[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 48 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1530-H1536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE

  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, my name is Keith Ellison. I will claim the 
time over the next several minutes, and I want to talk about the issues 
before us today, namely, the budget. The budget is the issue today, Mr. 
Speaker.
  As you may know, the House majority has come out with their budget, 
and, of course, the Progressive Caucus has come out with its budget, 
and that's what I want to talk about tonight.
  The Congress, Mr. Speaker, is made up of a lot of diverse interests. 
We have people who span the spectrum of political thought. On the far 
right, those folks are present here and they allow themselves to be 
heard.
  But we have other folks who have different points of view and believe 
that the best of America is the idea of liberty and justice for all. 
That's the Progressive Caucus--the idea that all Americans, no matter 
what their color is, no matter what their religion is, no matter 
whether they are male or female, no matter who they may be, have a 
right to live in a safe, free country with an opportunity to make a 
good, decent living with a retirement and with good, solid services 
like public schools, like police, fire and all these things, and we 
should live in a nation where we can really promote the common welfare. 
What that means is that the public sector and the private sector 
together--we have a mixed economy--need to work together to elevate the 
best interests of all American people.
  To that end, the Progressive message, which I want to share tonight, 
is going to be about this budget, this Budget for All. The Progressive 
Caucus budget is called the Budget for All, and that's the Progressive 
Caucus message. Tune in at cpc.grijalva.house.gov to learn more about 
it, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is the hashtag for the Budget for All. It's 
#Budget4all. We want people to check it out and read about it.
  It's very different from the Ryan budget. It's very different because 
we have a different vision for our country. It's very different because 
the Progressive Caucus believes that responsibility and the benefits of 
being an American should be shared; whereas, I think it's fair to say 
that the Ryan budget believes that if you give rich people a lot of 
money, maybe they'll start some businesses and maybe they'll hire 
someone and maybe people who are working class and middle class might 
benefit. It's called trickle-down economics, and I'll talk about that 
in a minute. But this is a very sharp contrast to the Progressive 
Caucus budget, which is the Budget for All.
  Let me tell you a little bit about it, Mr. Speaker, because I think 
you're going to like it.
  The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again. By 
putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our 
economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing 
in innovation and education. Our budget, the Progressive

[[Page H1531]]

Caucus budget, Budget for All, protects the basic social safety net, 
which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  Now, it's very important to protect these programs, Mr. Speaker, 
because these programs go to help the people who basically made America 
for those of us living now. Let America never be a nation where our 
senior citizens who literally forged a way for younger people like me 
and those younger will have to eat dog food, have to choose between 
their medication and their meal, won't have enough to make their basic 
ends meet.
  We need to support Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's 
what the Budget for All does. The Ryan budget, which is really the 
Republican budget, does something very, very different, and we're going 
to talk about that in a minute.
  Now, it's important, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that when you talk 
about the budget of a nation, what you're really talking about are the 
priorities of that nation, the values of that nation.
  If you show me a family budget and that family spends a lot of money 
on potato chips and soda pop and none on the gym, I'll tell you what 
they value. If you show me a family that puts money into their kids' 
education and spends on making sure that they live in a neighborhood 
that's safe, then I'll tell you what their values are. If you show me a 
family that buys nutritious foods, I'll tell you what their values are.
  Our budget is a reflection of what we believe, and our budget as a 
nation is also a reflection of what we believe.

                              {time}  1420

  Our Budget for All, here's what it reflects:
  First of all, it puts Americans back to work. That is the number one 
thing the Budget for All of the Progressive Caucus does. Our budget 
attacks America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than 
$2.4 trillion over 10 years in job-creating investment. This plan 
utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get the economy 
working again, including--and Mr. Speaker, this is important--direct-
hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps; also a Park 
Improvement Corps, a Student Job Corps, and others.
  So, right now, when we have literally 14 million people out of work 
looking for jobs, why don't we send them to our schools and make these 
schools top-quality institutions and make the facility well painted, 
well cared for, well taken care of so that when the boiler breaks, the 
principal doesn't have to say, oh, my goodness, do I take it out of the 
maintenance budget to fix the boiler? What do I do?
  We've got aging infrastructure in this country, and our schools are 
part of that. They're crumbling, and we've got to do something about 
it. Under the Progressive Caucus Budget for All, we spend money to hire 
people to help rejuvenate and improve our schools, School Improvement 
Corps.
  Also, in many districts where State and local governments have been 
cutting back, you have teachers who are trying to service 50 kids, 40 
kids. This program can help teach kids and give the teacher some real 
help in the classroom so that they will not be overburdened.
  Also, we invest in a Park Improvement Corps. Now, in my great city of 
Minneapolis--and I'm going back there today, I hope--you can walk 
around our beautiful lakes. One of the lakes we have is called Cedar 
Lake, and everybody loves Cedar Lake. You can walk through the paths 
there. And recently, Mr. Speaker, I stopped at a picnic table along the 
paths of Cedar Lake and stamped on this--Mr. Speaker, you'd be 
surprised to see--it said ``WPA 1934.'' Now, that's the Works Progress 
Administration, a great American institution that put people back to 
work at a time when Americans were, in high numbers, out of work.
  I think that if that generation at that time could respond to the 
needs of Americans who weren't working back then in the Depression, 
given the high rate of unemployment, our generation should not do less. 
A Park Improvement Corps to help take care of the paths, take care of 
the parks, make sure that these great national monuments dedicated to 
the enjoyment of all Americans are cared for and we hire people in the 
process, this is a good idea.
  Also, the Student Job Corps. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that our 
unemployment numbers reflect is that a lot of young people are out of 
work. A lot of people who just got out of college are still looking for 
their first job. A lot of young people who decided that they didn't 
want to go to college but wanted to just jump right into the workforce 
are having a very tough time. So the Student Job Corps would be a 
program to put students to work.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, there's lots of work to be done around 
America. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there's 
$2 trillion worth of maintenance that needs to be done all across 
America. I'm talking about the roads, the bridges, the transit, all 
kinds of stuff. There's young people who need intervention. There's 
tutoring that needs to happen. There's all kinds of things that need to 
happen. And between the School Improvement Corps, the Park Improvement 
Corps, and the Student Job Corps, we will be able to literally hire 
millions of people. This would be great. It would spur our economy; it 
would increase aggregate demand; and it would give a lifeline to some 
people who've been out of work for a long time.
  People would really rather work, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I'm a very 
firm believer in our social safety net for the non-elderly. I believe 
in it. I think Medicaid is very important. I believe that food stamps 
is a critical program. I believe in all these programs. But I do know--
and everyone knows--that folks would rather work. So let's set up a 
work program so that people can do their job in jobs that need doing.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I talked about some of our direct-hire programs. 
But what about the other aspect of the Budget for All, which focuses on 
the targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and 
cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector?
  Now, Republicans, if the economy is doing great, they want a tax cut. 
If the economy is doing bad, they say, Tax cut. If the economy is kind 
of up and down, they say, Tax cut. These guys think that we should 
always cut taxes all the time, except when working people want a tax 
cut. They really fought us tooth and nail over the payroll tax cut. But 
if ever some really rich people want a tax cut, they're all for that. 
And it's not that they're bad people. It's because they mistakenly 
assume that trickle-down economics works. They think that if you give 
rich people money, then rich people will maybe hire somebody, or at 
least that's what they're hoping for.
  The tax cuts we're talking about are targeted so that we can spur 
clean energy, manufacturing and cutting-edge technological investment 
in the private sector. Of course, President Obama has presided over 
America now with 23 straight months with private sector job growth--
long way to go, but definitely the right direction.
  The third aspect that we need to spend on for jobs is in a surface 
transportation bill. We propose a $556 billion surface transportation 
bill spread out over a number of years. But when we think about the 
potholes, the roads, the bridges that are old--I mean, I was at a 
bridge recently in St. Louis Park in my district. This was a 73-year-
old bridge. This bridge needed some care and needed to be refurbished 
to make sure that it stays safe. There are bridges like that all over 
my district, all over America. So this $556 billion surface 
transportation bill and the approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread 
domestic investment.

  The Budget for All, Mr. Speaker, is all about putting Americans back 
to work first. But here's something about the Budget for All that 
people need to know, and it's that our budget is more fiscally 
responsible than the Republican budget.
  Now, if you ask Republicans, they think, oh, well, liberals, you 
know, they may not be bad people, but they're not realistic. They just 
want to give all the money away; they don't want to hold people 
responsible. Well, you know what? Our budget is more fiscally 
disciplined than the Republican Ryan budget.
  Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially 
reduces the deficit and does so in a way that

[[Page H1532]]

does not devastate or set back our recovery. We achieve these notable 
benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit--
unsustainable tax policies, overseas war, and policies that help the 
recent recession--rather than putting America's middle class social 
safety net on the chopping block.
  Our budget creates a fairer America.
  We end tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans on schedule 
at the year's end, which are set to expire; and we let them expire for 
the top 2 percent.
  Extends tax relief for the middle class households and the vast 
majority of Americans.
  Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in line 
with the Buffett Rule.
  Eliminates the Tax Code's preferential treatment of capital gains and 
dividends.
  Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies.
  Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge true tax 
liability.
  Creates a publicly funded Federal election system that gets corporate 
money out of politics for good.
  Now, it has always bothered me, Mr. Speaker, that two-thirds of 
American corporations don't pay any taxes, because there's one-third 
that do. Because we have this system of loopholes everywhere, some 
corporations have to pay full freight and others don't have to. GE, for 
example, was said to have paid no or very low taxes, but there's a lot 
of big ones that didn't pay. Bank of America didn't pay. There's a lot 
of them that didn't pay. I don't think Boeing paid.
  I'm saying that for the one-third of American corporations that do 
pay, we've got to make sure that everybody ponies up something. If more 
people pay, the burden on the ones that do pay will be lower. The 
Budget for All recognizes this important truth, unlike the Ryan budget, 
which protects coal, oil and those dirty polluting industries--oil, 
gas, and coal companies.
  Now, another aspect of the budget driver, another big budget driver 
are these overseas wars.

                              {time}  1430

  Let's face it, in Iraq they told us that we were supposed to be 
getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any. They 
told us that Saddam Hussein was connected to al Qaeda. He wasn't. They 
said that we had to go there to make sure that there would be peace. 
We're leaving now, and the Iraqis--it's their country, and they are 
managing the best they can. Still, it's not that peaceful, but the fact 
is 10 years couldn't solve that problem.
  It was right to get out of Iraq, but it's also right to get out of 
Afghanistan. We need to responsibly and expeditiously end our military 
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home 
and abroad.
  Our budget adapts our military to 21st century threats because we 
definitely believe that America should be strong, but we should be 
adapting ourselves to the reality that we're in.
  One of the attributes of our bill, one of the very important 
components is a piece of legislation called the SANE Act. This 
excellent piece of legislation reduces our nuclear weapons arsenal 
because this is all Cold War stuff designed to fight the Soviet Union, 
and there is no more Soviet Union. What are we doing with these 20th 
century weapons systems in the 21st century? We need to bring some 
sanity to that. We reduce the budget so that it reflects the modern 
reality.
  The Budget for All protects American families by providing a make 
work pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food 
costs. This make work pay tax credit for families that are struggling 
with high gas and food costs is the kind of thing that incentivizes 
work, which is what we want to do. We extend the earned income tax 
credit and child dependent care credit.
  I'm very happy to say I've just been joined, Mr. Speaker, by a good 
friend of mine from the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. 
Whenever she is ready, she can just stand on up and hold forth. But I'm 
looking forward to sharing some mike time with her, because her 
insights are always very important.
  Moving forward on this issue of protecting American families, the 
Budget for All invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to 
keep Americans in their homes. This is very important. A lot of the 
economists who look at the problems with our economy have concluded 
that until we get our hands around this foreclosure crisis, we're going 
to continue, Mr. Speaker, to have very slow growth.
  The Budget for All addresses this problem. We deal with investing in 
programs that stave off further foreclosures. We also invest in 
children's education by increasing in education, training, and social 
services.
  The Budget for All is a good budget. It's a budget that makes sense. 
It's a budget for America. It's a budget designed to help the middle 
class and to put Americans to work. It's a budget that really reflects 
what Americans want, which is to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And 
we're already out of Iraq, but we're still kind of there. But we don't 
have a military presence there; we've got contractors there.
  This is a good budget that I hope that people will take a very strong 
look at. It is more fiscally responsible than the Ryan budget. We spend 
more upfront to get the economy moving, but then we save money on the 
back end, and we end up getting to primary surplus in the year 2016. 
This is an important thing that we need to do.
  Let me just pass the microphone and yield to Congresswoman Jackson 
Lee, who has distinguished herself in many areas, not the least of 
which is fighting for a fair budget for our Nation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the cochair of the Progressive 
Caucus for once again reminding America of America's greatness. That's 
why over 90-plus Members join together to be members of the Progressive 
Caucus. We have a sense of optimism that reflects our commitment to 
investing in human capital.
  Earlier today, I had the opportunity of listening to a discourse 
about the transportation bill, and I will point to what we've done with 
infrastructure. There was the representation by the majority leader 
that we're living in hard times, we don't have money, that we can't be 
looking, for example, at the Senate bill and we can't move forward. And 
I just listened as our minority whip spoke about the urgency of moving 
forward on an infrastructure bill.
  What I think is important, and really the theme that I wanted to 
focus on as I listened to you in my office--I just left about 12 
constituents who are the beneficiaries of community health clinics, one 
of the items that we've supported as a Progressive Caucus for a very 
long time and championed along with the Tri-Caucus, to put in the 
Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, the 2-year anniversary is 
tomorrow.
  The point is that we have optimism. We have the sense that America 
can get it done. You've just put up a very telling poster that when our 
Republican friends begin to talk, we're headed toward a pathway of 
devastation: no Medicare, no Medicaid, allowing reckless investments or 
speculation to occur, jobs overseas, and not focusing on our recovery.
  By the way, we understand a balanced budget. We are using war savings 
for the people of the United States of America. Our troops come home, 
and we realign our national security focus. I think most Americans will 
understand that, even national security experts will tell us that it is 
probably a challenge to think we will have a ground war invasion like 
we've had years past ever again, that we're now fighting a war on 
terrorism or acts of terrorism.
  Certainly, as we look to tell others to, in essence, become 
unnuclearized, we too must join the world's family because it's only 
one-upmanship.
  I would just say that we do not disarm our Nation. We believe in 
defending our Nation, but we believe in doing it in a smart way. What 
we have done is that we have these words, ``comprehensive economic 
recovery,'' but I'd like to say this is a smiley-faced optimistic 
pathway for Americans.
  Don't you think young people who are now sophomores, juniors, and 
seniors in college looking for their bright day--does anyone remember 
as we come upon May how exciting it was to look forward to a college 
graduation, a trade school graduation? You were just tickled pink. You 
were making sure your invitations were out. You were hoping that all 
relatives could make sure they had no conflicts. You really

[[Page H1533]]

wanted Grandma there or your aunt there or your favorite brother there 
or Mom and Dad there or family there. This was an exciting time. The 
Progressive Caucus budget speaks to that excitement and optimism and 
hopefulness.
  Our budget has an infrastructure bank that allows the private sector 
to come together and effectively bring about infrastructure projects in 
all manner of areas, from the hamlets that are so small, to the 
villages, to the county governments, to the city governments and State 
governments.
  I introduced a surface transportation bill that has been slowed, 
another bill that would generate income and transportation security and 
recognize that we must secure our surface transportation. In this bill, 
we proposed a 6-year $556 billion reauthorization bill that, over 10 
years, would lead to a $213 billion increase in transportation funding. 
What it would also do is create many jobs that provide for small 
contractors, minority-owned contractors, women-owned contractors. It 
would create work. It's an optimistic view.
  The making work pay tax credit from 2013 2015 is about let's let 
folks who are working, let those get a benefit that makes sense. Then 
we have more than $2 trillion in domestic investment packaging.
  Just let me mention the idea of when you work with emergency jobs to 
restore the American Dream, getting people out where improvement is 
needed--student improvement, park improvement, student jobs, 
neighborhood heroes, community health clinics, federally qualified 
clinics, and child care corps--getting folks to work.

                              {time}  1440

  In my town, Mr. Ellison, in the Southwest as you well know, we had a 
great drought in the last year. Volunteers are trying to plant trees, 
but I tell you we could stand for a Heroes Corps, we could stand for a 
Community Corps to get out there and help us re-seed America, if you 
will. We know that. We know the Job Corps. But this is a concept that 
gets folks out working.
  I also want to congratulate the University of Houston-Downtown that 
is heavily minority that just won the distinguished honor roll 
recognition for the largest amount of community service done by a 
campus across the Nation, cited by the Department of Education. That 
means people are ready to put that to work.
  Tax credits for investment in advanced energy. I've got a company 
right in my community that's been awarded for its new, innovative work 
on energy, manufacturing, capital access for entrepreneurs of small 
business.
  Now, let me just say this. I am excited about the 3 million Apple 3s 
that were sold because I think that is optimistic, and it employs the 
genius of America and it goes against the sad, deflated concept.
  Now, let me be very clear. I am not ignoring the unemployed 
Americans. I want to be very clear on that. I don't think the 
Progressive Caucus has for a moment. We did a job tour. We're going 
back out again. We have no reason to dismiss the person who is now 
sitting unemployed.
  What I want to say is there is some optimism. We've got to get all of 
those folks to be part of this new surge of optimism which this 
Progressive Caucus budget, if passed, would generate.
  But I want to just say this to my good friends at Apple. Bring the 
jobs home. You are manufacturing Apple 3 in China. I certainly believe 
in an international framework. I know that everything can't be made in 
America, made at home. But I do know that aspects of the talent that 
you're using in China can be found here in the United States. And the 
cost of shipment--I can tell you you can save some dollars. Let's put 
our thinking caps on for companies like Apple and find a way that you 
can balance those resources.
  I'm just going to cite General Electric. I know that we had put a 
real heavy heat on General Electric. I am told by their employees they 
are bringing jobs home. I met with some employees in my district who 
have indicated that they have been bringing them on home. I looked at 
them. They were real. They were alive. So, they have jobs, and they 
said they work for General Electric. Let's have a number of companies 
looking that way.
  Let me quickly just mention because this is all exciting, and I think 
people need to hear about excitement and opportunity.
  We already talked about the manufacturing community's tax credit, tax 
credit for the production of advanced technology vehicles. Again, 
everybody is saying we're slow on the hybrid, we're slow on the 
electric car. But all of that can create opportunity, tax credits for 
alternative fuel commercial vehicles, which is very possible. Double 
the amount of expense startup expenditures. So that means that if 
you've got a startup, we're going to double what you can expense. I 
think that makes a lot of sense.
  Young people are the ones that are always starting startups. We need 
to encourage that. Enhance and make permanent the research and 
experimentation tax credit. That is right in the line of the Texas 
Medical Center. Many of our medical research hospitals, MD Anderson in 
the 18th Congressional District, while it's our neighbor, is working on 
new technology. This fits an optimistic view on how we can cure the 
worst of the worst.
  Let me also say that I want to make mention that we are dealing with 
tax brackets, and we are looking, I think, at sensible policies dealing 
with capital gains and State policy. What I would say to people who are 
listening to us: Get on our Web site and give us your input. We're 
interested in what you have to say.
  As well, let me just put in a pitch that no one likes the season when 
April 15 comes around. But we've tried to make our tax reform 
palatable. As far as I can see, we have left alone the charitable tax 
exemption. I tell you there are those who are very concerned that we 
leave little room for those who have that on the table, have everything 
on the table; that they would attack the charitable tax exemption and 
not go to some of the ones that the Progressive Caucus has focused on, 
because this nonprofit, this foundation, said they would be stopped in 
their tracks.
  I had one foundation, one nonprofit talk to me today and say how 
challenging it is to get funding for the disadvantaged and programs 
that deal with intercity. So I want you to know that the Progressive 
Caucus recognizes the value of the charitable tax deduction, and you 
don't find that on our table.
  I want to say something to Mr. Ellison. I wanted to mention, for a 
moment, Trayvon Martin.
  Mr. ELLISON. By all means I yield time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. He is certainly a lawyer who's practiced 
law, but I have met Mr. Ellison's wonderful family of youth and young 
people, a young man. That's what happens. People don't realize that we 
have families on both sides of the aisle. Good Republican friends 
who've been with our families. So whatever you see us saying here on 
the floor of the House, we are particularly sensitive and warm toward 
Members' families because we are, in essence, despite our policy 
debates, we are a family here.
  So I simply wanted to indicate first to give good wishes to 
Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who is now with her constituents in a 
major protest in Florida on this sad and tragic incident. I wanted to 
say that we will gather on Tuesday to present an opportunity for the 
case to be heard on this issue and the Federal Government's 
responsibility or authority.
  One of the things that in this budget we are very keenly sensitive to 
are the needs of the Department of Justice. Again, an optimistic 
budget, because the Department of Justice is the armor in many 
instances that will come in and help a community when they cannot get 
help locally.
  Mr. Martin was killed on February 26. He was buried on March 1. Today 
is March 22. It was only when his parents came out or used their grief 
that they're still grieving to start asking why, law-abiding citizens 
who were waiting for the city attorney and waiting on the chief of 
police, waiting on the Governor of the State of Florida to say 
something. Nothing was said.
  So, as the voices began to raise and the astonishment and outrage 
began to percolate, Mr. Ellison, it was not isolated to Florida or 
Sanford. If you listen to the various media outlets, parents, no matter 
what their background,

[[Page H1534]]

were calling and asking, What about my child?
  I think it is important that we show this young man. It could be any 
of our family members. Can we imagine our youngsters wearing the 
clothing of the day--hoodies, sneakers, jeans. Do I need to remind you 
that Mr. Trayvon Martin was simply getting some Skittles, on the phone 
with his girlfriend, walking back to where his father was and going to 
look at some games. In this instance, it was basketball.
  I come from local government. You come from State government. We know 
about Neighborhood Watch. We champion Neighborhood Watch. We have this 
Community Night Out, Police Night Out, whatever it is, and all of us 
have gone to it. We tell neighbors to watch out for each other. It's 
important for it to be said this was not watching out for each other.
  The basic 911 tape, if you frame it, the call came in, that's the 
right thing to do. The description I may not adhere to, some of the 
words in the description, but so be it, you described this individual 
as such. But it came back and asked the specific question, ``Are you 
following him?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do not do that.''

                              {time}  1450

  This youngster, football player, babysitter--likes to babysit, eating 
Skittles--a fun food to eat with a basketball game--was on the 
sidewalk. Not coming out of a window, not knocking on a door, not 
standing in front of a door, not on a lawn--walking on a sidewalk, 
which the Progressive Caucus has stood many times on that First 
Amendment right, we've stood many times. He was walking, and we are now 
in an abyss of darkness in terms of what next happened, but the 
description is, this young boy was shot point-blank in the chest.
  We have to call upon the Federal resources. We've called for a 
Federal investigation. We've been joined by many colleagues. We have 
tapes of witnesses, meaning people inside their homes, saying they 
heard shouting and crying for help. We've heard people ask the 
question: Why didn't the neighborhood watcher stand down in the car? 
Move away? We've also heard the author of the ``stand your ground'' 
bill--which, by the way, is in 20 or so States--a Republican State 
representative, articulate in newspaper clips that it is not a pursue 
and attack. It is that you can stand your ground upon someone coming, 
but it is not a pursue and attack.
  I just wanted to indicate that it is important for Members of 
Congress--and I believe there is a sense of outrage. We are not taking 
this to the level that does not respect the family that is mourning. 
We're not creating hysteria. We are only begging for the relief of 
others whose names have not come up. There are people calling in and 
telling us about cases from the west coast to the east coast, to the 
North and the South. So I wanted to indicate that we will be joining as 
Members of Congress in hearing the circumstances, as much as we can, on 
the theory of the Federal Government's responsibility or authority. I 
think that is the more appropriate approach to take.
  I want to thank the gentleman for letting me articulate, I think, 
just the sheer horror of having our kids leave our home--for 
innocence--and not come back. As a mother, I believe that, and as one 
who sees this, I believe we owe that family a response.
  Mr. ELLISON. It's funny you should make that particular point about 
your family tie, because, when I first heard about the case of Trayvon, 
I mean, my thought went immediately to my own 17-year-old son. We live 
in Minneapolis, and he could very well be running to go get some 
Skittles, and could be talking on his cell phone. It's horrifying to 
me, deeply disturbing and troubling, that somebody would think that, 
first of all, he was some sort of a problem because he was walking down 
the street, and then to follow him. Then even after 9/11, when people 
say don't follow, they still follow.
  You're right. Much has been said about the Florida law, the ``stand 
your ground'' law, but this gentleman did not stand his ground. There 
is no evidence to suggest that that is what happened. He went after 
this kid. Then you hear the tape of the boy as he was screaming. 
Somebody said to me earlier today, Well, don't call Trayvon a boy. Hey, 
he was 17. He was a boy.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. He was a boy.
  Mr. ELLISON. He was killed by a grown 28-year-old man. It's deeply 
disturbing. I wish the people who don't quite get it yet could feel how 
some of us feel about this case. I mean, I spent 16 years in the 
criminal justice system. I know that horrible things happen, and it's 
heartbreaking any time we lose anyone, but to think that law 
enforcement would operate and treat this person with impunity is 
absolutely an abandonment of every principle of serve and protect. If a 
cop did what this guy did, they would take his gun, they would make him 
give a urine sample, and they'd put him on administrative leave until 
this thing was sorted out. This guy walked away.
  Here is another thing. As a criminal defense lawyer, I find it 
nothing short of shocking that this man's representation--shooting him 
in self-defense--was good enough. I mean, if you've got a self-defense 
claim, then after you're charged with murder, you can raise that and 
see if you can convince a jury of it. We have a dead young man here, 
and the chief of police is like, Well, these things happen. No, there 
needs to be accountability. Do you know what I don't want to see 
happen? I hope people don't think this is only because this kid is 
black. You know, this could be a kid of any color.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That's right.
  Mr. ELLISON. Any parent should be shocked. Any 17-year-old who's 
walking the streets ought to be worried that some overzealous wannabe 
police officer would just shoot him down. This case is a national 
outrage.
  Do you know what? You know and I know, because we've both worked in 
the system, that if the police would have made the arrest and processed 
this case in the ordinary course, it probably wouldn't have even hit 
the national news. But because nothing was done--cold-blooded murder; 
it looked like first-degree murder--we're all horrified.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. You're speaking as a parent, and I think 
everyone can appreciate that. You really highlighted it. In this 
instance, of course, we have to look and see whether there was a hate 
crime or if his civil rights were violated.
  But you're absolutely right. We had nothing to go on. We had a person 
walking. We have the police, themselves, and so many of us have worked 
to ensure that the guns on these streets don't go after our law 
enforcement officers because, obviously, there are many who believe the 
more guns the better off we are--guns, guns, guns. This has nothing to 
do with the Second Amendment. It's just guns, guns, guns. So he has a 
concealed weapon. I'm not here to cast any aspersions, but as the 
reports are coming out, he has some challenges--meaning Mr. Zimmerman--
to his record. He has some challenges.
  With that in and of itself, the officer should have brought him in, 
but there is no evidence of that. Maybe they did, but there is no 
evidence of that, and they should have done, as you indicated, the 
normal police work. He has a defense, so be it--that of a concealed 
weapon permit and ``stand your ground.'' But you have a dead person, 
and you have no witnesses, at least not that the police have offered to 
say Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Gonzalez said that they were in a 
knockdown, drag-out. There is not any glimmer of information that has 
come out. The young man happened to be a person of color. We have 
placed to a bipartisan vote both hate crimes laws, the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act, and other bills that have been voted on in a bipartisan 
manner simply because we don't want America to violate those very 
precious rights.
  I want to just share with you, because, as I said to you, I've got a 
neighborhood watch, The Washington Post says, Experts say neighborhood 
watches shouldn't be police.
  Mr. ELLISON. They should watch.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That is correct.
  What I don't understand, and what we will be, if you will, perusing 
is, where did this case go wrong and the fact that the Federal 
Government has to come in when things go wrong.
  Someone said to me in my office that this case has riveted like 
Emmett Till's case riveted.

[[Page H1535]]

  Mr. ELLISON. Yes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. And you're right. There are cases across 
America. Members have raised cases in conversations that we've had, and 
we need to have all of that in an inventory so we can, out of this 
tragedy, say to those parents: Trayvon counts. We care. Young people 
count. Children count. Your community counts and our communities count.
  I wanted to share that. I'm not going to let this go. As for the 
Judiciary Committee; the Congressional Black Caucus; the Tri-Caucus, 
which involves the Asian Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus; letters that 
have been written by a number of Members of Congress; the work of 
Congresswoman Brown--and the Progressive Caucus, I know, is a willing 
partner when it comes to issues of justice--we are not going to let 
this rest without finding some relief and rest for this family.

                              {time}  1500

  And I thank the chairman for his personal story. I met the young man, 
and we've all traveled together, our family, at the Dem caucus events 
where families come together.
  I will just conclude by simply holding up, again, this picture. And 
for those who don't know the terminology, let me just show. He is in 
football attire here; and we don't know what college he would have gone 
to or what football team, if that had been his choice, that he would 
have played on.
  Let me just put this up. If you can see it, this is an innocent face. 
But he is wearing a hoody. And if anyone needs to know, I have a hoody. 
It's my local college's paraphernalia that you buy, and you wear it to 
the game, and it has a hoody. And it's something that I think everybody 
has seen in this country. I see nothing on here that says: Bad guy. 
Criminal. Shoot me. That's not what we do in America. I want to thank 
the gentleman for allowing me to share and to say that we will find 
some resolution to this.
  I will simply conclude by saying that I do believe in an optimistic 
America. Revealing my pain about this young man is pain for all those 
whose names we have not called. But in believing in an optimistic 
America, I want to be a problem solver. I want to solve this problem or 
answer this problem with respect to Trayvon Martin.
  I want to say that as I perceive this product that has been produced, 
this Budget for All, I am so grateful that over 90-plus members of the 
Progressive Caucus saw that the right route to take was the optimistic 
upturn, positive, open opportunity budget to give to all of America. 
That's what we should be supporting, not the downturn, the ``no way 
out,'' but really that there is a new day for America.
  I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his courtesy.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for joining me tonight.
  We talked about the Budget for All, and the hashtag again is 
#Budget4all. People can check it out on Twitter or on anywhere else. It 
will be on U.S. Progress. We want people to look at the Budget for All. 
We want your ideas.
  But I think it's also important to draw a contrast. The recently 
released Ryan budget, the Republican budget, does some critical things 
that Americans should know about. It ends Medicare. It devastates 
Medicaid, rewards Wall Street, punishes Main Street, protects 
corporations that ship jobs overseas, threatens the recovery. It 
preserves tax breaks for the people who don't need them and actually 
cuts into the social safety net for America's everyday heroes, police, 
fire, job training, small business, infrastructure, college 
affordability.
  I think the facts show that in the course of the last couple of 
months, I guess 18 months or thereabouts, I believe that the Republican 
majority really hasn't been working on solving problems.
  People can say whatever they want about Dodd-Frank, or they can say 
whatever they want about the Affordable Care Act or the Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act for women, or they can say anything they want about the 
credit cardholders' bill of rights. But in the last Congress, these are 
bills the Democratic House majority passed that were designed to try to 
solve problems for Americans.
  Now, some people say, Well, it should have done this more. It 
shouldn't have done so much of that. Fine. That's what we do here. We 
debate stuff. But I'm not aware of any single piece of legislation we 
looked at since they took the majority designed to solve a problem. 
It's all been: cut everything; whack everything. Let's not take a 
surgical look at what should be cut, what's not working. Just cut 
everything.
  They have created budget crisis after fiscal crisis after debt limit 
crisis. I mean, this is the Congress of crisis.
  And the Speaker may be aware that because the Ryan budget basically 
goes below the nonmilitary discretionary in the Budget Control Act, 
which was a deal, when the Senate comes in with their budget and this 
bill and theirs don't match, we're going to have another standoff.
  Oh, and by the way, we're going to have a standoff in 10 days because 
the transportation bill is expiring. The House majority, the Republican 
Caucus, will not agree with the Senate to pass a 2-year transportation 
bill. So the transportation bill within 10 days is looking to expire. 
They say, We'll only do a 3-month bill. Three months? This is putting 
everybody's lives in jeopardy. They just did it with the FAA not more 
than a few months ago. This is the crisis Congress, where they will not 
make long-term decisions because they are playing politics.
  I believe that since the Republicans have put defeating the President 
as their primary goal, therefore, of course, they're not operating on 
the basis of trying to solve any problems.
  But before any Republicans get upset with me for saying these things 
that I honestly believe to be true, don't get mad at me. Americans 
believe that that's what they're doing. Now here's a question put to 
Americans. Republicans would rather see President Obama lose than see 
America win. Half of Americans believe the Republicans are sabotaging 
the recovery to win an election. This is a Washington Post poll: fifty 
percent responded positively to that; 44 percent said no.
  If you've got most people thinking that your main goal is to get rid 
of the President and not help them, that's a problem. And look, some 
folks might say, Oh, look, Keith, that's not true. That's just you 
politicians arguing again. Well, Mitch McConnell said it. He said, Our 
main priority is to defeat the President, make the President a one-term 
President.
  So at the end of the day, this budget reflects that politics-playing 
theme that they seem to be on. They are rigging the system even more 
heavily in favor of the richest 1 percent. Their budget gives 
generously to the rich and protects existing tax breaks for those at 
the top of the income scale.
  Also, the reality is that the only way to pay for such huge tax cuts 
for the 1 percent is to make the 99 percent pay the tab. Their budget 
would weaken the middle class of America. First and foremost, the plan 
ends the Medicare guarantee of decent, affordable health insurance in 
retirement. It also slashes critical middle class investments, such as 
education and infrastructure by 45 and 24 percent. It cuts education by 
45 percent, infrastructure by 24 percent. It includes not a single new 
measure to help the nearly 13 million unemployed. Though we've recently 
enjoyed several months of solid jobs growth, our current economic 
recovery is by no means assured; and we still have a long way to go.
  Not only does the House Republican majority's budget fail to propose 
a single new idea for spurring job growth, but it would even force us 
to swerve into severe austerity. The Ryan budget, which is the 
Republican budget, cuts the following: it kills even more jobs by 
cutting the Federal workforce by over roughly 210,000 over 3 years, 
cuts food stamps and welfare, cuts retiree benefits from Federal 
employee pensions, cuts support for farmers, cuts antipoverty programs 
and uses the proceeds to give rich people even more tax cuts.
  As I said before, the Republicans, who believe--and so many of them 
believe in it. They believe in trickle-down economics. This is the idea 
that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. 
The problem is that that belief system has never succeeded.

                              {time}  1510

  One of the best economies since World War II was in the 1990s. One of 
the best. We had the Clinton-era tax

[[Page H1536]]

rates, which we hope we'll return to, at least for the top 2 percent. 
The top 2 percent were doing great during Clinton's time. And yet the 
Republicans say that unless we give rich people more money, the economy 
is not going to be good. Well, it's not good now, and they have been in 
charge for a long time.
  So the bottom line is the Ryan budget proposal is bad for America, 
cutting basic criteria for seniors and not investing in jobs. The 
Budget for All invests in America and puts Americans as the top 
priority, not just winning some election.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________