this economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, the central issue that has confronted every Congress that remains unaddressed, for which I want to talk about tonight, is unemployment. The unemployment rate in our country is too high. The Democratic message, job creation and create jobs, I respect that message. Republicans believe in tax cuts and tax breaks and pro-business perspective, which many Democrats support as well, and I believe that, clearly, economic growth is the path to job creation. But for the unemployed in our Nation, a very, very different category, the debate, led by Democrats and led by Republicans in the Congress of the United States, all too often ignores people who are unemployed. Unemployment is a very special category. Every Member of Congress knows the numbers, but it's the American people who are feeling them. About 9 percent of the country is ``unemployed'' based on the definition of unemployed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses. But in communities like mine, it's around 15 percent, and that's conservative. Some communities have as high as 30 percent unemployment. So when Democrats come to the floor of the Congress and talk about job creation, for African Americans, for minorities and for women, when we hear that language, because we are usually the last hired and the first fired, job creation isn't a message that touches my constituents. It's not a message that touches the long-term unemployed who find themselves in the barrios, the ghettos, and the trailer parks of our Nation. So the question is why Democrats and Republicans in Congress, both promoting growth, Republicans promoting tax breaks and tax cuts and limited government as a way to stimulate the economy, Democrats focusing on job creation as a way to separate the economy, which might include reasonable spending and deficit reduction measures, why, in the midst of our conversation, led by Republicans in the majority and Democrats, unemployed Americans continue to grow. There is this huge category that Democrats are not speaking to and Republicans are not speaking to but needs to be addressed in order to strengthen our economy and change the present direction. You see, Mr. Speaker, if we can provide a job for every American, if we can eliminate unemployment just like we eliminated slavery, if we can eliminate unemployment just like as a Nation we are trying to eliminate discrimination against women and against the disabled and against the gays and lesbians of our Nation, if we can eliminate unemployment--the way our system is actually set up, if every American is working they pay into the system. And if they are paying into the system, it pays for future generations of Americans to take advantage of the entitlement programs that my colleagues who just left the floor were talking about. But if there is high unemployment in any given generation, it profoundly impacts the kinds of resources that are available for the Federal Government and local governments to handle basic programs that keep our Nation strong in every succeeding generation for every American. Mr. Speaker, many Americans have been out of work. For many months they have stopped looking for work. So even though they have no jobs, they are not counted as unemployed. Over the last few months, I have called on unemployed, underemployed, and economically insecure Americans to send me their resumes and their stories so that I can keep unemployment front and center before our government. Unemployment. I did not say job creation. I did not say deficit reduction or tax reductions to corporations. I said unemployment, that thing that President Roosevelt talked about when he said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' President Roosevelt wasn't talking about the Russian bear. He wasn't talking about Nazis in Germany. He wasn't talking about fascism in Italy under Mussolini. He was talking about the deterioration of our national fiber and fabric from within, unemployment. And at the time that he was delivering that speech, Mr. Speaker--I know that my chart here is probably inadequate for the C-SPAN cameras-- but the largest spike in our Nation's history for unemployment, between 1930 and 1945, was during President Roosevelt's administration. Now one would think that the goal would be in order to keep men content and women content in their homes, in their jobs, and actually believing in our country, that we would be working collectively as Democrats and Republicans to eliminate the idea of unemployment as a potential factor in the life of the American people. But no. We're talking about job creation, we're talking about deficit reduction, and somehow we believe that by moving the interest rates and the levers of our economy that somehow corporations that have chosen to leave the United States and locate in foreign countries abroad, that somehow they're going to come back to America and provide us with enough work for millions of Americans who find themselves unemployed, underemployed, and out of work. So, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate this shameful condition, I have called on unemployed, underemployed, and economically insecure Americans to send me their resumes so that I can tell their story and so that I can keep unemployment front and center. Thousands of people responded and sent their resumes to me at ResumesforAmerica@mail.house.gov. And so tonight, I want to share a few of the emails that I received. And Mr. Speaker, I hope these stories will compel this Congress to make ending unemployment once and for all a national priority. If we can end unemployment once and for all, we can save Social Security without any cuts to Social Security. If we can end unemployment once and for all, we can take the entitlement programs off of the table. But there is very little focus on ending unemployment. Congress is focused on job creation. However, Congress' efforts, historically, at job creation have gotten it probably at least about a C-minus in terms of what most economists actually believe Congress has the power to create jobs. Congress doesn't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs. Congress can offer incentives for the private sector to create jobs, but Congress cannot create jobs unless Congress is going to hire everybody, which, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily a bad idea of Congress hiring everybody. But that's another Special Order. I want to talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about these Americans who have been left behind, and at the conclusion of my remarks hopefully offer some insight in what I think could serve as a constructive part of a conversation about ending long-term unemployment for all Americans. First, I want to start with Linda Stabile. Linda wrote a letter to Speaker Boehner. She said, ``I'm a 63-year-old woman who has been laid off from my job I loved in mid-June of 2009.'' She got laid off from her job she loved. ``Since then, I have spent every day looking for work unsuccessfully. I am a four-time breast cancer survivor and in December underwent my second mastectomy in 3 years. I have a small condo with a modest mortgage, but sold my car last August to help me make ends meet. Unless I'm able to find even a part-time job, in a few months I will join the ranks of the 99ers with an uncertain future. Should I lose my home, I have nowhere to go. ``There are many Americans who face the same frightening prospect, I know, and I'm sure you receive many communications such as mine. But I do hope that you will lend your support to extending benefits for the long-term unemployed. ``The emotional, physical, and psychological stress of day-to-day job hunting is painful, and it's damaging beyond words. I begin each day with a hopeful outlook, but at the end of the day, restorative sleep is beyond my reach. I am talented. I have good skills. But time is running out. Please, won't you make jobs a priority? Respectfully, Linda Stabile.'' Linda, I believe that we should make jobs a priority, and ending the shameful condition of unemployment ought to be a priority of this Congress. Linda M. Stabile skills summary Highly organized and energetic administrative professional with wide experience in managing multi-faceted projects, along with day-to-day support of an office or executive, with emphasis on sales. Proven skills in writing, editing, interpersonal communication, and attention to detail. Excellent computer skills--Microsoft Office Suite: Word, Outlook, PowerPoint and Excel.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, with all of this talk about the CR and where money is being spent and where taxpayer dollars should be spent, I want to remind Americans that there are 1.4 million Americans on active duty in our U.S. military. Another 718,000 civilian personnel support our men and women in uniform, and 1.1 million are in the Reserves or in the National Guard. The military is our Nation's largest employer, and it is honorable work. Our fighting men and women are the best and the brightest, the bravest and the most battle-tested. They serve with distinction whether they are on bases here at home or in combat abroad, whether they are in the infantry or in military information technology. But once our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines leave the service, shouldn't they be assured of jobs right here in America? Is that too much to ask of Congress? Is it too much to ask of America? Shouldn't their families know that they will have roofs over their heads, food on their tables, and clothes on their backs? That's the least we can do for our veterans, but for too many veterans, unemployment and economic insecurity is what they are finding in civilian life. Recently, I asked unemployed veterans to send me their resumes and their stories so that I can submit them for the Congressional Record, to put their struggles front and center before our government. I heard from a number of veterans who sent their resumes to me at Resumes From Veterans @mail. house. gov. I heard from Charles Diver of Plantation, Florida, who served for 4 years in the U.S. Coast Guard. He wrote that, ``In addition to being unemployed, many of us feel the government has been less than forthcoming about the scope of the problem.'' I couldn't agree more. Mr. Diver has been unemployed since June of 2009. I think we owe him more than that for the service that he's given to our country. Vincent Torrez of Las Vegas, Nevada, told me, ``It has been a year since I have been discharged from the Army, and it has virtually been impossible for me to find work that matches my skill-set in the civilian market. I believe within the next few years unemployed veterans will be a bigger problem than it is now with the wars coming to a close.'' Mr. Torrez last served in the Army's 1st Airborne Division, 509th Infantry Regiment Opposing Force. We should see to it that veterans like him can find meaningful work when they're back at home. I heard from Mr. Jay Magan of Taylorsville, Kentucky, who wrote simply and poignantly, ``Out of work for 1\1/2\ years. Desperate for a job.'' He signed that short e-mail, ``Respectfully, Jay G. Magan.'' We owe him more respect than unemployment for his 20 years of service in the United States Navy. I heard from Evelyn Thomas. She is a veteran of the Army National Guard and the Marine Corps and lives in Carlsbad, California. She enlisted in the military on the Montgomery G.I. Bill in order to earn money for college. She then obtained a master's degree in teaching, learning, and leadership. She told me, ``We need to create jobs. We need to provide avenues and opportunities for manufacturing and production companies to exist in this global economy. Now I am at a crossroads, in which I must utilize my activism work to create a job. I must work to support my family. I want to work. Surely, there is a position for a honorably discharged veteran with a master's degree.'' Indeed, there should be. But then, Mr. Speaker, I received what I think is the most striking e-mail. It was from Tonya Batson, the wife of a 12-year Navy veteran named Billy Batson. She didn't write much, just that Mr. Batson had been out of work since December of 2009, over a year, after his military service ended. But imagine the anguish that Mr. and Mrs. Batson must be feeling. Imagine the uncertainty. I refuse to accept that any military spouse should feel that. No husband or wife, who after supporting their partner through military service, deployment, travel, and battle, should feel like they have to fight another battle right here at home to find a job, to provide for their family, to be financially secure. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We can create an economy that employs all of our veterans. We need a jobs program that will put Americans back to work doing productive things for society--teachers aides in classrooms across the country, health clinic workers, home energy technicians, food pantry workers. We can create jobs that pay benefits to workers and the country without the kind of overhead of infrastructure and other projects. But, Mr. Speaker, we can do even better than creating jobs. We can eliminate unemployment as a factor in American life. In order to do that, I need to hear more stories like those of Mr. Diver, Mr. Torrez, Mr. Magan, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. and Mrs. Batson. I know they are out there, so I'm calling on unemployed veterans to send me their resumes and stories to Resumes From Veterans @mail. house. gov. As I've said before, sending me your resume will not get you a job, or put you into consideration for a job. But it can help keep the unemployed problem front and center here in Washington. We need to do something, Mr. Speaker, so that all Americans, veterans and nonveterans alike, have work. We can do so much better. Veteran's Resume for the Congressional Record From: Chuck Diver [chuckdiver@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:25 AM To: Veterans, Resumes from Dear Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.: Thank you for your work. Providing veterans with recognition is an important contribution, because in addition to being unemployed, many of us feel the government has been less than forthcoming about the scope of the problem. I served four years in the U.S. Coast Guard. Respectfully, Charles E. Diver. Charles E. Diver Aircraft Dispatcher Nine years experience dispatching aircraft under Part 121 and Part 135 operations both domestically and internationally, of which the last one and one half years were as the manager of the flight control department. Professional Strengths Use of aviation software programs; attention to detail while multitasking; composure in stressful situations; excellent communications skills; respectful of cultural diversity; ability to prioritize dynamically; ability to teach and supervise; management experience; private pilot (SEL). Key Achievements Los prevention by audit control of APIS and E-APIS reports and required passenger travel documentation. Designated as dispatch ground instructor. Contributed to and assisted with GOM and OPSPEC revisions. Poit of contact for U.S. Customs, Immigration, TSA and FAA Inspectors. Professional Experience Manager of Flight Control Lynx Air International--11-2007 to 6-2009 Disatched company aircraft on charters and scheduled domestic and international flights. Responsible for all dispatch operations, reporting directly to the DO and the President of Administration. Adjusted master crew schedule as necessary for operational requirements. Coordinated operational requirements for charter, cargo, and passenger service departments. Managed logistical considerations for all flights including over-flight permits and fuel cost and availability. Interviewed, hired and trained new dispatch personnel, including recurrent training. Maintained records archives and updated all dispatch records and required manuals, including operational expense reports, aircraft and crew flight times, maintenance status of aircraft and Twelve-five security protocol documents. Aircraft Dispatcher Lynx Air International--8-2005 to 11- 2007 Dispatched Fairchild Metroliner III (SA227-AC) on charters and to the Bahamas, Haiti and Guantanamo (GITMO) Cuba using Flitesoft Commercial Flight Calculator and Flight View. All releases done manually for each flight and filed or updated all flight plans. Assisted the flight control manager as possible in the completion of his responsibilities. Interacted with cargo department, reservations and ticket counter personnel for each flight as necessary. Assisted other departments as circumstances required when not the dispatcher on duty. Flight Follower, Custom Air Transport 2-2005 to 8-2005 Monitored scheduled and on demand cargo flights of Boeing 727-200 aircraft domestically and internationally using Navtech flight planning software and Flight Explorer for flight following. Interacted with company supervisors and customer service representatives, especially during delayed flights or IROPS. Aircraft Dispatcher Lynx Air International--12-2003 to 2- 2005 Dispatched Fairchild Metroliner III (SA227-AC) on charters and to the Bahamas, Haiti and Guantanamo (GITMO) Cuba using Flitesoft Commercial Flight Calculator and Flight View. All releases done manually for each flight and filed or updated all flight plans. Assisted the flight control manager as possible in the completion of his responsibilities. Interacted with cargo department, reservations and ticket counter personnel for each flight as necessary. Assisted other departments as circumstances required when not the dispatcher on duty. Aircraft Dispatcher Atlantic Southeast Airlines--11-2000 to 9-2002 Dispatched CRJ's, ATR-72's and E-120's domestically and internationally using Eagle Dispatch Monitor, Flight Explorer, Flight Trac Plot, Storm Century PC and the ``Delta Term'' system of flight information management. Aircraft Dispatcher Chalks Ocean Airways--8-2000 to 11-2000 Dispatched Grumman Mallard seaplanes to the Bahamas. Interacted with station agents to coordinate passenger services. Health Care Educator Behavioral Medicine and Biofeedback Consultants--3-1993 to 12-1999 Taught behavior modification under the supervision of a licensed psychologist in his private practice and at North Broward Medical Center (NBMC), utilizing biofeedback assisted stress management and relaxation techniques to patients with stress symptoms and work related injuries. Provided classroom instruction and public lectures at NBMC for the management of diabetes, and conducted group sessions for the use of behavioral strategies to improve coping skills for diabetes, pain control and related conditions for stroke survivors. Education Sheffield School of Aeronautics--Aircraft Dispatcher Certification (Certificate Number 2636673); Graduated 8-2000. Sea School--U.S. Merchant Marine Officer License (Serial Number 605571); Graduated 6-1984. University of North Florida--Master of Science in Allied Health Services (GPA 4.00); Graduated 3-1979. University of North Florida--Bachelor of Arts in Psychology (GPA 3.30); Graduated 12-1977. Military U.S. Coast Guard--Rate/Rank: Quartermaster / E-5; Enlisted 8-31-1970. National Defense Service Medal; Small Boat Coxswain Insignia; Secret Clearance, Honorable Discharge 8-30-1974.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am aware of that. That notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is this money is not wasted money. This money is designed to provide our military officers and civilian sectors of various combatant war zones in both Afghanistan and Iraq with an opportunity to interact. This is not the responsibility of the Pentagon. This is not what the Pentagon does. So, with our military personnel on the ground, either as combatants or as noncombatants, having access to civilian sectors in society and helping them transition to peaceful forms of government and having conflict resolution at the local level are critical parts of our long-going mission in Afghanistan. I would be happy to continue to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. In reclaiming the balance of my time, let me say that, while I recognize the importance of the other think tanks and the work that they do in achieving and working towards peace, the United States Government also has an obligation to work directly with civilian sectors in various combatant zones. What is the United States Government's commitment to peace? Well, that commitment to peace manifests itself through the United States Institute for Peace, USIP, not through other foundations or through other means by which peace may be maintained. I thank the gentleman for engaging in the debate. United States Central Command, Office of the Commander, MacDill Air Force Base, FL, Feb. 11, 2009. Mr. Rob Goldberg, Director, International Affairs Division, National Security Programs, The Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Goldberg, I would like to underscore the importance of the US Institute for Peace (USIP) to the missions the United States is currently pursuing in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I have long been an avid reader of USIP's analytical products, which are second to none in tracking the challenges we face in both countries and in outlining policy options, I have more recently been impressed with USIP's on- the-ground peacebuilding efforts. In Iraq, the Institute stepped up to the plate beginning in August 2007 to assist the 10th Mountain Division in a reconciliation effort in Mahmoudiya, a community on the southern edge of Baghdad that was once known as the ``Triangle of Death.'' Since then, General Odierno and I have often cited Mahmoudiya as a striking success story. USIP's continuing reconciliation efforts at the community level, especially in Diyala and Ninewa, as well as at the national level in Baghdad, hold great promise for the future. In Afghanistan, USIP's work on the informal justice system has been invaluable as we work toward improving the rule of law at the provincial level. Their plans for reconciliation efforts at the community level on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border are likewise a potential key to success in the enormous challenges we face. USIP's experience working closely with the US military will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort between civilian and military elements of government. In fact, I hope soon to see US military officers training alongside civilian governmental and nongovernmental counterparts in USIP's headquarters at 23rd and Constitution. Their facility is not just an important symbol of our nation's commitment to peace; it is also home to a wonderful training center that we hope to leverage to increase understanding and unity of effort in today's complex operations. We can be proud of what USIP has done in the past, and I look forward with confidence to the contributions the Institute will make in the future. Sincerely, David H. Petraeus, General, United States Army, Commanding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. General Petraeus has written a letter indicating that the Institute of Peace is an integral part of resolving conflict and mediation on the ground. I hope the gentleman will comment on that.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, the U.S. Government simply must have options for solving international conflict other than military action or international diplomacy. USIP is the only independent U.S. Government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict mediation and resolution. For example, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, USIP has been on the ground since the beginning of these conflicts, actively bringing together parties to the conflict and building an agenda for the resolution of these conflicts, resulting in less need for American troops and paving the way for stabilization efforts. General Petraeus called USIP's reconciliation work in Iraq ``a striking success.'' Here are several examples of what the Department of Defense, the Regional Combatant Commands and other components of the military have asked USIP to do, just in the past year, to help them deal with challenges: A joint program with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth to convene multiple U.S. agencies and extract key lessons from the U.S. military to civilian transition in Iraq to help those confronting another massive handoff in Afghanistan. Comprehensive training for the U.S. Department of Defense's Ministry of Advisors Program, MoDA, going out to serve in Afghanistan for Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, commander of NATO Training Command Afghanistan. USIP, Madam Chair, is a small, agile center of innovation in support of America's national security. Funding for it, obviously, should not be eliminated today. I want to draw from a letter that General Petraeus, the General of the United States Army Commanding Forces in Afghanistan, most recently wrote to Rob Goldberg, the Director of International Affairs at NSP. He says--and I extrapolate--``USIP's experience working closely with the U.S. military will be a great asset in developing stronger unity of effort between civilian and military elements of government. In fact, I hope soon to see U.S. military officers training alongside civilian governmental and nongovernmental counterparts in USIP's headquarters at 23rd and Constitution,'' the wonderful building that my colleague Mr. Weiner, one of the foremost leaders of this institution, pointed out to us just moments ago. ``Their facility is not just an important symbol of our Nation's commitment to peace; it is also home to a wonderful training center that we hope to leverage to increase understanding and unity of effort in today's complex operations.'' The USIP is across the street, or just across the river, from the Pentagon, therefore giving access to our military leaders who are fighting abroad.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to ask the gentleman a question. Has the gentleman given any consideration as to what the impact of this Federal cut is on State programs and as to the likelihood that States are to follow suit after the enactment of his proposed amendment?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment, and I want to begin by saying that my friend, Mr. Flake from Arizona, is a very nice man. He's a decent man. He's just dead wrong on this. He's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Before I get into the specifics of the amendment, I want to highlight the deep cuts my friends on the other side of the aisle want to make to the accounts in the Labor-Health and Human Services and Education bill. This subcommittee not only funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, but programs that make vital investments in people. That's why the Labor-H bill is often referred to as ``the people's bill.'' It provides resources that train people for jobs; offers educational opportunities in early, secondary, and higher education; and expands social safety net programs to millions of Americans that need temporary assistance. While some of my colleagues will argue that with our growing budget deficit and growing levels of spending that we need to make some cuts-- and we must, by targeting wasteful and unnecessary spending--the legislation that has been brought to the floor by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle seeks to weaken some of the critical social safety nets for the most vulnerable amongst us: for working families, for children, for seniors, and for the poor. Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate for a couple of hours now, and as we get later and later into the night, I'd just like to take a moment to remind my friends that these cuts are not just about dollar amounts and percentage cuts over the last fiscal year, but cuts to real people. I think some of us often forget that. So the way this works is the Federal Government cuts these programs. Without matching funds available from the Federal Government, States then in turn cut the exact same programs, and suddenly, millions of Americans wake up without the Federal Government or without the State government providing them with any assistance. This isn't just about the Federal deficit and the Federal budget. The ramifications of this cut spiral, trickle all the way down to the States, and the ramifications for States' indebtedness continues to grow. Under the Department of Labor, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose a $2.5 billion cut to programs to support job training opportunities for dislocated workers, the unemployed, and young Americans at a time when the unemployment rate remains at a historic 9 percent. That's nearly 14 million Americans. By some estimates, this number is even higher. This is a 40 percent cut to programs that help unemployed people get out of the unemployment office and get their feet in the door. From Health and Human Services, this legislation cuts $1 billion for 1,250 community health centers. That does not include the ramifications of States that are not likely to fund the exact same health centers and even more. These health centers serve nearly 20 million low-income individuals by providing access to primary, dental, and preventative care. The $1.8 billion cut from the Head Start program will threaten jobs of thousands of teachers and teachers' aides and will cut off access to an estimated 200,000 low-income children across this country. And $694 million will be cut for grants to schools that serve disadvantaged students. Teachers, tutors, and teachers' aides are likely to lose their jobs, and after-school and supplemental programs will be cut. And the students that need the help the most will suffer. Nearly $558 million will be cut from special education programs that serve children with disabilities. As the cost of tuition, textbooks, and living expenses continues to rise, the 8 million students in community colleges and universities that benefit from Pell grants will no longer be able to receive the current maximum award of $5,550 per year. My colleagues across the aisle believe that $4,705 is adequate. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, with the detrimental cuts my colleagues plan to make to these social safety net programs. But the fact is that the legislation in front of us provides cuts to people in this country that can least afford it. These devastating cuts to health care, to education, to energy assistance, and other programs means the most vulnerable Americans will be left to fend for themselves, in the midst of the worst economy of our lifetime. Mr. Chairman, I recommend my colleagues vote against any amendments that further cut any of these vital programs for Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible continuing resolution.