Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 153 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 153 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6906-H6912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 2000
THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gowdy). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
I'm Congressman Keith Ellison. We're claiming this hour on behalf of
the Progressive Caucus, which tonight is going to feature a number of
critical issues, all focusing on the importance of the rights of women
and the assault they have been under in this Congress.
To lead off our hour and to get started, I first want to introduce a
good colleague from the great State of California--Oakland, California,
who's going to lead off our hour.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been a champion of the rights of all
people. She has been a champion for peace and justice around the world.
And she has been an unswerving champion for civil and human rights not
only for women, but for all people around the world.
So let me first recognize, on behalf of this Special Order hour,
Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
Congresswoman Lee, I yield the floor to you.
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much. I want to thank our chair
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for yielding and for your
amazing leadership on so many tough issues that we're dealing with.
Tonight we're joining with the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, of
which I'm also a member. And so I'm very pleased to be down here with
my colleagues to discuss this critical issue, a very sad day, quite
frankly, for women in this country, and especially for poor women, for
African American women, for women of color.
This bill which was passed today is really just the newest attack in
what I have been calling from day one the Republican ``war on women.''
Today, instead of focusing on ways to find jobs for Americans, the
Republicans are focusing on eliminating family planning programs,
undercutting women's right to choose, and returning our country,
unfortunately, to the days of back-alley abortions, which I remember
very well.
H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act--can you believe that, ``Protect Life
Act''--forces coverage for women to be dropped from State exchanges,
which will cut off millions of women from affordable, comprehensive
health care. In fact, this bill makes it virtually impossible for any
health care plan to offer abortion coverage and allows hospitals to
refuse to provide lifesaving care to a woman who needs an abortion to
protect her own life. This is unprecedented, and it should have been
rejected on this floor.
This legislation really though is part of a coordinated, nationwide
war on women. Just last week, the Republican-controlled House Foreign
Affairs Committee voted to defund the United Nations Population Fund,
an organization that supports lifesaving activities for women and
families in post-conflict and disaster situations. And before that, the
very same committee voted

[[Page H6907]]

to reinstate the Global Gag Rule, which prevents health care providers
from even discussing or offering comprehensive health services to women
and girls. This affects women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa who bear
the brunt of the global AIDS pandemic. And of course, as usual, the
Republicans have targeted Planned Parenthood, putting increased
requirements on how this nonprofit, which provides affordable health
care to low-income women, black women, women of color, Latino women,
Asian-Pacific American women--if Planned Parenthood wants to receive
Federal funding, they have to stop, mind you, providing women
reproductive health choices, which really is only a tiny percentage of
what Planned Parenthood offers to women.
Sadly, it does not end there. It's nothing less than shocking that
after holding the fiscal year 2011 budget hostage over their
controversial policy proposals, the anti-choice leaders in the House
seem eager to pick up some of the very same fights once again this
year.
The Republican appropriations bill continued this attack on women's
reproductive health by eliminating title X, the Nation's family
planning program, defunding Planned Parenthood, cutting funding for
science-based teenage pregnancy prevention initiatives--prevention,
mind you--and redirecting those funds into failed abstinence-only
programs. And the list goes on.
So let's just return to the battle, though, that took place today. In
putting forward this very divisive bill, Republicans made the false
claim that the Affordable Care Act needs to be amended to ensure that
United States taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions. The fact
of the matter is that it's very disingenuous, and it's just wrong. And
it's really amazing that that argument could even be put out there
because the fact is the Hyde amendment has been in effect for decades,
since 1976, and the Affordable Care Act continues the Hyde amendment
policy, despite my personal view that it should be overturned.

The Republicans continue to invent new ways to try and erode and deny
women their constitutionally guaranteed rights purely on religious
beliefs and on ideology. This is a democracy; this is not a theocracy.
The religious views of some--and I am a woman of faith, but I have to
tell you, the religious views, the personal religious views of some
should not dictate public policy for all.
I'm also aware of the fact that sometimes we as a Nation really don't
give young women and girls the right tools to prevent unintended
pregnancies in the first place. But the fact of the matter is this
Republican war on women and this bill will put more lives at risk,
isolate us from women who have no money, who are poor--especially women
of color, who have become really central targets of these efforts.
Evidence of this is seen all over the country, and very recently in the
form of very offensive billboards that denigrated African American
women in my own district in Oakland, California--which we fought
against and which were quickly taken down. Now, by using a combination
or at least trying to use a combination of law and guilt, these efforts
undermine really the basic health care rights of women, African
American women, low-income women, women of color.
As SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective states,
``Black women make decisions every day about whether to parent or not,
not just whether to give birth. Those who think they should dictate our
choices won't be there when the child is born to help us fight for
better education, increase childcare, keep our kids out of jail, send
our children to college, or get affordable health care.''
This war on women must stop. We cannot and we must not allow the
Republicans to turn back the clock on women, on choice, and on our
access to health care. So I urge my colleagues to fight this war, fight
against these unnecessary and these harmful initiatives that keep
coming forward that continue to do damage to women and that continue to
try to erode our basic health care and basic human rights. We need to
create jobs rather than continue to deny health care to women.
Thank you, Mr. Ellison, our cochair of the Progressive Caucus, for
your leadership. Once again, I want to thank you for your leadership on
our jobs initiative, on each and every effort that the Congressional
Black Caucus has mounted. And thank you for joining with the
Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus in our efforts to protect women and
protect our basic rights.
Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlelady from California, Barbara
Lee, a fearless, unrelenting struggler for the rights of all people.
Tonight we're here with the Progressive Caucus. We're talking about
the harm that H.R. 358 would do to women's rights. It would hurt the
rights of women in three important ways. It would deprive women of
comprehensive health insurance coverage, eliminate emergency lifesaving
protections, and undermine health care benefits in the Affordable Care
Act. For the first time, private health care insurance coverage for
women will be restricted.
And so to carry the discussion further, and from a very important
perspective, my good friend from New York--also a tireless fighter for
the rights of all people, a leader in the area of choice and women's
rights--let me yield the floor to Carolyn Maloney.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Congressman Ellison, who is the chair of the
Progressive Caucus. Thank you for your leadership on this and in so
many other areas. And thank you for having this Special Order on this
disturbing vote that took place today in the Congress.
There is no question and there can be no debating the fact that the
bill that the Republicans put forward endangers women's health, puts
their lives at risk, and intrudes on their constitutionally protected
liberties.
The bill extends the reach of government more cynically and in a very
profoundly disturbing way. And that is why President Obama put out a
veto threat on Wednesday that he would veto any bill that would
restrict insurers from paying for abortions, saying, in the President's
words, ``it goes too far.'' And I'd like to quote from the President's
statement on this.
``Longstanding Federal policy prohibits Federal funds from being used
for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of
the woman would be endangered.''

{time} 2010

The Affordable Care Act preserved this prohibition and included
policies to ensure that Federal funding is segregated from any private
dollars used to fund abortions for which Federal funding is prohibited.
So that's very, very clear, and I don't understand why the Republicans
forced a vote on this, like the other anti-women, anti-choice, anti-
respect of a woman's right to choose and her judgment have failed so
far in the Senate.
So I feel that instead of looking at creating jobs, which is the
priority, and the Republican majority has consistently said that jobs
and job creation is their priority, but then they spend their time on
debating a bill that even their own Members admit the President will
veto and it is going nowhere in the Senate. So instead of creating
jobs, they remain focused, Mr. Ellison, on creating obstacles for women
to access safe, legal, and badly needed health care.
This bill, H.R. 358, is an attack on women's access to reproductive
health services and our fundamental right to lifesaving medical care.
It is stunning in its scope, appalling in its indifference, and
outrageous in its arrogance.
Americans want Congress to create jobs, strengthen the middle class,
and find bipartisan consensus. So it's time to end this attack on women
and get to work on our top priority, or what should be our top
priority, creating jobs.
This bill is just another attempt to keep women down and back and not
to protect their constitutional rights and access to the health care
that they feel they deserve.
I thank the gentleman for organizing this and for yielding to me.
Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, I wonder if you would yield for a
question.
Mrs. MALONEY. Absolutely.
Mr. ELLISON. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
wrote, in order for women to receive the best health care and disease
prevention, they must have access to all medically appropriate, legal
medical procedures, regardless of the ability to pay. The American
College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians opposes

[[Page H6908]]

legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical
care. These proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our
patients and put government between a physician and a patient.
My question to you is: This bill, H.R. 358, the very deceptively
titled Protect Life Act, does this bill have scientific and medical
backing behind it as the opposition to this bill has? In other words,
do they have trained medical professionals operating on the basis of
science supporting their position?
I yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. MALONEY. No, they do not. In fact, the scientists and the
medical professions all support access to all medically appropriate
legal medical procedures. There are some times when the fetus is not--
could not live or has died and is in jeopardy of causing, literally,
the destruction of organs or even death of the woman. So this is, I
would say, a life-taking bill from the health and welfare. And this
bill also allows hospitals to deny lifesaving care. This is a big
change in our values and our procedures in this country.
And I want to point out very importantly, Mr. Chairman, that at the
same time they are restricting reproductive choices, Republicans are
limiting access to family planning and primary care by their efforts to
defund Planned Parenthood, which is a primary care provider to most
women for their basic health in this country. And these actions I would
label just plain too extreme.
Mr. ELLISON. The gentlelady has been very eloquent about the assault
on women's health. If you don't mind, given that you are a member of
the Joint Economic Committee, which is a bicameral committee,
bipartisan committee, I think, in the Congress, I wonder if you don't
mind talking with me just a little while about the assault on women's
economic prospects.
In your opinion, Congresswoman Maloney, how will assaults and cuts to
Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security impact women, given that
women statistically live longer than men and have a greater
representation for use of those important programs? Are we seeing not
just the health but also the economic viability of women under threat,
as well as seeing important programs that women rely on
disproportionately cut into?
I yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. MALONEY. It is true that women disproportionately rely on
government programs and, regrettably, women are the largest segment,
older women are the largest segment of people living in poverty. So the
discrimination that has existed in pay, there is still, for over 30
years, an unexplained gap between men and women, the pay gap, well over
20 percent; and this then translates into your Social Security--less
Social Security, less pension--and the need for Social Security,
Medicaid, and Medicare to help women.
And also, a lot of women that are around the age of 55, when their
spouses die and they've been stay-at-home-mothers and wives, they lose
the coverage that their husbands have, and there is a gap that's not
there until they reach Medicare age of 65. So they rely
disproportionately on these safety net programs.
So any cuts--and I hear from my constituents, I know that you do,
too, that say: I can't absorb another cut to my Medicare; I can't
absorb a cut to my Social Security. And I believe that's one reason why
Democrats have fought so hard to keep that safety net in place for
working men and women in our country.
Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentlelady shedding some light on this
issue because the fact is that today we were looking at a bill that
would restrict women's health care access.
But you know that we have been trying to fend off assaults on the
viability of women's economic situation. We still know that women earn
about 80 cents for every dollar men make. This is unexplained, or it is
explained. It's explained by gender discrimination.
And I think it's important for even men to take account of this
important fact, that if your wife or partner is being discriminated
against in the workplace because she's a woman, then your total family
income is being hurt because of sex discrimination in the workplace.
It's important that men and women come together to fight these attacks
on women's rights because, even though the direct victims of this kind
of discrimination are women, this invariably hurts the entire family,
and so this is everybody's business to stand up for the rights of all
people.
I tell you, one of the things that really concerns me is this gap in
pay between men and women. The median weekly--women earn about 81.2
percent of what men earn. In addition to that, they have assaults on
their access to health care. When you add these things up, what does
this mean in terms of the majority's commitment to women's rights? What
does it all add up to?
I wonder if the gentlelady might offer her views on this subject.
I yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. MALONEY. I think all of those efforts, whether it's the Pitts
bill that passed today, I think it's a very dangerous bill that
threatens women's ability to even purchase private health insurance
that includes abortion coverage with their own money, and codifies
broad and troubling conscience provisions. And it's another attempt to
unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-
choice laws that will harm women's health.

{time} 2020

That's an anti-woman agenda that just passed this great body. And
when you talk about the assaults on programs that women
disproportionately rely on, it is another step that will keep women
down and back. And I'm proud of the Democrats for standing up for
women, children, and families. You rightfully pointed out that when you
discriminate against a woman, you discriminate against her husband and
her children. And you and I know that it takes two working parents
sometimes two jobs by each parent to pay the bills and keep the food on
the table. So these are very serious concerns and ways that we need to
fight back and stand up for the women of America.
Mr. ELLISON. Now, Congresswoman Maloney, I know you might have to
run, but I appreciate your standing here with me tonight because I
think that the people of America, Mr. Speaker, need to hear from a
person like yourself, Congresswoman Maloney, who has been laboring in
the vineyards of economic and civil rights, both, for a few years now.
You know what you're talking about, you've been doing this work, you've
served the community for many years, and I just want to see if I can
get your views on another issue, and that is that one of the things
that Republicans have been doing is having this program to cut, cut,
cut government services, which, of course, has led to reductions in
public employees.
So, for example, while the private sector has added about 1.7 million
jobs over the last 12 months--of course, during the Bush administration
we were losing jobs--the public sector has lost about 400,000 jobs.
When you consider the fact that women are disproportionately likely to
work for the public sector, their employment decline has been
particularly hit when public sector employees get laid off.
So I want to keep connecting the dots tonight, if I may. We started
out the conversation with the cuts to women's health in this
deceptively entitled bill, the so-called--I don't even want to repeat
it because it is so wrong, but the Protect Life Act, actually it's a
``not to protect women's life'' act.
Mrs. MALONEY. That's a better name.
Mr. ELLISON. But then we move on to cuts to important programs that
older women are disproportionately relying on, we move to the wage gap,
and now we're seeing that these cuts to public employees are falling
more heavily on the shoulders of women.
You mentioned an agenda. Are we really talking about an agenda here,
not just a single program but a whole agenda?
I yield to the gentlelady.
Mrs. MALONEY. Well, the gentleman is correct to connect the dots, and
you are absolutely correct that when you cut education and health care,
these are the two areas that women are employed in predominately. In
many cases they have achieved leadership positions in these two fields.
Yet these are the two areas that have been cut the most in the
municipal areas across the country that have hurt our States and our
cities.
And the gentleman is very correct to point out that you cannot cut
your way to prosperity. Many economists

[[Page H6909]]

have come out in support of President Obama's jobs bill, including two
Nobel laureates. And one economist that I like to read because he is
employed by the private sector, which means if he's wrong he's going to
get fired, and he was a Republican economist in that he was the chief
analyst for Senator McCain when McCain ran for President, and this is
Mr. Zandi. And Mr. Zandi said that President Obama's economic plan, the
jobs bill that he's put out, would create next year 1.9 million new
jobs, add 2 percentage points to the GDP, and also cut the unemployment
rate by at least 1 percent. I use his numbers since he was Senator
McCain's adviser and economist.
But there is a drumbeat of economists across the country that are
saying you cannot cut your way out of a recession and that we are
getting dangerously close to a double-dip when you combine all these
massive cuts with what's happening in Europe and the instability with
the countries' finances and certain of our allies, and this is an
extreme challenge here at home. And economists have universally said
that we need to invest and continue to work to get the economy moving
by investing in job-creating areas such as the infrastructure bank and
such as rebuilding our bridges and making sure they're safe.
One part that I particularly like as a former teacher is the plan to
rehab schools and make them ready for the 21st century. That will
employ people across this country and invest in making our schools
appropriate. I know that even in the great State of New York, some of
our schools are not properly wired for computers. Mr. Ellison, when you
and I were in school, all you needed was a pencil. But, today, our
young people need computers. They are competing not with the people in
the class but with people around the world. And they need to have high-
tech access, and our schools have to be wired for the 21st century.
And the investment in creating good jobs by building high-speed rail
to move us into the 21st century and repairing our infrastructure with
our roads and our trains in so many ways, and also making sure that our
teachers, our police and our fire are not laid off during this
recession when we need to invest in helping America.
Every economist will tell us the best investment we can make for the
future of our country is to invest in education. We can't afford to not
be competitive with modern schools and not competitive with the proper
number of teachers so that our classrooms are not so overcrowded. So
that is a particular area that I like in this particular jobs program.
Mr. ELLISON. I like the jobs bill as well. It's too bad that the
American Jobs Act was not even able to be debated in the Senate
yesterday. You would think that we could debate the bill at least. If
Republicans have different ideas about job creation than we do as
Democrats, I'm okay with that. Let's debate it, and let's get it out on
the floor. But they don't even want to have the debate. You mentioned
the public sector getting support.
Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to applaud what you just said. I truly do
believe that there is no idea that is so frightening or threatening
that it can't be debated in the United States Congress. And so I agree
with you. Let's have a debate. The President has put forward his
program. Let's see what the Republican program is. Let's bring it down,
have it debated, and let's have the economists across the country and
across the world weigh in on which program is going to get the economy
moving and move us with greater strength in the growth of our economy.
Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, as you know, the President
challenged them, the Republicans, to do this. He said, look, I'm
putting my bill up here, you bring yours up here, and we'll see which
one creates more jobs. And folks like Mark Zandi, an economist who has
advised both Republicans and Democrats, took an evaluation. He said the
Republican plan is not likely to create any jobs next year. Well,
people are employed this year and next year. And what are they doing
about it? Well, they're just cutting basic services in local
government, they're getting rid of health regulations in the EPA,
they're doing things like creating cultural fights, like the one they
did today, trying to sort of divide Americans based on people's deeply
held views about the issue of abortion when we need to be getting
people back to work, which is, in my view, trying to take our eye off
the ball.
But I just wanted to throw out a couple of facts that I think may
contribute to the dialogue. Here's one: In September, 2011, a month
that just passed, the public sector lost 34,000 jobs. Eighty-two
percent of those jobs were women's jobs. This is an important fact.
This is according to the National Women's Law Center. And then also,
the damage in the public sector was driven largely by cuts to local
governments' education. I'll say that again. And, Congresswoman
Maloney, you're a former teacher, so I know this is close to your
heart. The damage in the public sector was largely by cuts to the local
governments' education.
In this field, one that is nearly three-quarters women, 24,400 jobs
were lost from August to September. Since the recovery began in 2009,
this field has lost more than 250,000 jobs. What does it mean when we,
as a society, disinvest in public education?

{time} 2030

One thing it means is that women workers will be hit harder because
that's who three-quarters of our teachers are. It also means that our
young people will be deprived.
As a person who has been in the classroom, Congresswoman Maloney,
what does that mean when a classroom goes from 20 kids to 35 kids? What
does it mean to the kids who might not be catching on to the lesson or
who may have a learning disability? I mean, is it even possible for a
competent, caring teacher to teach all the kids given that some may
need extra help?
Mrs. MALONEY. There is scientific data that, as schools are
overcrowded, the quality of the teaching goes down. That's very
troubling when you talk about the hemorrhaging of so many jobs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 14 million
people out of work, and there are 3 million jobs that are out there
now. So, if we could miraculously fill those 3 million jobs overnight,
there would still be 11 million Americans out of work and looking for
jobs. For every job opening, there are five people, at least, standing
in line for that job.
What I find particularly troubling is that many of these people are
young people who have invested in their education and who are burdened
with huge student loans, but they can't find employment. They are
facing a terrible situation. Studies show that, if you can't find
employment in the early years of your career, it affects your earnings
and your self-confidence and your productivity for the rest of your
life. For no fault of theirs, they are confronting, really, the worst
employment situation in my lifetime and, really, in decades.
So we need to work together. If there were one area in which the
Republicans and Democrats should work together, it's in creating jobs
and moving our economy forward. Regretfully, some people don't want to
do anything until the 2012 election, but the people who are out of work
can't afford to wait until 2012. It is really incumbent on us to act
now to help them.
Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, you just mentioned a moment ago
this idea of reinvesting in our schools. Today, I had a visit from a
number of superintendents in my State of Minnesota. They were not all
from the Fifth Congressional District, which I'm honored to represent,
but they were from a cross-section around the State.
They told me that there were literally nearly 100 different school
districts going to the voters for a referendum so that they could pay
their basic expenses because the State government is backing off its
commitment to education because the Federal Government is backing off
its commitment.
The fact of the matter is we have a disturbing trend here.
They said, Look, if we could just get the part of the American Jobs
Act passed that would help us with these old and outdated and rupturing
boilers, these old, beat-up pipes, this poor ventilation, these windows
that are not opening and closing properly--if we could get some help
with our capital budget--that would free up money for

[[Page H6910]]

us to hire teachers and to do some real instruction.
What do you think of that part of the American Jobs Act which goes to
this issue of investing in our schools and in keeping our teachers out
there and preventing 280,000 teachers from being laid off? What do you
think about this idea of, really, just making sure that the
infrastructure of our schools is sound for our kids and for the people
working in the schools?
Mrs. MALONEY. You focused, really, on one of the critical parts of
the President's jobs proposal--modernizing our schools.
Not only would it help you through this period by creating good-
paying jobs to modernize the schools and to keep the teachers working--
and, I would say, the police and fire--but it also invests in better
education, a better environment for our young people to learn and grow,
and to modernize the schools to the extent that they are wired
appropriately for the 21st century. These are important areas that we
need to look at and think about.
I also want to point out the unemployed. The jobs aren't out there,
so when you don't continue the unemployment insurance, there is no hope
for these people. It's better for them to continue looking for a job
and to continue trying and not to give up hope so that they continue
working towards that end.
I just want to tell you how much I enjoyed sharing with you
information on the jobs program for the President and, really, of the
opposition's agenda--our friends on the other side of the aisle--to
keep women down and back, of disproportionately cutting programs that
aid women, of disproportionately going after, literally, their
constitutional rights to make the choices that are legal in our country
which provide the best health care for them.
The Progressive Caucus has always stood up for women, children, and
families, and I want to thank you and the caucus in a programmatic way
for standing up for women, children, and families and also for
organizing this Special Order.
Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, I know that you have to take care
of other important responsibilities, so I want to just thank you.
I just think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for people to know that
Congresswoman Maloney is the author of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of
Rights Act. It's when you go and use your credit card and don't get
back a bunch of fees and stuff you didn't even bargain for--terms being
changed without any notice to you. When you used that credit card and
were late on that card, sometimes they used to jack you up on the card
you weren't even late on because you were late on some other card. They
can't do that anymore.
When people benefit from credit card justice, you have to thank
Carolyn Maloney. You cannot just use that card and say, Wow, things are
better than they used to be with this card. They're better because
Carolyn Maloney fought tirelessly.

This was an uphill climb for you. It wasn't easy. You had to work on
editorial boards; you had to work on Republicans; you had to work on
Democrats; you had to work on the Senate. You had to just pound the
pavement night and day; yet you got that done, and this country cannot
pay you back for the good work you did.
Congresswoman Maloney, I wish you many, many, many years here in this
Congress; but no matter how long you stay here, I just want you to know
that that accomplishment is a towering achievement which will stand the
test of time and is historic. So I don't want to hold you up, because I
know you've got to go do some important things, but I just didn't want
you to leave without my mentioning how important that service that you
gave was, not to mention the work that you do every single day,
including the work you do on the Joint Economic Committee, on the
rights of all people as well as on women's rights.
Mrs. MALONEY. I just want to thank the gentleman for his statement.
The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, according to the Pew
Foundation, saved consumers over $10 billion in the last year by
cutting out unfair, abusive, deceptive practices--and I'm using the
terms from the Federal Reserve. I am proud that it helps Americans
better manage their credit.
No longer can people raise rates any time, for any reason
retroactively on their balances, trapping them, really, in a never-
ending cycle of debt. I had many constituents who had purchased items,
and they had paid so much in interest over that time that they could
have paid for the car or the washing machine; yet they still had not
paid it off. This is wrong and unfair.
Central to this bill, it gives consumers the opportunity and the
right to make a decision. If they're going to raise their rates, they
must notify them, and the consumers have the choice of whether they opt
in to a higher rate or pay off their cards and go to another provider
that may have a lower rate. So it puts more competition in the system.
It has lowered the interest rates, the fees, and has really helped
consumers.
I want to say that we were cochairs of the Consumer Justice Caucus.
We started that, really, to build support for the bill, and you were a
strong part of helping me pass it.
Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
Mrs. MALONEY. It was difficult, but I'm proud that the President
signed it into law and that it is now benefiting Americans and allowing
more of an ability for them to control their own businesses, their own
assets, their own credit. I must say, when it did pass the House, there
was strong Republican support for it in both the House and the Senate.
Mr. ELLISON. Yes, there was.
Mrs. MALONEY. I am pleased that Americans have this added benefit in
their lives.
Thank you so much for your leadership. It has been a pleasure to join
you tonight.

{time} 2040

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank you again, Congresswoman Maloney. You have
a wonderful evening and, again, thank you for all of the great work you
have done and thank you for your help tonight. I am just going to
remain a few more minutes to help the American people understand what
is in the American Jobs Act.
The American Jobs Act is an excellent piece of legislation. We have
been talking a lot tonight here at this Progressive Caucus Special
Order about women's rights, but we've also been talking about jobs and,
of course, these subjects go right together.
But it's important, as we talk about this subject tonight, that the
American people know what's in the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs
Act will put Americans to work when jobs are needed, which is now, not
later, not next year, not some other time, now.
The emphasis of the American Jobs Act is immediacy. It will preserve
and create jobs now. It will put money in the pockets of working
Americans now. It will give businesses job-creating tax breaks now. And
it will provide a boost to the economy right now.
So this is what we're aiming for in the American Jobs Act. Republican
colleagues have failed to produce any kinds of a jobs bill. The only
time they ever talk about jobs is when they're not talking about jobs.
They say that cutting important health regulations will create jobs.
They won't.
They say that cutting taxes for people at the very top of the
American income scale, corporations, will create jobs. It won't.
Corporations already are awash in corporate profits. They're not using
the money to create jobs, and they won't use the money even if we give
them more money because what they don't have is customers. Why don't
they have customers? Because people aren't working.
Americans need to be put back to work, and when businesses find that
they have customers and orders they will hire people to fill those
orders. When they have excess capacity, they are not going to just hire
people. They're going to hire people when they need to hire people
because they've got sales that they need to make.
Of course, this is a basic and fundamental difference of opinion that
we have with our Republican colleagues about the way the economy works.
But I do believe that after years and years of trying, trickle-down
economics must be discarded, must be dismissed, must be thrown away as
a discredited economic theory.
Trickle-down economics, which is the Republican mantra--they believe
in trickle down. They believe if you give

[[Page H6911]]

rich people enough money maybe the money will trickle down to the rest
of us.
This has been a failed economic policy. They are wrong. They have
been proven to be wrong, and yet they never stop coming here saying, if
we just gave the rich people another tax cut, if we just gave the rich
corporations, who don't pay any taxes now, more money. If we just gave
them more money, all those profits that they have they might maybe hire
somebody. They're wrong, and history has proven them to be wrong. I
don't know why they cling to this outmoded, discredited, discarded
theory of economics, but they cling to it.
The American Jobs Act would do something different. It would put
people back to work, and with people working again, this will boost
aggregate demand, aggregate meaning added up, cumulative demand. And
with that, more customers, more people with money to buy and spend,
this economy will take off and the store will hire people because they
will have a reason to. So the American Jobs Act goes right to the
problem.
But here's the other thing. The American Jobs Act calls it a Jobs
Act, and it is. But there's something also very important that the
American Jobs Act does that I wish got more play. It invests in our
Nation's basic infrastructure, and it invests in our Nation's human
capital.
It puts targeted tax breaks--not just giving money to rich people and
corporations who have plenty of money and who won't use it to hire
people--but it gives targeted tax breaks and puts money in the pockets
of American workers and American employers so that they will add and
grow jobs. And it puts the money into job training, which does skill
upgrades for our people so that they are more productive and better at
what they do. The job saving and job-producing actions will put
paychecks into the economy, will provide vital economic needs and
invest in economic growth.
I just want to quote Mark Zandi for a moment, this economist who
works for both Republicans and Democrats. He is unbiased, and here's
what he had to say. He says, President Obama's job proposal would help
stabilize confidence and help keep the U.S. from sliding back into
recession, add 2 percentage points to GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs and
cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.
Now, that's a big deal. Wouldn't the people watching this show, Mr.
Speaker, like to be able to see America go from 9.1 percent
unemployment to 8.1 percent unemployment? I think this would be great,
and here's the best thing about the American Jobs Act. It's paid for.
Unlike the two wars that the Republicans got us into in the last
decade, unlike the big PhRMA Medicare part D, unlike the tax breaks
under George Bush and the Republican majority, these, the American Jobs
Act, is paid for.
President Obama has offered pay-fors in this which cover the cost of
the bill. This is something the Republicans are not used to, which is
why they may not quite understand the American Jobs Act. They like to
spend money that we don't have. That's what they did with the two wars,
Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what they did with the Bush tax cuts. And
that's, of course, what they did with the Big Pharma giveaway.
But this bill is paid for. The American Jobs Act is paid for, which
may be why they don't support it, because they don't understand things
that are paid for. They just understand spending and adding to the
deficit.
But the Republicans have not only failed to produce or support any
jobs bill of their own, other than just absurdly claiming that getting
rid of important health regulations is going to create jobs, they're
refusing to even act on the American Jobs Act. In fact, Majority Leader
Eric Cantor has already said the Jobs Act was dead, his words.
The Republicans not only failed to produce or support any jobs bill,
they are refusing to act on this bill, and I think Eric Cantor has also
said it was ``unacceptable,'' another word that he used. Now, that's,
again, fine with me.
If the majority leader could say, look, I don't like this part, but I
can maybe go for that part, let's get the bill up here, all four
amendments, debate this thing. But by all means let's start talking
about jobs around here. The Republicans are more invested in protecting
millionaires from paying their fair share than helping their middle
class to work.
By a 16-point margin, Mr. Speaker, the Americans support President
Obama's proposal to create jobs, 52 percent to 36 percent. Fifty-two
percent of Americans want it, 36 percent of Americans don't. By a 16-
point margin Americans support President Obama's proposal to create
jobs.
By a 15-point margin, more Americans trust President Obama to do a
better job creating jobs than congressional Republicans, 49 percent to
34 percent. Sixty-two percent of all Americans, Mr. Speaker, and at
least 62 percent of the people surveyed support a balanced approach.
That means cutting spending and raising revenue to reduce the deficit.
And, Mr. Speaker, three out of four Americans support raising taxes
on Americans with incomes of $1 million or more. These are the so-
called job creators Republicans like to talk about. The only problem is
they haven't been creating any jobs.
But what will create jobs is businesses and small businesses that
have orders and have consumers and have people working and have people
who have money to spend at their businesses. That's what will create
jobs.
I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the American
people that the three components of the American Jobs Act are designed
to win. One, the American Jobs Act and reinvesting in America,
preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and keeping first responders,
firefighters, and police officers on the job. Two, modernizing at least
35,000 public schools across the country.
Mr. Speaker, myself and Congresswoman Maloney were talking about
this. She's a former teacher. We were talking about supporting new
science labs, Internet-ready classrooms, school innovations, both rural
and urban. But as I talked about earlier today, the superintendents and
the schools that I represent, some of them have boilers that are about
to go out, windows that aren't fixed up right, roofs that need repair,
basic stuff.
This would put thousands of Americans back to work as we give our
young people a good decent place and a modern place to go learn in.

{time} 2050

Of course, another part of the American Jobs Act, all under this
important category of investing in America, is making immediate
investments in infrastructure, modernizing our roads, our railways, our
airports, and putting hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work;
Project Rebuild, a great effort, an effort to put people back to work,
rehabilitating homes and businesses and stabilizing communities,
leveraging private capital and scaling up successful models of public-
private collaboration; and, of course, expanding wireless Internet,
expanding wireless Internet to 98 percent of Americans by freeing up
the Nation's spectrum.
The second element of this important American Jobs Act which
Republicans should support and Democrats do support is tax cuts for
employers and employees. This is not just some giveaway. This is
targeted tax cuts that are designed to succeed.
Some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle like to say
Democrats don't like tax cuts. This is not true. We are for tax cuts
when they are targeted and designed to help the average working
American, not just some giveaway to rich people. And, of course, I have
nothing against rich people. I like rich people. In fact, one day when
I leave Congress and go back to the private sector, maybe I can be one
of them. But the fact is right now, right now the fact of the matter is
we need tax cuts that are targeted and designed to spur the economy,
not just giveaways, hoping and praying that the money will trickle
down.
Specifically what I'm referring to is cutting payroll taxes in half
for 160 million workers next year. The President's plan will expand the
payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers' payroll taxes in half
in 2012, providing $1,500, a tax cut to the typical American family,
without negatively impacting the Social Security trust fund.

[[Page H6912]]

This is important because things are tough around the house. Things
are tough around the kitchen table, and Americans could really use
this, particularly now. It will help maintain aggregate demand, and it
would be very helpful.
Also, allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today's
near 4 percent interest rate, which can put more than $2,000 a year in
a family's pocket.
Also, cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses.
The President's plan will cut in half taxes paid by businesses on their
first $5 million in payroll.
Mr. Speaker, another important element of the American Jobs Act that
has to do with this tax issue is a complete payroll tax holiday for
added workers or increased wages. The President's plan will completely
eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll by adding new
workers or increasing wages. That's a targeted tax cut. That's a tax
cut that's going to get people to hire somebody, not just some give
money to rich people and hope they hire somebody. This is a targeted
tax cut that will actually be of value.
The next one, Mr. Speaker, encouraging businesses to make investments
by extending 100 percent business expensing into 2012. This extension
would put an additional $85 billion in the hands of businesses next
year.
The third thing that I think is important to mention is helping the
unemployed with pathways back to work. Some people like to refer to our
social safety net. I think it is much more effective to refer to it as
our social safety trampoline. That is when you fall down, America,
caring, compassionate Nation that we are, provides a way for people to
bounce back. And that is what the third element of this American Jobs
Act does. Returning heroes, offering tax cuts to encourage businesses
to hire unemployed veterans.
Now, I know there are some Republicans who would vote for this
provision. There's got to be. Businesses that hire veterans who have
been unemployed for 6 months or longer would receive a tax credit up to
$5,600, and that credit rises to $9,600 for veterans who have a
service-connected disability. Now, I have just got to believe that
there are a few Republicans who would give a green vote to a good piece
of legislation like that.
In the same vein of helping our unemployed, the most innovative
reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years, as part of
the extension of the unemployment insurance, to prevent 5 million
Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President's
plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give
States greater flexibility to use unemployment insurance funds to best
support job seekers and connect them to work, including in this
innovative program things like work sharing, unemployment insurance for
workers whose employers choose work sharing over layoffs.
Second, improve reemployment services for long-term unemployed
through counseling eligibility assessments.
Three, new bridge to work program. This plan builds on and improves
innovative State programs where those displaced take temporary,
voluntary, or pursue on-the-job training.
I'm about at the end of my time tonight. This has been the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are here with the progressive
message, which we like to come to as often as we can. What we're
talking about tonight is standing up for the rights of women. More than
50 percent of Americans are female. My daughter is one of them. I just
want to argue that for this country to rise to its full measure of
greatness, we have to have full and equal rights for everybody,
especially women.
Today, there was an attack on women's constitutional rights today.
There also have been assaults to programs which women
disproportionately rely on like Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid, and also employment sectors that women are employed in such
as the public sector. This is too bad, and we need to stand up against
it. But also jobs. Instead of dealing with divisive social issues where
Americans of honestly held conscience disagree very severely on this
issue of pro-choice/pro-life, instead of dealing with these old issues,
things that we have been fighting over for years and will probably
never be solved, why don't we talk about jobs.
And so we did go into the American Jobs Act tonight where we talked
about the key parts of this important bill by President Obama. First,
investing in our infrastructure and in our people skills; second,
targeted tax breaks designed to put people back to work, not just
giveaways for the rich; and, third, help for the unemployed. These are
three very important features which I believe will really help America.
All we want is a chance to debate these issues on the House floor. We
can bring amendments, debate them, vote some up, vote some down, but
it's just wrong to deny the American people a chance to get a good jobs
bill. So tonight, I just want to wrap up by saying that it's always a
pleasure to come before the House and discuss critical issues facing
the American people.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________