[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5969-H5974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for

[[Page H5970]]

60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will claim the time on behalf of 
the Progressive Caucus tonight to bring a progressive vision about our 
great country.
  My friend poses the question, where are the jobs? That's a good 
question coming from the Republican Caucus because they're the ones who 
destroyed the jobs. The fact is, the Democratic Caucus has been 
rebuilding jobs, and I have proof.
  Now, if you look at this graph, very simple graph, what it shows is--
the red is under the Bush administration, under the Republican Caucus. 
And as you can see, December of 2007 we see a steady decline in the 
number of jobs with the Bush administration. The Bush administration, 
because of policies of not regulating Wall Street, because of allowing 
the industry just to run wild, because of tax cuts to the wealthiest 
Americans, because of deficit spending--they paid for two wars--a 
giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and massive tax cuts--over 
$700 billion in tax cuts which they never paid for--we saw a decline in 
American jobs. And then when the Obama administration comes in, we see 
ourselves digging out of this hole. It's slow, it's tough, it's very, 
very tough to come out and clean things up after the Republican Caucus 
has been in power. You know, the toughest job in the circus is cleaning 
up after the elephants. But the fact is that you see the Obama 
administration and the Democratic Caucus digging us out of this 
recession.
  Private-sector jobs have increased for 6 straight months. Where are 
the jobs? Well, the Republicans should know where the jobs were; 
they're the ones who said we favor the rich over everyone else, we 
favor the privileged, the comfortable over everyone else. The working 
people have to go figure out what they're going to do because we're in 
it for the wealthy.

                              {time}  1800

  The fact is the Democratic Caucus is helping to pull our country out 
of this situation. Again, it was proven on the House floor today, Mr. 
Speaker, because today what we saw on the House floor were the 
Democrats who moved to pass the unemployment insurance extension. Our 
Republican colleagues, our friends in the party opposite, despite all 
of their highest pronouncements, said ``no'' to the American people who 
are in dire straits.
  What kind of heart is that?
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about our 
economy today, but I think more of what we're talking about today are 
values and who values what. We are talking about values--the value of 
how you rate one kind of person versus another.
  The Republican Caucus says they're for tax cuts. We heard my friend 
in the party opposite say a little while ago he is for tax cuts. I find 
the gentleman a fine person and a pleasure to work with personally, but 
we couldn't disagree more when it comes to economic policy. He says he 
likes tax cuts--not when it comes to working people's tax cuts.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave tax cuts to 95 
percent of Americans. Ninety-five percent of Americans got tax cuts 
under the Recovery Act. Guess how many Republicans voted for it? Zero 
percent.
  They don't like tax cuts for working people, only for really, really 
rich people. The reason is that they believe the rich folks who get all 
of the tax cuts are going to use those tax cuts, you know, after 
they've bought enough yachts and enough houses and enough Tiffany 
watches and stuff like that. They might just use some of it to, maybe, 
invest in a factory or something. That's what they think is going to 
happen. It never happens that way, but that's what they think is going 
to happen. It's called ``trickle down.'' There is even a name for this 
kind of economics that the Republican Caucus is so very in love with.
  They talk about John F. Kennedy. It's amazing to hear these guys talk 
about how much they love John F. Kennedy because of tax cuts. Look, the 
Democratic Caucus is not anti tax cuts. It is important for the 
American people to know we're not against tax cuts. If tax cuts to the 
middle class will help stimulate the economy, we will do it. We have 
done it. We couldn't get any support from them when we did do it, but 
the fact is this is another sort of distortion that our colleagues are 
just absolutely committed to telling the American people--that 
Democrats don't like tax cuts. Yeah, we're fine with tax cuts, but we 
want fair tax cuts. We want tax cuts that actually stimulate the 
economy.
  Here is an economic lesson for you:
  If you want to stimulate the economy, do you give a tax cut to the 
people who need the money and who will take it and then buy things with 
it? Then at the stores where they bought them, there will be business 
at those stores, and at those stores, the people who work there will 
see some revenue coming into the stores, and the owners of the stores 
will be able to, therefore, continue keeping people on the payroll.
  On the other hand, do you give the money to people who don't need it, 
who are wealthy by all definition, who can just let that money sit 
there or buy luxury items that they really don't need? Maybe they'll 
just go out and buy up other companies--mergers and acquisitions--stuff 
like that.
  The fact is, if you want to stimulate the economy, you give a tax cut 
to the middle class and to the working class, not to the very rich 
people. That's what the Democrats did. That's what the Republicans 
absolutely oppose. That's what they are against. The fact is it is 
wrong. It is incorrect. It is bad policy. You would think they would 
know better. The Republicans are just not good at economics. They are 
good at other things, but economics they're not so good at.
  During the time that the Republican Caucus was in control, you know, 
they cut taxes and gave us the biggest deficit this country has seen. 
Yet, when they came into office, they inherited one of the biggest 
surpluses we have seen. Yes, it's true. Bill Clinton left the 
Republican Caucus a surplus. They came in well above the water, and 
they handed things over well below.
  The American people don't have short memories. We remember 2006. Do 
they think we forgot? Do they think we forgot who would not regulate 
predatory loans? The American people know that the House, the Senate, 
and the White House were controlled by the Republicans from 2000 to 
2006 as the American people were being preyed upon by unscrupulous 
lenders who were pushing loans on them, deceiving them, tricking them 
into deceptive practices in lending, which really set the stage for the 
recession that we are in. As soon as they couldn't refinance their 
homes again, they couldn't afford those mortgages as they ballooned 
upward, we began to see the foreclosure crisis. That's what happened, 
but our friends who don't like regulation say, Give us the wheel back.
  Interesting.
  Now, as I said, I respect my colleagues. I think they are good 
people. The question is not who is a nice guy and who isn't. That is 
not the issue, but here is a fact for you. Here is a quote from 
Congressman Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas.
  This is a question from David Gregory, the journalist. David Gregory: 
I think what a lot of people want to know is, if Republicans do get 
back in power, what are they going to do?
  You hear these guys in the party opposite, Oh, give us back the reins 
of power. Let us be in the majority. Let us rule this place. We know 
what to do.
  They act like they have the answers.
  Well, one of their caucus leaders says: We need to go back to the 
exact same agenda.
  Really? Oh, my goodness. Do you mean to tell me we need to go back to 
some more wars that we don't pay for? Do you mean that we need to get 
back into another Iraq? They're actually looking for another Iraq right 
now. Another Iraq? $10 billion a month that war cost us, and they 
offered us reasons to go, and none of them were true. So, literally, 
4,500 young people later--Americans later--and $1 trillion later, that 
is what their war in Iraq has given us--disaster. It was absolutely the 
worst foreign policy failure in American history.
  More of the same? Oh, my goodness. We're going to have a 
pharmaceutical giveaway to the tune of $400 billion. Again? That's 
their answer to health care. As they stand up here and talk about 
ObamaCare and as they beat on the health care bill, do you know that 
Americans are benefiting from the

[[Page H5971]]

health care bill already, and yet they want us to go back to the time 
before health care reform when 56 percent of all bankruptcy filings 
were from people who were suffering the load of medical debt? This is 
what they want the American people to go back to.
  My friend from Texas says: We need to go back to the exact same 
agenda.
  Oh, no. It's just better to keep the Republican Caucus over there, in 
the minority, complaining about everything that we do, without helping 
at all, but at least they can't do much harm if they're not in the 
majority.
  David Gregory asked: I think what a lot of people want to know is, if 
the Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?
  You heard it right from their caucus leadership: More of the same.
  Why were the Republicans literally thrown out of office in 2006? Why 
were they tossed out? Why did the American people chase them out? 
Because of their absolute failure on every measure of governance.
  Now, you shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are bad at 
governing. They don't like government. They have nothing good to say 
about it. They think government is the problem, and of course, it's 
hard to be good at anything you don't believe in in principle. So 
they're not good at governing. They might be good at other things. I 
think, a few years in the past, they had a pretty good congressional 
baseball team, but when it comes to governing, they're just not very 
good at it. The proof is, whenever they're in power, we have failure in 
government.
  If you wonder what they're doing, we need to go back to more of the 
same agenda. I am so grateful for my friend from Texas' candor because 
he has pretty much told us what we have to expect. See, the Republican 
Caucus, they try to argue that they should be running things. All they 
want to do is shine the light on the Democratic Caucus and on President 
Obama and ask, Did President Obama and the Democrats create heaven on 
Earth within 2 years? That's what they want the American people to ask. 
Did they create heaven on Earth in 2 years? If they didn't, then let us 
run it.
  But you know what? That is not what's at stake. It is either the 
Democrats' working out the problems and the failures of their 
leadership or the Republicans, who created the failure in the first 
place.
  Imagine somebody who is out in the middle of a loch, drowning. A 
lifeguard swims out there to grab him, holds onto him and pushes him 
in, and then has to push on his chest to get him back in shape.
  Then the person who failed to save the other person, the other 
lifeguard who sat around and didn't do the right thing, says, You're 
pushing too hard.
  I say, Wait a minute, man. I'm over here, trying to save a life that 
you almost lost, and you're over here, confused about how it's being 
done.
  The fact of the matter is the Democratic Caucus is investing in 
Americans, in green energy, in human capital. It is investing in our 
infrastructure. It is investing in small business, and we are slowly 
seeing ourselves climb back to the America that we knew before the Bush 
era as we see jobs going in this upward direction--clear and 
unmistakable progress.

                              {time}  1810

  A similar graph that I would like to show you, that goes to show how 
Democrats, despite difficult circumstances, because the Republicans 
have done massive damage to the economy, are bringing things back is 
this one. This graph shows net change in private payroll employment 
between 2004 and 2010. And this is thousands of jobs, so just add a 
couple of zeros after you see these 200, 400, just add a couple of, 
three more zeros. You see things really plummet because of the 
Republicans, and now you see Democrats pulling the economy back in 
shape, and we're back up to where we should be going. So that's a 
little bit.
  Now, here's another fact I think is important for the American people 
to know. The economy has been picking up. In fact, this graph shows 
that after-tax profits in billions, the property insurance after-tax 
profits in billions. Profitability has been going up, going up.
  The fact is that American GDP has been increasing. American gross 
domestic product has been increasing. The economy is starting to pick 
up. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. More has got to be done. I 
want to talk about that in a minute. But the fact is that things are 
headed in the right direction.
  So when you hear Republicans stand up and complain about what 
Democrats are doing, and all they're doing is complaining about what 
we're doing, you should look at the numbers. The numbers are going in 
the right direction. The jobs are being added. Gross domestic product 
has been increasing, and we see the economy going in the proper 
direction.
  It's Republican support for special interests, Republican support to 
the most privileged and wealthy, the Republican support for all of 
these types of special interest things that has landed us in this 
problem; and it is Democratic resolve, along with the will of the 
American people, that is getting us back into the right spot.
  Should we go back? Absolutely not.
  Now, my friend in the party opposite, before he gave up the 
microphone, he said something that really must be challenged. You might 
have heard him say, oh, you know what, if the tax cuts expire, if the 
Bush tax cuts expire, then what's going to happen is that the farmers 
are going to have to sell their farms in order to pay the taxes. You 
heard him say that. He said, Mr. Broun, fine man, but we just disagree 
bitterly on the issues.
  He said that if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, or if they're 
allowed to expire, then farmers will have to sell their farms to pay 
payroll taxes.
  Now, you know, this is the whole debate about the estate tax. And 
it's very important to remember that the Republicans argued this thing 
before, and they were challenged. The reporters, smart reporters said, 
okay, you guys are talking about saving the family farm, because it's 
always about poor people and the family farm. That's always why they 
say they do what they do, but it never really is.
  But the fact is that they were challenged. Find one family farm that 
has been taken away for taxes. They couldn't find one because it just 
isn't so.
  These Bush tax cuts, the ones that help the middle class, the 
Democratic Caucus, we believe, need to be saved. The ones that only 
benefit the well-to-do and the rich folks who've benefited so much by 
being in this great country, we think they ought to be allowed to 
expire and go back to rates that were quite similar to what they were 
during the Clinton days. It makes sense to me, and I think it's what we 
should do.
  Now, I just want to talk a little bit about unemployment insurance 
extension. It's an important issue. Today the House passed the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, 
and this emergency legislation will extend unemployment insurance 
benefits to millions of American families, 2.5 million, in fact. This 
is an important piece of legislation, and now it's on its way to the 
President's office.
  Now, I reemphasize that it's emergency legislation. Because it's 
emergency legislation, it's not set off, we don't have to find a pay-
for in the budget. We basically find the money, even if we have to 
borrow it to make sure that Americans have the money they need to make 
ends meet.
  This is money, this is money that will go to groceries. It will go to 
buying eggs, it will go to buying bread, it will go to buying oatmeal. 
It will go to buying cereal. It will buy toilet paper, basic household 
items. That's what people do with their unemployment insurance money. 
That's what they do with it. That's what folks do.
  And it's amazing to me that my Republican colleagues would say that, 
no, it should be set off, because the fact is they didn't want to set 
off all of that money, they didn't want to set off all that money they 
gave away during the Bush tax cuts, over $700 billion, plus another 
$400 billion for the big prescription drug giveaway to Pharma, plus two 
wars that they didn't want to pay for.

  But now, when people are in an emergency situation, people are having 
to live with family, people are facing foreclosure, people are facing 
bankruptcy, people are in real trouble when they're out of work and 
their unemployment runs out, now our friends say, no, we

[[Page H5972]]

can't open up the wallet. We've got to worry about the deficit. You 
know, we can't help you.
  This is an amazing thing. It's an emergency for people out there, and 
so we should act accordingly.
  Republicans have blocked this bill for more than 7 weeks. They have 
literally stood in the way. In fact, this bill could have been done 
earlier this week, but the Senate Republican delay tactics stopped it, 
up until we're able to pass it today.
  Republicans have blocked this bill for 7 weeks, causing an estimated 
2.5 million Americans--actually, it's more than that. Congresswoman 
Donna Edwards has it to the person, and she's got a Web site that 
tabulates it to the individual person. Families.
  And the fact is that it's more than 2.5 million families to lose 
their lifeline that they have earned through their work during their 
economic work years.
  It's important to bear in mind that unemployment insurance is 
insurance. It's not a giveaway. It's not a hand out.
  And it is galling and appalling and downright insensitive and 
insulting for anyone to imply that people who receive unemployment 
insurance are lazy. Yet, you have heard people in the party opposite 
say that folks just don't want to work and they're just sitting up and 
not really trying to find a job. That is really ridiculous.
  There are five people applying for every one job. There's not enough 
jobs. We're trying to create more. The unemployment rate is 
unacceptably high. Democrats are committed to chopping that rate way 
down.
  But the fact is that until we're able to do that, we need real 
support, and folks need to get in there and get some unemployment 
benefits so they can make it.

                              {time}  1820

  The bill, which is virtually identical to the one the House passed, 
the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act, would extend emergency 
unemployment compensation and extend benefits for programs through 
November 30, 2010. So it's a short reprieve. I mean it's unfortunate, 
but folks will benefit from the short period of time of the help.
  Now, unemployment benefits have periods of time, some longer, some 
shorter. But there are a lot of people who will benefit because 
benefits will be retroactively restored to people who started losing 
their benefits at the end of May. They will be retroactively restored. 
Important to point out as the Republicans are saying, yes, we gave all 
of our friends buckets and buckets of money, but we've got nothing for 
you, Sam and Jane and your two kids, we can't help you. You lost your 
job. Good luck. Can't do any deficit spending, you know.
  But the fact is that these folks, some of them have been worried what 
are they going to do because they have been without these benefits 
since May. Now they are going to be retroactively restored. Very 
important. Very, very pleased to be able to report that.
  Republicans continue to fight for hundreds of billions of dollars in 
deficit-busting tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were never paid for, and 
yet they want to oppose us extending unemployment insurance benefits to 
hardworking Americans.
  The fact is that unemployment insurance benefits really are something 
that help to stimulate the economy. It's not the best way to do it; 
having a job is. That's obvious. But every dollar in unemployment 
benefits creates at least $1.61 in economic activity. So every $1 in 
unemployment benefits, $1.61 goes into our economy. That's a lot of 
money. It's obvious why. Let's just say somebody has no money. They are 
going to a food shelter. They are not getting anything at all. They are 
surviving on the charity of others, or the best they can. But if they 
have unemployment insurance benefits, which they earned because they 
worked, then they have money to go to the store and they buy something. 
And at the store, that then helps stimulate the economy because you are 
spending a real source of revenue with somebody, which helps them 
maintain and add to their employment rolls.
  This is a very important fact. We should know about it. And this is 
something that chief economist Mark Zandi, who is a pretty conservative 
guy himself, had to say before the House Budget Committee back on 
September 1. ``The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found 
extending unemployment benefits to be one of the most cost-effective 
and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy, creating, they said, up 
to $1.90 in economic activity for every dollar.'' So Mark Zandi says 
$1.61, the Congressional Budget Office says $1.90. The fact is these 
things are hard to know with exact specificity, but the reality is that 
both agree, there is a consensus among economic experts that 
unemployment insurance benefits benefit the economy as a whole.
  Unemployment benefits were responsible for creating 1.1 million jobs 
since the recession started, and adding 1.7 percent to the gross 
domestic product of our country. Unemployment insurance benefits has a 
stimulative effect on the economy. There's no doubt about it. So the 
Republican Caucus trying to stop it really is dangerous to the economy. 
Not only to the individual family, not just to Jane and Sam and their 
two kids, who are unemployed and need those benefits, but also to all 
of us as a whole.
  And let me just explain one reason why. Our economy is one where 
corporate profits, as I just pointed out before, have been up in the 
first quarter of 2010, up about 43 percent. There's a lot of firms that 
are sitting on cash. They have money. But they haven't really added to 
their payrolls. Why? Because they're nervous. The consumer demand is 
still weak. Consumer demand is not robust and strong. They're not 
really seeing the volume in sales that they've seen in the past because 
consumer demand is weak.
  Now, if our Republicans had their way what they would do is take 
unemployment benefits from people, which would then do what to demand? 
Lower it. Which would then make the firms think what? Oh, my God, I 
really got to sit on this cash because I just don't know what's going 
to happen next. So unemployment benefits have the effect of priming the 
pump, of getting the economy stimulated and moving. And not having them 
not only creates a crisis for an individual family, but even worse than 
that, it creates a crisis for the economy because firms who have cash 
and are looking to add people but who are cautious and nervous are 
thinking, hey, you know, sales volume has gone down, I better not spend 
this money to add on more workers. It's very important to understand 
that psychology and economics are tightly tied together.
  Most employers, by the way, particularly small employers, are very, 
very reluctant to want to lay people off. I mean it's always said for 
any employer with a heart--and most of them have them. They are people. 
They don't want to lay anybody off. But when they do, it's tough. And 
it's nothing you want to go back to. So you want to be real confident 
that you can sustain those extra workers before you add on more people. 
This has to do with consumer confidence, which has to do with things 
like unemployment insurance. And therefore, my point is that you need--
not only is it a crisis for the individual family when you don't extend 
those benefits, it is a crisis for our economy because it undermines 
confidence and consumer demand, which our economy needs.

  So, I think it's important that the American people know this and 
they know that when the Republicans, particularly the ones who are 
always, you know, acting really religious and more holy than everybody 
else, they're voting against unemployment insurance, that's really kind 
of a head scratcher to me.
  Anyway, today there are 15 million people out of work who got an 
extension of unemployment benefits. Today 15 million people, 15 million 
people out of work got an extension of unemployment benefits, which 
contribute to paying mortgages, health care bills, utility bills, food 
costs, eggs, groceries, cereal for the kids.
  The Democrats' unemployment bill provides up to--and it is the 
Democrats' unemployment bill, by the way. Republicans want no part of 
it. They don't want to be part of the unemployment bill. So it gets to 
be our bill. We would love to share it, but they didn't want any. The 
Democratic unemployment bill provides up to 99 weekly unemployment 
checks averaging about

[[Page H5973]]

$300 to people whose 26 weeks of State-paid benefits have run out. The 
benefits would be extended through the end of November 30. November 30, 
as I said.
  In the new Washington Post-ABC News poll that was released just a few 
days ago, more than 6 in 10 Americans, 62 percent, support Congress's 
action to extend unemployment benefits for jobless workers. Now, 62 
percent is a lot. That's a very healthy, strong majority of Americans. 
And I daresay, you know, I'm glad I voted for the bill, because I 
wouldn't want to go back to my constituents, unemployed people, and say 
I know you needed help, but I wasn't there for you. Sorry.
  Earlier this month the House passed the Restoration of the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act to restore and extend emergency 
unemployment benefits. That was passed again today, and now it's off to 
the President. Eighty-three percent of Republicans opposed the bill. 
Eighty-three percent of the Republicans said we can't do anything for 
you, Sam and Jane. You are on your own. If you are well to do and need 
a tax cut, then we can talk. But if you are not rich, we really, really 
don't have any time to help you out. We've got to worry about the 
deficit. Not that we have to worry about the deficit if you are part of 
the top 1 percent. But if you're not, then we've got a deficit, and we 
can't help you out.
  The analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as I 
mentioned before, suggests that extending unemployment benefits is one 
of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to get the economy 
moving again. It's something that we've got to do, and it's something 
that we need to do right away to make sure that our economy is strong, 
and make sure that Americans are getting back to work. Very important. 
And I'm so glad we are here to talk about it.
  Now, one of the things that my Republican friends like to say is that 
they only want private jobs, they don't want public jobs. But I want to 
bust that myth up for folks tonight, Mr. Speaker, because public jobs 
are important jobs. Are they saying they don't like police? Are they 
saying they are against teachers? Are they saying that they don't want 
anybody to fix the roads? And the potholes all over the place, just 
fine? Are they saying they don't want people to fix the bridges and 
they don't think that these bridges need to be painted so they don't 
get corrosion? And they don't think those gusset plates holding those 
bridges up need to be replaced so they don't fall down like they did in 
my State of Minnesota? I just don't understand what they mean when they 
start attacking public jobs.
  I actually have to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I resent it when 
they attack public workers. I think public workers do great work. I 
think public workers do a great service for the American people. When I 
had a break-in at my house, I called a public worker, also known as a 
police officer, and that officer came to my house. He took down my 
report. He took the report of all the things that that thief had taken 
from us. And he was cordial, and he was kind, and I felt a whole lot 
better seeing him there.

                              {time}  1830

  He's a public worker. And it is public workers just like that police 
officer who are facing layoffs all across America.
  What about teachers? They don't like teachers? We're seeing classroom 
sizes increase and increase. There are over 250,000 teachers facing 
layoffs across America because I guess our friends in the party 
opposite, the Republican Caucus, feel that, oh, those are not private 
sector jobs.
  Teachers do a valuable service for our country. Teachers are 
important. Or what about medical professionals who work for public 
hospitals? Or what about people who make sure that our roads and our 
bridges and our other infrastructure are in good working order? All 
these jobs are important.
  What about the people who work at the DMV, the Department of Motor 
Vehicles? Do you want to get your tags on time? Do you want to get your 
registration on time? These are all folks who perform a valuable, 
important public service, and I think it's really ugly when we hear our 
Republican colleagues say, oh, well, they just want public jobs. They 
admit that we've had public jobs. We've also had private sector jobs. 
But I don't like this idea of them attacking public sector jobs. It's 
not right. In fact, my opinion is we need to pass a local jobs for 
America act. We need a bill that says we're going to help State and 
local government hire the people they have had to lay off over the last 
year and a half. Nearly every State in the union, not every State but 
nearly every State, has had massive deficits and these States have seen 
themselves have to cut off a lot of State workers. Now the Federal 
Government can't cover all of those losses, but we can cover some of 
the essential ones.
  There are cities in this country who have police forces of one and 
two and three people, and they've had to lay off one. So if they lay 
off one person or two people, that's basically the whole department.
  This is a serious issue. We don't need larger class sizes as we're 
trying to educate young people to be more competitive in the global 
arena. We don't need our fire departments to have fewer firefighters. 
We don't need to have our streets have fewer cops and be less safe. 
Since the recession began, an estimated 500,000 Americans have lost 
their jobs in local communities because of tight local municipal 
budgets. That's public workers that the Republican Caucus doesn't seem 
to respect very much.
  The Economic Policy Institute, which is a think tank, estimates that 
by the year 2012, more than 400,000 jobs would have to be restored just 
to return local government services to pre-recession levels. That's 
worth repeating. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that by 2012, 
more than 400,000 jobs would have to be restored just to return to pre-
recession levels. This means a critical loss of services. This means 
that, yes, you have potholes; yes, you have longer response times for 
police and fire; yes, you have infrastructure that's not in the same 
kind of repair that it used to be. Yes, you have a streetlight that has 
not been replaced. And as your daughter or your son are walking home at 
night, you want that streetlight there if you're a parent and I know 
it. Not even for your daughter or your son; for yourself. If you're 
walking home, you want that streetlight working. Well, who replaces 
that? They don't get up there by magic. My friends in the Republican 
Caucus act like they just appear. No, they don't. Municipal workers put 
them there.
  Cuts to public jobs also reduce employment in the private sector. 
This is an important point that bears repeating as well. Cuts to public 
jobs reduces employment in the private sector. What is the point, Mr. 
Speaker? Well, look. A dollar is a dollar. Whether I'm a cop or I work 
for a private security company, if I get my check and I spend it at the 
local store, it's revenue for that store and it will go to pay the 
workers at that store and pay a profit to whoever owns the store. Now 
if the public worker doesn't have a job, that's one paycheck fewer that 
that store has to rely on in order to make it.
  So public sector jobs contribute to private employment. Why? Because 
public sector jobs contribute to the economy just like private sector 
jobs do, too. It's not a good thing that public sector jobs are going 
down. Not only is it loss of vital social services in our cities, but 
it also decreases consumer demand for those public workers who are now 
laid off and for our economy as a whole.
  Again, the Economic Policy Institute has important information for us 
here. They estimated that for every 100 public sector jobs, 30 private 
sector jobs are let go because of the reduction in consumer spending. 
For every 100 public sector jobs, 30 private sector jobs are laid off 
because of a reduction in consumer spending. This forces local 
governments to choose between cutting services like public safety and 
raising taxes during an economic recovery which, I already talked 
about, no one likes to do.

  Now there's a bill out there that I think the people of America ought 
to know about, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Local Jobs for America Act. 
The goal of the Local Jobs for America Act is to create 1 million 
public and private jobs in local communities this year. This jobs 
legislation directs targeted resources to communities hardest hit by 
the economic downturn. Federal

[[Page H5974]]

funds will be provided directly to States and municipalities with the 
greatest number of people out of work to restore critical services like 
teachers, police and fire. Our bill is about getting America back to 
work and making investments for the long term and the prosperity of our 
country.
  Throughout the recession, local governments have been one of the 
hardest hit as cities have had to reduce budgets as their revenues have 
declined. Local governments across the country lost over 140,000 jobs 
in 2008 and 2009, and the number just keeps on growing. In 2009, 62 
percent of all cities dealt with their budget deficits by delaying or 
canceling construction projects. Now when a city says, we're not going 
to build that ramp, that parking ramp; we're not going to fix that 
road; we're not going to build that community center, that means that 
the contractors they were going to hire don't get that job. So what 
that means is that the people who work in the private sector on the 
construction site, they're not working on that job. They're not 
bringing food back home based on the money they earned at that 
construction job.
  The bill funds teachers, firefighters, child care workers and other 
critical services:
  $23 billion to help States support 250,000 teachers who are scheduled 
to be laid off very soon; $1.18 billion to support 5,500 law 
enforcement officers on the beat; $500 million to hire and train 
firefighters; $75 billion to save or create 750,000 jobs to help the 
local community fill those jobs where they need it; 50,000 on-the-job 
training slots to help private businesses expand employment.
  The goal is to have family wage jobs and help people get back to 
work, promote our good services for our cities, which is safety, which 
is education, and then also help the private sector by moving forward 
on needed construction projects and making sure public workers have 
their paychecks to make sure there's adequate consumer demand.
  The Local Jobs for America Act will target funding to community based 
organizations serving communities with poverty rates 12 percent, or 
unemployment rates that are 2 percent or more higher than the national 
average. Now it's not State by State. It's community by community. So 
even if your State has an unemployment rate lower than the national 
average, if your community has one that is higher, then you would be 
eligible.
  Local Jobs for America will help ensure that local communities can 
still operate essential services; and the Local Jobs for America Act 
will include on-the-job training for thousands of workers, and this 
bill would target communities hardest hit by the recession.

                              {time}  1840

  Now, that's just one good idea that I think we need to use.
  I just want to take you back and say, you know, I'm from Minneapolis, 
and in my town we boast the finest series of lakes and trails and bike 
paths in the country. In fact, even though we're a cold weather State, 
we commute by bicycle more than any other city, including Portland, 
Oregon. Now, I know those people from Portland are coming after us on 
this great honor, but we're determined to keep Minneapolis in the first 
place on bike trails.
  My point is simply this: I was riding my bike along the bike trail 
the other day, and I stopped to rest and sip a little water, and I saw 
a picnic table that really looked like it had been around for a while. 
What I saw on that picnic table was interesting. It was a plaque. It 
said, ``WPA 1934.'' That picnic table had been around since 1934, and 
the Roosevelt-era program that put Americans of that generation back to 
work had caused that picnic table to be built.
  Some of you young people are like, What is WPA? Go ask your 
grandparents. WPA is the Works Progress Authority. This was something 
that put valuable people to work doing valuable work that needed to be 
done--making trails, making picnic tables, doing things that last to 
this very moment. And Americans all across America are benefiting from 
them right now. This is what the WPA is.
  And what I'm saying about the Local Jobs for America Act is that if 
that generation had a heart for its people and would respond to their 
needs and the needs of the unemployed by putting them back to work, I 
don't think this generation should do less. I think this generation 
should do at least as much as prior generations have done. Let it not 
be said that Americans have grown more stingy over time. Let it be said 
that Americans still care about other Americans whether they're working 
or not. Very, very important.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to begin to wrap up my remarks right now 
because it is getting late in the hour. But I just think it's important 
to just point out that from the Progressive Caucus' point of view, what 
we need is we need a stronger, more robust economy that has more people 
working at livable wages; that when people don't have enough, don't 
have a job, that they can get unemployment benefits until they can find 
that next job.
  We don't think of our people as lazy and who don't want to work. We 
think of our people as active who do want to work. And when they get a 
job, we know that they're proud to have that job. But right now in 
America, we just don't have enough jobs. And we don't need the 
Republican Caucus standing in the way of jobs.
  There are many people of faith in the Democratic Caucus, but we live 
our values. We don't pontificate about our values like some Members of 
the Republican Caucus are wont to do. The fact is you have to live 
caring, you have to live charity, you have to live commitment to other 
people, you have to live empathy. And just lecturing to others about 
your religion is not a valuable exercise in a country dedicated to 
religious tolerance.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say it's always a pleasure 
coming before you and the people on the House floor. It's important to 
get back to real policies that work for real people. I'm so proud that 
the Democratic Caucus responded to the American people's needs for 
health care reform, responded to the American people's needs for 
financial Wall Street reform, as the President signed the bill 
yesterday. I am so proud that the Democratic Caucus was able to pass 
unemployment insurance benefits despite very little help from the 
Republican Caucus.
  I look forward to being back soon to talk about the Progressive 
Caucus and progressive values in the United States Congress.

                          ____________________