[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 26 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H894-H897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 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 for the time.
  The Progressive Congressional Caucus is that caucus in Congress that 
comes together to talk about the most important values that our country 
is founded on--ideas like fairness, inclusion, prosperity for all, 
protecting our world and the environment that we live in. The 
Progressive Caucus can be found talking about civil and human rights, 
standing for an economy that is fair and inclusive and has shared 
benefits and responsibilities for everybody. The Progressive Caucus is 
that caucus in Congress that will stand up for peace and diplomacy and 
also will make the case for the human rights of all people.
  We bring you the progressive message to illustrate what's at stake in 
America today. I'm very pleased that I'm joined by my good friend from 
the great State of Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. We're going to bring the 
progressive message tonight and just talk a little bit about the values 
that we share.
  You know, I want to set up a question I have for you, Congresswoman 
Schakowsky, because we have been dealing with this transportation bill 
over the last several days, and we will be up until the week of 
February 27.
  One of the things about it that I found most galling is that one of 
the ways that the Republican majority intends to pay for the 
transportation bill is by charging Federal employees a fee, and really 
a tax, on their retirement and then using the money that they're going 
to gain to pay for their transportation bill.

                              {time}  1930

  When I think about people who are Federal employees, I'm thinking of 
people who take care of our veterans--the nurses at the VA. I'm 
thinking of people who make sure our roads and our parks are safe. I'm 
thinking about Federal employees who make sure our water and our air is 
clean. So I just want to ask you:
  Do you think it's fair to sort of go after Federal employees, working 
people, to try to pay for this transportation budget we've been talking 
about over these last few days?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you for that question and for leading this 
hour in this important discussion.
  No. In fact, our colleagues in the majority want to pay for the 
legislation in the transportation bill, but what they want to continue 
to do is to refuse to touch a single hair on the heads of millionaires 
and billionaires, and they stand firm in their defense of the big oil 
companies and the corporations that ship their jobs overseas. Instead 
of asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more, 
they want to ask Federal workers. Instead of going to the 1 percent, 
they want to ask people who are solidly in the 99 percent to pay the 
price.
  Federal employees are hardworking, middle class Americans, who work 
for the Federal Government all across this country, not just in 
Washington. In fact, only about 30 percent of Federal employees are in 
Washington. Of course, some of them work in our offices, and they work 
in this House of Representatives. We all represent Federal workers.
  So who are they? You mentioned a few. Yet there are also those 
benefit specialists who help our seniors get their Social Security and 
Medicare benefits, and they're the law enforcement professionals who 
defend our borders and our ports and our skies and us when we're here 
in the Capitol.
  Mr. ELLISON. FBI agents who are protecting us from everything from 
terrorism to drugs to guns, are these people Federal employees?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Those are called Federal employees, as are the 
Capitol Police; and they're computer and network specialists who spend 
their days making sure that we're safe from cyberattacks. They're 
medical and scientific researchers who are looking for cures for 
devastating diseases. They're the nurses and doctors who take care of 
our wounded warriors. They're the men and women who make sure the food 
supply is safe and that our water is clean enough for our children to 
drink. They're the hardworking support staff. I just left my office, 
and I was having my trash and recycling taken away.
  Those are all Federal employees. There are 423,000 Federal employees 
who earn less than $50,000 a year; and 48 percent of them are women, 
but 60 percent of the employees earning less than $50,000 a year are 
women. They are the people who have seen their pay frozen for 2 years 
while health care and other costs are going up.
  Mr. ELLISON. If I may just ask the gentlelady a question.
  Do you mean to tell me and the American people and the Speaker 
tonight that not only is this transportation bill proposing to cut into 
and to basically tax Federal employees' retirement benefits, but 
they've already had a freeze on top of this?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. For 2 years. That's about $30 billion a year in cuts. 
So they've already given up, really, about $60 billion from a normal 
increase in wages just to pay for the cost of things going up. 
Everybody knows that the cost of food and gasoline and those kinds of 
things are going up, and still we aren't asking millionaires--or they 
aren't. The Republicans who propose these cuts, these additional 
contributions from Federal employees, are not asking millionaires and 
billionaires to contribute their fair share.
  Mr. ELLISON. I will say to the gentlelady that I have brought a 
document here with me today. I had a great meeting with some Federal 
employees the other day, and they said, Explain it to me, GOP.
  One person, Paul here, says: I earn less than $45,000 a year. Explain 
it to me, GOP, how cutting my pay creates jobs. This person, Paul, 
represents the Tobyhanna Army Depot workers. They do something really 
important.
  Then there is another Federal employee: Twelve percent of my salary I 
earn caring for veterans goes to my retirement. Explain it to me, GOP, 
how cutting my retirement puts people to

[[Page H895]]

work. That's what Teresa has to say, and she represents nurses at the 
Minnesota VA hospital.
  Then here is Eric Young, and he represents correction officers in 
Miami, and he says: I pay more than $9,000 a year for my family health 
insurance. Explain it to me, GOP, how cutting my take-home pay lowers 
unemployment.
  These are the faces of Federal employees. Sometimes when we talk 
about, oh, just cut the Federal employees, they're nameless, faceless. 
Who are these people? But as you pointed out, they are the people who 
really improve the quality of our lives every single day--people who 
protect us here in the Capitol but also who protect our veterans, who 
work in our Federal prisons, and who are Army Depot workers. This is 
the face of Federal workers, and I just think it's fair to say that 
they deserve to have somebody speak up for them as they have put their 
lives on the line to protect all of us.

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me also say this.
  Some argue that, oh, well, it's such a cushy job to work for the 
Federal Government and that Federal employees actually make more money 
than in the private sector. Let me explain that.
  As for the people who work in the lower-wage jobs for the Federal 
Government, women actually make more working for government than they 
do in the private sector because, in the private sector, they make 
about 70 cents on the dollar, and thank goodness the Federal Government 
has more equity in what it pays. The same is true for minorities, who 
earn much less than white men do in the private sector; but when you 
work for the Federal Government, you have certain protections and 
certain equity that we've all supported, so they make more money.
  When you get to the higher-wage jobs, working for the National 
Institutes of Health or more, for the higher-skilled jobs, in fact, 
those workers who work for the Federal Government could make more in 
the private sector, but they have made a decision to help our 
government, to help our country by working in the public sector.
  So when they say some Federal workers earn more, I say God bless them 
because we don't discriminate like many in the private sector do, and 
we wish that the private sector would not discriminate in pay against 
women and minorities. It's not as if they should go out there and earn 
less money.
  Mr. ELLISON. What I hear them say is, oh, well, the Federal workers 
earn more money than the people who pay their salaries in the form of 
taxes. They say this divisively and in a very smug way. And I think to 
myself, aren't we a country that should value public service, people 
working in the public interest for the public good? Does bread cost 
less for them? Is gasoline cheaper for them? No, it's not. Thank 
heavens that the Federal Government can pay people fairly and that we 
don't have these vast disparities in pay between men and women for 
Federal workers.
  Basically, the protections that the people have in working for the 
Federal Government don't always prevail in the private sector, and that 
accounts for some of the disparity. Then, of course, as you just 
pointed out, people at the higher income levels, they could do just as 
well and be paid much more handsomely if they were to work elsewhere.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It's estimated, actually, that those individuals 
could probably make as much as 26 percent more working in the private 
sector, but they want to contribute to the common good and work for all 
of us. Then, in order to pay for our transportation bill or any other 
bill, we ask the Federal workers to contribute more.

                              {time}  1940

  Take a look around. I say to my colleagues, look around us. 
Everywhere we go in this Capitol, in our office building, we are 
looking at Federal employees that, without, this place simply would not 
run. We are dependent on them and we rely on them for a good reason--
because we can count on them. They contribute often as much as anyone 
here to making our country the great country that it is, and working in 
the Capitol of the United States of America with enormous pride, I 
might add.
  Mr. ELLISON. I ask the gentlelady, when did it happen that working in 
the public interest became, in the minds of some people, something less 
than honorable work to do?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think there has been a real demonization of all 
public sector workers lately, and that is why I'm so glad tonight we're 
able to put a face on these individuals and say who are they, what kind 
of work are they really doing.
  But beyond that, to say, really, this is where we want to get the 
sacrifice? We're not going to ask one thing more of the oil companies 
or the gas companies or the businesses that are making record profits 
and taking those jobs overseas and outsourcing them and getting a tax 
break for them? We're not asking the millionaires and the billionaires 
in this country who have actually benefited from the work of public 
employees, of Federal employees to get what they need in order to get 
ahead, we're not asking them to pay any more? No, we're going to take 
it out of the hides of middle class workers, if they are lucky. Some of 
them are down at the lower end. We're going to take it from the middle 
class workers, the middle class families, and ask them to make the 
sacrifice and pay more for their pensions.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield.
  I actually see this as another wedge. We talk about the wedges. We 
talk about some folks often are associated with the right-wing 
conservative philosophy who make arguments that would divide people who 
were born here versus immigrants, gays versus straights, all these kind 
of wedges, the ``Willie Horton'' thing, all this kind of wedge stuff. 
This is a new wedge, Federal workers versus private sector workers. It 
seems like they're trying to engender a certain amount of resentment 
among private sector workers for public sector workers. When are we 
going to talk about the people at the very tip-top who have been 
compensated beyond imagination in the oil and gas sector, in the drug 
sector, in the health care sector, those in private equity, all these 
folks who have been making so much money on Wall Street? When do we ask 
them to do more?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Actually, we did, didn't we, in the people's budget 
that the Progressive Caucus introduced? That budget balances the 
budget, cuts the deficit, cuts the debt, but doesn't try to take it out 
of the hide of middle class people in the same way that we see from our 
colleagues across the aisle.
  I know included in that budget is my Fairness in Taxation Act that 
says that people starting at a million dollars ought to pay a higher 
tax bracket, ratcheting up to people who make a billion dollars a year. 
There may be somebody at home saying, oh, nobody makes a billion 
dollars a year. Yes, they do. Mr. Paulson made $5 billion in 2010. He 
probably paid at a rate that may have been lower than his secretary or 
secretaries.
  Mr. ELLISON. I am glad that you raised this point about the people's 
budget, because that really is the point of the Progressive message, to 
talk to the Speaker and the American people about there being an 
alternative in our Congress. Not everybody is carried away with this 
philosophy that Federal workers need to pay more and get less.
  Actually, there are a body of folks in the Democratic Caucus, and 
particularly the Progressive Caucus, who really want to see a more 
shared way of paying for the needs of our country.
  We recently had a hearing in which we talked about jobs, and we had a 
group called the Patriotic Millionaires who was there. And this is the 
interesting thing about your particular tax proposal. A lot of people 
who are making a lot of money agree that they should pay more. I find 
this to be very interesting, because patriotic Americans do come from 
various income strata. I think it's commendable for people at the top 
end, the people who might pay a higher rate under your bill, who say, 
Yeah, tax us more because we believe there should be a good public 
school system; we believe the water should be clean; we believe that 
Federal workers should be fairly compensated; we have enough. What 
drives us is not the acquisition of more, but the idea of creating good 
products and services for Americans, which we charge for, of course, 
but at the end of

[[Page H896]]

the day, everybody has to do their fair share.
  I thank you for offering the Buffett Rule before there was a Buffett 
Rule. Before we were talking about a Buffett Rule, you were out in 
front of the pack.

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. One of the themes that the President has underscored 
over and over again is that everybody should get a fair shot and 
everybody pay their fair share and everybody play by the same rules.
  When we talk about where should the money come from for important 
things like transportation--of course there are many flaws in that 
bill. They take mass transportation, mass transit, out of the funding 
stream. Transportation, I think, has always before been a bipartisan 
issue, and, of course, we want to be able to pay for that. It creates a 
lot of jobs. Everybody uses the roads. They use the transit system. 
They benefit. Everybody needs to pay their fair share, what they are 
able to pay to contribute to the common good.
  The President has talked about having each other's back as kind of a 
basic philosophy, that we're all in this together, not we're all in 
this alone. That's one of the early ideas in America.
  Picture, now, the covered wagons and the rugged individualism of 
those people crossing. They were together in a row, each one a rugged 
individual, but all of them were making sure that they helped to take 
care of each other so that they could get across safely.
  I think that's the vision, that we're a combination of individual 
freedoms, strong individualism, but we also understand that we all do 
better when we all do better.
  Mr. ELLISON. As my hero Paul Wellstone famously said, ``We all do 
better when we all do better.''
  But those people you're talking about, those rugged individuals 
crossing the prairie, when they had to put a barn up, they didn't do it 
alone, did they? They'd have a barn raising, which was a community 
event. This idea that we do what we do--what we do, we should do best 
together, we do those things together. Whatever we can do individually, 
we certainly have the freedom to do that.
  I am concerned about shifting political winds, which sort of ignore 
the idea that we are in this together, that the road in the 
transportation system is part of our commonwealth, something that is a 
benefit to us all, and so we all should pay for it, which is why I was 
particularly concerned about this transportation bill, H.R. 7. For the 
first time in about 50 years, the House is going to consider a partisan 
transportation package. Republicans are breaking the historical 
tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild infrastructure, create jobs, 
and strengthen our economy.
  This proposal, H.R. 7, would cut about 550,000 American jobs, cuts 
highway investments in 45 States and D.C.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Everyone needs to hear that again. Would cut?
  Mr. ELLISON. Cut.
  The GOP proposal cuts 550,000 American jobs, cuts highway investments 
in 45 States, bankrupts the highway trust fund with a $78 billion 
shortfall. As you said, it takes transit funding and puts it in the 
regular appropriations process, not in the stream of funding.

                              {time}  1950

  It gets rid of biking paths; it gets rid of walking paths. The 
reviews are in, and they all agree: the GOP bill is bad for jobs.
  A good friend of mine who happens to be a Republican but works for 
the Obama administration, Ray LaHood, said, ``This is the most partisan 
transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' And he's seen a lot of 
them. He's your home boy from Illinois, right?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That he is.
  Mr. ELLISON. Continuing to quote Mr. LaHood:

       And it also is the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen. 
     It hollows out our No. 1 priority, which is safety, and 
     frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation 
     efforts that we've been about for the last three years. It's 
     the worst transportation bill I've ever seen in 35 years of 
     public service.

  Now, that's saying a lot.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is saying a lot. As I said before, and as Ray 
LaHood was alluding to, as many differences that may have existed 
across the aisle, recognizing the importance of transportation for 
commerce, for business, for everyday Americans getting to work, for 
linking our country together, for transporting our goods, Democrats and 
Republicans have always been able to sit down and together craft a 
piece of legislation on transportation. And to come up with an 
equitable way to fund it. Everyone has been able to agree.
  This time, not only the way the bill is funded--talking about putting 
the burden on public employees to help fund it, but the elements of the 
bill itself. The fact, as you read, it is going to actually cost jobs. 
The transportation bill has always been the place where we have created 
jobs in our country. I think it's really shameful. I don't see that 
this piece of legislation is going to pass, but those who proposed it, 
I think, have made a serious miscalculation in every way.
  Mr. ELLISON. Now, you know, it's beyond my ability to comprehend that 
any American, any American, would do anything other than try to make 
sure that everybody had enough. We had enough jobs for everybody who 
wanted to work, and those jobs were well-paying. But I tell you, there 
has been polling out there on what Americans think. This is not what I 
think; this is what Americans have said. Half of Americans believe that 
Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election; 55 percent 
believe that, and 44 percent believe other than that.
  Now, when you hear that this transportation bill is going to cut over 
half a million jobs, it's difficult to go to Americans and explain 
that's not what they are doing. Now again, I'm not going to look into 
the inner recesses of anyone's heart. I don't know what people's 
motives are. But I do know any bill, when we have unemployment north of 
8 percent, which is going to cut jobs, and has been a historic place 
where we have created jobs, I think Americans have reason to be 
suspicious, and I hope our Republican majority would come and clarify 
what they're actually doing because, like I just pointed out, half of 
Americans believe that the Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to 
win an election.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, let me give you an example.
  We have seen the unemployment rate now drop to 8.3 percent, and 
that's not good, but it's better. We've seen it drop, and we have seen 
23 months now of private sector job growth every month, which is a 
great thing, a great record.
  Yes, let everybody look at that chart. The orange-brown part is 
during the Bush administration when the economic crisis first hit. And 
then the blue is during the Obama administration, where you see a 
pretty steady decrease in unemployment, and then you see now we are 
above the line for many months and creating jobs, and that increase in 
jobs.
  But if the Republicans had not gone after public sector jobs, if 
there had not been the cut in public sector jobs at the Federal level 
as well as at the State level, because a lot of Federal dollars were 
lost to the States, causing the layoffs of many teachers and 
firefighters and policemen, public sector workers have been laid off, 
we would have an unemployment rate of about 7.5 percent if those cuts 
hadn't happened in the public sector. So, you know, who's really for 
getting our economy going, putting people back to work, letting them be 
taxpayers rather than having to receive unemployment benefits, you 
know, which we better extend because people need them, but they'd 
rather have a job.
  Mr. ELLISON. Absolutely. The gentlelady should note, I had this one 
chart up, and I would like to let folks know, because what the question 
was--Washington Post-ABC asked the following statement: President Obama 
is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic 
problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics by 
blocking his proposals and programs.
  Or: President Obama has not provided leadership on the economy, and 
he's just blaming the Republicans in Congress as an excuse for not 
doing his job.
  Fifty percent of the people responded to statement A, the first one. 
And that is: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with 
the country's economic problems, but Republicans in Congress are 
playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs.
  Now, I hope that Republicans are reading these, because they're not

[[Page H897]]

looking good. The best thing for them to do is to stop making proposals 
like this transportation bill, H.R. 7, which literally cuts jobs, 
because the American people are watching this. And quite frankly, I 
want us all to succeed. I don't think that it's good for the American 
population to think that one party that is elected to promote the 
public interest is doing something other than that in order to win an 
election.
  Again, this board here clearly shows that when President Bush was in, 
this was kind of red. It's kind of bleeding, and then the blue is going 
up, up, up, and now above the line, and we have been adding 23 
consecutive months of private sector job growth, but that public sector 
job loss, as you pointed out, is literally a drag on the economy, and 
it's hurting us. We need people to get to work.
  I just want to ask the gentlelady a question. Again, I mean, does a 
public sector paycheck offer less at the local grocery store when the 
person goes to buy some groceries with that public sector paycheck?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No. It's a job and a paycheck, and you take it to the 
grocery store. And it resonates throughout the economy. But I'll tell 
you, it's a pinch. When that wage and that check is frozen for 2 years, 
people feel that. Prices at the grocery store still go up, and so that 
very same paycheck doesn't quite buy as much. You know, there may be 
some lifestyle changes, maybe not such big things but some little 
things that add to the quality of life that actually our Federal 
employees have had to do without because of the freeze. And then, 
they're asked now, in order to even pay for a transportation bill, to 
lose money out of their pension fund, to have to pay more of their 
pension, which is their retirement fund.
  Mr. ELLISON. I just want to point you, you and I were just talking 
about this chart which shows that under the Bush administration, the 
unemployment rate going up, us losing jobs, and then the steady march 
back the other way.
  This chart shows that GOP proposals would eliminate up to 7.4 million 
jobs by 2016. So if you look at the proposals that the GOP has been 
making while they have been in the majority, the transportation bill, 
H.R. 7, is just one example of job killing. They like to call stuff 
``job killing.'' That's their little Frank Luntz talking point. But 
they have in actuality proposed job-killing legislation. Starting with 
H.R. 1, The Economist, The Center for American Progress, showed that it 
would cut a million jobs. Repealing health care reform would cut about 
2 million. GOP budget cuts, that's the Ryan budget, cuts to the Federal 
workforce, their so-called JOBS Act, all the way down the line.

                              {time}  2000

  This red is, if they could have their way, this is the bleed of 
American jobs that would happen. Now, this is a projection. But the 
fact is this transportation bill is a typical example of their idea of 
how the economy should operate. And it is very disturbing--17.4 million 
jobs. Of course, this would simply renew a trend that we were on during 
the Bush administration. So I think it's time for Republicans to stop 
offering these bad jobs bills and start offering some things that are 
going to put Americans back to work. They can begin that process by 
yanking this H.R. 7.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me also just say that you mentioned that the 
Republicans like to point to the President's proposals or Democratic 
proposals and say, oh, this is another job-killing measure. Well, the 
facts are the facts. And the facts are that we have seen 23 months of 
private sector job creation. Literally millions of jobs have been 
created. And so I haven't heard too much about the job killing lately 
because it's pretty hard to talk about every time the job numbers come 
out and those jobs are increasing.
  I want to thank you very much for bringing up an example of a piece 
of legislation that doesn't address our transportation needs, that does 
result in job loss, and that is paid for by going after middle class 
Federal workers as the ones who have to sacrifice in order to fund 
legislation like this. Thank you.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady. I just want to make a few points 
before we begin to wrap it up. I just want to point out that economist 
Mark Zandi, who has advised Senator McCain, said by 2014 real GDP is 
almost $200 billion lower, and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under 
the Ryan approach than is under the case of the President's. That's 
just one honest economist's estimate.
  The Economic Policy Institute's conservative estimate of the 
Republican budget is 2 billion to 3 billion jobs lost over 5 years. 
Again, H.R. 1 would cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So, I really 
think, Mr. Speaker, that the American people need to know what kind of 
a ``jobs program'' the Republicans are talking about. They're not 
talking adding jobs; they're talking about cutting them. And H.R. 7 is 
but a typical example of the kind of damage these Republican majority 
Members would do to the American economy.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________