Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 151 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 151 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7588-H7594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Polis). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I am proud to
come before the House today to address you and the American people
regarding our Nation and regarding the state of affairs facing our
people. This is an hour I claim on behalf of the Progressive Caucus.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is that group of Members of
Congress who believe that, yes, it's true, we all must be included in
the great American Dream. The Progressive Caucus is that group of
Congresspeople who believe that peace and diplomacy and development are
far, far away preferable to war and fighting and strife.
The Progressive Caucus, we are the ones who say, yes, we should have
child nutrition; yes, we should have food stamps for people in need;
yes, we should have real commitments to small business and small
farmers, not big business and the farming agricultural industry.
The Progressive Caucus is that body of Members in this Congress who
come together around peace, around economic justice, around the issue
of civil rights. We are the ones who say Don't Ask, Don't Tell must be
repealed. We are the ones who say, as a Congress, that the American
people are one people and need to be included in this great American
Dream; that the arms of America are broad enough for all of us. This is
what the Progressive Caucus is. This is what we believe.
We are not the ones who say that some Americans are not okay based on
who they love or what their religion is; and we are not the ones who
say that economic prosperity should only be for the wealthiest among
us; and we are not the ones who urge war. We are the ones who urge
peace. We are the ones who urge economic justice. We are the ones who
believe that the poor must be within our thoughts, particularly at this
time of year.
We are the ones who argue that we must extend unemployment insurance
benefits, which, sadly, went down on the floor of this House earlier
today. This is the Progressive Caucus, and this hour we claim on behalf
of the Progressive Caucus to talk to Americans about the importance of
having a progressive vision for America. Even in this time after the
elections were so difficult for so many, the fact is that we remain
vigilant. We remain on the job projecting a progressive vision for this
great Nation.
And this hour we speak on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, and this
is the progressive message, three progressive messages today for
everybody, three messages we want to hit.
The first message is the unemployment extension. I want to talk about
that. The other one is the Bush tax cuts extension. And the third point
is the absolute deluge of dirty money which totally swept through this
last election cycle, corrupted our politics, all to the tune of about
$75 million, some of it from sources no one knows where they came from,
and the absolute urgent need for transparency and to get corporate
money out of American politics. Those are my three topics tonight.
Let me start by talking about unemployment benefits. Today, we had a
vote to extend unemployment benefits which will expire at the end of
this month, in November. This comes at a time when Americans are
looking forward to what their Thanksgiving dinner is going to be like.
This comes at a time when many Americans are looking at Christmas,
Hanukkah, holidays, time to be together. But 2 million Americans, if we
don't find a way to somehow get unemployment insurance benefits
extended, which again failed on the House floor today because of
Republican opposition, will have a very grim holiday.

{time} 1600

This is a national shame. This is a travesty. This is something that
is too, too bad.
Today on the House floor, unemployment extension benefits were up on
the House floor, and we had to pass them by two-thirds vote because
they were on the suspension calendar. It's necessary to put things on
the suspension calendar because if we go through regular order, we can
bet that there will be a Republican motion to recommit which will cause
all kinds of damage and mischief. So the unemployment insurance
extension was put up that is expiring in a few days. And you would
think that something like extending unemployment benefits would be very
easy because we have 9.6 percent unemployment, so many people are
facing no opportunity to have any income if these benefits are allowed
to expire at the end of this month, of course compassionate Congress
would step right up. You wonder why we wouldn't get 100 percent of all
these Members to vote for extension of unemployment benefits. But 150
of our colleagues on the Republican side voted ``no'' to extension of
unemployment insurance

[[Page H7589]]

benefits, and because of that, we didn't pass it.
So now many of us who stay up at night worrying about what Americans
are going to do, put food on the table for their families, have some
more nights to worry, because the truth is we are not able to pass the
extension of unemployment on the House floor. An overwhelming number of
Democrats voted for it, and even some Republicans voted for it, to
their credit. But we didn't get enough of that caucus, and so we ended
up seeing that bill fail.
Obviously, the unemployment extension is hitting snags in the Senate.
But if we could have passed it here, it would send a very important
signal to the Senate that they must take up this measure, they must
pass it through for the sake of the people, of the Americans, 2 million
of them, who are seeing unemployment benefits expire even by the end of
this year.
I want those Americans to know, nearly 2 million Americans to know
that there are people in this House of Representatives who care
desperately about them and their children. We put the measure on the
floor and voted for it, needed two-thirds vote, couldn't get the
support of our colleagues, and it didn't go. And sadly, I want to say
that I hope those 150 Members who voted ``no'' think about you in the
weeks to come. It is difficult, it is desperate, and I think that
Americans, Mr. Speaker, need to raise their voices and look at the vote
count to see who voted with them and who didn't.
Nearly 2 million Americans will lose unemployment benefits by the end
of the holidays if Congress doesn't find a way to act. At this point,
we may well have to act even if under a good, best case scenario after
the extension of the benefits, after the benefits lapse. We have done
it before. We may need to do it again. But the fact is that that is the
situation.
According to the Department of Labor, 1.98 million workers, that is
nearly 2 million workers, nationwide will lose benefits by the first of
this year, January 1. By the end of February 2011, in only a few
months, over 4.4 million workers will lose benefits.
Now it has devastating effects for individual families, no doubt
about it, mom, dad, perhaps both, perhaps single-parent families not
having any unemployment, in this tough economy not able to find a job.
But it also has a devastating effect for our whole economy, because
when people have unemployment insurance benefits to go buy groceries
and pay rent, they can pay their landlord, they can pay the grocery
store. And if you can pay the grocery store, then the grocery store has
made a sale. And if the grocery store has made a sale of groceries,
then they can keep those folks who work for the grocery store. And if
the folks who work for the grocery store can keep their job, then they
can buy some groceries. And if those folks can buy some groceries, then
other people can. And maybe they can pay their rent, and maybe that
will mean that the landlords who perhaps rent to them will be able to
maintain their building and be able to pay the utilities associated
with running that apartment building that they might live in.
But if they can't, then the person doesn't get their unemployment
benefits, they're not shopping as much, their shopping goes down, then
the people who work there lose their jobs, then they can't pay their
rent, now the landlord is not getting their rents in, now the landlord
is looking at the building going into foreclosure because they can't
even keep the mortgage up on that.
Now let's talk about housing. Let's talk about we have seen about 2.8
million foreclosures in 2009, about a similar number this year, on pace
for that if not more. Those people who are counting on that
unemployment check are counting on using that money to pay that
mortgage. More foreclosures. This was incredibly irresponsible to not
pass unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that Americans saw what happened today and demand
that Congress pass unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment
insurance benefits is good economics. It will cost our country more
than it would have to spend to extend these benefits. It will cost our
country more in terms of lost jobs, lost revenue to State, local, and
Federal Government because of people who are not working anymore who
now may become an expense. It will cost more money. It is incredibly
shortsighted. It's bad economics. And when it comes to the individual
effect on the family, it's just heartless. I have sympathy for people
that heartless. I think you should be more compassionate than that, Mr.
Speaker.

February 2011. We're halfway through November, we have December, then
we have January. February 2011, 4.4 million workers will lose their
unemployment benefits with devastating effect to their family and our
entire economy.
Economists agree that ending emergency unemployment insurance
benefits programs now hurts the economy. Even economists say it. This
is not simply Keith Ellison on the House floor saying this. Economists
who study this stuff every day say, do you know what? The effect of
ending these programs is going to hurt our recovery and hurt our
economy. The Department of Labor analysis by Wayne Vroman, who is an
economist, well trained economist, found that unemployment insurance
benefits boost economic activity by $2 for every dollar spent in 2009.
So if we do extend unemployment insurance benefits in the year 2009,
that would mean that there would be $2 in economic activity. Now that's
a pretty good deal. That is what you call a multiplier effect, which is
very beneficial.
Reducing unemployment insurance benefits will reduce our gross
domestic product. It will hurt our economy in the same way I just
explained a moment ago. For people just tuning in, Mr. Speaker, I just
want to say what will happen is that if people don't get the
unemployment insurance benefits, they cannot spend, and the local
retailers cannot maintain their staff, who then will end up laying
people off. This will extend and increase unemployment. It's already
9.96 percent. How much more do the people who voted ``no'' want it to
go?
Goldman Sachs has estimated that if the extension were allowed to
expire, it would reduce economic growth by half a percentage point.
Now, half a percentage point of economic growth, that just sounds like
some statistic. But what that means is fewer refrigerators bought,
fewer cars bought, fewer loaves of bread bought, fewer eggs bought,
fewer people hired, fewer people who are going to be able to run the
risk to start the small business that they've been thinking about. This
means this is a bad thing for our economy. It means real pain to real
people. That's what it means to see gross domestic product fall and
economic growth slip by half a percentage point.
Another noted economic organization that does economic analysis has
estimated that allowing the extensions to expire would reduce gross
domestic product by about $14.1 billion. Again, almost half a
percentage point. This is a consensus of people who are economic
experts.
Now, let me just tell you this. Some people who voted ``no'' are
operating under a very false belief system. They think that
unemployment insurance benefits are somehow living really high and you
just got all kinds of money and basically you got so much money you
don't even want to look for a job.

{time} 1610

Basically, they're saying paying people unemployment insurance
benefits, a little help from your fellow Americans when you're in a
bind, somehow stifles the incentive to work. Somehow government
subsidies--there's never an argument against those companies that get
tax breaks to do offshore drilling. They're never something that's a
disincentive for people who are well-heeled, high, mighty, and well-to-
do. But whenever it comes to us who work really hard, anything the
government gives us might make us want to work less. Absurd.
But the average weekly unemployment benefits--about $303--are barely
70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four and, on average,
replace less than 50 percent of a worker's prior earnings. I am going
to repeat that because there's numbers in there and I don't want
anybody to not get it. The average weekly unemployment insurance
benefit--about $300, a little more than that, about $303--is barely 70
percent of the poverty line for a family of four. So if you've got mom,
dad, and two kids, and you're getting unemployment insurance benefits,
you're not

[[Page H7590]]

making the poverty line by about 30 percent. That's about 70 percent of
the poverty line for a family of four and, on average, replaces less
than half of the worker's prior earnings.
So people on unemployment insurance are not getting over on anyone.
These are people who pay in while they're working. This is a benefit
they worked for. This is a benefit all of us come together, all of us
put in a pot, and say, you know what, if any one of us loses our job,
we're going to use this to help you maintain while you're in that
situation. This is a good program. This is something that every
industrialized, civilized country, unless you're just an impoverished
nation, any decent country would do this. And yet here we are saying
``no'' to these people.
And here's another thing. Some folks will say, Well, you know, if we
cut them off, maybe they'll work harder now. Maybe they'll look for a
job. They're looking for a job. You can't get unemployment insurance
benefits unless you're looking for a job. That's one of the rules of
the program. But with every five job seekers for one opening, with five
job seekers for every one opening, workers are unemployed because
there's simply not enough jobs yet. Even though in the last several
months we've been adding private sector jobs, about a millions jobs
we've created since the recovery began, there's still not enough jobs.
You see, during the Bush era they just did that much damage to the
economy. They lost about 800,000 jobs in the very month that Barack
Obama took office as President of the United States. So we're just
climbing out of this very deep hole that the Republican Congress and
George Bush put us in. But even though jobs are increasing, there's
still about five people looking for every one opening for a job. In
other words, even if every job opening were filled by an unemployed
worker, over 11 million workers would still be looking for a job,
because even though we have been doing a good job, the damage is so
severe that we've got a long way to go.
Now it's important to understand that even nonpartisan organizations
who look at these questions have a lot to tell us about it. The
independent Congressional Budget Office--they don't work for the
Republicans, don't work for the Democrats. They just work for you, the
American people, to try to give us the best information they can. The
independent Congressional Budget Office found that research suggests
that the effect of recent extensions in unemployment insurance benefits
on the duration of unemployment for recipients was rather small,
meaning the people don't stay on unemployment long. They use it while
they need it, and then they get another job. The duration for
unemployment--people just need it to get by. Sometimes it goes longer
than expected, particularly in an economy like this where we have so
much foreclosure crisis, so many hits to our economy.
But, you know what? People are looking for work. They're trying.
They're doing everything they can. They're doing the best that they
can. And this government of ours, which represents our people--of, by,
and for the people--should be there to extend unemployment benefits on
an emergency basis when we have a job crisis like the one we have right
now. And it's a shame and a national disgrace that this Congress could
not get two-thirds of the vote of this Congress to pass unemployment
insurance benefits; 150 people voted ``no.'' One hundred fifty Members
of Congress voted ``no.'' And because they refused to step up to the
plate and do what was right for the American people, about 2 million of
our fellow Americans by January 1 are going to be going without.
They're going to have a very grim set of holidays. And my heart aches
for them. But, by February, 4.4 million will be in extremely dire
straits.
And so I just want people to know, Mr. Speaker, that the people don't
have to take it. They can call, they can write, Mr. Speaker. As you
know, we live in a democracy. It's a free and open society and people
can let their voices be heard to their government that this kind of
behavior in Congress is not okay. Mr. Speaker, they can do that. And if
they did, I think it would be a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has never terminated federally funded jobless
benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is today. Let me
say that again: Congress has never terminated federally funded jobless
benefits when the unemployment rate was as high as it is now, 9.6.
Since the unemployment insurance system was founded 75 years ago, Mr.
Speaker, Congress has never terminated an emergency unemployment
program when the unemployment rate was even above 7.5 percent, let
alone 9.6 percent. Because it's irresponsible to the individual family
and because it's devastating to our economy at large.
Even following the 2001 Bush recession, the Republican-controlled
Congress maintained temporary Federal unemployment insurance programs
until the unemployment rate went down to 5.8. What is the difference
between our Republicans of today and those of even just a few years
ago? Maybe some people think, Mr. Speaker, I don't know, maybe they
think their political chances are better the more pain poor people have
to face.
If the current temporary program would be allowed to expire by the
end of November, which it is set for, it would be shorter than
temporary programs enacted in numerous years of recessions. This year,
if we let this program expire, we would have cut the emergency program
shorter than we did in 1990, in 2000, in the 1973 recessions. Why are
we so stingy now, Mr. Speaker? I don't know. I don't know. But I bet
you if the American people exercise their First Amendment rights, some
people would listen, because sometimes politicians can't see the light
until they feel the heat.
Unemployment insurance benefits have dramatically decreased poverty,
Mr. Speaker. And we're at a time when we have record poverty. But
because of unemployment insurance benefits, we fought back that poverty
and provided economic security to millions of middle-income American
families. Unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million
Americans out of poverty in 2009. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker,
because that's another one people really need to be focusing on:
unemployment insurance benefits kept an estimated 3.3 million Americans
out of poverty in 2009. This is a good thing. And now we're looking at
ending the program by the end of this month. That's wrong. Without
these benefits, the increase in poverty from 2008 to 2009 would have
been nearly 6.9 million rather than 3.6 million. So poverty would have
been twice what it was without our acting in the earlier times that we
did. Because we acted already, we were able to cut poverty to half the
rate that it would have been. But now we're letting it expire.
Now I also want to say almost a million children were kept out of
poverty in 2009 because of unemployment insurance benefits. Almost a
million children. We're talking about little ones that are trying to go
to school, trying to learn, developing brains. And because they were
able to get the basic decency from their government in unemployment
insurance benefits, they were able to stay out of poverty. But a
million children, a million little ones going into winter, going into
the cold months, going into the holidays are going to have to face that
poverty because our Congress would not act.

{time} 1620

I just want to say that that's wrong. The American children deserve
better from their government than they got today on this House floor.
I want to move on to tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, I want
to repeat some of the more salient points because maybe some folks just
got on C-SPAN. I just want to say 2 million Americans stand to lose
benefits during the holiday season because Congress failed to extend
unemployment insurance benefits--2 million. Mr. Speaker, 2 million
Americans stand to lose unemployment insurance benefits this holiday
season, and 2 million more could lose them by February 2011. These
Americans buy goods and services, stimulating our economy, which keeps
people employed, which keeps rents being paid, which keeps mortgages
being paid, and which keeps our economy moving toward recovery. Because
we're not acting the way we should, we are putting this recovery in

[[Page H7591]]

jeopardy. Is electoral success so important that you're willing to put
2 million more people into poverty? It's a shame.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to juxtapose this question of our refusal to
pass unemployment insurance benefits with what seems to be the thing
that everybody feels like talking about around Washington, which is
whether or not we are going to extend tax cuts, tax breaks, for the
richest Americans. Right now, the debate is:
Shall we extend the Bush tax cuts up to $250,000, which means that
people who make more than that will be able to have their tax breaks
extended for the amount below that, or will we just extend them for
all, up to the top 2 percent, which would mean extending them for
everyone?
If we extended them for everyone, that would cost us an extra $700
billion. The people who are most adamant and who scream the loudest
about deficits, debt, and spending are the first ones who want to make
sure that the richest Americans get their tax cuts to the tune of $700
billion. Mr. Speaker, we don't have the $700 billion, so where are we
going to get the $700 billion? We're going to borrow it. Our Republican
colleagues want us to borrow $700 billion and give it to the richest
Americans. So we wonder, Who are we going to borrow it from? Probably
from the Chinese. I don't know. We don't have it.
Also, according to their pledge to America, they want us to cut
education by about 20 percent. Is this a recipe for a competitive
America? Those people will say, Oh, we want America to be competitive.
They say that they want America to compete, so we're going to add to
the debt to the tune of $700 billion. We're going to borrow the money,
and we're going to cut education. The richest Americans can--I don't
know--buy more boats, stay in more luxury hotels, buy big, fat cigars,
and buy bottles of Cristal. I don't know what they do. I'm not one of
them. The point of the matter is it's wrong, and we ought to be
embarrassed to talk about it.
Now, some of our friends say, Oh, yeah, we've got to give the top 2
percent a tax break, too--they'll say--because it's going to help boost
jobs.
Wait a minute. Didn't we have these tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003?
Don't we have massive unemployment? Their program has failed. The
evidence is on the wall. It's there. Their program has failed. If tax
cuts are so great, why did we lose 800,000 jobs in the last month that
George Bush was the President of the United States? No. Forgive me.
841,000 jobs. Can't leave out those 41,000 jobs, because there were
41,000 people in those jobs. Why did we lose about 4 million jobs
during the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency if cutting taxes were
such a great idea and a panacea for everything?
I'm going to say, Mr. Speaker, that cutting taxes is not a bad thing
at all. It depends on who you cut them for. Cutting middle-income taxes
might actually help people. Cutting taxes for the richest Americans is
damaging to this economy and is unfair to the rest of us, and there are
a lot of wealthy people who agree with me. Because you know what? They
know that the economic ladder has got to stay in place. You can't live
in this great country and make all the money that living here has given
you the opportunity to make and then pull that ladder up behind you
once you've made it all. It's wrong to do.
You know, we Democrats/Progressives don't have any problem with
people coming up with a great idea and marketing it. People like it, so
they buy it. They make a lot of money. Okay. That's fine. The question
is, once you have used our roads to move your products around, once you
have used our public schools to educate your workforce, once you have
relied on our military to protect you, once you have used our police
force to protect your firms and all your assets and property, once you
have used our emergency medical services if, heaven forbid, you get a
heart attack from all that work and you need that service, once you use
all of these government services, once you drink the water which some
government worker has inspected to make sure is safe, once you eat the
meat which some government worker has inspected to make sure is safe
and you benefit from all of that and then you say, ``Oh, I don't want
to pay any taxes. I don't want to pay any taxes. I want to keep it all
just for me,'' there is a word for that--and it is ``greed.'' There is
no other word for it. I shudder when greed has been elevated to a
political philosophy.

We're not talking about a complete government takeover, which some
people are so happy to try to accuse us of. We're talking about a mixed
economy where the public and the private sectors are in reasonable
balance. That's all we're talking about. We cannot borrow $700 billion,
give it to the richest 2 percent of Americans and then cut our
educational system and say that we are that balanced, reasonable, mixed
public-private sector economy. We can't do it.
So I say that this middle-income tax cut--again, if you do make lots
of money, if you are the top 2 percent, your tax cut will be extended
from zero to $250,000. That's the thing. Everybody is going to still
have an extension, but you won't get it if you're above that. So that's
what we mean by a middle class or a middle-income tax cut. It's very
important to understand this. This is not something that's against the
rich folks. Hey, look. You know, there are a lot of good rich people.
The fact is many of them understand that the ladder of opportunity must
be there for everybody else, but there are some who figure, I've got
money. Skip you.
That's wrong. We need people who understand that this great country
has allowed them to make the money that they made and that the ladder
of opportunity needs to stay where it is.
I was talking to one fellow who said, Oh, we should have a tax cut
for everybody, not just for the 98 percent and down. We well-to-do
people do so much for the economy.
I said, Well, wait a minute. Didn't the rest of us do so much for
you? Didn't you brag to me about how you went to college on the GI
Bill? Who did that for you? That was the public. That was the American
people. Didn't you go to State University of ``Whatever''? Didn't you
tell me you were a member of the State patrol for a while before you
went into your business?
This is a real conversation I had with somebody who benefited so much
from the public but then didn't want to hand anything back.
Right now, I'm joined by one of my very favorite Members of Congress,
the Congressman from the great State of California.
Congressman, what do you say tonight?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, Mr. Ellison, I was in my office. Of course this
floor is constantly on the TV screen, so I looked up, and I said, Hey,
there's my man. There's the guy who is from the great upper Midwest,
who has seen the incredible downturn of the American economy. I know
that you've worked hard for your district to try to bring in those jobs
and to try to create the legislation that would bring the jobs into
that district. As you were talking, I said, I'm going to go over and
say just a couple of things in support of the message that you're
giving today, a message that over the last 2 years has been one of a
consistent effort by the Democratic House to stabilize the American
economy. We did that with the Wall Street bank bailout, which a lot of
people didn't like.

{time} 1630

I had problems with it, too. I think those Wall Street barons should
have paid a heavy price, but the price that they could not pay and
should not pay is the total collapse of the financial industry of the
world because we would wind up, mom and pop at home, whether you have a
401(k), which unfortunately became a 201(k), whatever, we did that and
it worked.
Then you came right back, the Democrats in this House and the
President came back with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 3
million jobs out of that, stabilizing once again the situation where
the jobs were in free-fall the last months actually of the Bush
administration in 2008, 800,000 jobs lost. But that began to turn
around, and so in 2009 we began to see a turnaround, a lessening of the
lost jobs. They continued to lose jobs, but nonetheless, each month
that went by there was fewer and fewer jobs lost, and then in 2010
we've actually seen the growth of jobs in America once again, not only
as a result of those two

[[Page H7592]]

pieces of legislation, but dozens and dozens of other bills that I was
fortunate enough to work on when I came here just over a year ago in a
special election.
It's been hard work. We've not had much help, and this is one of the
things that I find so disappointing having come here just a year ago,
and on all of those bills, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
the stimulus bill, the HIRE act that gave incentives to employers to go
hire people, the saving of the American automobile industry. The
Republicans voted against these bills.
On unemployment insurance, the Republicans voted against it. I mean
it's easy enough I suppose if you have a job not to worry about the
uninsured, but if you don't have a job, what are you going to do? How
do you keep a roof over your family's head? How do you provide the
food? Well, you do it by getting an unemployment insurance check,
which, actually--workers in America and employers in America have paid
into an insurance program year after year after year and that
uninsurance program provides the insurance when a person loses their
job.
I couldn't believe it today on the floor. We have more than 2 million
Americans whose unemployment check is going to run out during these
holidays. Between the end of Thanksgiving and New Year's, 2 million
Americans will lose their unemployment check. Now, the economy not's
running the way we want it to run, and hopefully you and I will have a
chance to talk about making it in America, making this economy once
again, but today, on this floor, not more than 3 hours ago, we were
unable to muster a two-thirds vote to pass an uninsurance check
extension so that people would have food, shelter, clothing, maybe even
a small gift for their children at Christmastime.
What are we doing here? If we are such--we, not we, the Democrats
voted en masse for this, but 143 Republicans, more than the one-third
to block, voted against this. We're talking about the ultimate Scrooge.
This would make Charles Dickens right up there on top with Scrooge on
Christmas, on the holiday season, when we ought to be generous. 143
Republicans this day voted to deny 2 million Americans enough money to
buy a gift for their child, to put a holiday meal on the table.
Okay, fine, I understand where they're coming from--no, I don't
understand where they're coming from. I don't get it but we need to
move forward. We need to move forward. I know you have been talking
about that. And we can do it. We can rebuild the American manufacturing
industry. It's there for us to do it if we use wise public policy, and
I know you have been talking about this, and I'd love to engage in a
dialogue with you and see if we can share some thoughts here.
Mr. ELLISON. Well, you know, Congressman, I just want to thank you
for joining me down here for the progressive message. It's really
always a joy to be with you. I was spending a little bit of time
talking about how this denial of the unemployment insurance benefits
extension absolutely has a devastating effect to the individual family.
It also has a devastating effect to the economy because consumer demand
is bolstered by people having some income, even when they're
unemployed.
Mr. GARAMENDI. It is a local store. If you have no money, you are not
going to do one thing for this economy except be an additional burden
to it. And so if you have an unemployment check--and let's keep in
mind, that's something that the workers and employers have paid into so
that when you lose your job, you have a continuation of income and you
use that money to go down and buy some clothing for your kid, stimulate
the economy, give the retailer--you buy bread, you buy food, you're
able to pay your rent, you're not going to have to face that
foreclosure and help drive down the prices of homes in your
neighborhood. It's all there. It makes so much sense on the economic
level.
But on the human, moral level, about where we are as Americans, it's
not the fault of that worker out there that lost his job that he
doesn't have a job. Many, many reasons for it. Wall Street, greed on
Wall Street, all of those things. We can talk about that later, but
it's not that worker's fault. It's not his kid's fault. Can't we just
muster enough compassion to give those families an opportunity during
this holiday season and on into the new year enough money to stay in
their home?
What are they are going to do, go out and live in their car? They
can't afford to buy the gas, I guess they can become the homeless. 143
Republicans this day said go homeless, go live in your car, don't worry
about the holiday gifts, don't worry about your children because they
will have no food, they'll have no place to live. What are they
thinking in this House? 143 Republicans said ``no.'' They blocked, 7
days before Thanksgiving, they blocked an opportunity for 2 million
American families to have enough money to put a holiday meal on their
table, to put shelter over their family.
Mr. ELLISON. Congressman, thank you for pointing those things out.
One of things that continues to stay on my mind is how some of the
rationale for this ``no'' position that was taken by so many of our
colleagues in the Republican caucus is that with, well, you know, if
you give people unemployment insurance benefits, maybe that will
dissuade them from looking for a job. Do you have any views on that
particular mode of thinking?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, apparently those people that say that haven't
been looking for a job.
Mr. ELLISON. It's easy to say when it's not you.
Mr. GARAMENDI. It's easy enough to say, but when you're out hunting
for a job, you know these are difficult times. And we're going to make
efforts to turn that around, and we've talked about that a little
already, but the jobs are not there. We need to move this economy
forward, and then as we do so, those jobs will come back. And let's
understand, this is not a bunch of welfare. A lot of people are against
welfare. We understand that, but these are middle class Americans----
Mr. ELLISON. That is right.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Who had a good paying job 2 years ago, a year and a
half ago, 6 months ago. These are men and women who over the years have
been the backbone of this Nation, middle class America, and yet 143 of
our colleagues on the Republican side didn't see it that way. I guess
they thought, well, if they don't have any money they will go to work.
I would ask any one of those 143 to leave here today and go out and
see if they could find a job, and if I were an employer and somebody
had that amount of compassion, I know where I would send them. I'd send
them out the door and good-bye.
Mr. ELLISON. Now, Congressman, you're not talking about one of those
big lobbyist jobs. You mean a real job that makes you put your back
into it, right, that so many Americans have to turn to, to be able to
meet their daily needs.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Go out, let's see if you can pay the building--let's
see if you can go out and run a backhoe, dig a ditch, or operate a bus
or train or whatever. No, no, no, and when they lose their job here, as
they should for this vote alone--they should for this vote alone lose
their job here--no, they will go down to K Street, and they will get
one of those high-powered office building jobs and they'll come back
and lobby us and try to tell us what we should do. I will tell them
what they should do--they should take a hike right out of this building
because they're the super Scrooges of this session.
Mr. ELLISON. Congressman, thank you for making those points.
I just want to see if I can also get your views because as we're
talking about denying families basic money right before Thanksgiving,
right before New Year's, right before Christmas, right before Hanukkah,
right before so many American holidays, we are also really talking
about whether we should extend tax cuts to the top 2 percent to the
tune of about $700 billion for us which we don't have and we'll have to
borrow. I wonder if you have any thoughts on this.

{time} 1640

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, this is another issue that's going to be before
the Congress in the next couple of weeks, and that is, what are we
going to do about the 2001, 2003 tax reductions that expire on December
31?

[[Page H7593]]

Those tax reductions were pushed forward by George W. Bush and the
Republicans, who then controlled both this House and the Senate. And
they wrote the tax law so that the middle-income got a little bit. It
was worthwhile. It was a good reduction. But the real reduction went to
those with the big bucks, those who had more than $250,000, $500,000,
$1 million, $1 billion annual incomes. They got the big bucks.
And what happened was, we saw, once again, the widening of the gap
between the working men and women of the middle class and the high and
the mighty, the top 1 percent of this Nation who now control 70, 80
percent of all the wealth of the Nation. They certainly have the big
salaries. And do they need a tax break at the expense of an unemployed
worker from a factory in your district, an unemployed worker from a
factory or from a school in my district? I don't think so.
Let's talk about what it is. For those making $1 million a year, the
tax cut is worth $83,000 a year. Now, you tell me how many out there in
middle America are making $83,000 a year. Well, we know that there are
2 million that are unemployed that certainly aren't. But if you took
that money, that $83,000 for all those millionaires, you could create 3
million jobs that would pay $30,000 a year. Not a great deal, but a
living wage for 3 million Americans.
So we've got choices here. We've got choices. You are going to give
the wealthy even more, $83,000 a year--that's just for millionaires.
And there are billionaires out there who will make even more out of
this tax cut. What are they going to do with it? Well, I guess they
could buy a Mercedes-Benz E-Class which does cost about $82,000. Maybe
we would like to think of them with a nice big, fat cigar. They could
buy 2,000 of those cigars every year for the next decade, and they
could light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. Now that's a
worthy way to do it. Or would you rather have 3 million Americans
earning $30,000 a year or, in this case, even an unemployment insurance
check?
And one of the things, Mr. Ellison, some days I want to stand up here
on the floor and just scream and say, What are you guys thinking?
Deficit reduction. Oh, my goodness, we just finished an election. And
deficit reduction was on every advertisement. We have got to deal with
the deficit. We have got to deal with the deficit. Well, what the
Republicans are proposing is a tax break for those who earn more than
$250,000 a year.
Let me back up here. Every American taxpayer, every American taxpayer
will receive a tax reduction up to $250,000. If they are making more
than that, the tax break that they have had for the last decade would
end.
Now, my Republican colleagues want to extend that tax cut for the
wealthy. What it means is an additional $700 billion of deficit over
the next decade, $700 billion. So you can't talk out of both sides of
your mouth here. Either you are a deficit hawk and you vote against a
tax cut for the wealthy, or you are a hypocrite and you vote for a tax
cut for the wealthy and increase the deficit by $700 billion.
Mr. ELLISON. Now, Congressman, another thought I wanted to get your
views on here, it's been puzzling me. These folks say it with such
conviction that they must believe it. They say, Well, if we cut these
taxes, this will lead to an economic boom. But that is trouble because,
why did we end up in such an economic malaise, because we've had these
tax cuts in place since 2001 and 2003; and this decade has been the
decade of the slowest economic growth since World War II? So if tax
cuts are the answer for everything, why didn't we have great economic
growth, and why do we have such an economic recession now since we've
had these tax cuts in place?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, because tax cuts, particularly at the upper
income levels, don't equate to economic growth. You are quite correct,
the George W. Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 helped create the
extraordinary deficit that we currently have. There were a couple of
other things, two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, that were not paid for by
American money but rather by borrowed Chinese money and the tax cuts
and the ultimate near collapse of the economy in 2007 and 2008. Those
all added to the huge deficit.
But it's also, just as you have pointed out, clear by the employment
statistics that following the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that the number
of people employed actually reduced by nearly 600,000 people over the
period of the next 5 years. So, you know, it doesn't equate.
Now, we need to provide the current tax cuts for those in the middle
class that are earning less than $250,000. And, really, for every
American earning $250,000 or less--if they make more, they're going to
pay a little more--it's very, very clear that if we continue to provide
the tax cuts for the very wealthy, it's not going to create more jobs.
For those who need the money, they're going to pay their mortgage,
they're going to make that car payment, they're going to buy food,
they're going to buy clothing, they're going to invest that tax money
into the economy, stimulating the economy. For those that are wealthy,
I guess they will go buy another Mercedes-Benz, which I think is
manufactured overseas.
Mr. ELLISON. I think you're right. Congressman, let's now turn to our
good friend from the great State of Tennessee. Congratulations on your
reelection, my friend. Congressman, we've been talking about economic
justice, the denial of the unemployment insurance extension, the Bush
tax cuts. What are your thoughts tonight?
Mr. COHEN. Well, I thank you for having this hour and for letting me
join you, each of you.
These are the issues that are important to the American people. And I
tried to address some of them in 1 minute. You can't discuss them in 1
minute. One of the issues we heard about was the deficit. The deficit
was created by the Congress that was begun in the beginning of this
century. The Congress in 1994, when President Clinton was President, a
Democratic Congress with all Democratic votes passed a balanced budget
bill that balanced the budget by the year 2000, and that balanced
budget with a surplus was squandered with Bush tax cuts that cost
tremendous amounts of money and a trillion-dollar war in Iraq without
weapons of mass destruction and without a well-defined purpose and
without the truth behind the purpose, I believe, of that war. And then
an additional war in Afghanistan that was made the secondary war. This
has created the great deficit that we have now, and you've got to
correct that through income or through cuts.

What has been recommended by the bipartisan panel the President set
up bears looking at as a beginning. It's going to take some tough
decisions, but we also need revenue; and the revenue can't be across-
the-board extensions for the Bush tax cuts. And to the upper 2 percent,
as Mr. Garamendi was talking, they don't spend that money. My friends
all drive Chryslers, I must make amends; dear Lord get me a Mercedes-
Benz. That's an old sixties song. That's what they buy, is a Mercedes-
Benz or maybe something from Cartier, which doesn't really stimulate
the economy. It might tickle the fancy of somebody, but it doesn't
stimulate the economy.
We've got to make some difficult decisions and earmarks aren't the
issue. Earmarks don't take away from the deficit. It just means that
rather than your Congressperson from your district who knows your
needs, it will be somebody in Washington spending that money. The
earmarks need to be done in a transparent manner, and this Congress has
seen that they are published. The people have to say that they are
theirs, they have no financial interest, they don't have a personal
stake, and they can't be for a for-profit company.
Earmarks in and of themselves are not bad. They just need to be
cleaned up, and this Congress has cleaned them up. But the fact is, we
need to make some difficult decisions. I'm prepared to make those
difficult decisions on some long-term economic policies that will help
clean up the deficit, which we need to do. I don't agree with much of
what was put in the bipartisan proposal that was just recently
announced by Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson, but it's a starting point; and
it should not be summarily dismissed as it was by some from my party.
On the other hand, the issue of earmarks is a subterfuge or just an
issue to be thrown out there which has nothing to do with the deficit.

[[Page H7594]]

{time} 1650

It's going to take some tough decisions, and the Department of
Defense can't be off the table. Some say, Oh, you can't deal with the
Department of Defense. There's a lot of money in the defense budgets
that's there because of who manufactures the weapons and not the
purpose of the weapons, and there's a lot of waste in the Department of
Defense, and we need to look there as well. And we're going to have to
make some large cuts, and that's where most of the money is.
So I join with you. I appreciate, Mr. Ellison, your work. I
appreciate Mr. Stein's quoting you in Time Magazine when you cited me
as part of your team, and I'm going to be part of your team. And, Mr.
Garamendi, I appreciate what you've done from California and in your
leading these discussions. And I just want to be a part of the ending
of this Congress that does some economic justice and that we try to see
that economic justice is not forgotten in the 112th.
Mr. ELLISON. Well, I'm going to leave the last word to Congressman
Garamendi, but I just want to say before we close out, because we are
getting close to the end of the hour, this Democratic Caucus is
resolute. In this last election, you know, okay, we got our nose
bloodied a little bit. But you know what? We are focused on the best
benefit and the welfare of the American people. We will not bend. We
will not bow. We will stay here talking about Making It In America,
talking about jobs, talking about renewable energy, talking about
manufacturing, talking about infrastructure, fighting back these unjust
economic policies which skew our economy so that we pull up the ladder
of economic opportunity. We're not going to allow it.
I'm going to let Congressman Garamendi give the last word. And I want
to thank you, Congressman Cohen. You are a joy to work with, a
pleasure, and your wit, your charm, and your knowledge are always a
benefit.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very, very much. And I
really want to congratulate you on the success of your reelection. And
I know why you were reelected--because you have a heart. You've got a
moral center that's focused clearly upon the needs of the men and women
in your district who struggle every day to put food on their table, to
take care of their children, make sure they have a good upbringing, the
clothes, the education, and a roof over their head. I mean, that's
really where we ought to be going. That should be our moral compass,
and it certainly is yours, and I know it is yours also, Mr. Cohen.
Because of that, you're back here.
But there's some real serious issues that divide us here in this
Congress. We saw one today--the issue of the unemployment insurance.
You know, 143 of our Republican colleagues blocked that payment that
would give men and women an opportunity to have enough money to take
care of the holidays that are ahead of us, put food on the table, maybe
buy a few gifts.
There is another thing that we need to do, and we've been working at
that for more than 2 years, in almost every case without any help
whatsoever from our Republican colleagues, and that is to get America
back to work. The Recovery Act, 3 million jobs, no Republican votes.
The HIRE Act, another few couple of hundred thousand jobs, no
Republican votes.
Even when it came down to putting teachers in schools, to keep them
there--in my own State, 16,600 teachers are in the classroom because we
put some more money on the table to help the States and local
communities--police and firemen the same, not one Republican vote.
Talk about the deficit forever. Yeah, you can talk about the deficit,
but it comes down to a point, are you willing to take action to deal
with the deficit, and our Republican colleagues have said a resounding
``no'' thus far. They want a $700 billion increase in the deficit to
finance a tax break for the wealthiest part of America's society. This
is hypocritical. This is wrong.
And it's time for us to go. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very much. Mr.
Cohen, delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you about these
fundamental American issues.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. COHEN. I would just like to make one statement, Mr. Rohrabacher,
if you would permit before.
You know, I think it was Wavy Gravy that said, if you remember the
sixties you weren't part of the sixties. Well, when you get into your
sixties, sometimes you forget things. It was, I believe, Janis Joplin,
and it was: My friends all have Porsches. I must make amends. Lord,
won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz.

____________________