[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 52 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1798-H1802]
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. Well, Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I'm cochair 
of the Progressive Caucus, and I say, God, please bless Walter Jones.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today with the Progressive Caucus message 
today. Our Web site is listed on the bottom, cpc.grijalva.house.gov. We 
come every week with the progressive message. The Progressive Caucus is 
a caucus in the Congress. There are several. Of course, the two big 
caucuses are the Democratic Caucus and the Republican caucus; but 
within both, there are different groups that have points of agreement 
that they come together around. On the Republican side, there's the 
Republican Study Group. On the Democratic side, there are several 
caucuses. There's the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and there is 
the Blue Dog caucus. There are different groups.
  The Progressive Caucus is a caucus within the Democratic Caucus. We'd 
be happy to have Republican Members if they ever wanted to join, but 
all of our members are Democrats, and we believe that America should be 
a place where there's liberty and justice for all. That means whether 
you're Hispanic or Latino or African American, one America. We believe 
that the working men and women of America should get a fair, decent 
wage, and that the people who are most privileged in our society, God 
bless them, but they should pay adequate taxes so that we can afford 
the basic necessities of a society--schools, roads, take care of our 
environment and things like that. We believe we should stay out of 
these wars unless they're necessary to defend the American people, so 
we are promoting diplomacy, and we are very proud to say that we are 
the liberal caucus.
  We're the Progressive Caucus. We're the ones who believe fairness, 
inclusion, and that, yes, the government has a responsibility, because 
it is our collective--the way we all come together as Americans to the 
poor, and we should stand by that and stick by that. That is who the 
Progressive Caucus is.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we've been dealing with the budget this week. It's 
been ``budget week,'' you could say. We started out the week, we were 
talking about the Republican budget drafted by Mr. Paul Ryan. We went 
from there, and we talked about the Democratic budget drafted by Mr. 
Chris Van Hollen. And then, of course, the Progressive Caucus budget 
came up, the Black Caucus budget came up. I think Mr. Mulvaney came up 
with a budget proposal. They put the President's--a very, very watered 
down and inaccurate version of the President's budget up there, and 
we've been talking budget.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the budget, what we're talking about 
is the values and priorities of America. It's important to keep this in 
mind. What shows up in your budget is what you care about. What does 
not show up in your budget is what you don't care about. Now, Mr. 
Speaker, I always caution people not to just take their family budget 
and the United States budget and assume they're basically the same 
thing, one just is bigger than the other. That's not exactly accurate. 
There are important differences, and we shouldn't mix up the two. But 
in this way they are similar in that they reflect what it is that 
people value.
  If you have a family and their budget, you can look at their budget; 
they

[[Page H1799]]

spend a lot of money on entertainment, you can pretty much figure they 
value that. If they put a lot of money into food, you can figure they 
definitely think that is a priority for them. You can go through the 
family budget and see what people spend their money on, see what people 
don't have in their budget, and then you can pretty much figure, well, 
maybe that's not a priority for them. Of course, they may not be able 
to afford it at this time. But if you talk about reasonably middle 
class people, their budget reflects what they care about, what matters 
and what doesn't.
  And for our Nation, that certainly is true. If our Nation puts more 
money into warfare than it does into social uplift, jobs and the 
economy and infrastructure, that says something about who we are. If 
our national budget puts more money into infrastructure and jobs and 
putting people back to work, then that says something about who we are. 
The various budgets that have come up, Mr. Speaker, reflect what the 
various caucuses think is important and project a vision for our 
country. I want to talk about that today.
  I want to start by talking about Paul Ryan's budget. Paul Ryan is the 
Republican Budget Committee chair. He's a nice guy. I don't have 
anything bad to say about him personally because he is actually a nice 
person. But the fact is we disagree in a significant way about what the 
priorities of America should be. For example, the Republican budget, 20 
children will lose access to Head Start to pay for one millionaire's 
tax cut. That's their budget. Just if you want to understand what their 
tax cuts represent, it means 20 kids don't get to go to Head Start so 
that a millionaire can get a tax cut--150,000 equals 20 times 7,500. 
So, if you look at this tax cut, a millionaire's tax cut, which will 
amount to about $150,000, these little guys don't get to go to Head 
Start.
  Now, what is Head Start? Head Start is a great program for low-income 
kids to make sure that they have a chance at getting a quality 
education and don't fall behind in school. And so this is a great 
program. It has great results. These Head Start kids, 20 of them going 
to Head Start, versus what a millionaire's tax cut would be, which is 
$150,000. Now, this is the choice we're making.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not act like we're not making choices. We are 
making choices. We are deciding. My friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle like to say, oh, we shouldn't pick winners and losers. We're 
always doing it. They just pick the rich people, and we--I--pick the 
kids in Head Start.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, if you just want to get a sense of what the 
Republican budget, what it does and what the tax cuts that it's calling 
for mean, Republican budget, 150 college students will have their Pell 
Grants cut by $1,000 to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So one 
millionaire's tax cut, $150,000, but 150 times 1,000, all these kids, 
these college kids trying to make something of themselves, their Pell 
Grant is going to get whacked by 1,000 bucks.
  So again, choices. Do we want to make sure the country club set is 
doing even better, or do we want to make sure that these aspiring 
engineers, these aspiring doctors and teachers, these aspiring police 
officers, these aspiring workers of tomorrow, will have a shot at an 
affordable college education?

                              {time}  1610

  This is what we're talking about. These are the choices that we're 
making, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's very important that Americans 
know it. It's critical that we know it.
  Now, let's just not stop there. Let's talk about other critical 
choices being made, Mr. Speaker. Because I think it is so critical that 
as we're talking budget week and all the budget decisions that we are 
making, that we make it real clear to the American people what it is 
we're choosing.
  Republican budget: 216 pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and 
children would lose access to WIC--that's the Women, Infants and 
Children program, and it provides food for poor women and their kids--
to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So, $150,000 tax cut for a 
millionaire--again, this is the country club set--equals about 216 
pregnant women or postpartum women and the amount of money that 
Americans give them so that they can have good nutrition for their 
kids. These are poor women. These are women who are struggling 
economically. But just because they're struggling economically, we 
don't want their kids to go without good, nutritious food. So as 
Americans, we have the WIC program. Well, they're going to get slashed 
out of the program because a millionaire needs a tax cut. That's the 
choice that we're making.
  I want to talk about why we're making that choice in a minute, but I 
want to give one more example. Republican budget: 25 seniors paying 
$6,000 or more for Medicare to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So, 
if you're a millionaire and you get a tax cut under what the 
Republicans want to give you--you're already doing good, but they want 
you to even do better--that will mean that you've got about 25 seniors 
who have to pay $6,000 a piece more for their Medicare. So, Mom, Dad--
if you're my age, Mom and Dad are senior citizens. If you're younger, 
they're not. But if your parents or grandparents are on Medicare and 
they're doing all they can on their fixed income to make it, they're 
going to need a little extra help because we've got to make sure that 
that millionaire gets his $150,000 tax cut. These are the choices that 
we're making.
  Now, my friends in the Republican caucus--God bless them--it's not 
like they don't like poor people. Many of them are very charitable. 
They give in their different walks of life, maybe their faith 
community, or whatever, they just don't think government should do it. 
This is what they say. They think that government needs to get out of 
that and let churches, mosques, synagogues, and other folks do it. Of 
course, that would mean that it wouldn't get done, because even though 
churches, mosques, and synagogues do great work, they can never 
possibly come up to meet the need that's out there.
  What they're really believing is--this is what they really believe: 
They believe in something called trickle-down economics. They believe 
that if you give this millionaire 150,000 more dollars than he already 
has, he will maybe, hopefully, perhaps invest it in plant and equipment 
and maybe somebody will get a job because of it. Or maybe not. Or maybe 
he will invest in China. He'll improve jobs, but just not in America.
  Nobody knows what they will do with this tax cut, but this is what 
the Republicans believe. They think that if you give rich people more 
money, they will invest in plant and equipment, create more economic 
activity, and it will trickle down to the rest of us. The only problem 
is that it has never worked. It doesn't stop them from saying it, but 
it's never worked.
  In fact, the GOP budget will destroy more than 4 million American 
jobs in the next 2 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute. 
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that:

       The shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts 
     would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013, and 
     2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 
     2014.

  So, a little bit more than 4 million jobs over the next 2 years.
  Now, people might think, well, Keith, is that right? Well, yeah, it's 
right. And I'll tell you why it's right. It's right because when 
Republicans say we need to cut government waste, we need to cut 
government, cut government, cut government, they act as if there's just 
some Big Government thing over there, like it's a big giant piece of 
Styrofoam and they can just cut it and it doesn't change anything. What 
they're talking about cutting are Federal workers. They're talking 
about laying off Federal workers. And they're very derisive about 
government jobs and act like people who work for the government don't 
do anything of value--of course this is not true at all. But if you 
look on this chart right here, Mr. Speaker, it says:

       I earn less than $45,000 a year. Explain to me, GOP, how 
     cutting my pay creates jobs.

  This particular person is named Paul, and he is an Army depot worker. 
I think we need Army depot workers.

  Teresa is a nurse--and this is her right here. She lives in my 
district. And she says:

       Twelve percent of the salary I earn caring for veterans 
     goes to my retirement. Explain to me, GOP, how cutting my 
     retirement puts people to work.


[[Page H1800]]


  Well, one of the things that they do in the Ryan budget is cut into 
Federal workers' retirement. They act like, oh, the government. No, the 
government is people. The government is nurses. The government is Army 
depot workers. And what about Federal prisons that keep dangerous 
criminals behind bars:

       I pay more than $9,000 a year for my family's health 
     insurance. Explain to me, GOP, how cutting my take-home pay 
     lowers unemployment.

  This guy is a corrections officer. And thank goodness for correction 
officers or the streets that we live on wouldn't be so nice.
  The bottom line is, when Republicans say, oh, we're going to shrink 
the size of government, what they mean is they're going to lay off and 
cut the pay and cut the employment benefits of Federal workers, people 
who work in prisons at risk to themselves, nurses who care for our 
veterans, people who are Army depot workers, and people who work in our 
parks and people who fix our roads and a whole lot of other people.
  Here's a chart for you, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the Ryan budget, 
if you look at the GOP proposal, if you look at it and it could do what 
they want it to do, it could cause a loss of up to 7 million jobs by 
2016. Because it would cut Federal workers, and then they wouldn't be 
able to have the money to spend in the neighborhoods they live in 
anymore. That would then have a ripple effect in their neighborhoods 
because they're buying less. For example, if that young nurse at the VA 
in Minnesota, if she doesn't have the same pay as she had before, then 
she can't buy as much as she bought before, then the company she shops 
at doesn't sell her as much as they have before. You do that enough, 
multiply it times enough people, and that company then needs to start 
laying off people. So it's a ripple effect, what the Republicans are 
asking for.
  But if you look at what they wanted--and I'm talking about going all 
the way back to H.R. 1, which is their proposal--you would see 
repealing health care reform, that would cut about $2 million; the GOP 
budget, that would cut about $3 million; cuts to the Federal workforce, 
that would cut about 285,000; the so-called JOBS Act, that would cut a 
lot; the Fair Tax, that would cut; and they would just cut on down the 
line. What they're basically proposing is by shrinking government and 
by doing all that stuff, they're getting rid of people.
  Now, I just want to be on the record because your words do get 
twisted. If there is a Federal program that is not justifiable, and 
it's so poorly run that it's of no value to anyone, I'm okay with 
cutting it. I just want to say that on the record on the House floor, 
Mr. Speaker. I'm all right with cutting programs that don't work. But 
when you're talking about VA nurses and you're talking about 
corrections workers in Federal prisons, we need these people. They do 
good stuff. And I believe that we should stand by them as they stand by 
us.
  The GOP budget--now going back to the budget we addressed today--will 
shift costs to seniors for the Medicare guarantee, according to the 
AARP. And what's AARP? That's the leading organization representing 
retired persons. And the CBO--what's the CBO? That is the Congressional 
Budget Office. And for folks who like to watch C SPAN, I'd just say, 
Mr. Speaker, you need to know what CBO is because this is very 
important, Congressional Budget Office. They're the nonpartisan group 
that says what's really going on with the numbers.

                              {time}  1620

  At the same time, it is raising the seniors' cost. This GOP budget 
gives those making more than a million a year an average tax cut of 
about $394,000. So I put 150 up there a moment ago. That was the 
generic millionaire. The actual number is about 394 for the average 
millionaire, per year, on the average tax cut.
  And also, the tax breaks for Big Oil companies. You know, they get 
about $4 billion a year. I'm talking about if you look at Conoco, 
ExxonMobil, and all the Big Oil companies, they get about $4 billion a 
year.
  Now how much did you pay for gasoline?
  I'm not saying that they're not good people. I'm not saying that they 
don't run a good business and supply an important product. I'm just 
asking you this: Does ExxonMobil really need your money through a tax 
subsidy? Do they?
  I think that they don't need your money. I think their $4 a gallon is 
taking care of them just fine. And I think it's outrageous that the 
Republican budget that we dealt with does not eliminate that tax break.
  In short, the Big Oil companies who are gouging Americans at the pump 
and the wealthiest Americans win, while middle class and working class 
families get the short end of the stick.
  Last year, oil profits--and this is an exact number or close to it. 
Last year, Big Oil profits totaled about $137 billion. But you don't 
need to remember $137 billion. All you need to remember is Big Oil 
profits were the biggest ever that the oil industry ever had. And yet 
we're forking it over to them through our tax money, not through the 
pumps.
  Some people might think, well, of course we're paying them, Keith, 
through the pump. They give us gas. We've got to get to work, so we 
need to buy the gas.
  I'm not talking about that. I'm saying they get--they can apply for 
grants and subsidies, and it all adds up to about $4 billion a year. 
With soaring gasoline prices, Big Oil's 2012 profits will even be 
bigger. Yet Republicans want to give Big Oil more money in our tax 
dollars, and it just doesn't make any sense.
  Now, of course you shouldn't expect the Big Oil companies like 
ExxonMobil to say we don't want the money. Of course they want the 
money. Who doesn't want money? Everybody does, including them. But the 
people who have a public responsibility to look out for the American 
people should be willing to say ``no'' to public subsidies for the 
ExxonMobils of this world.
  And again, if you work for ExxonMobil, I'm not running you down. I'm 
just saying that you're doing well enough and you don't need the help 
of the American people. You can do fine on your own.
  Now, those kids on Head Start need help. They need help. Those 
college kids need help, but not ExxonMobil executives.
  The major consequence for Medicare and Medicaid, the Ryan budget, the 
Republican budget, has big consequences for Medicaid and Medicare. Many 
seniors will be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in 
traditional Medicare and keep their current choice of doctors. New 
Medicare beneficiaries would pay more than $1,200 more by 2030 and more 
than 6,000 by 2050.
  Before, more seniors would gradually shift to private health 
insurance plans over time, increasing privatization of Medicare. More 
than 47 million Americans would lose health care insurance over 10 
years because they would get rid of ObamaCare.
  Now, my friends in the Republican aisle, when they say ``ObamaCare,'' 
they don't mean it in a nice way. It's an insult. But you know what? 
Obama does care, so I don't mind them saying ``ObamaCare.'' I hope they 
keep saying it, because they're just reminding Americans that Obama 
cares about them and that the people the Republicans want to look out 
for apparently do not.
  States, under the Republican plan, would be forced to slash Medicaid 
eligibility benefits and payments to health care providers. Their 
budget shreds the Medicaid safety net and shifts health care costs to 
States and beneficiaries, blocking Medicaid. This shifts all risks, 
including future recessions, health care cost increases, and disasters 
to States and beneficiaries.
  So, here's the thing. This Ryan budget, this Republican Ryan budget, 
it helps and takes care of the rich. It ignores everyone else, and it 
hurts the middle class.
  The Republican budget would weaken the middle class in important 
ways. First and foremost, their plan ends the Medicare guarantee of 
decent health insurance in retirement. It also slashes critical middle 
class investments such as education and infrastructure by 45 percent 
and 24 percent, respectively--education by 45 percent, infrastructure 
by 24 percent.
  Now, look. The American Society of Civil Engineers, Mr. Speaker, has 
told us that we have crumbling infrastructure in this country to the 
tune of about $2.2 to $3 trillion, a lot of money. And if you are 
living in any city across this country, you can drive over 75-

[[Page H1801]]

year-old bridges. You can drive over potholes. Our sewage systems need 
upgrade.

  I am from Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city I love so much; but back a 
few years ago, we had a bridge fall into the Mississippi River because 
the gusset plates, which are those plates that hold up the bridge, gave 
way because the adequate maintenance just wasn't maintained over time.
  Now, it happened to us, but it could happen anywhere. There are many 
structurally deficient bridges across this Nation, literally thousands. 
We could put people back to work if we put the money into taking care 
of them. And not only would we have people working, we'd have to save 
bridges to go over. But the Republican majority, to use their phrase, 
kicks the can down the road and doesn't deal with this looming 
infrastructure crisis.
  So let me just say this. I've talked a little bit about the so-called 
Ryan Republican budget. I don't want to spend all my time talking about 
it, but I do think it's important for Americans to know that this is a 
budget for the 1 percent. This is a budget for people who've got it 
well, who are doing fine.
  Now, let me just tell you. I swear, I am a big fan of well-to-do 
people. I wish I were one of them. But my point is that you don't need 
to help people who already have a lot of help on their own, but you do 
need to help schoolkids, Head Start kids, pregnant moms, pregnant low-
income moms, seniors. These people we should help. People who are doing 
fine, they don't need our help. They should do the helping, in my 
opinion. And yet the Ryan budget says we're just going to help the 
country club set, and I think that's not any way to have a budget.
  I'm going to talk about the Progressive Caucus budget, but I just 
want you to know, first, that the Ryan Republican budget is no good 
budget for America. In fact, it's premised on the theory that rich 
people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. Really. 
That's the animating, organizing feature of their budget, that if we 
gave rich people more money, then they might invest it in plant and 
equipment, and then it'll trickle down to the rest of us. And poor 
people have too much stuff; we can't afford it. We can't afford Head 
Start, can't afford WIC, can't afford home heating oil for seniors, 
can't afford Medicare, can't afford Medicaid. The poor folks are just, 
they're getting treated too well.
  And that's basically what the theory is of the Republican budget, and 
so that's fine. And I respect them for being real honest about what 
they believe in, because a budget is a reflection of our values.
  So now that we've talked about what they're talking about, let's talk 
about a real budget, not for the 1 percent, but a budget for all.
  The Progressive Caucus budget has a name. The name of the Progressive 
Caucus budget is the Budget for All. That's the name of the Progressive 
Caucus budget because, unlike the Republicans' budget, which is a 
budget for the 1 percent, this is a budget for all.
  Let me tell you what it does, Mr. Speaker. It creates 3.3 million 
jobs in the first 2 years. It cuts the deficit by nearly 7 trillion, 
$6.8 trillion; no benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security.
  The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again for the 
vast majority of Americans. 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 protects Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, invests 
in America's future, and asks those who have benefited the most from 
our economy to pay their fair share.
  Now, as I said, you can't have a budget--you can have a budget that 
cuts taxes for rich people if you then cut services for poor people. 
And you can have a budget that pays for infrastructure and education, 
but the money has to come from somewhere. And we ask people who already 
have lots of it to do a little more for their fellow Americans.

                              {time}  1630

  We're not hiding that fact. Yes, we would raise taxes on the 
wealthiest Americans. Not to punish them, because we don't think taxes 
are punishment, but because it's necessary to meet the needs of the 
Nation and any self-respecting patriot would do so if they could.
  In fact, there is a group out there--and I would urge you to check 
them out, Mr. Speaker--called Patriotic Millionaires who understand 
that they may need to pay higher taxes.
  If you already are making a million dollars a year, would you pay a 
little extra just to make sure that low-income pregnant women got some 
food for their kids? If you are already making a million or more a 
year, would you pay a little extra to make sure that little kids had 
Head Start to go to? If you're already making a million dollars a year, 
Mr. Speaker, would you pay a little extra just to make sure that the 
Federal workers don't have their pensions cut to pay for your tax cut? 
That's just my thinking.
  I don't want anybody to think the Republicans are mean. They do 
charitable work in their individual lives, and that's a fact and I 
think people ought to know that. But they don't think government has 
any role in helping people. I disagree with that and call on Americans, 
Mr. Speaker, to look carefully at the choices that they offer.
  The Budget for All is not a budget for the 1 percent, it's not a 
budget for the 99 percent, but a budget for all because we care about 
the 1 percent too. We want even the 1 percent to live in a good Nation 
with fairness, with economic opportunity, with economic mobility, with 
good roads, good bridges, good education, clean water, clean air. We 
want this for everyone.
  The Budget for All 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 our economy moving again, including direct-hire programs that 
create School Improvement Corps, Park Improvement Corps, Student Jobs 
Corps, and others; targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, 
manufacturing, cutting-edge technological investment in the private 
sector; widespread domestic investment, including an infrastructure 
bank; a $556 billion surface transportation, unlike this thing that 
they tried to pass today, which is a 3-month extension.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, can you believe it, the Republican caucus is 
always going on and on about uncertainty. What did they do? They 
created uncertainty by passing some 3-month transportation bill. My 
goodness, it boggles the mind actually.
  Back to the Budget for All. There is approximately $1.7 trillion in 
widespread domestic investment.
  Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially 
reduces the deficit and does so in a way that does not devastate what 
Americans value. We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the 
true drivers of our deficit: unsustainable tax policy, wars overseas, 
and the policies that helped cause the recent recession, rather than 
putting the middle class and the social safety net on the chopping 
block.
  The budget creates a fairer America; it ends tax cuts for the 
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans on schedule at the year's end; 
extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of 
Americans; creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires 
in line with the Buffett Rule principle; eliminates Tax Code 
preferential treatment for capital gains and dividends; abolishes 
corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; eliminates 
loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability; 
creates a publicly funded Federal election system that gets corporate 
money out of politics for good.
  It responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in 
Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad. It also 
adapts our military to address 21st century threats through 
modernization. The Department of Defense will spend less and stop 
contributing to the deficit, but they will have what they need to keep 
America strong, which is very important to all of us.
  It provides a making-work-pay tax credit for families struggling with 
high gas and food costs; extends an earned income tax credit and child 
dependent

[[Page H1802]]

care credit; invests in programs to stave off further foreclosure; 
invests in children's education by increasing education, training, and 
social services.
  The Budget for All is a budget for all. I know that sounds 
repetitive, but it's important to note that the name of our budget 
reflects the reality of our budget; and the reality of our budget is 
that we want to see rich, poor, and everybody in the middle do well in 
America. That means a budget for all.
  As I begin to wind down, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is 
an honor to come before you to talk about the Budget for All, but it's 
also an honor to talk about the Ryan Republican budget because the Ryan 
Republican budget offers a very different vision of America than the 
Budget for All. The Ryan vision says that if we just could get rich 
people more money, they might create some plants and equipment that 
will hire the rest of us.
  The Budget for All says: No, we're in this together, and we're going 
to ask the wealthiest to pay more to invest in health, education, 
transportation, and infrastructure so that we can have a stronger, 
better, greater America.
  Two visions of a Nation. One says austerity for the middle and 
working class and the poor, and one says investment. One says if you 
are out of luck, you're on your own; and one says as Americans, we're 
all in this together.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to be here and 
offer these contrasts, these choices for Americans as we close out what 
I call Budget Week.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________