[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H2605-H2606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN--PROGRESS FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN

  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, tonight, the President will address an 
expectant country in a joint session of Congress, and will give the 
American people a report on the progress that he has made and intends 
to make in the near future. The key word here is ``progress.''
  In barely a month, President Obama has shown us that he can walk the 
talk. The stimulus package the President signed into law will take 
America down a road that we did not see in the last administration. It 
is one that governs from the center, focused on the average American--
the average person who gets up in the morning, gets to work at 8 
o'clock, works until 5 o'clock and goes home and takes care of his 
family, maybe coaches baseball, maybe is a single mother who goes home, 
picks her kids up at daycare and goes home and takes care of them for 
the evening, but it is focused on the average American.
  Now, in the last 8 years, these people have either been left behind 
or have been thrown overboard by the last administration in its rush to 
open America's purse, wallet, whatever you want--bank vaults--to their 
friends. The economic disaster that President Obama is facing and will 
talk about to the American people today and tonight was really there, 
waiting on the desk when he got to the Oval Office. He didn't bring it 
with him. He didn't have very much to do with creating it. He was only 
in the Senate a short time. It was presented to him by the last 
administration, and he has now, in just 1 month, given us a recovery 
plan that helps the American people. Above all, I believe the President 
strikes a very delicate balance and walks a very fine, thin tightrope 
between economic recovery and economic disaster.
  How do you deal with it as it's going downhill? How do you arrest it? 
It's like being in the mountains. In western Washington, we have 
mountains. People are up, climbing mountains, and one of the first 
things you have to learn to do when climbing mountains where there is 
snow is learn how to do an arrest. You're sliding down a glacier. What 
do you do to stop yourself from falling? The first thing you've got to 
learn to do is put that ice ax in and hold. Now, the President is 
working on that sort of problem. We are sliding down--and have been 
since September--very abruptly, and he has got to bring this slide to a 
halt and then start the climb and get us back up on our feet and start 
back on the climb.
  There are those who say we ought to throw the banking institutions 
overboard because of their unrestrained practices. Maybe we're going to 
have to nationalize banks. One doesn't know exactly what is going to be 
necessary, but the President has begun to show that he is willing to 
make the tough decisions that have to be done. There are some who say 
the average American does not benefit. I've had calls. I've had people 
come up to me and say, ``I pay my bills. I do everything right. I 
didn't go out and borrow a lot of money, and it looks to me like the 
only people who are getting any benefit out of this are people who made 
wild, crazy decisions, like bankers. Why am I not getting something?''
  But people do count in this administration--finally. The UI benefits 
will help those who have lost their jobs. There is a payroll deduction 
that goes into the average person's pocket, and there is going to be, 
finally, some oversight in governing on behalf of the American people, 
overall, returning America to the American people.
  It took 96 months to destroy our economy. Remember where Mr. Bush 
came in. There was a burgeoning surplus. We argued in 2000 about 
whether we would pay down the national debt too fast. That's where we 
were. He had a plan. He didn't tell us what his plan was, but it was 
not only to not pay down the debt but to build it up dramatically in 
the period that followed. This President who has now come into office 
has said we're going to stop that, and we're going to change what's 
going on.
  A New York Times editorial today reminds us that the other side of 
this body remains intent on working against American workers. The 
Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Louisiana say, ``We don't 
want that unemployment money for our part-time workers.'' There is 
clearly some rethinking that has got to be done on behalf of this body 
in terms of what is going on in this country. Part-time workers are 
entitled to the unemployment insurance they paid in.
  The American people want a solution, and if the Republicans choose to 
ignore that, the American people have made it clear already that they 
can return to the voting booth and enforce their will.

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2009]

                What Part of `Stimulus' Don't They Get?

       Imagine yourself jobless and struggling to feed your family 
     while the governor of your state threatens to reject tens of 
     millions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for the 
     unemployed. That is precisely what is happening in poverty-
     ridden states like Louisiana and Mississippi where Republican 
     governors are threatening to turn away federal

[[Page H2606]]

     aid rather than expand access to unemployment insurance 
     programs in ways that many other states did a long time ago.
       What makes these bad decisions worse is that they are 
     little more than political posturing by rising Republican 
     stars, like Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Mark 
     Sanford of South Carolina. This behavior reinforces the 
     disturbing conclusion that the Republican Party seems more 
     interested in ideological warfare than in working on policies 
     that get the country back on track.
       Fortunately, as President Obama prepares for his first 
     address to Congress on Tuesday evening, voters of both 
     parties have noticed. About three-quarters of those polled in 
     a recent New York Times/CBS News survey--including more than 
     60 percent of Republicans--said Mr. Obama has been trying to 
     work with Republicans. And 63 percent said Republicans in 
     Congress opposed the stimulus package primarily for political 
     reasons, not because they thought it would be bad for the 
     economy. It should be sobering news for Republicans that 
     about 8 in 10 said the party should be working in a 
     bipartisan way.
       The Republican Party's attacks on the unemployment 
     insurance portion of the stimulus package are a perfect 
     example. States that accept the stimulus money aimed at the 
     unemployed are required to abide by new federal rules that 
     extend unemployment protections to low-income workers and 
     others who were often shorted or shut out of compensation. 
     This law did not just materialize out of nowhere. It codified 
     positive changes that have already taken place in at least 
     half the states.
       To qualify for the first one-third of federal aid, the 
     states need to fix arcane eligibility requirements that 
     exclude far too many low-income workers. To qualify for the 
     rest of the aid, states have to choose from a menu of options 
     that include extending benefits to part-time workers or those 
     who leave their jobs for urgent family reasons, like domestic 
     violence or gravely ill children.
       Data from the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit 
     group, show that 19 states qualify for some of the federal 
     financing and that a dozen others would become eligible by 
     making one or two policy changes. Unemployed workers are 
     worst off in the Deep South, where relatively few people are 
     eligible to receive payments. Louisiana, Mississippi and 
     Texas stand out.
       The governors are blowing smoke when they suggest that the 
     federal unemployment aid would lead directly to new state 
     taxes. No one knows what the economic climate will be when 
     the federal aid has been used up several years from now. But 
     by dumping billions of dollars into shrinking state 
     unemployment funds, which puts money into the hands of people 
     who spend it immediately on food and shelter, the stimulus 
     could help the states through the recession and into a time 
     when unemployment trust funds can be replenished. In other 
     words, the stimulus could make a tax increase less likely.
       But even if new taxes are required at some point, the new 
     federal standards would protect more unemployed workers than 
     ever before and bring states like Louisiana, Mississippi and 
     Texas into the 21st century.
       Governors like Mr. Jindal should be worrying about how to 
     end this recession while helping constituents feed and house 
     their families--not about finding ways to revive tired 
     election-year arguments about big spending versus small 
     government.

                          ____________________