[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4491-H4497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, first, before she departs the 
Chamber, let me just say what an absolute pleasure it was to travel to 
the Middle East with the gentlelady from Wyoming. Mrs. Lummis was a 
pleasure to have as a companion. She was inquisitive. The purpose of 
that trip was particularly to bring Members who had not been to Israel 
before so that we could learn about the importance, not just 
strategically, the importance of Israel in terms of its relative 
location to its neighbors so that Members like Mrs. Lummis could see 
and understand just how important it is that we continue to be 
supportive of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
  Everyone I know that travels to Israel comes back a stronger 
supporter and a stronger pro-Israel advocate; and I commend you, Mrs. 
Lummis, for doing just that. It was an absolute pleasure. We began a 
friendship that I know will continue many years into the future, so 
thank you very much.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to be joined by my colleague, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), this evening. We're going to 
spend some time talking about our economy and talking about the 
evolution of our economy. There certainly has been some ebb and flow in 
that regard, but we are here tonight to talk about the success that we 
have had in turning the economy around and beginning to see progress. 
Inch by inch, month after month, there is more and more progress as we 
move forward.

  This evening I want to highlight, Mr. Tonko, the fact that if you 
look back--and I know we have a chart on this which I would love to go 
get in a minute--but if you look back to just before President Obama 
took office in January, at that point, for the months leading up to his 
inauguration, we were bleeding, the United States was bleeding 700,000-
plus jobs a month, and we weren't able to stanch those losses. The Bush 
administration handed President Obama the largest deficit in history, 
and one which they created after being handed a significant surplus 
from President Clinton.
  And to have to deal with the amount of problems that our economy was 
facing when President Obama was inaugurated was astonishing and 
appalling, Mr. Tonko, because to have been left a mess and to have the 
economy driven off a cliff as it was was just absolutely irresponsible 
and it was avoidable.
  It was avoidable because during the Bush administration, instead of 
focusing exclusively on the wealthy and having a tax-cutting policy 
that was focused exclusively and irresponsibly on the wealthiest 1 
percent of Americans, instead what should have been done is there 
should have been a focus like there has been every single month since 
President Obama took office; there should have been a focus on 
broadening that tax-cutting policy and focusing on targeting tax cuts 
for the middle class. That wasn't done, and so the economy essentially 
was careening out of control.
  Now you fast forward to a year and a half after he first took office, 
you fast forward to a little more than a year after we passed the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which invested $787 billion 
into our economy to jump-start the economy, to create jobs, to provide 
98 percent of taxpayers in this country a tax cut. Where you had the 
wealthiest 1 percent get tax cuts under the previous administration, 98 
percent of Americans got a tax cut last year. And we actually have the 
lowest tax rate now that we've ever had. It is just really amazing the 
way things have been turned around, and we should be very proud of 
that.
  Today, in terms of job creation, from bleeding 700,000-plus jobs, we 
are now adding an average of 200,000 jobs a month since the beginning 
of this year. That is a really incredible accomplishment. I'm going to 
toss it to you in a second and go get those charts so we can have an 
illustration of what we're talking about, but we have a lot to be proud 
of. We have a long way to go. I mean, granted, we certainly aren't out 
of the woods yet, but we have turned things around and are beginning to 
see that in the economic indicators that I know we will talk about 
tonight. So it is a pleasure to be with you this evening.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Wasserman Schultz. And thank you 
for bringing us together for this Special Order which obviously will 
speak to the wisdom of sound policy that breaks from the failed 
policies of the past.
  What is startling is that we should have learned from decades ago 
that the trickle-down theory simply does not work. It does not work 
because there wasn't a benefit felt by the working middle class, a 
large group of people across this country who in many situations live 
paycheck to paycheck, putting aside money for their mortgage payment, 
putting aside savings for college for their children, putting aside 
some reserves for unexpected expenses. That kind of situation must be 
responded to. And I think the fact that you talk about 98 percent of 
Americans getting what was now recorded to be historically the largest 
middle income tax cut in this Nation's history was a big part of the 
Recovery Act. It is what started to circulate the dollars.

  When we look at the economic advice that we got, not only as the 
House of Representatives, but the United States Senate and the White 
House, with President Obama and Congress being advised by a team of 
economists that ranged over the broad spectrum of philosophy in the 
world of economics, and from the far-right thinking to the far-left 
thinking, from more conservative viewpoints to the more liberal 
viewpoints, there were recommendations made by this panel of economists 
who spoke to the priorities that needed to be embraced by this Nation. 
The time had more than passed to invest in the recovery for America, 
and the results are astounding.
  When we look at the Recovery Act, we can witness that the bleeding 
has stopped. The telltale indicators suggest in many cases that there 
is slow and steady progress, that the bleeding has stopped, and the 
Recovery Act can be credited for that.
  The investments that were made were in three categories: tax cuts, as 
the representative, the gentlewoman from Florida indicated, a 
historically large impact, a historic largest middle income tax cut for 
this Nation. That was shared with the middle income community, the 
working families of this country.
  Next, an effort made for issues like FMAP and education aid that went 
to States. I know that my home State of New York did extremely well 
with the Medicaid relief monies, did extremely well with the education 
investments so that we are able to keep some of the public sector 
employment situations, from educators to public safety, alive and well, 
and to allow for those families who were in need of assistance to 
receive some of the Recovery Act monies. And the unanimity with which 
the economists spoke in this situation simply was driven by the very 
forceful thinking that these entitlement situations--the need for food 
and clothing and shelter in tough times where people were finding 
themselves without a job through no fault of their own were allowed 
then to, with dignity, continue forward in these tough times; and they 
reinvested in the local regional economies. That got the local 
economies circulating and began the work, the progress of pulling 
ourselves out of this recession, which was, again, a historic situation 
as was witnessed by the previous speaker.
  And then finally, investments, investments in a way that went to 
projects that were back-burnered, investments in technology, technology 
and education, in energy situations, in health care, in all sorts of 
activities, in transportation and infrastructure, utilizing technology 
in a way that could

[[Page H4492]]

take those issues that were displaced, put onto the back burners were 
now brought forward by the Obama administration and by the leadership 
of this House with Speaker Pelosi and others leading us in the votes 
for recovery. And what happened was that, for instance, in the area of 
energy, we're creating jobs.
  Now, the Representative from Florida, Representative Wasserman 
Schultz, told us that we're now seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs 
this year added to the recovery, 84 percent of which, I would point 
out, are private sector. So that's the way we want to grow the jobs. 
But how is it happening? It's happening with investment in technology, 
investment in smart meters, smart thermostats, smart grids that enable 
to us have more control over our destiny as energy consumers.

                              {time}  1945

  That is not only job growth, private-sector job growth, but it is 
also investing in a way that allows us to be cutting-edge competitive 
and to provide for a stronger quality of life and for a more 
competitive edge for our business community.
  We also invest in health care with technology, making certain that 
duplication and mistakes and inefficiencies in the health care system 
are avoided, and we can go forward with a stronger outcome--a savings, 
again, for consumers who would have to pay for this duplication and for 
these mistakes.
  Then there is the investment in education so that students are now 
able to have a stretching of the education resources in the classroom 
and where they can have a first-class opportunity to think outside 
their neighborhoods in which they live, where they can be more worldly 
in the classroom, through technology, in order to witness some of the 
great things that are happening out there.
  This is a great opportunity for us to, this evening, talk about the 
differences, to contrast the differences out there--the failed policies 
of the past, Representative Wasserman Schultz, that brought about 8 
million jobs lost in a recession. That outdoes the Great Depression. 
Many of my constituents out there will tell me that they recall the 
Great Depression, and 8 million jobs surpass that situation.
  So we started out in a very difficult situation, and I know that, 
with the Recovery Act, we are beginning to make progress. We are going 
to continue to stay on this slow and steady course that will enable us 
to come back from what was a very deep hole.
  Representative Wasserman Schultz, I know that we are joined now by 
our friend and colleague from the State of Pennsylvania, Representative 
Kathy Dahlkemper, who, like me, is a member of the freshman class here 
in this great House of Representatives, who is one of those great 
additions to the House and who is an enjoyable force with whom to work.
  So, Representative Dahlkemper, I know that you wanted to jump in and 
share your thoughts on our recovery here.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Well, thank you. I thank the gentleman from New 
York, a fellow freshman who has been a good friend of mine since I came 
to this House.
  I also want to thank Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for 
bringing us all together tonight. It is a great opportunity to talk 
about the progress we have made and about the progress that we are 
continuing to make. We know we are in a recession, that we are digging 
out of a very, very deep recession, but the signs are positive.
  You know, as is Mr. Tonko, I am very much from a manufacturing-based 
economy, and I look at those manufacturing numbers always with great 
interest to see exactly where we are going from my district. What I 
find, actually, to be very encouraging is that our American 
manufacturing base has grown not just in the last month, not just in 
the last 3 months, not just in the last 5 months, but for 10 straight 
months the manufacturing base has grown in this country, and that 
pretty well correlates with the passing of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. We have created more than 125,000 manufacturing jobs 
over the last 5 months.
  Now, I know people back home talk to me about how we can move our 
country forward. They say we've got to get back to making things, and I 
completely agree with that. For so many years, our economy has become 
an economy of paper, and we have been more concerned about what has 
gone on with Wall Street than what has gone on in the factories 
throughout our great Nation. As I say, particularly for those of us in 
the Northeast, we've seen many manufacturing jobs go. So what I find 
very encouraging is that we are getting back to making things in this 
country.
  With that, we have seen a couple of things. One is consumer 
confidence, which is another great indicator. It rose in June to the 
highest level in more than 2 years. That is from the University of 
Michigan, a consumer confidence survey. That's not from us here in the 
House. That comes from an outside source, which was just on the 11th of 
this month, just a few days ago. Consumer confidence is rising for the 
third straight month and to its highest level in more than 2 years. 
This was way before Mr. Tonko and I were in Congress, so that is very, 
very encouraging news, along with retail sales rising for the seventh 
straight increase and the 12th gain in 13 months. So there are a lot of 
very encouraging signs.
  Now, I know this is still a problem for those who are out of jobs, 
and obviously we are still very, very concerned about that, but we have 
some signs that this economy is recovering. It really has had to do 
with what we have done here in the House, with so many of the good 
policies that we have passed here which have helped move this economy 
forward.
  Here we will show you retail sales, which are on the rebound. When 
people start buying again, they have confidence, confidence that we are 
recovering. So here is what happened in the red during the Bush 
administration:
  As you can see, we were going along pretty well until the recession 
began, which was going into 2008. Then, of course, it takes a very big 
dip right before I and Mr. Tonko took office. That was in November-
December of 2008. Then you can see what happened after we passed the 
Recovery Act back here in March of 2009, and the numbers continued to 
steadily go up. Here we are in April of 2010, and we are getting almost 
back up to where we were, well, about 4 years ago, actually. So great 
news in terms of the retail sales on the rebound. Great news on 
consumer confidence going up. Great news on the manufacturing.
  Of course, we want even better news. We want to continue to work on 
this economy and to help businesses create jobs. We are providing, as 
Mr. Tonko said, so many of the, I think, road maps that need to be 
there to create those new jobs. Whether we're talking clean energy, 
whether we're talking broadband, whether we're talking health care, you 
know, we need to move into this new century. We're doing that, and we 
did many of those investments through the American and Recovery Act, 
and I always like to talk about the recovery and reinvestment side. The 
reinvestment is what we don't talk enough about, and I know Mr. Tonko 
loves to talk about that, too. We are talking about where we are today, 
and so these are just some of the numbers that, I think, need to be 
brought out, and the American people are feeling that confidence level 
going up.

  I now yield back to the gentlelady from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much.
  First of all, let me just say that it has been such a breath of fresh 
air. I know Speaker Pelosi likes to say that each new Congress breathes 
in new life from the trenches, new people who have just come from 
having their fingers on the pulses of their communities. Both of you, 
Mrs. Dahlkemper and Mr. Tonko, reflect that statement really to a T. I 
know that you're in your districts, constantly working hard to make 
sure you can come up here and can fight for the things that the people 
in your districts care about.
  Particularly, I know I never tire of hearing you talk over and over 
about how important it is that we restore that manufacturing base and 
that we be supportive of an economy that makes sure that we can make 
things again. I have heard that refrain from you and from your 
industrial, you know, rust belt colleagues for many

[[Page H4493]]

months now, and now we are seeing the fruits of that effort with the 
increase in manufacturing.
  Also, it is really exciting that you can actually point back, Mr. 
Tonko, to a point in time and to a policy decision that we made, to a 
vote that we cast, which made a difference. I mean it's hard, you know, 
to gauge sometimes whether or not what we are doing is working, you 
know, whether a policy decision has had the desired outcome, but you 
can see. I mean the proof is in the pudding. I mean here are retail 
sales that Mrs. Dahlkemper just talked about. Now let's just look at 
consumer confidence in general, because the consumer confidence numbers 
did just come out, as you talked about.
  Every month for, I think, the last 7 months, we have had consumer 
confidence on the rise. We have had another jump in consumer 
confidence. This is a chart that talks about the increase in household 
wealth and how American household wealth is beginning to recover. $17.5 
trillion of household wealth was wiped out under President Bush. Under 
President Obama, we have already recovered $5 trillion of that 
household wealth.
  When people have their wealth restored, when they have resources 
again, they start spending money. That's why those retail sale numbers 
are going up. When you have your wealth restored, you gain more 
confidence in your ability to make some spending decisions that you 
might not have made. So, ultimately, we are going in the right 
direction.
  Really, I have to laugh at some of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle. You know, with the expression ``your glass is half full or 
your glass is half empty,'' that's sort of the determining factor of 
whether someone is an optimist or a pessimist. I don't even think it's 
half. I think their glass is just empty. I think they broke the glass, 
because, to be honest with you, it's really shocking how they can see 
only gloom and doom with positive economic numbers like this. I mean 
what is so sad is sometimes I think they wish that this were not the 
direction that our economy was moving in because, sadly, for so many of 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's about regaining 
power rather than about seeing the American people regain some power, 
some power in the purse. So I just thought I would point that out.
  Before I flip it to you, Mr. Tonko, some really exciting and 
interesting poll numbers came out this week. In these hours, we like to 
make sure that we don't just have people taking it from us. I mean, you 
know, obviously, I'm a Democrat. I'm, you know, supportive of my 
party's agenda, of our leadership's agenda and of moving the country in 
a new direction, so we try to talk about third party validators on the 
House floor.
  The ABC News/Washington Post poll was released just this past week, 
and it showed that Democrats are favored over Republicans to handle the 
Nation's biggest problems. Six in 10 who were polled are dissatisfied 
with congressional Republicans' ideas. In terms of the individuals 
polled, we were supported by a 12-point margin. By a 12-point margin, 
Americans trust Democrats over Republicans to handle our Nation's 
biggest problems 44 to 32 percent. That is a pretty significant 
indicator that Americans are happy with the direction that we are 
going.
  I think no matter what district you go to, whether it's to a 
progressive district like mine or to a moderate district like Mrs. 
Dahlkemper's--and you're probably halfway in between Mrs. Dahlkemper's 
and mine, Mr. Tonko, as far as the philosophical spectrum in your 
district--our constituents would tell us we are cautiously optimistic, 
that things are moving in the right direction but that we're not out of 
the woods yet. You need to keep pushing. You need to keep innovating. 
You need to keep passing legislation that is going to jump-start and 
spark this economy and be an engine of job creation. That's what we're 
keeping our nose to the grindstone on.

  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. You talked about other people weighing in with some 
of these surveys, and I just wanted to mention a few things that have 
been in the news just in the last week.
  We have Melanie Holmes, the vice president of Manpower, Incorporated, 
who knows a lot about whether people are working or not. A very 
interesting thing about this result is that the positive trend is very 
broad-based. That was out of CNNMoney, again, just a few days ago.
  Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's, just a few days ago, 
said that nearly two-thirds of metro areas are flashing signs of 
growth. He said a tracking tool that is forecasting firms is showing 
this upturn, and it is the best showing since mid-2008.
  Then we have from CNNMoney.com the title of ``Bosses More Bullish on 
Hiring.'' For the third straight quarter, more U.S. employers said that 
they will add jobs instead of cut them, according to a survey released 
Tuesday. The survey found that 18 percent of employers intend to 
increase staff, up from 16 percent the previous quarter.
  These are people who are not associated with us here in the House of 
Representatives. These are independent groups out there, media outlets, 
who are seeing what we're seeing in these numbers here, and they're 
telling the American people the true story of what is going on in the 
economy.
  I yield back.
  Mr. TONKO. If the gentlewomen will yield, it's interesting. You know, 
you talk about these observations that have been shared in 
publications, but as early as April 16, I believe, Fortune Magazine 
talked about the Recovery Act's working, that the President's policies 
were having their presence felt. They talked about it as a sharp turn.
  Interestingly, if we see the pattern of the retail sales that you 
presented in chart format, the household wealth recovery chart and this 
GDP scaling, they all had that same graphic. It's this sharp V 
formation, that precipitous dive, straight-line dive, from early 2008 
into the beginning of 2009. Here is another one on the path to economic 
recovery and then that slow and steady straight line of recovery.
  So, to me, it's blatantly obvious there was this continuation of 
decline, and you can't help but wonder what would have happened if we 
had allowed the failed policies of the past to continue or if this 
President and if this Congress had not stepped up to the plate.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Since you asked the question rhetorically, 
I'll actually jump in and answer it with an answer from Mark Zandi, 
Moody's economist who Mrs. Dahlkemper just referred to.
  As to what would have happened without the Recovery Act, without the 
TARP legislation, and without making sure that we grabbed a hold of the 
tiller of this economy, what he says would have happened is we 
absolutely would have sunk into a depression, that literally the 
policies of President Obama and of the Democratic leadership in the 
House and the Senate steered our ship of fate away from a depression.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. TONKO. So we can see these V formations; that downward straight 
line impact that could have kept going, but we changed directions. And 
now, we're told by our colleagues in the House on the other side, It's 
not quick enough. We've made a wonderful recovery here. We have stopped 
the bleeding, and we're climbing upward. The analogy used by the 
President, where they drove the car into the ditch, and then it took a 
tough bit of effort to pull that car out of the ditch, and they're 
saying, Give us back the keys.
  Well, I think the public is now understanding that very failed 
policies were governing our economy. It brought America to her knees. 
And we saw the lack of regulation with big business, big banks, Wall 
Street, credit card companies, big oil. Gosh, we see what is happening 
in the Gulf. All sorts of big special interests that had a heyday. No 
regulation. No watchdog in the equation. Let us run free. Let us be in 
a situation of laissez-faire. Government is bad. No restriction. Let it 
just run free.
  Well, capitalism works, but you also need guidance. You need some 
sort of measurement, some sort of discipline that errs on the side of 
the consumer,

[[Page H4494]]

the taxpayer, whomever, the small business. And the recovery here is 
about smart policy. It's about progressive policy. It's about taking 
what was broken and fixing it.
  And, you know, don't stand on the sidelines and say, We're watching 
you mop; you're not mopping quick enough.
  No. Pick up a mop and help us clean up what has been messed up here.
  I think the public now is understanding. They're seeing this big oil 
company that got us into trouble now, is harming the environment, is 
impacting the economy of the Gulf States. They're understanding now 
that regulation for certain big groups out there is essential. 
Regulation for Wall Street was essential. Our work, to make certain 
that we help the small business community by assisting them with loan 
opportunities, working with community banks to open up the credit 
lines; the backbone of our economy, the springboard to our recovery is 
through small business.
  And this was an era that preceded us that was about special interest, 
big companies, big industries getting all sorts of favorable review and 
treatment while small business and middle-income America struggled. 
Struggled to live paycheck to paycheck while greed--greed--predominated 
on the scene and really brought this economy to its knees and caused 
undue hardship, unnecessary hardship to folks, ranging from those in 
their senior years, who had retirement accounts destroyed.
  And what do our folks say here on the other side? Privatize Medicare. 
Privatize the situation for Social Security.
  This is a choice here. It's a contrast. It's a difference. Big oil 
companies, big banks, Wall Street, special interests, give them free 
rein; or assist the small business community, work for incentives and 
relief, tax relief for middle-income Americans. There's a contrast 
here. And it's that V formation. Just as that line went precipitously 
south, we're now going north. So is the contrast. Sharp and clear. And 
I think, more and more, the general public is saying, No, you don't get 
back the keys. You don't deserve to get back the keys to the car.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You're absolutely right. And I want to jump 
off what you just talked about, related to the choice that Americans 
will have. Over the next few months, we are going to get closer and 
closer to an election, and in November, I think Americans will have a 
very clear choice. They can go back to the failed policies of the past. 
They can backslide toward the Bush era, in which we will be in a 
situation where we will be led by people who think that we should 
exclusively focus on big business, big corporations, the wealthiest 
Americans, and that tax-cutting policies should only be targeted 
towards that group of people and use the whole trickle-down notion that 
has been proven time and again not to be effective, in fact, proven to 
be detrimental to the economy.
  Or we can continue to move in the direction that the Obama 
administration and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have been 
taking us, which is slow and steady progress so that we can reestablish 
the balance that we need in our economy, particularly, as you 
mentioned, the balance in terms of regulation. We allowed the fox to 
guard the henhouse for 8 long years in industry, particularly in the 
financial services area, which we're debating and discussing this week. 
And it's high time that we reestablish some order and balance.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, I don't get to watch TV too much. All of us know 
we're out in the districts working all the time. But I do understand 
the concept of a show called, ``Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?'' 
So we will put it out to the fifth-graders and say, Would you prefer 8 
million jobs lost, or would you prefer over a half million, over 
perhaps three-quarters of a million jobs returned, 84 percent in the 
private sector category? I think the fifth-grader would say, Give me 
the job growth, not the job loss. And you go down that list, and I 
think the fifth-grader is going to tell us that this is pretty clear. 
It's a contrast that I understand. And it's important. I think it's 
about choices.
  Is it fast enough? We would all love instant response. We would love 
millions of jobs in one quarter. But after we witnessed $18.5 trillion 
lost to household incomes over an 18-month span during the Bush 
recession--that's about a trillion dollars per month lost to household 
income--to now recover $6 trillion, a 30 percent recovery of that loss, 
is a move in the right direction. Again, a fifth-grader would say, I'd 
rather take a $6 trillion gain than an $18.5 trillion loss for 
households.
  So it becomes more and more apparent that the Recovery Act isn't 
working; that it's about small business incentives, tax relief for 
small businesses investing in basic research, research and development, 
embracing science and technology, building a clean energy economy, 
growing an innovation economy, supporting emerging technologies. These 
are all dynamics of strength. And the confluence of these dynamics of 
strength mean a growing economy and one that can base itself on cutting 
edge in design and format. I think it's a strong comeback, and we need 
to maintain the course of recovery.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Tonko, as the parent of twin fifth-
graders, I can tell you that my fifth-graders often scratch their heads 
and wonder, Mom, what the heck are your colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle doing? They wonder why they only focus on the most narrow 
view.
  Mr. TONKO. I, by the way, had lunch with one of those.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, you did. You did, as a matter of fact. 
And my fifth-graders and first-grader will be back tomorrow. I'm 
looking forward to that. Maybe we can send them over to the other side 
of the Chamber, and they can shake things up a little bit.
  With that, we've been joined by our colleague from Ohio (Mr. 
Boccieri) who is doing a fantastic job representing his community and 
is a real fighter for the values of the Midwest.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz 
of Florida and Paul Tonko, for setting up the challenge of setting the 
record straight.
  Just as an aside, a few years ago, as a State legislator, I remember 
sitting in my room watching C-SPAN, and you and Congressman Ryan were 
speaking a few years ago. And I thought, Wow, how neat would it be to 
stand next to them and talk about the same things we're talking about 
today.
  Well, here we are. So it's an honor to share this stage with you to 
talk about how we get our country back on track and we get our economy 
moving again.
  I agree with so much that has been said here tonight; that America 
has to be the producers of wealth, not just the movers of wealth. We 
have to build things here in this country. We have to invest in our 
workforce. We have to invest in things that are going to make us 
different than the rest of the world. And we have that here.
  You look at the computer. You look at our space program. You look at 
things that have been invented here. Things don't happen by accident in 
America. Things happen because we have some of the greatest 
entrepreneurs. We have the great entrepreneurial spirit, we have great 
mind, great thinkers. We also have a great form of government that 
works on behalf of the American people.
  However, what we hear from the other side, Mr. Speaker, what we hear 
from our colleagues on the Republican side, is that ``no'' has been the 
standard answer here for the last year and a half. The party of ``no.'' 
The ``just say no'' crowd. Say, No ideas. No solutions. No interest in 
helping America move back and move to higher places.
  Look, we're elected to do things, not just to win elections but to do 
things and put the country back on track. When you run for office, you 
make all these promises. But when you govern, it's about choices. And 
we have to a choice to make. Do we work together as Democrats and 
Republicans to put America first, to put America back on track, and to 
put our country moving forward? Or do we participate in this partisan 
exercise here where all we get is stiff arms?
  We have worked very hard to try to bring our colleagues on the other 
side, Mr. Speaker, to the middle and to govern from the middle and to 
work hard to make sure that we incorporate some of their ideas. In 
fact, in the health care debate, there were over 150 Republican 
amendments. The final version of

[[Page H4495]]

the bill reflected the version that was introduced in 1993 by Senator 
Bob Dole. So while it had a lot of Republican ideas, it had zero 
Republican votes.
  And that is not leadership, Mr. Speaker. Because leadership is about 
action, not just position. Not just position.
  And what we hear is this constant drumbeat about how they want the 
keys back, as you said, Congressman Tonko. They want the keys back.
  Well, the American people remember that they drove us into this ditch 
by bending over to Big Oil, by bending over for credit card companies 
and big Wall Street banks and the big insurance companies.
  Our political philosophy is this--I know all of us share this--that 
the government should set the out-of-bounds markers. They should set 
the goal posts, and let the free market operate in between. But be a 
good referee. When someone goes out of bounds, you throw the flag. When 
big oil companies don't have redundancy built into their systems, the 
referee should be throwing the flag. When private insurance companies 
are dumping people because they paid their insurance but committed the 
sin of getting sick, we should throw the flag. Now we could have a 
debate all day about where those markers and where those out-of-bounds 
markers are set and where those goal posts are set. But make no 
question, the government should be the referee.

  Mr. TONKO. If the gentleman from Ohio would yield.
  Mr. Boccieri, you struck something in me when you talked about the 
party of ``no.'' Even the party of ``no,'' it was not good enough to 
say ``no'' to an issue like America COMPETES. On this very floor, we 
had the opportunity to create millions of jobs through an investment in 
manufacturing; an investment in STEM, science, technology, engineering 
and math, for our students out there to train the workforce of the 
future; to invest in basic research; R&D to do all sorts of incentives 
for business. Not only was it not enough to say ``no,'' because we had 
the votes with the ``no'' votes from the other side. We still had many 
more votes favorable. But then it was a game of politics to just drop 
the progress, kill the progress of America COMPETES to the point where 
the issue had to be resolved through all sorts of negotiations over a 
couple of weeks. So it held back progress.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield on that example? 
Because let's tell them how they slowed that process down. It's not 
only that they were not voting for the America COMPETES Act, which by 
any measure will create literally millions, potentially, of new jobs 
and definitely tens of thousands of jobs. They added an unrelated, 
irrelevant pornography amendment to that legislation to try to catch 
Members on our side of the aisle in a vote for or against pornography. 
And what they did was they ran an amendment that said that we would 
vote on whether or not Federal employees would be able to be paid if 
they viewed pornography on work hours.
  Mr. TONKO. It was an intentional game of ``gotcha.'' Here sat in the 
balcony representatives of labor and representatives from the United 
States Chamber of Commerce, a broad spectrum of support for a bill that 
takes America to the cutting edge, allows her to invest in smart 
manufacturing, and to compete effectively in a global marketplace, to 
invest in science and technology, to make certain that we're state-of-
the-art, that we're investing in research and development, which 
translates into jobs. All of that activity thwarted by a game of 
politics on this floor.
  It didn't matter--it didn't matter--that nearly 2 million jobs could 
be created; that we could become a more competitive Nation. That didn't 
matter. And ``no'' wasn't enough of a force to stop it. So we resort to 
political games. That's the sort of record that the public will 
scrutinize, and they will say, Look, we see the slow and steady 
progress. We believe in this.
  To your point, Representative Boccieri, about setting up the 
goalposts, setting up the parameters for this program, yes, allowing 
the capitalist model to work but making certain that there's 
discipline, discipline in the situation and the scenario, so that we go 
forward and invest and know that we recover with lucrative dividends.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, what do we invest in, Congressman Tonko? We 
invest in our greatest asset in America, and that's our people. We want 
to invest in our people, workforce retraining, investing in jobs in our 
economy, putting people back to work.
  Putting the private interests of our citizens over public interests 
is what we see, Mr. Speaker, from the other side. They want to put 
private interests ahead of our good public interest.
  We've seen the unregulated greed. We've seen what happens when things 
go unchecked on Wall Street. What we've seen when we've taken office 
just in the 111th Congress, I mean you and I are both freshmen, and we 
were handed a $3.5 trillion deficit. The record is very clear.
  Look at this chart here, Congressman Tonko and Congresswoman 
Wasswerman Schultz. I mean, the last three Republican Presidents have 
given us tremendous debt to our Nation. And what we have heard, Mr. 
Speaker, from the previous speakers on the other side just a short time 
ago was how the government is out of control and we're spending. Well, 
look, it was Republican Presidents who were doing the spending.

                              {time}  2015

  The last surplus that America had was a $5.6 trillion surplus handed 
over to us by President Clinton. So, you know, for them to come over 
here and lecture Democrats about spending is pretty ironic, considering 
the facts here that this chart shows.
  Now look, we have got to get our spending under control in 
Washington. Democrats and Republicans both agree on that point. We've 
got to make sure that we can pay for the wars that we're paying for, 
these two undeclared wars that we find ourselves in. We need to make 
sure that we live within our means like working people have to. But 
let's be clear, a $3.5 trillion deficit handed to us day one when 
Congressman Tonko and Congressman Boccieri walked through the doors is 
almost insurmountable in an economy that was on such downward spirals, 
as you had talked about.
  So let's get this straight. This is the deficit that was handed over 
to us with a trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, 
another trillion-dollar tax cut to the top 1 percent of our country, a 
prescription drug plan that left a huge doughnut hole for our seniors 
that was $500 billion, and two undeclared, unfunded wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Those are the facts.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And add to that, on top of that, the 
Republicans allowing the PAYGO statute and the PAYGO rules to expire. A 
big part of the reason--under the budget that was passed by President 
Clinton, we adopted under a Democratic administration, Democratic 
leadership a pay-as-you-go rule that said that we're not going to spend 
more than we take in. I mean, just like people have to do in their own 
households. And when we came back into the majority, we readopted those 
rules. And now we have the PAYGO statutes reestablished. And what we 
need to make sure we continue to do--except for emergency spending, 
which in an economy that's as dire as this one, we've had a number of 
different emergency situations.
  But making sure that other than emergency situations, we pay for the 
legislation that we're passing, whether it's including the war costs in 
the budget and actually having it be real numbers instead of pretending 
that we don't have an ongoing obligation when it comes to war funding. 
We included the costs of the Iraq war in the Appropriations Act, in the 
budget, unlike the Republicans who just pretended year to year that we 
weren't going to actually have that expense.
  So we have been trying to be responsible. We have been trying to make 
sure that we can get things back on track, and that, like you said, we 
can establish some parameters. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle think that government is always an obstacle; 
government can never be a solution. I don't think government is the be 
all and end all solution to all of our world's problems either. But 
government certainly can be part of the solution. Governments can help 
make sure that we can establish

[[Page H4496]]

some fairness and some balance and also make sure that there is someone 
minding the store, that there is not an unchecked industry. We have 
about 60,000 barrels a day gushing out of the ocean floor right now 
because no one was paying attention.
  Mr. TONKO. I think mismanagement and bad government are totally 
unacceptable.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely.
  Mr. TONKO. But effective government, sound government where you're 
investing in a way that will grow back the economy, where you're 
creating the discipline that was so essential. Just looking at the gulf 
today, understanding that all of this heartache could have been avoided 
had there been some sort of discipline where you weren't taking 
shortcuts to perhaps grow that profit column, where you weren't--as the 
97 percent report required, you weren't investing in technology.
  And so all across the board we see these situations where it was 
just, like, run on your own. Don't let anybody control you or 
discipline you. We will be there. We'll be your friend. You are a big 
special interest. Now it's like bringing it back, reining it in, and 
saying, My gosh, look at that $11.5 trillion deficit. That red bar goes 
so deep on that chart. When we look at that chart, it's so obvious to 
the naked eye that something had to be done differently. You couldn't 
continue the failed policies of the past. We would have been in such a 
deep hole. Again, it was tough pulling that car out of the ditch, but 
we got it out of that ditch, and I think the contrast now is, Do you 
give back the keys to the people who drove the car in the ditch? Or do 
you allow them to go forward and continue the progress? I think that 
it's a very stark contrast.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Instead of giving the keys back, we should revoke the 
license, quite frankly, because these numbers are stark. And I have 
children who are going to have to pay for this. You have children who 
are going to have to pay for this. Let's revisit this, a $1.4 trillion 
deficit under President Reagan, a $3.3 trillion deficit under President 
H.W. Bush, a $5.6 trillion surplus under President Clinton, an $11.5 
trillion deficit under George W. Bush.
  I mean, the numbers are stark, and every answer or every solution 
that they tried to come up with is about giving more tax breaks to the 
wealthiest Americans and taking the stripes off the referee. This is 
not the answer. We need to come together as a country to address this. 
But certainly the facts are presented here, and that is why it is so 
important that we have got to invest in the greatest asset in our 
country, and that's our people. And you know, by doing that with the 
Recovery Act, investing in workforce investment, retraining workers--
because some of these trade deals have been good for the Ports of 
Galveston and California and the Port of New York, but they haven't 
been good for the Midwest. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and I 
understand that by reinvesting in our workforce, helping those workers 
transition from manufacturing jobs that have left is very important to 
me.
  And while I'm encouraged that we've seen now 10 consecutive months of 
manufacturing increase in our country, we have got to be the producers 
of wealth in this Nation, not just the movers of wealth.
  I'm happy to report that small businesses in my community are 
beginning to grow again. The NuEarth Corporation in Alliance, they have 
just created 60 new jobs in our small town. Medline Industries, a 
manufacturer and distributor of medical products, has just created 
dozens of jobs and will be adding jobs over the next 3 years, they have 
announced. Nationwide Insurance just announced another 600 new jobs in 
Ohio. They have a facility in my district, an office building in my 
district. One of the best news reports that we have heard was that 
Rolls-Royce, who has invested in fuel cell technology, an alternative 
energy source that even our military is beginning to use, just 
announced that they're moving their research headquarters from 
Singapore to Stark County, Ohio, in the 16th Congressional District. 
They're going to invest $3 million in equipment and are creating up to 
60 new jobs and are retaining 32 that are there already. And it goes on 
and on.
  The statistics are showing that we are improving this economy. We're 
growing--certainly not fast enough for the million of jobs that have 
been lost under the previous administration and what we were handed day 
one when we walked in the office, but we are doing our best to turn 
this economy around and invest in our people.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And we're doing it without our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, which is really just so incredibly 
disappointing. I mean, I have seen our leadership reach across the 
aisle time and again and ask our Republican colleagues to come to the 
table, sit down. We're not going to agree on everything, but let's sit 
down and try to hammer out areas of agreement where we can find some 
common ground. Let's try to pass bipartisan legislation. As you said, 
we passed health care reform with over 150 amendments that were offered 
by Republicans, accepted and included into the bill. We had a 
bipartisan bill without a bipartisan outcome, and that's been their 
choice repeatedly. They have made a choice, whether to either sit with 
us and try to work something out--and you know there's times where you 
have to--look, politics can be a contact sport.
  This is a situation where they have different ideas than we do, but 
I've been in office for 18 years. I spent 12 years in my legislative 
body. You were in your legislature as well. I have never been in a 
situation--and I come from a State that is controlled by Republicans 
for the majority of the time that I have served in office. But I was 
always able to reach across the aisle and find some common ground. And 
we were always able to, on many things, pass bipartisan legislation. 
They have no interest in that.
  So the choices that they are making are, I think, going to result in 
the American people being presented with a choice to either embrace 
hyperpartisanship, embrace individuals who are bent on power and bent 
on controlling the direction that this country moves, and only doing it 
their way, or Members like our Members who have their fingers on the 
pulse of their communities, who understand intuitively what the needs 
are in their district, and who aren't reflexively just voting with 
their party.
  I mean, just look at the diversity of our caucus. We have been able 
to pass some significant legislation: the Recovery Act, the health care 
reform legislation. We've passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
Rights. We have some significant pro-consumer economic recovery 
legislation, and we haven't passed it unanimously out of our caucus. We 
have a diversity of ideas, but our ideas and our diversity reflect 
America because some Members are able to be supportive and some Members 
aren't.
  You would think that there would have to be some people on the other 
side of the aisle that would have the nerve, that would have the 
backbone to step up and say, You know, I'm going to put aside my quest 
for power, and I'm going to sit down, and I know we can work something 
out. And each of us has had private conversations with other colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, and they whisper, Debbie, I really wish 
we could be with you on this. I really agree with you, but you know, my 
hands are tied. Really? Your hands are tied? I don't see any rope 
actually binding your hands or a gag binding your mouth. It's sad.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, leadership is about action, not just political 
position, as I have said before. And we can win elections by taking 
comfortable votes and maneuver, but that's not real leadership. We come 
here to get things done. The American people want leadership. They want 
us to do things. They don't want us to just have a career. They want us 
to invest in the country. They want us to serve. They want us to do the 
right thing, do what we think is right, and move the country forward.
  You know, I think that at least our Democratic majority has attempted 
to reach across the aisle and pull people in and say, Give us some 
ideas. I have sponsored legislation with Members. Chris Lee from New 
York and I have sponsored an investment tax credit so that we can keep 
our research and development here in America instead of outsourcing it 
and giving folks an

[[Page H4497]]

extra bonus if they manufacture their products in America. This is the 
type of leadership we're asking for. The HIRE Act that I reached across 
the aisle and worked on with Congressman Rooney from Florida, this just 
became a law.

  So we have good ideas, and we can share them together; but on the big 
issues that confound our Nation, we need their leadership as well as 
ours. A stiff arm is not the solution to any of these big problems our 
Nation is facing. So the question becomes, Are we going to invest in 
America? Are we going to invest in the working middle class and 
champion the values of the middle class here in legislation that we 
pass? You know, in just simple votes that we have taken for people who 
have lost their jobs under no fault of their own, to give them an 
unemployment check, to make sure that they have COBRA insurance so that 
they can keep their family going to the dentist or the doctor, keep 
bread on their table. I mean, these are simple things. Investing in the 
future of our kids, like the COMPETES Act.
  I mean, I just don't understand. I share the collective value with 
you and others, and I know that there are some of my Republican 
colleagues over there who want to invest in small families and strong 
communities, but their hands are tied because of partisan politics. And 
the American people are watching, and I think the poll numbers that you 
read earlier are very true.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is the choice they are making.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. The choice that they are making is not to lead. So I 
think that when it comes to the matter of the economy, we are trying to 
put our country back on track, and I think we have passed some very 
good measures here. So setting the fair rules of the road, making sure 
that we understand that we are going to invest and expand our economy, 
grow our economy by manufacturing, and becoming the producers of wealth 
is very important.
  You know, nearly 87 percent of the world's economic growth over the 
next 5 years is going to take place out of the United States. We have a 
tremendous opportunity with Ohio to export our goods, to invest in our 
workforce and our manufacturing sector to export some of not just our 
jobs, but export our goods. We don't want to see any more jobs exported 
out of this country. And that's what we've seen with some of these 
trade deals that have been championed by previous administrations.
  But certainly when we invest in our economy, and we invest in a big 
opportunity for us like energy, when you build a new nuclear reactor, 
you can't outsource it. When you build a new solar array, you can't 
outsource those jobs. When you build a wind turbine that has 8,000 
manufactured parts, 200 tons of steel, the roller bearings are made of 
Timken, a manufacturer in my congressional district. Those are real 
jobs. You can't outsource that wind turbine. So we can invest in our 
future and help us become energy independent in the long run. And 
that's what we've done with taking these big steps and investing in 
energy policy that makes sense.
  Now, you will hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
want to identify our legislation, our national energy policy and our 
legislation that's going to end our dependence on foreign oil in the 
Middle East, make our economy more secure in the long run because $1 
billion leaves America every day and goes over to the Middle East where 
we are funding Ahmadinejad and so many others. We're funding both sides 
of this war just by our consumption habits.

                              {time}  2030

  So investing in our workforce, creating jobs that can't be 
outsourced, ending our dependence on foreign oil, these are traditional 
values, American values that we should all champion. But what are they 
talking about? Cap-and-trade. Well, come up with a better free market 
idea, because it was a Republican idea. John McCain has three times 
introduced a cap-and-trade bill.
  Because in 2007, AEP and Connecticut were in this court battle, and 
the Supreme Court said that the EPA was allowed to curb pollution under 
the Clean Air Act. Well, we decided to have a free market approach, one 
that's proven. Because cap-and-trade's been in existence since the 
1990s. It curbed acid rain, reduced sulfuric acid, and drove innovation 
and creativity in that market. So it's a free market approach, a proven 
one. So if you have a better idea, let's hear one. But it was your 
idea. So by championing your idea, now they are demagoguing our energy 
policy as cap-and-trade.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And using that free market base for innovation 
and investment in alternative energy is going to take us right through 
the 21st century. We are risking, without passing that legislation and 
making sure that we can spark those significant corporate investments 
in those technologies, we are risking giving over our leadership in 
this area to China and India. I mean, because that's what's going to 
happen. They are certainly not sitting around waiting for us to decide 
whether or not to pass alternative energy and climate change 
legislation. They are focused on making sure that they can be leaders 
in innovation and technology in the area of alternative energy.
  We have so many opportunities to create tax incentives and to help 
create jobs through that legislation. Again, it would be nice if we 
weren't being stiff-armed.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I see you rising and wanted to thank my colleague 
from Ohio for joining me tonight. Mr. Speaker, we among House Democrats 
really spend quite a bit of time interacting with our constituents. We 
do it in many ways. We do it in live town hall meetings, in telephone 
town hall meetings, as well as through social media networking and 
interaction. And I know that I really encourage people who are 
listening to this and encourage our colleagues to reach out to me and 
provide me with feedback on my Facebook page, which is 
RepDebbieWassermanSchultz. So anyone interested in giving us some 
feedback on our Facebook page, that's welcome.
  And Mr. Boccieri, I don't know if you want to promote your own. We do 
have a contest going on in the House Democratic Caucus, and so we are 
all interested in adding folks to our Facebook and Twitter accounts.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Absolutely. And our Web site is Boccieri.house.gov. 
That's B-o-c-c-i-e-r-i.house.gov. Please join our Facebook there and 
leave us your comments as well.
  I enjoyed this conversation and dialogue we had. Let's work together 
to put America back on track. We can do this. America has played second 
place to no one. And we can invest in our future, invest in our 
greatest asset, our workforce, and we can do it together.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That's exactly right. We look forward to 
repeatedly inviting our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
join us in moving this country in a new direction, continuing to jump-
start the economy, create jobs, and aggressively restoring the 
prosperity that Americans have enjoyed for our entire history.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________