Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues not to put politics over people. These are serious, difficult economic times. We need to make policy here that invests in our people, that invests in American jobs, that helps create a climate where more American jobs can be created. My colleague from North Carolina talks about how the Republicans somehow are not responsible for this massive, colossal deficit that we have, but I just want to remind people about the facts. The facts are that when Bill Clinton provided George Bush with this record-breaking surplus, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican President that instituted tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy--that weren't paid for; tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest of the wealthy that were not paid for. It was a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and was much more expensive than they advertised. It was two wars that they decided not to pay for. American soldiers and their families sacrificed, but the rest of us are asked to not do anything to help sacrifice or pay for the war. That all happened when you had a Republican Congress--they were in control of everything--and a Republican President. I mean those are the facts. I am sorry that it bothers my friends, but it's the truth. And now they are coming up with a proposal that will add $4 trillion to our deficit. It doesn't seem to bother any of them. Well, it bothers me and it bothers the people that I represent. I think it bothers most people in this country. One of the things that I think is clear is that the American people don't want to go back to the same old policies that created this mess. Mr. Speaker, President Bush holds the worst jobs record of any administration in 75 years, including 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs lost. House Republican leaders have said, and I quote, ``We need to go back to the exact same agenda.'' That's what they want to do. They want to go back to the same policies that created this mess. I am going to repeat what I said before about the fact that Republicans voted 170 to 1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. One hundred seventy to one to protect tax breaks that are shipping our jobs overseas. Ninety-five percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. I mean what are they thinking? One hundred percent of House Republicans voted against creating and saving 3.6 million American jobs, including advanced vehicle and clean energy manufacturing jobs. We cannot go back. We cannot go back. You know, when we make it in America more middle class families will make it too. It's that simple. And what the underlying bill does is provide loans. It doesn't add a single cent to our deficit. It provides loans to families and to businesses and to farms to be able to do weatherization and energy efficiency. And over 90 percent of the products that are needed to do energy efficiency improvements are made in America. Not made in China; made in America. This is a good thing. The more people take loans and the more people want to weatherize their homes and their businesses, they will save money on utility costs, and more and more American workers will get a job. Why is that so hard for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get? I mean they fight tooth and nail to protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. That is their big issue. I assume that helps them politically in terms of the money given to the Republican National Committee. But it doesn't do a damn thing for American workers. We need to start insisting that American workers come first. And that is what this bill is about. It is investing in our workforce. It is about making it here in the United States, creating jobs in the United States. So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote to support this bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has a problem with American jobs, but 92 percent of the products that have been used in this weatherization process were made here in the United States of America. We are helping keep jobs and we are helping to create jobs. I'm sorry that the Party of No has a problem with that. But the Democratic Party believes that we need to make it in America and that we need to invest in American jobs, and not only keep American jobs, but add American jobs. The gentlelady says that somehow the weatherization program in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Well, I disagree with her very strongly. In some States like North Carolina, weatherization got off to a slow start, but in other States like Massachusetts we were able to start quickly. This was a function of the State having weatherization programs ready to handle these new funds right away or if they had to be ramped up. Today, over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the country thanks to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2009, 1,100 more houses were weatherized in Massachusetts than in North Carolina. But in April, May, and June of this year, 1,000 more houses were weatherized in North Carolina than in Massachusetts. Today, nearly the same number of houses have been weatherized both in North Carolina and in Massachusetts. So to say that this program isn't working and that it's a failure is clearly and utterly a mischaracterization. I hope that my colleagues will look at the facts and not demagogue this issue simply for political gain. Those projects on weatherization, I will say to my colleague from North Carolina, in her State are helping to keep people in their jobs and helping to create more jobs. Why is that such a big problem to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle? Why do they have a problem with making things here in the United States of America and protecting American jobs? That is one of the best reasons to support this bill. In addition to saving utility costs for families and small businesses, it is about creating jobs in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, our communities are struggling. Forty-seven States are facing budget shortfalls, and at least 34 States will cut both jobs and services in this fiscal year unless there's an additional 6-month extension of the FMAP program. All of us are hearing from our Governors. In June, a bipartisan group of Governors wrote to Congress pleading for an extension of FMAP money because they believe it is the most efficient way to avoid further layoffs and health care cuts that will slow the recovery. At a time when States like Massachusetts are starting to see unemployment rates decrease, now is not the time to pull the rug from under them. If we were to fail our States and not enact this extension, 2,900 teaching, police, and firefighter jobs in Massachusetts would be at risk. What would that mean for classroom size, cops on the streets, and firefighter response? To put it mildly, it wouldn't be good. This is exactly the type of Nation-building we should be focusing on here at home, and I wish that my friends on the other side of the aisle and the other Chamber could realize that. It is important to note that this bill is not only essential; it is paid for. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that this bill will cut the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade. If only the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for we would not be facing the deficit issues we are today. So we don't need any lectures by Republicans about deficits. They created this mess that we're in, and Democrats once again have the responsibility of cleaning it up. They should be ashamed of what they did to this economy. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't express my deep concern with one of the offsets in this bill. Specifically, I think it is just plain awful that the Senate has sent us a bill that cuts future funding for the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act rightfully included significant funding for SNAP. Economists from the right and the left argue that SNAP is the most effective stimulus available today, and we rightfully included funding for increased SNAP benefits in the Recovery Act; yet, the Senate has included a cut in these SNAP benefits that will result in $59 less per month for a family of four starting in 2014. The choice then is to provide critical aid to the States and protect jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police officers today or protect future benefits for those hungry Americans who struggle to put food on their tables. It is not a choice that we should be forced to make. It frustrates me to no end, and quite frankly, I'm outraged, that this is one of the offsets. I would ask my friends in the Senate: Why do the most vulnerable in our country always have to pay more than their fair share? This practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul must come to an end. Yet here we are. Madam Speaker, I will support this bill because it will help the people of Massachusetts and the people of this country. This bill will do good things, and it will do them immediately, but I'm casting this vote because we have time to fix the SNAP issue in the future. I continue to believe that we can properly fund the SNAP program, as well as other domestic anti-hunger programs and ensure that no person in America goes hungry. And by not dealing with the issue of hunger more aggressively, we are not saving money, Madam Speaker. We are costing the country much more in terms of everything from increased health care costs to lost productivity. I believe that in the richest, most powerful Nation in the world people shouldn't go hungry. Millions of our fellow citizens sadly don't have enough to eat, and that, quite frankly, is a national disgrace. Let's approve this bill. Let's help keep teachers in the classrooms, cops on the streets, and more firefighters in our cities and towns, and then when we come back after recess, let's do what's right and restore the SNAP cuts. Let's find another offset that doesn't make a bad situation worse. For America's hungry and food insecure, let's for once make them a priority.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) may be recognized on the legislative day of Tuesday, August 10, 2010, to offer the resolution that he noticed on Thursday, July 29, 2010, without further notice under clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me and for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill. And to my friend from Texas who talks about listening to our constituents, let me assure him, I listen to my constituents every week when I go home. And what I hear from them is that they are sick and they are tired of my friends on the other side of the aisle continuing to rise on this floor to be apologists for Big Oil. What my constituents want and I think what the American people want is smart regulation, better safety standards, whistleblower protection. They want to make sure that a repeat of what we just saw in the gulf never happens again. My friend talks about jobs. How many jobs have been lost because of this oil spill? How many fishermen are out of business? How many hotels and restaurants have lost business because of this terrible crisis? You know, this crisis has had such a negative impact on jobs that I can't even begin to quantify. So my friend talks about jobs, it is because of the recklessness and the lack of oversight by the Bush administration that got us here, and we don't want to see this repeated again and again and again. So this is a good bill, and it's a smart bill. If you want to apologize for Big Oil, go right ahead. But the American people are not on your side on this one. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express my strong support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund program and particularly for the Stateside program. The Stateside program provides matching Federal grants to States and local communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities and parks and conserves brilliant natural spaces throughout the country. Since the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program in the 1960s, funding levels for the Stateside program have fluctuated widely. This is especially evident over the past decade. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, between $91 million and $140 million per year was appropriated for the Stateside program. Unfortunately, in sharp contrast, only $19 million to $40 million has been appropriated between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, representing less than 10 percent of the total land and water conservation funding per year. The Stateside program is a good program that benefits communities across the country. It is a good, strong program that deserves adequate funding. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have serious concerns about the funding levels for the Stateside LWCF program. I am pleased that that the CLEAR Act provides for permanent funding for the entire LWCF program, but I remain concerned that there is no statutory program supporting equitable funding for the Stateside program. As you know, unfortunately, the Stateside program has been chronically underfunded. I think we can all agree that these programs positively contribute to the vibrancy of our communities, and actually create jobs. Stateside funding has widespread support, and I seek your assurance that we can find a way to provide increased funding for the Stateside LWCF program. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from Interior Secretary Salazar that acknowledges the Stateside program needs additional funding to carry out its work. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, DC, July 29, 2010. Hon. James P. McGovern, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative McGovern: Thank you for your interest and support for the Stateside Assistance portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). President Obama has committed to fully fund LWCF by 2014 through the budget process. If Congress decides to include a full funding provision in the CLEAR Act and full funding occurs in 2014 or earlier, there will be excellent opportunities to develop a vibrant Stateside Assistance program that will help us to meet the conservation needs of the 21st century. As the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and as a U.S. Senator from Colorado, I have demonstrated my commitment to local and state parks and the State-side program. While in the U.S. Senate, I was a principal sponsor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which created additional funding for State-side LWCF programs. The Department of the Interior is committed to finding the best ways to improve and strategically invest LWCF funds. I also understand that States need additional funding in order to expand outdoor recreational opportunities and to conserve important places. If we are to accomplish these goals and achieve the full potential of the State-side LWCF program in challenging economic times we must work together. We have an opportunity with the growth of LWCF funds to build a program that will address these needs. Through the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we are hearing from state and local governments, recreation advocates, nonprofit organizations, and other supporters about ways to enhance the State-side Grant program. In addition to the great projects now funded by the State-side program, there is strong support for investments in (1) the creation and expansion of urban parks and river greenways close to where people live, (2) providing rural communities with better recreational opportunities, and (3) connecting our local and state public recreation lands with Federal lands throughout the Country. It's important that we chose our projects carefully to ensure that these funds make a big difference in our states and communities. We need to remind the American people of the value that outdoor recreation and land conservation offers everyone and how it makes our society a richer place in which to live and raise our families. As we do this, I look forward to working with you on the best ways to protect our treasured landscapes. Sincerely, Ken Salazar.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank Chairman Rahall for allowing me the opportunity to address my concerns, and for working with me toward ensuring the Stateside program receives the funding it deserves. Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for the time. I will close by urging my colleagues to support the rule, support the CLEAR Act, and let this Congress go on record as standing with the people of this country and not standing with Big Oil.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1556 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. The time will be 30 minutes for Mr. Kucinich, and 30 minutes for the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. McGOVERN. That's correct.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Polis.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1556 provides for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 301, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House, with 30 minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich and 30 minutes controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution, and provides that the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for pressing for greater scrutiny on our involvement in Pakistan. By introducing this resolution, Representative Kucinich triggered an expedited process for consideration that can be modified only by a special rule. This is why we are doing this concurrent resolution today. I'm sure my good friends on the other side of the aisle will remember that this is the exact same process used in 1998 and 1999, when the House Republican majority introduced resolutions to withdraw U.S. troops from Bosnia and the Republic of Yugoslavia while our American men and women were stationed in those countries. As Democrats, we welcome a vigorous debate on this resolution. Just like the debates we have had over U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and countless other places around the world, debate has never jeopardized the safety of our troops in the field. American troops are never endangered by Congress doing its job, looking closely at and debating the merits of where we send our troops and the price they might pay for our putting them in harm's way. There are many reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we should have a broader debate about U.S. military involvement in Pakistan. Over the past 9 years, the United States has provided $18.6 billion to Pakistan, with about $12.5 billion of that in security-related aid. The administration has asked for $3 billion for fiscal year 2011, with over half of those funds going to security assistance. There are currently about 120 U.S. military trainers, mainly Special Operations personnel, in Pakistan according to a July 11 New York Times article. Pakistan has set that cap on the number of U.S. military personnel, although other statements from the Defense Department indicate that the number of total U.S. military personnel may be as high as 200. The New York Times also reported on July 13 that the Pakistan intelligence agency exerts great sway over the Afghan Taliban and a wide range of other militant groups that operate from inside Pakistan. Yesterday's revelations in the documents published by WikiLeaks echoed these disturbing conclusions. There have been a rising number of terrorist plots in the United States with links to militant groups in Pakistan, most recently the failed car bombing in Times Square. A recent study by the Rand Corporation concluded that this might be due in part to continued support by Pakistani leaders for these groups so that Pakistan may continue to influence events in Afghanistan, as well as a U.S.-Pakistan counterinsurgency effort that has not yet proven to be effective, and fails to protect the local population. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is Pakistan's continuing development of nuclear weapons and purchase of nuclear reactors from China. Having said all this, at the same time there are many things the U.S. is doing right in Pakistan: supporting the strengthening of democratic institutions; providing substantial support for primary, middle, technical, and higher education; supporting agricultural development; and providing substantial aid for populations displaced by violence. Mr. Speaker, I support the privilege of the gentleman from Ohio to bring this matter before the House and present his arguments on the need to remove all U.S. military personnel from Pakistan. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me, first of all, begin by saying I'm not sure whether the underlying resolution introduced by Mr. Kucinich is necessarily the right way to approach this issue, but he and Mr. Paul are reflecting the anxiety, the growing anxiety, the growing fear of a lot of Members of Congress and a lot of people throughout this country that the United States of America is continuously getting sucked into wars that have no end, wars that are costing us dearly in terms of the lives of our brave men and women who serve in uniform, and it is costing us dearly in terms of our treasury. We're going bankrupt. People talk about the deficit all the time around here, but the reality is that these wars, by and large, are not paid for--the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. It's all going onto our credit card, and it's going to be paid for by my kids and my grandkids and my great- grandkids. We are going bankrupt by the wars that we are fighting. And I think they also reflect this feeling that we seem unable to make the necessary adjustments to our policy when they appear to not be working in the way we would like them to work. In Afghanistan, for example, we've been there for nearly 10 years. And the WikiLeaks documents that were published all over the world yesterday remind us that, notwithstanding all the sacrifices of the American soldiers and their families and all the money we have poured into that country, that we don't have any reliable partners. The Afghan Government is corrupt and incompetent. The President of that country oversaw an election where they stuffed the ballot boxes, and our men and women are sacrificing their lives to prop that government up. We don't have a reliable partner in the Afghan police or in the Afghan military. And as we learned from these documents--again, it isn't new, but it was emphasized by the release of these documents-- that we don't have a reliable partner, by and large, with certain elements of Pakistan. That does not mean that we should walk away from Pakistan, and I want to agree with much of what my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) said. I believe it is important for the United States to support civilian institutions and to support democratic movements in Pakistan. I want the civilian government in Pakistan to be able to have control over the security forces and the military forces in a way that we believe that they are actually in control. So I think this debate that we are going to have here today on the Pakistan War Powers Act is important. I'm not quite sure that this is the way we should deal with Pakistan with the underlying resolution, but I will conclude by making reference to another measure we are going to be voting on here today, and that is the supplemental war funding bill. In light of what was released yesterday, in light of all the questions that have been raised, it seems to me that it is inappropriate for us to vote ``yes'' on a blank check for this administration to do whatever they want in Afghanistan. I have great respect for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and the President of the United States, but I have to tell you I am deeply troubled that, with all that is coming out, that we are not doing hearings, we're not doing our oversight. We're basically going to be asked to vote for a $33 billion package--all borrowed money--and kick the can down the road and let's hope when we come back in September that maybe things will get better. We were told almost 1 year ago that we would never have another supplemental. Well, here we are doing another supplemental and we have a policy in Afghanistan that is not clearly defined. And so I understand the anxiety and the frustration of Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich. I share that anxiety and frustration as well. But it seems to me that we in Congress have a responsibility, too. These wars are not just the administration's wars. They are our wars, too. We fund them. We're the ones who go along with it. We're the ones who decide whether we're going to condition aid or whether we're going to withhold aid, and I think we should be doing a better job. We have known for a long time that the Pakistan intelligence agencies have been undercutting our efforts in Afghanistan. They have put our soldiers at risk. We have known that for a long time, yet what have we done? So this may be a time for us to raise some of these issues, raise some of these questions, hopefully prompt more Members of this body to get involved in this debate, but also to send a signal to the administration that we really need to reevaluate what we're doing. We need to rethink some of these strategies. And if we are going in the wrong direction, we need to have the courage to change course if necessary. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1556.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank Chairman Obey for yielding me the time and for his incredible leadership on so many issues. Madam Speaker, after nearly 10 years, thousands of American troops killed or wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money, I believe we must radically change our policy in Afghanistan. Of all the disturbing things in the recent Rolling Stone article about this war, the most disturbing was this: a senior adviser to General McChrystal said that if the American people paid more attention to the war, it would become even less popular. Well, after seeing the documents published yesterday, it's clear what he was talking about: corruption and incompetence in the Afghan Government, questions about the role of the Pakistani intelligence services. Madam Speaker, the same old same old is simply not working, and it's costing us dearly. At a time when the American people are suffering through the worst economy in generations, we're told that we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits. We're told that we can't afford to help States keep cops on the beat or teachers in the classroom. We're told we can't afford to help more families send their kids to college. But today, we're asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation- building in Afghanistan. Well, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, I think we need to do some more nation-building here at home. All of us are dedicated to defeating al Qaeda wherever they are, but our current policy in Afghanistan is deeply flawed. Occupying Afghanistan in support of a corrupt and incompetent government will continue to claim the lives of our soldiers. It will continue to bankrupt us, and it will not enhance our national security. This is not just the President's war. It's our war too. Congress has an obligation to ask the tough questions and demand straight answers. We must not simply kick the can down the road and hope for the best. Our troops and their families have made incredible sacrifices. They deserve a policy worthy of those sacrifices. It is a mistakes to give this administration yet another blank check for this war. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and make it clear that Congress demands a different approach.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is it's about time. And to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let me say it's a shame that it has taken this long. For 7 weeks, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own have worried about how they are going to pay for their groceries, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage, or pay for their children's college tuitions. They have sat around their kitchen tables and made tough decisions about their family budgets. And through this all they have continued to apply for job after job after job. That's what unemployed Americans have been doing during these last 7 weeks. But what have the Senate Republicans done to help them, to restore benefits to Americans who have earned them through a lifetime of work? They've done nothing. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about the need to extend the Bush tax cuts for their wealthy friends, which they don't want to pay for. I mean here's the deal: they don't worry about the deficit when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires, but when it comes to working people who are confronting difficult times, who are faced with an emergency, all of a sudden they got religion when it comes to the deficit. They made a lot of noise about characterizing unemployment benefits as a government handout or somehow encouraging lazy behavior. But I would challenge any of my Republican colleagues to say those things face-to- face to someone who has been out of work for a year, who has applied for job after job after job after job without getting a response. Mr. Speaker, the facts don't lie. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, extending unemployment benefits is the most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth. Each $1 spent on unemployment benefits creates up to $1.90 in economic output. Extending these benefits also creates jobs and decreases the chances that we slip into a double-dip recession. In every other economic crisis in American history, Democrats and Republicans have put aside their partisan differences and provided emergency unemployment benefits to those Americans who have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats did our job. On July 1, we passed an extension of benefits that would have restored benefits for those who lost them in early June. It would have also ensured that jobless Americans would have the peace of mind of knowing that benefits were available to them to the end of November while they continue to apply for jobs. And since then we have worked and reworked this benefits extension to try to address Republican concerns. But every time, every single time we have been stonewalled by Republican obstructionism. They would rather use unemployed Americans as political pawns instead of restoring benefits to good, decent, hardworking people who have earned them over a lifetime of work. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Enough of the politics. Let us extend these benefits to the hardworking people who have lost their jobs, who are dealing with this difficult economic time. This is the right thing to do. This is the decent thing to do. We should have done it a long time ago. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, extending help to the unemployed is the right thing to do. It's the decent thing to do. We should have done it a long time ago. My colleagues on the Republican side have frustrated attempt after attempt after attempt after attempt to extend these benefits to people, most of whom have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. My friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, we can't afford to do it, that we need to pay for this, even though they are emergency benefits. Well, why don't we pay for the Bush tax cuts, which added hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt? Why don't we pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all funded through borrowed money? Why is nation building in Afghanistan more important than our own people? Why is giving Donald Trump another tax cut that is unpaid for, that adds to our deficit, more important than helping those who are unemployed? I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, What are you thinking? Why don't you care? Whose side are you on? I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to leave the Beltway every once in a while and go back and talk to your own constituents, and you will see that people are struggling, that there are people who are suffering because of this economy. This is a difficult economy that is slowly but surely beginning to recover. It is a difficult economy that President Obama inherited from George W. Bush. We are trying to dig ourselves out of this mess that my Republican friends have created. It's going to take time. I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that when George Bush was President we were losing an average of nearly 750,000 jobs per month in the last 3 months of the administration. Twenty-two consecutive months of job losses, that's what they gave us. When they talk about the deficit, I remind them that President Bill Clinton left George W. Bush a record surplus that they squandered on tax cuts for the rich and two wars that were unpaid for. And, you know, the reason why we talk about President Bush's record is because the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, Pete Sessions, when asked what the Republican plan was, he said, We need to go back to the exact same agenda: the exact same agenda that produced these record deficits, the exact same agenda that put millions of people in this country out of work. Now, I've heard a lot of scary things in this Chamber, but I've got to tell you, that is the scariest thing I've ever heard. I don't want to go backwards. I don't want to go back to the time where we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. President Obama to his credit and the Democratic Congress here are trying to fix the mess that they created, and we are now beginning to see job increases in this country. Not as much as we want, but we're moving in the right direction. But in the meantime, we cannot turn our backs on those who are unemployed. So I say to my Republican friends in the United States Senate, stop your obstructionism. Stop playing politics with unemployment benefits and move out of the way and allow this bill to move forward so we can vote on it here on the House floor. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 20 seconds to finish her statement.