Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the course of this session of Congress, I have given a number of Special Order speeches in order to get across to this body the basic needs of the American people and how the Constitution is the best means of meeting those needs. In April, I came to the floor and denounced a balanced budget amendment as the end of progress in our society. It would appear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't pay close attention. Perhaps, as they often do, they blatantly ignored what I believe was the logic and the reason behind my arguments. Either way, Mr. Speaker, here we are just a few months from my original statement against the BBA and the House leadership has brought a balanced budget amendment to the floor. This week, we will cast our vote on what Ezra Klein referred to in the Washington Post as ``the worst idea in Washington.'' In a New York Times editorial published on July 4, the dangers of the balanced budget amendment are laid out in plain English--no frills, none of the rhetoric that our constituents fall prey to. As simple as the BBA sounds, requiring the Federal Government to balance its books every year would be like ``telling families they cannot take out a mortgage or a car loan or do any other kind of borrowing, no matter how sensible the purchase or how credit worthy they may be.'' Worse than just balancing our budget, the amendments that we will see in the coming weeks will force the supermajority to approve any borrowing to finance spending and cap all spending at under 20 percent of GDP. Additionally, a two-thirds majority would be required to raise taxes, making that process effectively impossible. Sometimes a meaningful investment leads to greater returns in the long run. The average American can't afford to purchase a car, a house, or an education outright. They need a loan or some arrangement in which they owe money. They might be expected to pay installments at a later date, but the product of that loan could get them to a job interview, in a house, or in a university. A car could get them home after a long night at the office. A car lets them purchase groceries and, in turn, contribute to the success of the car industry. A house provides safety and security for one's family. An education adds to the quality of a person's life and the betterment of society. A loan may not always be the most desirable situation, but no one would deny its necessity. The chief argument used to sway forlorn Americans to the misguided belief that a BBA would benefit our Nation is this: each and every home has to balance its checkbook every month, so why shouldn't our Federal Government do the same? First of all, let me be clear: you cannot compare the budget of the Government of the United States to the budget of a household. It's simply not realistic. Aside from that critical flaw, the truth is that while each and every American home must balance its bank account, this doesn't include the mortgage, the car note, or the car loans that haven't been paid back yet. A true balanced budget is unrealistic in almost any scenario. Lest my words again fall on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker, let's start at the beginning. For my colleagues who did not hear me the first time, this may be a little bit redundant, but I'd like to address the history of the balanced budget amendment. It's been a long road. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I weren't so appalled by the nature of this effort, I'd be apt to congratulate my friends across the aisle for never letting go of their dream. I can absolutely relate, as I have a few constitutional amendments myself. I guess the Disney phrase, ``Anything can happen when you believe'' really did stick with them. They believed since 1936 when, in reaction to FDR's New Deal, Republican Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota introduced the first version of the amendment in 1936. Like many constitutional amendments, this resolution did not receive a hearing or a vote. During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term, the Judiciary Committee of a barely Democratic Senate held its first hearing on this amendment. It, again, did not receive a vote. After these partial defeats, the BBA supporters shifted their focus to the States. From 1975 to 1980, 30 State legislatures passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to propose this amendment directly to the States. The election of President Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate in 1980 renewed hopes for the balanced budget amendment passed by Congress. While the Senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. This failure energized conservative groups such as the National Taxpayers Union and the National Tax Limitations Committee to refocus on State action. In 1982 and 1983 the Alaska and Missouri legislatures passed resolutions supporting the BBA, bringing the total of number of these resolutions to 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention. However, a growing concern about the scope of a constitutional convention led some States to withdraw their resolutions, re-shifting focus to congressional action. From 1990 to 1994 Congress would make three additional attempts to codify this amendment. All failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority. However, the BBA made a comeback when it was included in former Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Twenty-six days after taking office, the newly empowered Republican majority adopted the BBA, giving conservatives their first congressional win in a decade. Disappointment awaited in the Senate however, when two separate votes fell short of its adoption. This failure, along with the balanced budget and the balanced budget surplus at the decade's end, sapped any remaining congressional support for the BBA. There was renewed Republican support for the amendment in 2000, as it was included in the party's platform. The Bush tax cuts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the passage of Medicare Part D, all unpaid for, led to massive deficit spending by Republicans that eventually led them to sweep the balanced budget amendment back under the rug. In fact, by 2004 the Republican party had created such debt and was so embarrassed that they left any mention of a balanced budget amendment out of their platform. Again, in recent years, with the advent of the Tea Party and the return of extreme fiscal conservatism in the Republican party, there are currently 12 balanced budget amendments in the House and three in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, we have a troubling national debt and deficit, but the balanced budget amendment is not the solution. I've already addressed for you the chief argument that proponents of the BBA use to draw in more misinformed worshipers of flawed austerity, comparisons to everyday families. In the same vein of bandwagon fallacies, my colleagues across the aisle have consistently pointed to another entity that is required to balance its books, the States. Mr. Speaker, I, again, can't continue without pointing out a serious dilemma in comparing the governments of individual States to the Federal Government. Perhaps if our Founding Fathers had seen fit to stick with the Articles of Confederation, this argument might be more legitimate. But at the end of the day we, instead, find ourselves under the guidance of the Constitution of the United States, by which I'm able to stand here before you tonight as an elected official conveying the views of my constituents. The requirements and expectations of our Federal Government, to the great and continuous dismay of some of my colleagues, are now and forever different from those of the States. The Federal Government is bound to protect, via military force, and provide for the collective security of our Nation; maintain the national currency; determine the scope of the Federal courts; promote and encourage our Nation's scientific and technological advancements via patents; and even regulate trade between the States that make up this great Union. At the end of the day, the States rely on the Federal Government, much like the citizens of the United States. Alas, Mr. Speaker, since this logic doesn't seem to carry with my conservative friends, I would like to point out a few technical problems with this impressively mature ``the States do it'' argument. On its face, I'm willing to say this may be true. Nearly every State in the union has some form of a balanced budget requirement. Unfortunately, however, this has not kept them out of debt. Furthermore, their amendments have restricted their ability to care for their citizens in times of austerity or emergency. Quite frankly, I don't think that's an option for the Federal Government. And in the face of such an emergency, I think every constituent we represent would agree. According to a Forbes analysis of the global debt crisis in January of 2010, every single State in the country is carrying some form of debt. These debts range from as little as $17 per capita in Nebraska to $4,490 in Connecticut. In fiscal year 2012 approximately 44 States will face revenue shortfalls. Many are desperately looking for ways to declare their State bankrupt. Bankrupt. I say it again, Mr. Speaker, because this proposed amendment would place the Federal Government in an equally unacceptable predicament. For instance, in Rhode Island, judges and court workers have cut pay and left 53 positions unfilled. This is still not enough to balance their budget. As a desperate last resort, the chief justice has begun to dispose of cases on backlog. Literally, the judge is tossing them out. Florida is in the same predicament. This past week I spoke to the Federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois. Federal workers being laid off and furloughed, and men and women who have pensions and long investments in the system being told that the Federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois can no longer sustain themselves. I told them I would bring their message back to this Congress. If this Congress can spend billions of dollars to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can spend billions of dollars on scientific exploration, we can spend billions of dollars to put a man on the Moon, why can't we find the money in this Congress to put a man or a woman on their own two feet right here in America? My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our children and grandchildren any amount of national debt that they fail to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. States are already cutting too many services that make the American workforce strong and competitive. Should the Federal Government do the same, our legacy will be an America that is undereducated, ill-equipped to compete on a global level. What happens to America when both State and Federal Governments can't make the investments in the education our youth need to compete at the global level? When our State and national capitals are both hiding behind balanced budget amendments? What happens to America? The ones who will suffer won't be the conservatives pushing for this amendment. It will be our poor, our children, our veterans, our elderly, the disabled, the America that doesn't have an interest in corporate tax rates, subsidies for big oil companies, or whether the Federal Government or insurance company underwrites their flood insurance. Everyday America will suffer. The balanced budget amendment is the wrong key to the doors of prosperity. It fits inside the keyhole, it seems like a perfect match, but it really doesn't open the door. We twist it, we shake it, we fiddle with it, but wind up stripping the lock, doing more harm than good. And at the end of the day, we've moved no further, made no progress from where we started. A BBA is not going to solve America's deficit crisis. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, and others, a Federal balanced budget amendment would damage our economy by making recessions deeper and more frequent, heighten the risk of default, and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, lead to reductions in needed investments in the future, favor wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues and easier to cut programs. It would weaken the principle of majority rule, making balancing the budget more difficult. And no one, to my satisfaction, not on the Democratic side and not on the Republican side, has explained to me yet what qualifies a Federal judge to intervene in this budget process and make a judgment about what programs to cut. Do they have degrees in economics? Have they studied programs? Have they studied the needs of constituents around the country? Have they been to Appalachia? Have they been to the barrios, the ghettos, and the trailer parks of our Nation? What qualifies a Federal judge to determine when someone's benefit or assistance should not be given to them? Nothing qualifies them, and yet this Congress votes tomorrow to change the Constitution of the United States as if their opinion should matter in this particular process. Mr. Speaker, I want to go into a little bit more detail about these faults because I need my colleagues to understand the level of damage they'll cause if they continue to sugar this bill and force it down the throats of the American people. First, a balanced budget amendment would damage the economy and make recessions deeper and more frequent. Under a BBA, Congress would be enforced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy requiring the budget to be balanced or in surplus every year regardless of the current economic situation or threat to the Nation's security. A sluggish economy with less revenue and more outgoing expenditures creates a deficit, as we've seen from recent events. A deficit necessitates economic stimulation in order to reverse negative growth. This is why in the last session of Congress the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure. It provided 95 percent of working Americans with an immediate tax cut, extended unemployed insurance and COBRA for Americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own. If Congress were forced to function under a BBA, deficit reduction would be mandated, even more so during periods of slow or stalled economic growth, which is the opposite of what is needed in this situation. My Republican colleagues have taken to finger-pointing about the stimulus package. Every day I see a commercial laughing about the embarrassing and painful ways it failed to push our economy out of recession. I find it funny that no one has talked about what would have happened without it. Here in the Halls of Congress, we're expected to legislate on a vast number of issues; but we always try to take our advice from the experts. And the experts, the economists, told us we should have done more. The BBA risks making the Nation's recessions more common and more catastrophic for middle class families, senior, veterans, the disabled, the poor. Under such an amendment, Congress is stripped of any power to adequately respond. Secondly, a BBA would risk default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States. We've already been down this road. We already know how dangerous that turn really is. In August, we teetered on the brink of default playing political games and pointing fingers. We couldn't pass a respectable debt ceiling increase, and we only needed a simple majority to do so. A balanced budget amendment would bar the government from borrowing funds unless a three-fifths vote in both Houses of Congress permitted a raise in the debt limit. Under such a scenario, we wouldn't have been able to raise the debt limit in the last debate. A budget crisis in which a default becomes a threat is more likely and because of the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling, that default becomes more likely to occur. After the chaos we just experienced a few short months ago after the downgrade of our Nation's credit rating, not because of our debt but because of our lack of ability to lead and govern, I would think, Mr. Speaker, that we would try to avoid an identical future situation. A BBA would exacerbate the same issues we saw in the August debt ceiling debacle. Third, Mr. Speaker, a BBA would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. Since the 1930s, our Nation has consistently made public investments that improve long-term productivity and growth in education, infrastructure, research and development. These efforts encourage increased private sector investment leading to budget surpluses and a thriving economy. A balanced budget amendment which requires a balanced budget each and every year would limit the government's ability to make public investments, thereby hindering future growth. For years, conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to programs that serve as social safety nets to the American families. Although we must consider the debt and deficit, the larger and more significant issue is the nature of the debt and what it created. If you invest $50,000 in a business, a house, or an education, you can expect future returns on your investment. If you invest the same $50,000 in a gambling debt, what is the future return? Both expenditures result in a $50,000 debt. But only one results in a return that can transform that debt into a long-term asset or gain. Social investments provide the potential for greater returns in the long run in the same fashion as personal investments. Even small expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in the long term. If the Nation chose to invest over a 5-year period $1.5 trillion in building roads and bridges and airports and railroads, mass transit, schools, housing, health care, we would create a debt. But the increased ability of companies to interact and shift their goods over well-paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would sprout around freshly built or newly expanded airports, the high wages of a student who is well-educated and able to attend college resulting in more tax revenue, the improved productivity of employees at their healthiest would eventually result in greater returns for our country. The extension of Bush-era tax cuts for corporations and the rich brought about some short-term stimulus for consumer spending; but similar to the Reagan tax cuts, which resulted in record government deficits and debt, the long-term damage outweighs the immediate effects. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of investing in our Nation's need for long-term, balanced economic growth. The Reagan administration neglected and cut back our Nation's investment in infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job training, transportation, energy conservation, and more. The inclination of most conservatives in both parties--I'm not picking on Republicans today--in both parties, is to cut the debt by cutting programs for the most vulnerable amongst us--our poor, our children, our elderly, our disabled, and minorities. This approach, however, has proven false too many times. A balanced budget amendment would take us back to this archaic and ineffective system permanently. Fourth, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment favors wealthy Americans over middle- and low-income Americans by making it harder to raise revenue and easier to cut programs. Under current law, legislation can pass by a majority of those present and voting by a recorded vote. The BBA requires that legislation raising taxes must be approved on a rollcall vote by a majority of the full membership of both Houses. Before I even finish this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point: look at the supercommittee. Look at what they're wrestling with. We don't even have a balanced budget amendment. Look at who they're targeting. Look at the emphasis of their cuts. So instead of a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution, we already see that Congress is ineffective in light of what we've already passed. Imagine if it were a constitutional requirement. The point is so simple, Mr. Speaker. The BBA would make it harder to cut the deficit by curbing special interest tax breaks of the oil and gas industries and making it easier to reduce programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, education, environmental programs, and assistance to poor children. Wealthy individuals and corporations receive most of their government benefits in the form of tax entitlements while low-income and middle- income Americans receive most of their government benefits through programs. As evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, it's far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending on our military or to increase taxes. As long as spending is a political issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice in Washington will always happen first. Raising taxes, the only option to address a budget deficit aside from cutting programs, is already a burdensome issue. The additional requirements of a BBA further complicate the process of raising taxes. This means the richest Americans will likely keep the benefits they receive from our government via tax cuts. Meanwhile, the poor, they lose their programs that provide them with housing, with food, with health care, and the means to survive. This will further reinforce the growing gap between the rich, the rest of our society, middle class, working poor, and the destitute alike. The BBA insists that the total government expenditures in any year, including those for Social Security benefits, not exceed total revenues collected in that same year, including revenues from Social Security payroll taxes. Thus, the benefits of the baby boomers would have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working and paying into the system then. This undercuts the central reforms of 1983. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the BBA weakens the principle of majority rule and makes balancing the budget much more difficult. Most balanced budget amendments require that, unless three-fifths of the Members of Congress agree to raise the debt ceiling, the budget must be balanced at all times. They also require that legislation raising taxes must be approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the membership. Mr. Speaker, in no way is this an exhaustive list. I know that my time is up, but this is my second attempt to bring my conservative friends to their senses. The only parties served by a balanced budget amendment are corporate interests and the wealthy, whom they seem to be serving instead of everyday working Americans. My answer is ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, to the balanced budget amendment tomorrow. My answer is ``yes'' if my colleagues agree there is no way that they can pass the balanced budget amendment unless we, ourselves, agree that we must invest, build, and grow this economy and work our way out of this problem as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, what is it that qualifies a Federal judge to make a decision about the Federal budget process?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the distinguished chairman yield for just one question?

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, the courts could then mandate a government shutdown once revenue has been expended, unlike the CRs that Congress passes.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member, and I thank the chairman for his response, but I want to raise a question with Mr. Nadler, a distinguished constitutionalist. The courts could mandate, therefore, if Congress failed to pass a balanced budget, it could mandate a government shutdown once revenue has been expended; is that correct?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman aware that under such a scenario, a budget crisis in which a default becomes a more threat is more likely because the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling--

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. We do need to responsibly reduce our budget deficits and debt, but the best way to do that is by investing, building, and growing our economy, or through balanced economic growth, not a balanced budget amendment. What is the most important question to be raised with respect to the BBA? We have serious gaps in our society that need to be narrowed. Economic gaps between the rich and the poor--ask the 99 percent. Social gaps between racial minorities and the majority population. Gender gaps--woman earn 76 cents for the dollar of what men earn. Generational gaps--will Social Security be there for the next generation? Infrastructure gaps--upgrades to roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewer systems, high-speed rail, airports and more in order to remain competitive in the world marketplace. So the most important question, Mr. Speaker, is this: How does the BBA narrow these economic, social, gender, generational, and infrastructure gaps? It won't. It simply exacerbates them. The BBA will permanently establish the United States as a separate and unequal society. The BBA will balance the Federal budget on the backs of the poor, the working class, and the middle class. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Citizens for Tax Justice say that the BBA would damage our economy by making recessions deeper and more frequent; heighten the risk of default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; lead to reductions in needed investments for the future; and favor wealthy Americans over middle and low-income Americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues and easier to cut programs. And it would weaken the principle of majority rule. Before this Congress affirms a balanced budget amendment, we need to consider our future--not just the future of America's debt, but America's future. Do we want a future that is bright with promise; a future with innovation; a future with the best schools, the brightest students, and the strongest and healthiest workers? Do we want to continue to lead in the world? My answer is yes. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this irresponsible and shortsighted amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman. My question is of the chairman as well. Under such a scenario where a three-fifths vote of the House would be permitted to raise the debt limit, a budget crisis in which a default becomes a more threat is obviously more likely. And because of the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling, that default becomes more likely to occur. Is it the gentleman's opinion that a small minority within the Congress could indeed hold the entire Nation hostage to such a vote?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. May I reclaim the time? Mr. Chairman, in the event that Congress fails to act, obviously under this amendment the courts would be empowered to provide remedial orders for when Congress failed to provide a balanced budget. The decisions would then force the courts to be political in nature. Is it the gentleman's opinion that the judicial branch and that members of the court are in a better position to make judgements about congressional budgets and about the Nation's budgets than Members of Congress?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Adoption Day, November 19, 2011, and in support of more than 400,000 children living in foster care. National Adoption Day began in November of 2000 as an attempt to raise awareness for children in foster care waiting to find permanent, loving families. In particular, National Adoption Day aims to facilitate and finalize adoptions in all 50 states, celebrate and honor those families who adopt, and encourage others to consider adopting. Through the efforts of policymakers, practitioners and advocates, over 35,000 children have found homes on this day. This year alone, organizers hope to finalize adoption for 4,500 foster care children. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that Congress acts to support the tireless efforts of organizations and individuals helping to find loving homes for the thousands of children living in foster care across the country. In my home state of Illinois, more than 15,000 children eagerly await the day they are adopted into a permanent, stable, and caring family. Let us give hope today to those children in search of the homes they desperately need and deserve by raising awareness for this critical issue. I urge my colleagues and fellow Americans to support efforts that will unite children living in foster homes with permanent families, and to join me in recognizing National Adoption Day on November 19.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to speak on the subject jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs will restore faith in government. Invest, build and grow. One does not have to be a Christian to understand or believe what the Bible says about three critical things that are important to living our lives: faith, hope, and love. Today I want to connect the idea of faith to faith in government. Hebrews 11.1 says, ``Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'' What are some of those things that are hoped for and not seen? When we drive a car, we have faith that when our light turns green and we go, the person driving the car in the other direction will obey the light when it turns red and stop. When we stop for a red light, we have faith that the car behind us will also stop and not ram us in the rear. We have faith that the pedestrians will obey the yield sign and not run out in front of our moving car. We have faith that if a driver turns on the right hand turn signal, they will not suddenly turn left in front of us. We have faith that other drivers will not recklessly endanger our lives by driving drunk. So whether driving to work or to play, it is faith that allows us to drive. And if another person runs a stop light, doesn't brake behind us, doesn't obey the yield sign, suddenly turns in front of us or drives drunk, they have broken the faith. In other words, when you're driving, the only thing that stands between you and death is faith. If you fly on airplanes, you have faith. You have faith in a pilot that you've never met--that they're well trained, that they know how to take off and land, can handle a storm in the air, can handle an emergency, are physically fit, psychologically stable, and not drunk or on drugs. You have faith in the flight attendants that they've been trained to handle unruly passengers or an emergency situation. You have faith that the maintenance people have properly serviced the plane before it takes off. You have faith that the TSA employees have done their job and have not made an error that will put your life or the life of passengers in danger. You have a reasonable faith in the regulations of the FAA that the fuel, the engines, the body of the plane, and the runways are safe. A critical error anywhere along this line will damage and destroy your faith in air travel. Train engineers have faith that drivers and pedestrians will not drive or walk around railroad crossing gates and endanger themselves or the train. Bus passengers have faith that the driver is not intoxicated, on drugs, or experiencing emotional problems that can endanger the public or their riders. Look, Madam Speaker, how faith operates during medical emergencies. When we're at our weakest and suddenly become ill and need to be rushed to the hospital. We have faith that a well-trained ambulance and emergency medical technician will arrive quickly and provide us with care. We have faith that drivers on the road will pull over when they hear the sirens to allow our ambulance driver to get us quickly and safely to the hospital. We have faith in the doctors, the nurses, and the medical staff that they will provide us with the highest quality of care possible regardless of our perceived ability to pay or whether we have medical insurance. Without the faith that our judicial system has laws that are rationally and morally sound and faith that our judges will conduct themselves in a respectful and fair way toward prosecutors and defendants, we cannot have a justice system that endures. Earlier last month, I spent the day with the Johnson-Karlock family outside of Momence, Illinois, during their family's harvest season. As we were sitting down for lunch, Mr. Johnson led us in a short prayer to thank God for the successful season's harvest. Through his prayer, I quickly learned how many factors a farmer has to rely on for a good harvest year. When I pray over my family's dinner, it's always ``God is good, God is great, thank you for the food that I'm about to receive for the nourishment of my body, for Christ's sake, Amen.'' And then my family sits down and eats. But when I heard from Mr. Johnson's prayer, there must have been a dozen unseen factors on his mind that small family farmers depend on for their way of life. He expressed gratitude for the sun, gratitude for the rain, gratitude for the soil, and gratitude for the harvest. He prayed for protection against things that can destroy his crop and support for his equipment. His prayer was a mighty different prayer from the prayer that I normally pray over my food. But the Johnsons and other small family farmers also believe in the Federal Government. If something bad does happen in a season, the Federal Government is there to provide crop insurance and disaster insurance to get them through tough times. They rely on the Federal Government to provide research that enhances production and yield and genetic engineering of the crop and seed breeding. They have faith in their government that their government will be there in their time of need. It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, agnostic or atheist. It is impossible to live without faith. Our auto industry almost collapsed; so we can only have so much faith in General Motors and Chrysler and Ford. Our financial system did partially collapse; so we can only have so much faith in our banks, lenders, and investors. We can only have limited faith in the private sector because it has $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion sitting on the sideline, money that it refuses to invest in jobs and in the American people. And if Congress passed and the States ratified a balanced budget amendment, it would mean that the Federal Government could never meet the American people's needs or correct gaps among our people that need to be corrected, and we would lose faith in our government. We need to have faith in the Federal Government--which is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people--but we can only have such faith if it meets our people's current needs. Without such faith and deliverance by our Federal Government, we cannot survive as a Nation. What is the greatest need of the American people today that a government of, for, and by the people should respond to? Jobs. The problem with this dysfunctional Congress is that it is not keeping the faith with the American people by providing them with their greatest need--jobs. Every Member of Congress takes the following oath: ``I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' When we take that oath but leave 25 million people either unemployed or underemployed, internally we are creating potential domestic enemies. I think I have demonstrated that all of us have faith. Men cannot live by bread alone, and we couldn't live if we didn't have faith. But to have faith in a government means that a government that is actually of, by, and for the people must be responsive to the people's needs. So when Congress or Members of Congress say--through words or deeds or actions or inaction--that the Federal Government can't help, it destroys the American people's faith in their government. The greatest material need of the American people today is jobs, jobs, jobs. The greatest need of the American economy today is aggregate demand. The most effective and efficient way to meet the need for jobs and aggregate demand--in the spirit of FDR--is for the Federal Government to directly hire workers to do the work that needs to be done. The result of the Federal Government investing, building and growing the economy and creating full employment will be the restoration of faith in government. For the last 30 years we've been bombarded with Ronald Reagan's conservative negative government rhetoric: ``Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.'' That's an interesting phrase. How can a government of, by, and for the people be the problem? Logically, it says either we don't have a government of, by, and for the people, or that people are the problem. So the first thing we must do to counter this negative Reagan propaganda is to have the Federal Government do positive things to restore the American people's faith in government and in themselves. Among the many things that the addition of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution did during the First Reconstruction after the American Civil War was to help to restore people's faith in the Federal Government's capacity to solve a problem. In taking over Herbert Hoover's mess of conservative economics-- complacency, limited Federal action and inaction--the first thing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal did--by the closing of banks to stop the run on currency and gold; Social Security for the aged; regulation of investment by the SEC; agricultural assistance to needy farmers; the Wagner Act that benefited working men and women; the Civilian Conservation Corps, the CCC; and the Works Progress Administration, the WPA, that put people back to work--was to restore faith in the Federal Government. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society--whose war on poverty worked and reduced poverty, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, Elementary and Secondary Education Act for students, the 1964 Public Accommodations Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act for African Americans--for most Americans restored faith in the Federal Government. Today, in order to restore the American people's faith in government, the Federal Government must jump-start the private economy by ``priming the pump'' and creating jobs. What do we need to do? Madam Speaker, we should move the money: jobs, not cuts; tax the rich; stop the wars; bring home our troops. What does move the money mean? It means we need to create a second economic stimulus, not because the first one failed--it worked, it stopped us from going into the abyss--but because the hole was deeper than we originally thought, we need a second stimulus. My conservative colleagues in both parties are like the man whose house caught on fire and he tried to put it out with his garden hose and it didn't work. You know what he concluded? He concluded that water does not put out fires. But that was the wrong conclusion. He should have concluded that he needed more water and a bigger hose. President Obama's original stimulus has given us 20 months of private jobs growth, but we need more to get us back on track. We need the President's American Jobs Act; we need Jan Schakowsky's Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act; and we need the plan that I'm putting together, the Invest, Build, Grow and Full Employment Act. In March of 2009, Congress passed the first economic stimulus, which included $757 billion intended to save or create 2 million to 2.5 million jobs over 2 years. It succeeded, but it wasn't enough. In December 2010, Congress passed an $858 billion bill extending the Bush-era tax cuts, which is expected to create 3 million jobs over the next 2 years. It may, but it's not enough. That's $1.6 trillion over 4 years that we've invested in create 5 million to 5.5 million jobs and will probably succeed, but it's not enough. We need a plan that fits the size of the problem. We need something more and something more efficient and effective to put 15 million Americans back to work. Tax cuts are the worst and most inefficient way to create jobs. By congressional standards, $900 billion is not a lot of money, especially when it's used to jump-start the $15 trillion gross domestic product that is the American economy. If we can afford $712 billion to fight a war abroad in Iraq, we can afford $900 billion to put Americans back to work right here at home. We can move the money from those who can afford to give more to those who need it, and not hurt anyone. That's how we keep the faith. We need to do what FDR did during the Great Depression--have the Federal Government directly hire workers. ``In times of economic crisis, government has a crucial important role to play. People matter and results count. And we don't need to go too far back in our history to find examples,'' said Michael Hilzik, the Pulitzer prize-winning author and L.A. Times reporter who explored this issue in his latest book, ``The New Deal: A Modern History.'' For those of my conservative colleagues in both parties who say the government can't and doesn't create jobs, he writes: ``The WPA produced 1,000 miles of new and rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8,000 parks, 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields, some 84,000 miles of drainage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, and 125,000 public buildings built, rebuilt or expanded. Among the latter were 41,300 schools. The transformative power of this effort is inestimable.'' FDR, using the Federal Government, directly created jobs because it took jobs to do all of that. FDR invested in and built up an entire region with the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Public Works Administration built the Grand Coulee Dam in the State of Washington and put 8,000 men to work, starting in 1933, using materials from 46 States. In southern California, the PWA helped repair or replace 536 school buildings damaged or destroyed by the great Long Beach earthquake March 10, 1933. In Florida, the PWA built the Overseas Highway, 127 miles of causeways and bridges connecting the mainland and Key West, and transformed the island into one of America's premiere tourist attractions. In New York City, the PWA built the Triborough Bridge that connected three of the City's five boroughs, and it funded the building of LaGuardia Airport. Hoover Dam, once known as Boulder Dam, is located in the Black Canyon of Colorado River on the border between Arizona and Nevada. It was constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression, and in July 1934, it employed over 5,000 workers building the dam. And in my home city of Chicago, the Lake Shore Drive Bridge was started in 1929, but the Great Depression prevented its completion until the WPA delivered funds in the mid-1930s. When completed in 1937, the bridge was 356 feet long and 100 feet wide, making it the world's longest and widest bascule bridge, a movable or draw bridge, a type of bridge that was developed and perfected in Chicago and used for many of its river crossings. So we already have an economic model. The CCC, the WPA, the PWA, and FDR's New Deal. If we just had, Madam Speaker, the political will. The first phase of an overall 6-year $2.2 trillion proposal, we can take $600 billion, jump-start this economy by hiring 15 million workers at an average annual salary of $40,000. Some will make $20,000, some $60,000, depending on the job, to invest in America. This project will rebuild our infrastructure, put Americans back to work, and create aggregate demand, the greatest need of this economy. And the aggregate demand will bring the $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion in private money sitting on the sidelines back into the game. The investment of private money will create even more jobs, and all of these workers will be paying taxes. The number of Americans dependent on the Federal Government for unemployment compensation and food stamps will be reduced, which will help lower the deficit and debt faster than any current proposal. The American Society of Civil Engineers has proposed a similar 5- year, $2.2 trillion plan to build and rebuild America's infrastructure for the future. In 2011, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, States have a combined debt of almost $200 billion. The Federal Government should bail them out and give Democratic and Republican governors and State legislatures a clean economic slate. Our cities and counties are in debt. Set aside another $100 billion to bail out most, if not all of them, and give Democratic and Republican county presidents and commissioners, mayors, and city councils a clean economic slate: $700 million in Chicago; $48 million in the District of Columbia, for example. So for a mere $900 billion, which is slightly more than each of the last two stimulus packages, we can bail out all States, most, if not all of the counties and cities, and put 15 million Americans back to work. The only thing that we lack in this Congress is the political will. So I, again, say we need to restore people's faith. Move the money. Jobs, not cuts. Tax the rich. Stop the wars. And bring our troops home. Robert Reich, in his latest book, ``Aftershock,'' argues that the central challenge at the heart of America's ongoing economic predicament is, and I quote, ``not to rebalance the global economy so that Americans save more and borrow less from the rest of the world, it is to rebalance the American economy so that its benefits are shared more widely within America.'' In other words, America's jobs and aggregate demand problems cannot be solved with the current maldistribution of income and wealth which is at the heart of our economic problems. What am I talking about? According to the most recent nonpartisan CBO report, and again, I quote directly, ``The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the Nation's income over the last three decades. In addition, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income. The equalizing effect of Federal taxes was smaller in 2007 than in 1979, as the composition of Federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less- progressive payroll taxes. ``Also, Federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to the older Americans and regardless of their income. ``From 1979 to 2007, the average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real estate tax household income grew by 65 percent. ``By contrast, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose only 18 percent. And for the three- fifths of the people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.'' In other words, the ``class warfare'' that Republicans have been reacting to and complaining about is exactly the opposite of what they say it is. It hasn't been class warfare by the poor and the middle class against the rich. The middle class and the poor are not jealous of the rich, and they're especially not jealous of those who are part of the ``greedy rich.'' The middle class and the poor have not been attacking the real job creators. Yes, they're opposed to giving more tax breaks, as Republicans want to do to the so-called job creators who already have $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion sitting idle on the sideline and who've not used that money to create jobs. But make no mistake about it. There is class warfare going on. The nonpartisan CBO just documented that it's been class warfare by the rich against the middle class and the poor. That's what's really happening. We live, Madam Speaker, in a representative democracy. Democracy is a government of, by, and for the people. A government of, by, and for the people will be responsive and meet the material needs of its people and its people's economy. We don't really have an economic problem, at least one that we can't solve. Again, we have a political problem with my conservative colleagues in both parties in this Congress. We have a problem of the American people not demanding that their Federal Government meet their need for jobs and the resulting economic aggregate demand. The people of Occupy Wall Street, Occupy LaSalle Street, Occupy Oakland, and the other 99 percent movements that are springing up and becoming active around this country and around the world are beginning to demand that democratic governments everywhere address the existing economic inequality and be responsive to their need for meaningful jobs at meaningful wages. In 2010, the Tea Party movement became politically active and moved Congress in a more conservative direction. If the ``Occupy'' movements are to bring about real change, they must become politically active in 2012 and beyond. They need to move Congress in a more progressive direction, a direction that fits their needs. Just like the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement pressured moderate Republicans to stiffen their backs on conservative things Republicans say they believe in, so too the Occupy movements must pressure Democrats to stiffen their backs on the liberal things that Democrats say they believe in. Madam Speaker, we already know that my conservative colleagues in both parties believe in States' rights and deregulation, which will allow the private economy and market forces to wreak havoc on the economy and most Americans like it did in the first decade of the 21st century. Madam Speaker, we already know conservatives in both parties believe in trickle down economics that never trickle down but always flood up. Madam Speaker, we already know the consequences to the economy, workers, and society of laissez faire policies, bank crises that threaten and bring about even great depressions, failed corporations, disastrous home foreclosure crises, high unemployment, and corrupt politics. Madam Speaker, we already know what conservatives on both sides of the aisle bring us. But will progressive Democrats advocate for bringing the American people anything better? So I want to challenge myself and my progressive Democratic colleagues to do more. We say we care about the poor. Well, let's give the poor some bootstraps so they can lift themselves up. We say we care about the working class. Well, let's advocate for a solution that fits the size of the problem and create enough jobs to employ the American people who are unemployed and put all Americans to work--not by 2017, not by 2018, but by the end of the month. Try missing a bill for 4 or 5 or 6 years. Only Washington could conclude that an unemployed or underemployed person has until 2018 to worry about bringing down unemployment numbers. We say we want more home ownership. Well, let's propose meaningful solutions to address the housing foreclosure crisis. We say we're for the middle class. Let's advocate for policies that will restore the middle class's previous standard of living. We say we support students. Well, let's help them reduce their college debts. We say we support small businesses. Let's advocate for policies that will help small businesses grow and enable them to hire more workers. We need to stand with family farmers like the Johnsons in my new congressional district and against agribusiness when they threaten to drive the Johnsons out of business. So I say, Madam Speaker, in conclusion, let's put America back to work. Enough of the games. Invest in America. Rebuild America. Grow the American economy, end the housing foreclosure crisis and restore the American Dream. Enable college students to go back to school. Retrain our workers. Save our children. Save our family farms. Rebuild our bridges, our ports, our sewers, and our water systems. Build high-speed rail, public transportation, ports, levees, and new airports. Invest in alternative energy sources--wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. We can do better. Register and vote for politicians who will better represent the real economic interests of the American people. We can act. We can change things. We can restore faith in government and the private sector for the American people. We must invest, build, and grow to accomplish full employment. We must do better, Madam Speaker. We must put the American people to work. And most importantly, we must honor our highest obligation as Members of this institution, and that is to restore the American people's faith in the capacity of their government to bring about change positively in their lives. I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady from Houston for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, I have been talking about building a third airport for Chicago's metropolitan area since my first campaign, which was in 1995. The congressional district that I represent has nearly three people for every one job in many communities; and compare that to the northwest suburban parts of the city of Chicago, there are nearly three jobs for every one person. It is an enormous disparity. Since that time in 1995, the United States has not built a single new airport. In fact, the United States has not built a new greenfield airport in more than 40 years. The last totally new airport built in this country was Dallas/Fort Worth which opened for business in 1969. Now, some of you may say that Denver built a new airport. Well, yes and no. Denver has a new airport, but it was a replacement airport. Once the new Denver International Airport was completed, the old Stapleton Airport was shut down. So while Denver has an updated facility, that airport really didn't add to the number of U.S. airports. Since 1969, when Dallas/Fort Worth opened, the U.S. air traffic, the number of passenger and cargo flights, has more than tripled. Yet, despite a tripling of activity and 40-plus years of aviation growth, no new major airport has come online to accommodate that expansion. That's absolutely incredible, Mr. Speaker. Compare our record to China's. The Chinese Government recently announced plans to build 97 new airports between 2008 and 2020. So the U.S. builds zero airports in 42 years; China is embarking on a plan to build 97 new airports in just 12 years. If the United States wants or hopes to stay competitive in the global economy, we need to start thinking a little bit bigger. We need to start thinking about ports, and specifically airports. We need to start thinking a little bit more like the Chinese, 100 new airports by 2020. The General Administration of Civil Aviation of China said that it plans to spend over 450 billion yuan, building no fewer than 97 airports by the year 2020. If the plans are carried through, this massive expansion of capacity will see the number of Chinese airports increase to 244. The plans will mean that eight of every 10 Chinese people will live within 100 kilometers of an airport. If the United States wants to compete, we simply have to be prepared to build more of these facilities. And I'm happy to report that some of us in Washington and in Illinois are doing precisely that. In the past 2 months, I've heard President Obama talk about the need to build new airports. Not once, not twice, but several times I've heard the President say this. The first time when he unveiled his national jobs plan, the President said: ``We can put people to work rebuilding America. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. It's an outrage. ``Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower, and now we're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads at a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America,'' the President said. Mr. Obama even noted that perhaps the best way and maybe the only way to build new airports, new highways, new infrastructure is through a public-private partnership, also known as PPP. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I explained this concept to State Senator Barack Obama while he was running to become a United States Senator in 2004. When he wrote an op- ed in the Chicago Sun Times in support of this proposed new airport, in his article he said: ``There is a strong case for a regional third airport in the south suburbs, a region that has struggled economically while other suburban areas have prospered. Employment and income in the south suburbs lags the rest of the Chicago area. The construction and operation of a new airport near Peotone would bring 1,000 construction jobs in the next 2 years and 15,000 permanent jobs by the first full year of operations, as well as billions of dollars in new economic activity to residents and communities that sorely need it. ``Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a key leader in the Peotone effort, has assembled a group of private investors who are willing to risk their capital on the new airport's prospects. State government's role in the project would be limited to providing infrastructure improvement such as roads, transit, and sewers, which it routinely provides to other development projects around the State.'' Mr. Obama said: ``The benefits of a south suburban airport would not be limited to the Chicago region. Many downstate communities are hampered by their lack of air access to Chicago. Since gates for such flights are extremely limited at O'Hare and Midway, an airport near Peotone would provide downstate communities with enhanced air access to Chicago, as well as accommodating general aviation traffic that formerly utilized Meigs Field. In addition, as the world's first and only airport custom designed, built, and priced to attract low-cost carriers, it will attract air service to the Chicago area by startup and discount airlines currently not operating out of Chicago's existing airports.'' As many of you know, the plan that I've put together for Chicago's third airport is precisely that. I've advocated for building this airport through a public-private partnership for the past 8 years. To quote President Obama again, he said: ``There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. We'll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria--how badly a construction project is needed, number one; and how much good it will do for the economy.'' The President knows that Chicago's two airports, O'Hare and Midway, have been operating at or above capacity for years, so the need is clearly there. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration has been asking Chicago to build a new airport since 1985--for more than 25 years. As for the President's requirement that new infrastructure be good for the economy, there is no greater job generator in the world than an airport. For proof, we need look no further than Washington, DC, and the Dulles Airport corridor. Once out in the middle of nowhere, the Dulles Airport corridor today is home to 35,000 new companies. Some 575,000 people go to work there every day, and roughly 57 percent of the world's Internet traffic now flows through the Dulles corridor. Most of that is possible due to the airport. As for the airport that I'm proposing for Chicago, it would create 1,000 construction jobs immediately over the next 2 years. Once phase 1 construction is done--which could be done as early as June of next year--and the airport opens for business, it would create an additional 15,000 new permanent jobs for the local economy, again by the first day of operation. Those 15,000 jobs at the airport include some jobs at the airport like pilots and baggage handlers and air traffic controllers and service agents and TSA agents. But, moreover, Mr. Speaker, it includes jobs located outside of the airport's footprint. I'm talking about jobs at the new Hilton, the new Hyatt, the new Fairmont hotels locating near airports; jobs at UPS and Federal Express, two businesses that can't survive without airports; Hertz, Dollar, Alamo, Avis, and Enterprise; jobs at local restaurants: McDonald's and Burger King and Chili's and KFC, Olive Garden, White Castle, Outback Steakhouse, Steak 'n Shake, Red Lobster, Wendy's, Applebee's, Panera Bread; convention centers, malls with entertainment complexes, sport complexes, warehouses, rail yards, all in the service industry, and corporate headquarters, all of which historically like to locate near airports. Hotels all across America must be at 80 percent occupancy in order to be profitable every single day. People who stay in hotels tend to get to those hotels by flying there. Catching a taxi from an airport, or even renting a car, airports are the center of the service-based economy. Expanding the service-based economy is the fastest way to employ the American people and put them, Mr. Speaker, back to work. And just like Dulles, which was Washington's third airport, Chicago's new third airport would create, over time, hundreds of thousands of new jobs. So how do we build and finance an airport in these tough economic times? I know someone out there in television land is actually asking that question. As the President said, the way to build new airports is through a public-private partnership, by getting private companies to invest their own capital without risk to taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I learned a lot about public-private partnerships a dozen years ago when I began researching ways to build and finance a third airport for Chicago. And the President is absolutely correct. I learned right here in the Congress of the United States from my late colleague, Congressman Henry Hyde, who introduced me to a number of consultants who impressed upon us the need to move to public-private partnerships in order to handle the Nation's future infrastructure demands. Our research taught me that the old method for financing and building airports is absolutely obsolete. It doesn't work anymore. In short, the paradigm has shifted since 1969 when America built its last major airport. The old model used to work like this: Runways and taxiways were built and financed by cities. A city would then recoup its investments by collecting landing fees from airlines and eventually get paid back over the next 30 years. Under that same old model, terminals were built and financed by the airlines. That's why O'Hare has a United terminal and an American terminal, et cetera. But guess what. The old model, Mr. Speaker, does not work anymore. Most cities cannot afford to pay for runways and then wait 30 years to get reimbursed, and they're reluctant to hit up taxpayers for more money. Likewise, most airlines, many of whom are teetering on bankruptcy, can no longer afford to invest in and build massive terminal buildings. The new model is the public-private partnership. Under the public-private partnership, cities create airport commissions. They form participating governments who then enter into an intergovernmental agreement. And by entering into that intergovernmental agreement, they form an airport authority with the State; the State which owns lands, leases land or yields land to the airport authority who then, in turn, provides that land to the developers. The developers make an investment in the airfield. They build the airport. The income from the airfield comes to the developers who then pay the public entity rent. And that's how the engine of our economy for a local airport begins to spin. And it continues to spin as the airport begins to grow and begins to manifest itself in the form of productivity for those who take advantage of the facility. If the private sector does it right, they reap profits that can then be shared with the communities that formed the airport commission. This model is exactly what has been used at new airport projects around the world for the last 40 years. The main reason this model hasn't been used in the U.S. is simple. During the last 40 years, we haven't built any new airports. In Chicago, we are following the new international model of the public- private partnership. First, we formed the local airport commission to create and oversee the public-private partnership. That commission, formed in 2003, is comprised of 21 municipalities from three counties, Cook, Will and Kankakee, located near the airport site. These communities, who call themselves the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission, or ALNAC, work essentially as one city, and they make up the public side of the partnership. These 21 communities, again, acting as one airport commission, then conducted a global competition to find private developers who had the expertise, the experience, the wherewithal and the willingness to design, finance, construct, and manage a new airport. Seventeen companies from around the world ultimately responded to the commission's requests for proposals. At the conclusion of that global search, ALNAC, the public commission, selected two companies with aviation expertise, SNC Lavalin and L-COR, as its private development partners. These two companies have built new airports or expanded existing airports in countries from Europe, Africa, North America and from Central America to South America. They've done so with great success, and, more importantly, they've done it with their own money at no cost to the taxpayers. Now, for anyone who is thinking this is just a pie-in-the-sky concept or some airport fantasy, I must say that the Governor of Illinois has carefully vetted the ALNAC proposal. Governor Quinn, his lawyers, outside counsel, and the Illinois Department of Transportation spent close to a year vetting all of ALNAC's work. In the end, the Governor's office found that ALNAC's public-private partnership is legal, is viable and capable. And I'm proud of what this local commission has done. I'm proud of our private partners who want to invest $700 million in Chicago's new airport. And I'm proud and happy that President Obama and Illinois Governor Quinn have a clear understanding that public-private partnerships are capable, indeed, perhaps necessary in building, financing and operating world-class airports that will expand the Nation's aviation capacity and create jobs without using taxpayer dollars faster than any single thing that this Congress can do. All of us in public life, as well as many leaders in the private sector, are feeling the pressure to create jobs and to rebuild America, or as the President said, it's time for us to take off our slippers, put on our marching shoes, stop complaining, stop whining; we've got work to do. Now I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to show you just how this plan would work and introduce you to a key concept that makes this financial model better than the one that exists at virtually every U.S. airport in the United States. The concept is called common-use gates. It simply means that airlines no longer build terminals; so, therefore, they can no longer control the gates. Instead, the gates are built and controlled by a private company that has expertise in running airports. For airlines, it means all gates can be used by any airline. And they pay for just the hour or so that they use to unload passengers, reload, and then take off. The common-use gate concept, which is used at modern airports everywhere outside the United States, means terminals need less space, which in turn means they cost less money. Ultimately, common- use gates should save travelers time and money. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to report that the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission, or ALNAC, along with its 21 municipal members and our private developers, have developed a fully vetted, cost-effective plan to update and expand our Nation's infrastructure, which costs taxpayers nothing but will create tens of thousands of jobs. This airport, Mr. Speaker, is bigger than just an airport in my congressional district and for Chicago's Southland. This airport would change the way we build things in the United States and will have national and global significance. This Republican-led Congress hasn't been very helpful to President Obama. In fact, this Congress is determined not to pass a single piece of legislation that will help him put the American people back to work. Since the President is issuing executive orders and looking for other ways to go around this Republican-led and dysfunctional Congress, the beauty of the Jackson plan to build a third airport in the Chicago area is that we don't need Congress or the Illinois Legislature to vote on or approve anything. We just need the signature of the Governor of Illinois on a land lease. So what I need you to do is call the Governor of Illinois, 312-814- 2121, that's 312-814-2121, and tell him to lease the land to the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission so we can give President Obama a victory and begin to put the American people back to work. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Fantastic, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman for clarifying that for me. I want to spend the next 29 minutes explaining to the American people how modern airports will be constructed in the United States. This is a mockup of the facility that we seek to build in the Second Congressional District. It's a small airport with five simple gates whose basic footprint fits the local vernacular of the communities that it will be built in. Between the Village of Monee, University Park, Creek, Beecher and Peotone exist 25,000 acres of land, 25,000 acres of land that have been designated by the Federal Aviation Administration for the building of a major airfield. The light area on this map represents land that has been acquired by the State of Illinois for the purposes of building a major airport. So the private companies, the private developers have done, Mr. Speaker, an analysis to determine what is the appropriate size of the airport that they should build as soon as humanly possible for the purposes of relieving air traffic in the region. And their analysis showed that if the airport were built in 2007 at the low emplanement hours, or deplanement hours, 174 passengers would use the airport. The median number of passengers per hour would be 347, or the high number of passengers 695 passengers per hour. What's fascinating, Mr. Speaker, is the near perfect correlation between the median numbers in 2007 and the low numbers in 2008, the median numbers in 2008 and the low numbers in 2009--or let's fast forward to where we are today, the median numbers in 2010, the low numbers in 2011. The median numbers in 2011 compared to the out numbers in 2012, what you can see is that because of the number of passengers who use the airport every hour in succeeding years, it is possible to design an airport in 25,000 acres but actually scale it back to the size of an airport that we need to build today, in other words, a cost- effective airport, annual emplanements by 2012, 2,200,000; 2013, 2,700,000; 2023, 7,600,000. Once, Mr. Speaker, we have determined how many passengers would use such an airport, we then have to right-size the airport. We have to determine the number of aircraft operations per hour that would have to exist at such a facility or be used at such a facility in order to determine the size of the airport that we need to build. And once again, the median numbers equal the low numbers in each of the succeeding years. Assuming an airport is built today, 31 total aircraft operations by 2012, 34 by 2013, 38 by 2018, and so forth, a near perfect correlation, suggesting that every single year from the moment this airport is built it will continue to expand. Well, Mr. Speaker, unlike using the old government model, because we are using a for-profit model in a public-private partnership, we should never build more airport than we need. We should never build more bridge than we need. We should never build more road than we need because the private sector doesn't have money to waste quite like government has money apparently to waste. So we have to right-size the airport. And as a result of the passenger emplanement and the number of aircraft that take off from the airport every hour, we are able to determine the size of an airport that we need to build by 2008, 2011, 2013, and 2018. The most cost-effective airport, Greenfield Airport, starts out with five gates, about 1,300 parking spaces, a terminal size of about 142,000 square feet, and an apron of about 933,000 square feet. Remember, Mr. Speaker, not one dollar spent by taxpayers to arrive at this jobs plan. Well, here's the key to what we're trying to build in Illinois with the Governor's signature--provided enough of our constituents today call the Governor at 312-814-2121 and tell him to sign the lease to the local commission. The real key to the concept and the success of this airport, unlike traditional airport models, is the idea of a common-use terminal. It's really a private sector model because we're not building more airport than we need. It doesn't compete with O'Hare Airport; it doesn't compete with Midway Airport. In fact, Mr. Speaker, how could a five-gate airport compete with O'Hare Airport or compete with Midway Airport? It simply can't. However, a five-gate airport represents 15,000 right-now jobs for the local communities that need them the most. That's why Congressman Jackson is hanging around airports. Congressman, all you do is talk about airports. Yeah, because with airports come Hyatt Hotels and Hilton Hotels and Fairmont Hotels, and Avis and Hertz and Dollar and all kinds of businesses that tend to locate near airports. Look at Arlington, Virginia. It is developed because it is close to Reagan Airport. Look at the Dulles corridor, home to 575,000 people who work every day because of the airport. Look at the Baltimore-Washington corridor; it's tied to the airport. Look at all of the jobs and growth and economic activity out by O'Hare Airport. Look at the economic activity by LAX. The FAA said 20 years ago that we need to build 10 new airports in America the size of O'Hare Airport to handle the aviation problem then. How many have we built in America while China's going to build 100 new airports? In 10 years, how many have we built in America? Not one. So, what's the key, Congressman Jackson, to this airport? Well, the reason this airport's going to be successful is because United, American, and Qantas do not own gates at this airport. This airport is not contingent upon them assuming any debt or liability for building the airport. Virgin Airlines does not own a gate at this airport. The airport is paid for, Mr. Speaker, by the private sector. American is welcomed to land and use the gate. For the 1 hour that it takes them to let their passengers on, let their passengers off, and get back on the runway, that's all the amount of time that we charge American, United, Qantas Air or Virgin Airways. So when you walk into this airport, it looks like a modern facility. There's a big flat-screen television set behind the ticket agent, and it has the logo of United Airlines or some airline on it. After the plane boards and then takes off, guess what, Mr. Speaker. The flat- screen television set, suddenly it has the American logo on it, the same gate as the American flight pulls up to that terminal and takes off. A much more efficient method of using gates at airports. This is the key concept behind making the airport successful. But because we are able to project well into the future, in a $25,000-acre footprint, the size of a future facility, we start out with hand drawing with a five-gate airport, but we're already contemplating what it would mean using the profits to build roads, to build the infrastructure to make the airport work. As you can see in the 10-to-25-year plan, we're contemplating a ring road like a modern airport, where you enter and you exit the airport, and if necessary you return to baggage claim or to departing passengers under a much broader facility. In the plus-25-year plan, we're already widening the processor, that is, the processor where ticket agents and the Transportation Security Administration help process passengers to global locations not only within the United States, but around the world. So because of accurate forecasting, Mr. Speaker, we build a small terminal in land owned by the State with a small apron of about 933,000 square feet and one 112,000-foot runway, which is large enough to handle contemporary serious aircraft, including new aircraft that are presently coming online. As you can see, we've already contemplated a small cargo space. Remember, I said I only wanted to build with $700 million, not paid for by the taxpayers. I just wanted to build five gates--one, two, three, four, five. But very quickly, for very little money, the airport expands to a 13-gate airport. But for five gates, I've already employed 15,000 Americans. A 13-gate airport employs 30,000 Americans. We're already focusing on phase two. We tear down the wall between phase one and phase two, and now the airport, Mr. Speaker, looks like this. Then we tear down the wall, a modest expansion of the airport for phase three. We build phase four. We're contemplating phase five. And then while this part of the airport is functioning, we then go back to the other side of the airport and modernize its processor without any disruption in customer service. What started out as a one, two, three, four, five-gate airport, it's now already a 40-gate airport, not paid for by the taxpayers, not paid for by the airlines, with common-use gates and expanding infrastructure. Very quickly, the airport, Mr. Speaker, has now moved to a modern- looking facility, paid for by the private sector in a public-private partnership, including its roads. The roads that approach the top of the airport are for departing planes. We've already got a ring road now coming around the airport for arriving passengers. This 80-gate airport represents nearly 130,000 jobs to a local economy. There is absolutely nothing that Congress can do to compete with an airport. If there's going to be public works projects, a public works bill, we heard the President of the United States stand right there and say he refuses to accept that in America we can't build one new airport while China is building 100 new airports. I'm taking this time, Mr. Speaker, to carefully explain to my colleagues how airports can be built without you appropriating a single dollar. This is all I'm building, Mr. Speaker, one runway and five gates. But over time, following the model that I proposed, one runway and five gates quickly becomes an 80-gate airport now needing two runways. This 80-gate airport represents more than 130,000 jobs to a local economy, and we need to be building 10 airports just like this to alleviate today's aviation and capacity demands. And you can also see under our airport in our field, we're already looking at an expanded cargo area for UPS, Federal Express, and other cargo-related international trade that would be the by-product of building this airport. As I shared with you at the very outset of my presentation, Mr. Speaker, while we're building five gates and one runway, the airport is being built in a 25,000-acre footprint. O'Hare Airport is in a 7,000- acre footprint. The footprint in my congressional district is four times the size of the present footprint of O'Hare International Airport, which is somewhere between the busiest airport in the world, the second busiest, or the third busiest airport in the world. Well, when you start talking about an airport of this magnitude in a 25,000-acre footprint, you're obviously talking about a global facility. In the Midwest, it means an absolutely functioning O'Hare airport. It means a strong and strengthened Midway Airport. But five gates and one runway will eventually become this facility, four runways, 200-plus gates and massive cargo areas, both north and south, within the airport footprint. It's actually kind of humbling, Mr. Speaker. It's humbling to know that for 17 years I've by been fighting to build, without asking Congress for a single dollar, one runway and five gates, in land already owned by the State of Illinois, to build this one runway and five gates to create 15,000 jobs. It's humbling to know that I probably won't live to see this facility, the 25-year-plus plan. And there's almost no one in this Congress who's likely to be living to ever see this facility. But because of the size and scope and the planning of the private sector, we can already anticipate what the future of the airport will be, provided passenger forecasts and demand continue to grow. But I can scan and scale this very large facility, Mr. Speaker, all the way back to this little bitty facility that got started because President Barack Obama said we need to use public private partnerships to build airports. Why? Because airlines can't afford them anymore, and municipalities don't build runways anymore. They simply can't afford it, and so we have a model to make it happen. What are the public sector benefits? Job creation, 15,000. Sales and income taxes from businesses and individuals who live and dwell around the facility. Off-airport real estate taxes. People who live close to these things, their property values go up. The quality of their lives go up. And with the buffer between the last runway and the nearest communities being more than a mile, there's a significant noise reduction factor already built into the appropriate and proper planning of this airport. The net present value of the public-private joint venture, cash flow to participating governments estimated at nearly $230 million annually. Now, what do you do with $230 million? Well, as I shared with you at the beginning, the State of Illinois has only purchased this land, Mr. Speaker, just the light yellow land. But the entire footprint is the entire green land. Well, with $230 million of net present value and profit from the facility, which goes to the private developer and comes back to the commission in the form of rent, that money begins to purchase the remaining elements of the footprint in anticipation and with the expectation that the facility will expand. So when the private developer says it's time to expand the airport, the land has already been acquired by the government entity, again, not at a cost to the taxpayer. But every time this airport expands by another 10 gates, it creates another 15,000 jobs to a local economy. No road can do that. No bridge can do that. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I'm really excited about that, Mr. Speaker. Ten more minutes, I think I can talk till tomorrow. That's what I kind of like about these Special Order speeches. What's the role of the public sector? Well, it's very limited, Mr. Speaker. It's not that complicated. We're a landlord. I've been fighting for the last 7 years back home. A lot of people say we want to be in control. Jackson, we like your ideas, we like your money, we like your developers. We want to be in control. Mr. Speaker, that's the old model, and they think like they're still participating in the old model. That's not the new model, Mr. Speaker. The only role that the public sector provides or plays in a public- private partnership is they're the landlord. That's all. Imagine this. The city of Washington, D.C. wants to attract Target, a shopping center, to its city. So it has land somewhere in Washington. The city owns the land. It might be a vacant lot. It might be a dilapidated area. The city owns the land. So it says to Target, Target, we want to enter into a public-private partnership with you. We have land; you know how to run Target. If we give you the land, will you build Target? Target says, yes. And for some lease fee, some arrangement between the local government and Target, Target builds its own store, maybe a 25-year lease, maybe a 99-year lease. The only role that the government plays is in leasing the land. That's it. Unfortunately, that's not the Illinois way. That's not the Chicago way. The Chicago way is we need to be telling people who are running their business how to run their business. You can't do that. If we lease the land and Target builds the store, Target runs their own store. The business on the public land runs their own business. What do we get from it? We get taxes. We get employed Americans. We get economic activity and less crime and less violence. There's a benefit to the society when we make the trade-off in the public-private partnership where there is governance over the land. There are lease terms, but we're not in the management and the day-to-day operation of that business. The same is true of this new airport. Most public airports, the local mayor, the local city council, the local politicians are all involved in the business, trying to get their cousins hired and get their friends hired. Not in the new model. In the new model we have the land, and we turn it over to the developers to make judgments about what is the most cost-effective way to run an airport. Jackson, if you would just turn the developers over to us and let us--no, no, no. I've been working on this too long. The way to do this right is for the politicians to stay out of it and turn it over to the private sector so that they can do their job. I've got to be honest with you. I ain't never ran a business before in my life. I came right from the seminary and right from law school to Congress. What kind of advice can I give an airport developer? What kind of advice can anyone who's never run an airport before give some professional who's in the airport business? Absolutely none. And so you need to have a hands-off approach to allowing a public- private partnership to operate at a profit without political interference. Land, that's your public sector role. You're a landlord. You're responsible for getting utilities to the fence. That's what you're responsible for. You're responsible for regulatory permits and approvals. That's what the public is responsible for. You're responsible for highways and transit improvements, which the public- private partnership can, in fact, help pay for because it's a for- profit venture making a profit. So, Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the need to build a new airport. I showed you tonight that we don't need the Congress of the United States that does not want to help Barack Obama. We don't need Congress for nothing to get this model moving. We just need the Governor of the State of Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn, area code (312)814-2121, to lease the land to the governments that have established this commission. From that we will have a national model emerge on how to put the American people back to work. It can start in Illinois, but it can spread very quickly by bringing the $2.5 trillion in private sector money that is sitting on the sidelines and presently not engaging the economy. So, Mr. Speaker, I stripped the idea of an airport out of this model of a public-private partnership. This can be any government entity. It then enters into an intergovernmental agreement with other governments with an understanding that it will have a relationship to the Federal Government, the State government, or local governments in the form of land or utilities or whatever is required in order to get the business started. We then lease the land to a developer, who then invests in the land to create jobs and economic opportunities for the American people. The profits from the activity are paid to the developer to help them satisfy and settle the obligations associated with the initial investment. And then the developer rents the land or pays rent to the government entity established by the local government and the profits can also be shared by local governments. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be airports. Public-private partnerships can also build roads. They may end up being toll roads because if the private sector makes an investment in a toll road, in a road that the public is going to use, certainly they need to get their money back. So how do they get their money back? Well, after they've made the investment, it has to be a toll road. Public-private partnerships can work. Public-private partnerships can work for bridges. It may be a toll bridge. Public-private partnerships can work. Mr. Speaker, if we offer as a Congress the kinds of incentives that encourage public-private partnerships, we can put the American people to work in quick order. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly honored and privileged that you've allowed me the opportunity to share with my colleagues and with the American people the importance of a project in my congressional district. I am particularly honored that my constituents have been leading this charge for building new airports in the United States. We need to build 10 of them just like this. I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who want to see and help President Barack Obama be successful that we will call 312-814-2121 and encourage the Governor of the State of Illinois to give Barack Obama the victory that he needs and the victory that he deserves that can show us a way to put the American people to work without raising taxes, without borrowing more money, without passing another government program. Public-private partnerships, Mr. Speaker, can work. I'm asking my colleagues and those who can hear my voice to give the people of the Second Congressional District of Illinois a chance to get one started so we can show you that it works. I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as how much time I have remaining?

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, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas on October 2, 2011, the Washington Post reported a story called ``Rick Perry And A Word Set On Stone''; Whereas upon reading that story the vast majority of people in the United States were morally outraged; Whereas most of the facts in this resolution come from that Washington Post story; Whereas Governor Rick Perry has described a childhood in Haskell County in Paint Creek, Texas, as centered on Boy Scouts, school, and church; Whereas Texas Governor Rick Perry is from West Texas and was originally a Southern Democrat--often known as Dixiecrats--who switched parties in the late 1980s to become a Republican and is currently a leading Republican presidential candidate; Whereas ranchers who once grazed cattle on the 1,070-acre parcel in Throckmorton County on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River--near where Governor Perry was raised in Paint Creek, Texas--it has since become a hunting ground that was called by the name ``Niggerhead'' well before Governor Perry and his father, Ray, began hunting there in the early 1980s even though there is no definitive account of when the rock first appeared on the property; Whereas the use of the term ``Niggerhead'' to describe a hunting retreat is morally offensive; Whereas Ronnie Brooks, a local resident who guided a few turkey shoots for Governor Perry between 1985 and 1990, said he holds Governor Perry ``in the highest esteem'' but said this of the rock at the camp: ``It kind of offended me, truthfully''; Whereas Haskell County Judge David Davis, sitting in his courtroom and looking at a window there, said the word was ``like those are vertical blinds. It's just what it was called. There was no significance other than a hunting deal''--in other words, the judge was morally vacuous; Whereas the name of this particular parcel did not change for years and for many remained the same after it became associated with Rick Perry, first as a private citizen, then as a State official, and finally as Texas Governor; Whereas some local residents still call it by the morally repugnant name ``Niggerhead''; Whereas as recently as this summer, the slab-like rock-- lying flat, portions of the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint--remained by the gated entrance to the camp; Whereas asked last week about the name, Governor Perry said the word on the rock is an offensive name that has no place in the modern world--implying that it may have been okay and had an appropriate place in that community when he was growing up; Whereas Mae Lou Yeldell has lived in Haskell County, Texas, for 70 years and recalls the racism she faced in the 1950s and 1960s in West Texas, when being called an offensive name--like Whites greeting Blacks with ``Morning nigger''-- was ``like a broken record''; Whereas Throckmorton County, where the hunting camp is located near Haskell County, was for years considered a virtual no-go zone for African-Americans because of old stories told by locals about the lynching of an African- American man there; Whereas Haskell County began observing Martin Luther King Jr. Day just two years ago according to a county commissioner in Haskell County; Whereas Governor Perry grew up in a segregated era whose history has defined and complicated the careers of many Southern politicians; Whereas Governor Perry has spoken often about how his upbringing in this sparsely populated farming community influenced his conservatism; Whereas Governor Perry says he mentioned the offensive word on the rock to his parents shortly after they had signed a lease and he had visited the property, and they rather immediately painted over the word during the next July 4 holiday, but seven people interviewed by the Washington Post said they still saw the word on the rock at various points during the years that the Perry family was associated with the property through his father, partners, or his signature on a lease; Whereas another local resident who visited the property with Governor Perry and the legislators he brought there to go hunting recalled seeing the rock with the name clearly visible; Whereas how, when, or whether Governor Perry dealt with it when he was using the property isn't clear and adds a dimension to the emerging biography of Governor Perry who quickly moved into the top tier of Republican presidential candidates when he entered the race in August; and Whereas Herman Cain is the only Republican presidential candidate to criticize Governor Rick Perry for being ``insensitive'' when the word was not immediately condemned, but we would remind Herman Cain that the word is not only ``insensitive'', but is also ``offensive'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) calls on Governor Rick Perry to apologize for not immediately doing away with the rock that contained the word ``Niggerhead'' at the entrance of a ranch he was leasing and on which he was taking friends, colleagues, and supporters to hunt; (2) calls on Governor Rick Perry's presidential rivals, who have not yet make strong statements of outrage over the rock that contained the word, to do so; (3) calls upon Governor Rick Perry to condemn the use of this word as being totally offensive and inappropriate at anytime and anyplace in United States history; and (4) calls upon Governor Rick Perry to list the names of all lawmakers, friends, and financial supporters he took with him on his hunting trips at ``Niggerhead''.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I offer the resolution previously noticed.

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

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, just before you do rule, the House of Representatives does have a history of passing resolutions that have been privileged in the past on questions that are offensive and morally repugnant to many Americans. There was a minister on the south side of Chicago, for example, for which this House took up a particular resolution and denounced that minister for language that he used on numerous occasions against minorities in the United States. Consistent with the language with this resolution that I have offered, the House has taken a position in the past that allows Members of Congress to express their consciences and their sentiments about the matters that are in front of us. Now, as a Member of Congress and a member of this institution, my final argument is that each one of these Presidential candidates, whether they are on the Democratic side or on the Republican side, stands the chance to stand in front of us and provide us with a state of the Union address--a state of our country's fiscal health, its social health, its mental health, its physical health--and protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. If my motion for someone who might stand in front of me as a Member of Congress and share with me their vision potentially of the United States fails today, it simply suggests that the Congress of the United States is painting over a profound problem that exists in this Nation. I know that my time has expired for making my argument; but I personally would be offended that the Congress of the United States would not understand the gravity of this resolution by granting Members an opportunity to vote on the specific arguments laid out by The Washington Post for which they've offered their story. Mr. Speaker, ``nigger'' is offensive. ``Niggerhead'' is offensive. And for a Governor of one of the great States of our Nation to hunt at Niggerhead Ranch, it's offensive; and I think that I am expressing the moral outrage of all Americans. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to make my argument.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I would hope that my colleagues would support my appeal.