[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6528-H6534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  My name is Keith Ellison, cochair of the Progressive Caucus along 
with my good friend, Raul Grijalva. I want to come before the body 
today, Mr. Speaker, with the Progressive message. The Progressive 
message is a message that the Progressive Caucus shares with people. 
The progressive message is very simple. It's a basic idea that America, 
this great land of ours, is big enough for everybody, has enough 
abundance for everybody, and we have natural resources which should be 
respected, and we should live in harmony and promote a green economy 
and should have civil and human rights for all people.
  In the Progressive message we say that we would promote dialogue and 
diplomacy before we ever find ourselves in military conflicts. The 
Progressive message is about an inclusive America--all colors, all 
cultures, all faiths, an America that says if you live in this country 
and you want to work hard, the economy should be robust and broad 
enough and fair enough for you to make a good run in this economy. If 
you work 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to feed your family. You 
shouldn't have to resort to public assistance. It's talking about 
standing up for the rights of labor, the rights of working men and 
women, the right to be able to be paid fairly, the right to be able to 
go to the doctor, the right to look forward to a decent and fair 
retirement, the right to be able to see that your children will be able 
to get a good education that can see them through. In other words, the 
Progressive message is the message of an inclusive America that makes 
sure that our economic and our environmental lives are strong, healthy, 
and affirming.
  We contrast this with another vision--a vision of a divided America, 
where not everybody counts and not everybody matters; an America in 
which labor and management are fighting and there's no peace; an 
America where there's not full inclusion of LGBT Americans or Americans 
who are trying to join America through immigration--a not fully 
inclusive America; an America in which women have to worry about their 
right to be able to seek out contraception or seek out equal pay for 
equal work. This is the America that we don't embrace. The America that 
we embrace embraces equality, inclusion, and opportunities.
  Now where are we today? We are in the middle of a national 
conversation which is playing itself right here in Congress that has to 
do with the so-called fiscal cliff. I'm not going to use that term 
anymore because we're actually not on a cliff. What we are on is a set 
of important deadlines that we should meet and we should work at. But 
this imagery of a cliff and of falling over something and plummeting 
downward is false, and we should stop using this analogy. I know the 
press likes it because it adds drama. Of course, the press thrives on 
drama. But in truth, there are some important deadlines we should meet. 
But we should not surrender our deeply held views simply to get any 
deal done. The deal we should do should be a fair deal, it should be a 
deal for all, and it should be a deal that meets our most important 
priorities. But it should not be some force-fed thing that we accept 
simply because we fear going over this cliff that really doesn't exist.
  You can refer to it as a set of deadlines. That's the best way to put 
it. That's what it actually is. And if you don't meet a deadline, then, 
of course, there are consequences to not meeting deadlines. And you 
want to avoid them. But at the same time, this idea that we've got to 
put up with anything that the other side may offer because we're facing 
a cliff is a concept that I reject, and I hope the American people 
reject, Mr. Speaker, because that's not really what is going on. We 
have a set of deadlines that we should meet. And everybody in this body 
should work earnestly, sincerely, and in good faith to compromise. But 
in terms of just accepting some bad deal just to get a deal done 
because of a crisis that they've threatened, we shouldn't buy into that 
line of thinking.
  Now what are these deadlines? Well, we know that the Bush tax cuts 
are expiring. They'll expire for everyone, not just the top 2 percent. 
This is something that we don't want the American middle class to get 
hit with, a tax increase at this time, but we do believe the wealthiest 
among us should pay more. And we think that the top 2 percent should 
pay a higher tax rate on the money they make after $250,000 a year.

                              {time}  1430

  We also believe that there's more that can be done. Closing 
loopholes. People say, well, let's talk about that tonight too. But we 
see the Bush tax cuts expiring for everybody. We see the production tax 
credit expiring--which is something important for people who work in 
the wind industry and in the area of industry that promotes 
environmental matters. We also see the expiration of things like the 
estate tax, the SGR--which is the doctor fix for Medicare. We also see 
the sequestration, which is the outcome, the final outcome of the 
Budget Control Act that we passed in August 2011 which is now coming 
due. There will be equal defense and discretionary spending cuts on 
both sides, which will inflict damage.
  So all these things are happening at the same time, and so the same 
question is going to be asked: How will this budget entanglement be 
resolved? Will it be resolved on the backs of people who can least 
afford it, or will the people who can best afford it be asked to help 
out?
  So it's within this context, Mr. Speaker, that I come before you with 
the Progressive message today to try to bring some clarity to folks 
listening to C-SPAN today about what the real issues are, what we have 
to avoid, and what we have to fight for.

[[Page H6529]]

  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this deal that is being considered right 
now by the U.S. Congress and the American people--and of course the 
President--is still something that is subject to being changed and 
altered depending upon how vigorously people are willing to advocate 
for what's right. So I want to talk about that today. I don't want to 
call it the fiscal cliff--that will be the last time I use that term--
because it's not that, but there are serious fiscal issues that we 
should address.
  Now, I want to talk about a few things that we should not be 
discussing and don't need to be talking about, and one of them is 
Social Security. Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. 
It's not expiring. There's no reason we have to deal with Social 
Security right now. It is one of those things that some people--who 
never liked Social Security, by the way, called it socialism even--want 
to change and have been wanting to change for decades, and so they 
create this imagery of crisis coming at the end of the year. Then what 
they're trying to do is say, well, we've got to change Social Security 
because of the so-called ``fiscal cliff''--although it's not really a 
cliff. So this is something that really shouldn't be on the table.
  I want to encourage folks to really discuss and get the facts, Mr. 
Speaker, because Social Security is solvent through 2037. Does it need 
to be fixed? Yeah. It is true that there is slightly more money going 
out than coming in. But when you look at all the money that is owed to 
Social Security and you have the interest payments that are being made 
on it, it more than pays for itself for now. There are some things that 
could be done into the future that are not an emergency. It doesn't 
have to be done this second.
  Social Security is probably more solvent than a whole bunch of 
businesses and agencies of government. To try to throw Social Security 
into the mix at this time is a big mistake. I believe, Mr. Speaker, 
it's being done because people who have been wanting to change it for 
decades and decades and decades want to create the idea of a crisis and 
then use that crisis to get Members to vote for something that is not 
well considered.
  I insist on any changes to Social Security being well considered. I 
insist that there be a full-fledged debate on Social Security, not this 
fiscal mess that we're working through right now. But let Social 
Security be considered on its own freestanding basis, and if changes 
need to be made, we make them. But just to sort of argue that in order 
to solve this fiscal crisis that we're facing with these ending 
deadlines, these expiring deadlines, because of that we've got to deal 
with Social Security, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people should 
reject that idea.
  I have brought this issue to people who say, Well, what are we going 
to do about Social Security? I say, Well, we're going to continue to 
have Social Security. Well, we've got to change it. We have the fiscal 
crisis coming up, don't we have to change Social Security? No, we 
don't. It doesn't add to the deficit. In fact, if any changes need to 
be made to it, they need to be on their own, freestanding.
  Social Security is one of the greatest programs this country has ever 
produced. It helps literally millions and millions of senior citizens 
and people on disability and people who receive survivor benefits. It's 
a great program, and we should continue to support that program. We 
don't need to mess with it. When we do want to reform it, it needs to 
be something that will preserve benefits for people and allows the 
program to continue. It's a solid program, and it doesn't need to be in 
these budget entanglements. I hope Americans really get the facts.

  Some people say, Well, okay, you're right, Social Security doesn't 
add to the deficit, but let's talk about it anyway. Okay. Well, let's 
talk about it for a minute anyway even though it shouldn't be 
considered. Here's what could be said, Mr. Speaker, by someone who 
wants to defend the excellent program known as Social Security.
  They might say, Well, shouldn't we raise the retirement age? Again, 
it's an irrelevant conversation to this problem. But if they want to go 
down that road you can tell them, Look, we don't need to raise the 
retirement age because, firstly, people who are running jackhammers or 
people who are on their feet for their whole working life--nurses, 
firefighters, people who really use their bodies to earn a living--it's 
just not fair to them when you say we're going to raise the retirement 
age. If you've been a nurse picking up patients and walking, walking, 
walking for 30, 40 years, now all of a sudden they tell you, yeah, you 
used to be able to retire at 65, but we're going to move it to 70, 
that's just not fair to them. If you're just a white collar worker, 
that might be a little different, but the truth is it's going to be a 
big rule that everybody has to abide by, and it's not fair to a number 
of people, so we're against it.
  Here's another reason--even the more important reason--why messing 
with Social Security that way is the wrong thing to do:
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we've seen 
our 401(k)s go to what? 201(k)s. We've seen American savings rates go 
down. We used to talk about a three-legged stool when it came to 
retirement: one, Social Security; two, the money you save yourself; 
three, the money you get from your job.
  The money that we get from our jobs, we have seen pensions, 
guaranteed pensions become almost a thing of the past. Some people 
still have them--God bless them--but most workers are now having to 
bear the risk of their own retirement through a 401(k) plan. If the 
market has been down, as it has been, people's retirement savings--or 
at least one-third of what they were counting on--is diminished in a 
very significant way.
  The other thing, private savings have gone down. A few years ago 
before the financial crisis hit in 2006 we had a savings rate of 
negative 2 percent, which meant people were not saving. So here we are 
when we're having one of the largest age cohorts in American history 
moving into their golden years, when they're expecting to retire, their 
401(k) is a 201(k) and their pension from their own personal savings 
has gone down, and now we're going to tell them, your Social Security, 
you can't really count on that anymore. This is a problem.
  We have a problem with retirement in America today. People aren't 
ready for it. This is the wrong time to take that one solid leg on what 
we used to call a three-legged stool and start sawing on it and making 
it less strong than it was before. The fact is, raising the retirement 
age means lessening benefits for people--people who need it, many of 
them who have been working hard at jobs all their lives--and it's wrong 
to do.
  As I said before, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about this fiscal 
entanglement, these expiring deadlines that we're coming up on right 
now, Social Security shouldn't be part of the conversation. Anybody who 
brings up Social Security in this conversation ought to be asked why 
they're bringing up things that are irrelevant to resolving these 
expiring deadlines that are coming up between now and the end of the 
year. Why do they want to bring up stuff that doesn't have to do with 
these expiring deadlines? If it doesn't have to do with sequestration 
and it doesn't have to do with the 2001/2003 tax cuts that are 
expiring, then what are we discussing it for? It's a distraction from 
what we should be devoting our time to.

                              {time}  1440

  Now, Mr. Speaker, you're also going to have people who like to use 
the term ``entitlement.'' I resent the term ``entitlement'' because 
entitlement kind of suggests that, well, this is just something we're 
giving to you. No, this is an earned benefit, Social Security, and it 
should not be referred to as an entitlement.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that people begin to defend Social Security and 
say, Look, don't call my Social Security an entitlement. I've worked my 
whole life for this, and I'm not about to just say it's some sort of 
entitlement, that it's some sort of a thing that somebody's handing to 
me.
  I just want to say that I think people need to defend Social 
Security. They need to stand up for it. They need to explain that it's 
not part of this fiscal mess that we're in. It's not part of the 
expiring deadlines that we're seeing happening right now, and we should

[[Page H6530]]

not deal with it here. They should defend it by saying that people's 
retirement security has significantly diminished over the last number 
of years, and now is not the time to start cutting benefits to Social 
Security. And more than that, we should make it clear that Social 
Security is the best program, perhaps one of the best programs our 
government has ever come up with. We're going to get more into the 
expiring deadlines that we see coming up in the next few weeks.
  But before I say another word, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my 
good friend from the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
stalwart member of the Progressive Caucus. She is totally reliable and 
can be counted on to stand up for the American working people.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. And, 
of course, who could help but listen to that very potent message. And 
we are better for the fact that you and the distinguished gentleman 
from Arizona have come together again to--I call it standing in the gap 
and reinforcing to individuals who have never walked these Halls.
  The thing I want to just reinforce very briefly is how much all of us 
who have the privilege of walking these august Halls, sometimes on 
occasion looking at these ornate murals and recognizing the historic 
features and the history of this body, the largest democracy but the 
longest democracy, extending democracy in the world, that is the United 
States of America. And for this place called the House of 
Representatives, this honored place to be called the people's House is 
for the very reason that we are the defenders. We are those who will 
stand in the gap. We will be there when others cannot and when others' 
voices cannot be heard.
  So let me give you a picture of America because, for some reason, if 
we are not tied to the latest social media or maybe to our favorite 
cable stations, we can't imagine what happens across America, from 
California to New York, from the furthest State going to the North to 
our southern friends, including the great State of Texas.
  Every morning, every morning some family, some single mother, some 
single dad, some mother and father rise at 4:00 or 5:00 or 6:00 in the 
morning. And on some tables, there may be more than one would expect 
for breakfast; on some tables, there is no breakfast. They rush to 
prepare for the day's work. They rush sometimes to get their children 
to schools that are far beyond bus stops. And the reason why I say that 
is many school districts have even cut out school buses. So that means 
that these hardworking Americans have to rush and get their children to 
school. And they go off to jobs that are 8, 10, 12 hours long, where 
they work all day. And maybe they had someone--a grandmother or 
someone--pick up the child, but maybe they did not, and, therefore, 
they have to either have extended public care or wind up picking up 
those children. But what I will say to you is that they toil and work 
every day.

  So this fiscal deadline--deadline--is very serious to the Progressive 
Caucus and those of us who really believe that we would not be the 
patriots that we claim to be if we did not recognize the millions of 
Americans--with great humor, people were making jokes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota about the Powerball last night and how many people had 
tried to sign up for it--not out of greed. When they interviewed 
people, they were talking about charity and their friends and helping 
Mama get a better house and helping themselves get a better house.
  And something was said in our discussions today that the people who 
are trying to get into the middle class are the ones that we should be 
able to say to them, Your desires, the service you have given to your 
country, the work you do when you get up in those early mornings--some 
of them are park attendants. Some of them are working in bus barns. 
They may not even be bus drivers or they may not be conductors. They 
may be working around. They may be working in the great work that we 
could not survive, we call it Departments of Sanitation, the same group 
of men at that time that Martin King went to Memphis for.
  And the reason why I call out what it's like every morning before 
dawn when people get up and go to work is that they don't have time to 
do social media. They don't know when we are in negotiations about the 
fiscal deadline, but they're hoping someone is here standing in the 
gap.
  And Social Security is earned. It is earned by these people, whether 
they're in coal mines, as I said, whether they're sweeping streets, 
whether they are children who are disabled, whether they are children 
of the deceased who the only thing that kept them going or is keeping 
them going is a Social Security death benefit that they got from their 
deceased parent.
  So it is important as we look to what we will be doing is that we 
understand that it is not those of us in this place that we speak of. 
And as we speak of the hardworking middle class, we must put into the 
mix those individuals that keep the lights on, those individuals that 
keep the streets clean, those individuals that are assisting those who 
are at home--our nurses, attendants, and aides--those who are working 
in daycare centers, those persons who, when a fire in my district 
burned down a daycare center or something occurs, then you can be sure 
that there are workers who cannot work.
  And let me be clear: Since there was a tragedy in my community, I was 
not speaking of that specific tragedy. I'm talking about if something 
stops you from working, something happens to your business and there 
are workers there, those workers are unemployed, but they had paid into 
Social Security. Which brings me to a couple of other points, and I 
will yield back to the distinguished gentleman.
  It is important that we maintain the extension of unemployment 
benefits because I'm glad to say that I feel a surge in this economy. 
Things are getting better. We've had some great Thanksgiving sale days, 
and people went out even on Thanksgiving Day. Then we had Black Friday 
and then Cyber Monday. And everybody is telling us that things are on 
the move.
  But it is important to recognize that the country churns if you keep 
the important safety nets of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. And 
that must be what we do. And then to add unemployment, unemployment 
insurance. You always have to say over and over again, the word 
``insurance'' means that you've gotten some insurance to get you 
through a rainy day. It's not a handout. It's a hand up. But it is 
insurance, and you've earned it because you have worked and you are now 
unemployed and you are looking for work. So the unemployment insurance 
is to be something that we need to count as a safety net and one that 
is of great need.
  Now let me finish by trying to, again, reemphasize the importance of 
bipartisanship. And progressives are those who recognize what a great 
country this is, and we are progressive by the nature of some of the 
issues that we support. But we do not have a wall in front of our face 
and say that we don't believe in bipartisanship or we haven't joined 
with some of our colleagues to make a difference for America.
  I truly believe that every set of policies have, maybe, relevancy as 
their past, and some policies--and I'm going to add the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act--have an unending life. But 
when you come to fiscal policy, because the economy churns and it goes 
in cycles, sometimes we're up, and sometimes we're down.
  Tax cuts of the nineties and earlier than the nineties with President 
Bush, before President Clinton and then thereafter with President Bush 
who came after President Clinton--sometimes economic policies say it's 
time for a rest; and those tax cuts, the top 1 and 2 percent, it is 
time for a rest.

                              {time}  1450

  To be able to shore up, to say to every American that you will get a 
tax cut for $250,000 of your income, which includes 97 percent of small 
businesses is a reasoned response to the changing economy. The 
protection of the safety net is a reasoned response to the changing 
economy. And the recognition of the importance of Social Security, the 
recognition of the importance of Medicare and Medicaid, and the 
recognition of the importance that if you're unemployed of extending 
the unemployment, responds to the people who don't get their news on a 
regular streaming basis. They don't know

[[Page H6531]]

what's going on up here. They're counting on us to stand in the gap and 
to make a difference in their lives. Some of them are working and some 
are on assistance, but they're not defined by anything except that they 
are Americans that love their country.
  I hope as we go into 2013 and as we have the privilege of being sworn 
in again, that we will look at issues like a wealth tax, that we will 
look at issues that address equalizing the impoverished in this Nation, 
most of them children. We're not there yet, but I think that we would 
be even a greater country--we're a great country and the greatest 
country in the world--if we recognize that there is value to lifting 
all boats, that there is value to saying that you're on hard rubble 
times, and this great country wants to lift the boat so that any 
children that you are raising have the equal opportunity to achieve 
their greatness.
  To the gentleman of Minnesota and the cochair of the Progressive 
Caucus, let me thank you for your wisdom and your sense of--I think the 
characterization that I've heard you state in many different instances 
and the characterization that I made today. We have an obligation to 
the people whose daily life is simply about trying to make it to the 
next day. I hope this Congress and I hope this process of negotiations 
and media debate and discussion don't ignore the fact that sometimes 
you've got to make sure that you respond to those who are now busily 
filling in those 12 hours of work, and the only thing they're looking 
forward to is whether they will have enough for a dinner at home and to 
pick up those children and get ready for the next day. As Americans, 
many of whom have served their Nation, I feel an obligation to make 
sure that we stand in the gap on their behalf.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for joining me. If you have the 
time, we'd love to hear more from you.
  Let me just say today that we're members of the Progressive Caucus 
talking about the deal for all. First of all, we are laying out some of 
our values, but also talking about some things that are really problems 
in this debate.
  I mentioned before and you mentioned, as well, Social Security is not 
contributing to the deficit. Social Security is solvent through 2037. 
Social Security may need attention, but to try to fix it in the midst 
of this debate is not the right thing. Again, I'm speaking only for 
myself. People who are demanding that we reform Social Security right 
now are people who want us to put attention on something that is other 
than the problem, and then I have to wonder why that is. Does it have 
something to do with the fact that ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
signed the legislation, that there have been some that don't like it. 
Why? Because they don't think the proper role of government is to have 
a program administered through the government that looks out for the 
aged, the disabled, the vulnerable. They don't think the government 
should do that. They think it's all about 100 percent individual 
initiative, and they don't believe the government has a role or 
responsibility to administer a program to make sure the aged and the 
sick and those who are the children of those people who may have died 
should have some basic sustenance.
  We disagree philosophically and fundamentally, but some folks--there 
is a concept out there known as the ``shock doctrine.'' A woman named 
Naomi Klein wrote a very interesting book. Sometimes you will have 
folks who will create a crisis. They want there to be a crisis because 
within the context of the crisis, the parties to the bargaining will be 
willing to do things that in the absence of a crisis they would never 
agree to. So I believe that these expiring deadlines don't have to be a 
crisis, but they've been created to be one. We even use words that 
invoke imagery of a crisis, and that's why we now talk about this thing 
as to what it really is, which is expiring deadlines.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield for a moment.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The Congressional Budget Office even 
indicated that there is no such thing as a ``cliff.'' There will be 
expiring deadlines that will allow deliberative thought. That's what 
you're talking about. Let's have deliberative thought. When you act and 
your hair is on fire or you're running out of a burning building, you 
will take any water hose you can find; and that may not be the good 
water hose that will keep us going.
  I just wanted to mention my late colleague, Mickey Leland. This is 
his birthday this week. It was November 27. I just wanted to mention it 
on the floor of the House. Congressman Mickey Leland served in this 
Congress in the late 1970s until 1989, when he died in Ethiopia trying 
to feed the starving Ethiopians who had been impacted by the drought. 
At the same time, he helped cochair the Hunger Select Committee because 
at that timeframe there was an effort to try to extinguish hunger in 
America and hunger in the world. Lo and behold, here we are in 2012, 
and I bet we can have a vigorous debate on hunger that still exists in 
this country.
  When we put our hair on fire, then we start looking and digging deep 
and we start ignoring the peace dividend and resources that we could 
get from that, from an expedited withdrawal for our hardworking 
military that are in faraway places such as Afghanistan. The point is 
that then we begin to do things like look at the minimal subsistence 
that people get in order to survive. Social Security is a different 
line of funding; but as you well know, I mentioned that sometimes you 
get it on disability and sometimes you get Social Security as a death 
benefit for a deceased parent that keeps those children going. Then you 
have people who get payments because they are ill or have no way of 
working or have children, need assistance; and people start looking at 
that.
  We need to be deliberative in our attempt to do the things that we 
want to do in a bipartisan way, which is reduce the deficit, to make 
sure we tighten our belt and act accordingly to churn this economy, and 
we're fair in our tax policies. My friends, we can do all that, but let 
us not do that with hysteria that starts looking at the basic safety 
net of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. As my friend said, 
Social Security is 2037 and Medicare is 2024. That means your house 
doesn't have to be on fire. You don't have to get a skinny hose that is 
just drip, drip, dripping, and then you just burn up.
  You can be deliberative. We can deal with this immediate fiscal issue 
of deadlines with tax issues and begin to build on what the revenues 
will be.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentlelady correctly mentioned Medicare, because in 
this whole fiscal situation, they keep on throwing out Social Security 
and Medicare entitlement reform, which is what they want so bad. Again, 
we've clearly shown Social Security has no place in this debate.
  Let's talk about Medicare for a moment. In the Affordable Care Act, 
the so-called ObamaCare, which I used to not want to call it that, but 
now I do because Obama does care. We call it ObamaCare because the 
Republicans thought they could use it as an insult, but actually it's 
kind of a badge of honor.
  The Affordable Care Act, with the bill we passed, is estimated to 
save about $500 billion over the next 10 years. They say we've got to 
reform Medicare. There may be reforms to Medicare that are important to 
do, but we already started that process with the Affordable Care Act by 
reducing extra subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans. They said 
they were going to do it for cheaper, and they did it for more. Now 
we're saying we're going to hold you to your word.

                              {time}  1500

  We used that savings to close the doughnut hole, to make reductions 
in the rate of growth and provider payments, in efforts to make sure 
that Medicare programs were more efficient, and to reduce waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
  Medicare will be reformed as we reform health care and as we move 
away from this fee for service, where it's this much for this test, 
this much for that test, then some folks run a bunch of tests, and you 
get this huge bill. We are now moving from that fee-for-service model 
to a model that goes on, Are you improving the health of your patients? 
There are a lot more doctors nowadays, particularly at the Mayo

[[Page H6532]]

Clinic in Minnesota, who are on salary so that the doctors don't have 
to worry about the tests, they just have to worry about health. They 
order the tests that you need, but they don't order the ones that you 
don't.
  So my point is that we are already implementing ways to maintain and 
control costs in Medicare that do not deprive seniors of good medical 
care. That's the key. Medicare--I'm sorry--is going to cost more in the 
future because we have a lot of people born between 1945 and 1960 who 
are now getting into older years. Everybody knows as you get older you 
may need to go to the doctor more, and we have more folks who are in 
that age group, so that's the way it is. It does make sense to try to 
control costs, but the proposals have been to give seniors a coupon 
that the Congressional Budget Office admits is going to cost them 
$6,000 a year more than it does now and to give Medicaid a block grant 
program, which we know will likely be reduced.
  What's the point?
  They keep on saying, ``entitlement reform,'' ``entitlement reform.'' 
Social Security is fine for now, and it will be into the future with 
just a few tweaks that will not hurt beneficiaries. As for Medicare, we 
are reforming it and making it more solvent. We literally extended the 
life of the program up through 2024. Republicans during the campaign 
attacked President Obama for this, and yet we extended the life of the 
program. If entitlement reform were wrapped up in the expiring 
deadlines and the sequestration, I would say, yes, we have to talk 
about that now, but it isn't. Why are we doing that? It's because 
people never liked the program and don't believe the proper role of 
government is to help people. So we just disagree. I just wish folks 
would be a little more transparent in the positions that they take.
  I am very fortunate to have been joined by the gentlelady from 
Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, and I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to thank you so much, Congressman Ellison, for 
pulling this together, because we are in the midst of an incredibly 
important debate about how to deal with all of these fiscal issues. 
Mainly, to me, it's about who shall pay, not about what are the dollar 
figures and how do we take a little bit from this and that. It's about 
who exactly in our society is going to be responsible.
  I want to focus on the entitlements. In addition to some of our 
Republican colleagues--I'm talking mainly about the CEOs now, the fix-
the-debt group, who say quite piously, by the way, and self-righteously 
that we have to cut entitlements. In listening to them, you would think 
that the United States of America is poorer today than it was 50 years 
ago when Medicare and Medicaid became part of our social contract, or 
70 years ago when we created Social Security. Now they say it's 
unsustainable. Is it because the United States of America is actually 
poorer today than we were then?
  I wanted to quote from something in The Washington Post, an article 
that Ezra Klein wrote, entitled, ``Why Rich Guys Want to Raise the 
Retirement Age'':

       The first point worth making here is that the country's 
     economy has grown 15-fold since Social Security was passed 
     into law. One of the things the richest society the world has 
     ever known can buy is a decent retirement for people who 
     don't have jobs they love and who don't want to work forever.

  I think that's right. It's like--really?--we can't afford it? This is 
one of the things that we absolutely have to cut.
  I wanted to just make a point about some of these guys, these 71 CEOs 
who are in the fix-the-debt group who wrote this letter about the 
things that need to be done, some of which included the cuts.
  Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Is not having to bail them out on that list?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Bailing them out, that was then. Get over it. Of 
course they got a lot of money from the taxpayers. Why do you keep 
bringing that up, Mr. Ellison? That was just a fine thing to do.
  But here. The 71 fix-the-debt CEOs, who lead publicly held companies, 
have amassed an average of $9 million in their own company retirement 
funds. A dozen have more than $20 million in their accounts. So, if 
each of them converted his assets to an annuity when he turned 65, he 
would receive a monthly check of at least $110,000 for life. Now, one 
of those fellows, Dave Cote, whom I know because I served with him on 
the Simpson-Bowles commission--and he's a longtime advocate of Social 
Security cuts--has a $78 million nest egg. That's enough to provide a 
$428,000 check every month after he turns 65 years old. Since the 
average monthly Social Security benefit is $1,230, Dave Cote would 
receive a retirement income every month--by the way, this doesn't count 
his Social Security--of as much as 348 Social Security beneficiaries. 
This is a guy saying that those 348 people, who are together going to 
get as much as he gets, ought to see those Social Security benefits 
cut.
  I just think it's outrageous because this is about who we are. 
Really? We can't afford today the kind of Medicare benefits that we had 
50 years ago when Medicare went in or 70 years ago?
  Here is the other thing. One of the arguments that is used is that 
life expectancy has gone up. That's true for some of us but not for all 
of us. Since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 
65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but if 
you're in the bottom half of the income distribution, then you just 
gained 1.3 years. The fact of the matter is, if you are a poor woman in 
the United States of America, you have actually lost ground in terms of 
longevity in this country. So it is just simply a myth to say that. 
Averages can be deceiving, right? You get a basketball player, and you 
average him to 6-feet tall even though one is 7'2'' or whatever. That's 
ridiculous. People are actually losing life expectancy.
  The truth of the matter is, while the Social Security retirement age 
is now about 67, you can retire early at 62, which is the earliest the 
law allows. You lose some benefits, but that is when most people 
retire. Now, these are not slackers. These aren't people who just now 
want to lie around at home and eat bonbons. These are people who pretty 
much can't wait until their full benefits kick in because they've been 
working really tough jobs, long hours, who've been on their feet, 
flipping patients in beds, working with their hands. It is not easy. So 
now what? Are these people supposed to go out and all find jobs--what 
jobs? Where are those jobs?--in order to wait even longer for them to 
get their Social Security benefits?
  Frankly, I'm personally pretty resentful that some of the very 
richest people in our country, who are now offering advice on how we 
can save money and fix the debt, are offering up senior citizens, half 
of whom make $22,000 or less per year.

                              {time}  1510

  Those seniors who make $85,000 or more a year are already paying more 
for their Medicare benefits. We are already means testing Medicare 
benefits. A lot of people don't know that. So who are the rich seniors 
who are supposed to pay more? Who are the seniors who are living 
longer? Well, you know, Dave Cote and the other CEOs, they're doing 
just fine. They may want to work forever. God love them. God bless 
them. Let them do it and retire with tens of thousands of dollars every 
single month. And their advice is cut the rest of the people. That's 
not right.
  Mr. ELLISON. It's not right.
  You know, here's the reality. In this whole debate, we want to talk 
about how to deal with these expiring matters like the 2001 and 2003 
taxes and the sequestration. They have a time limit on them, and we in 
Congress are here now to address these issues. But does it strike you 
funny that they keep on talking about stuff and want to drag it into 
this debate that doesn't have anything to do with sequestration or 
these expiring tax matters? Why do they keep talking about Social 
Security? Why do they want to keep talking about raising the age or 
somehow cutting benefits for Medicare and Medicaid? I mean, one needs 
to ask the question, if these are problems and they need to be solved, 
why do they have to be solved in this very limited window of time when 
there are other things that, in fact, are expiring?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, first of all, I agree with you because I think 
what

[[Page H6533]]

I'm hearing you say is let's put those--Medicare, Social Security, and 
Medicaid--in a separate basket and deal with them at another time. 
Social Security should not be even on a different table. It should be 
in a different room, because Social Security has a big surplus in the 
trust fund and hasn't contributed one thin dime to any deficit.
  Medicare and Medicaid, I'm all for making those programs more 
efficient. We can find savings in those programs. But let's remember, 
it occurred to me that Democrats, through ObamaCare, actually found--
does this number sound familiar?--$716 billion worth of savings in 
Medicare that made the program more efficient but didn't touch 
benefits.
  Mr. ELLISON. Right.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We actually improved Medicare by finding savings.
  It seems to me that number came up in the election that Democrats 
were somehow stealing from Medicare, implying to senior citizens that 
their programs were being eroded when, in fact, their programs were 
being improved and Medicare was made more efficient. So now that the 
election is over, they're back to saying we've got to cut these 
entitlement programs; they're unsustainable. We just can't make it 
anymore. We're too poor a country. We can't aspire to make sure that 
people with disabilities and old people are going to have access to 
health care. We can't do it anymore. That was so 20th century. We're 
done with that.
  I mean, it's really outrageous, the hypocrisy of criticizing us for 
making the programs more cost effective, cost less, but keep benefits, 
and now hitting us over the head with that and now saying, Oh, no, 
never mind, we have to go back and cut those programs.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, you know, I appreciate the gentlelady in revealing 
really the real deal here. The President, to his credit, is trying to 
talk to broad cross sections of Americans. He's had labor and 
progressive groups join him, and then the CEOs come in. And it's funny, 
when the CEOs come in, and I'm not talking about everyone, but this 
letter where they're telling us we've got to have austerity, we've got 
to lower people's expectations as to what people expect.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Other people. Not them, other people.
  Mr. ELLISON. Other people. They are extremely well taken care of, and 
they come from companies, several of them, that got direct benefits 
from the government. And now all of a sudden, you know, everybody else 
has to tighten their belt. It's shocking, actually. And if there's 
anything funny about it, it is that they don't get the irony of what 
they're doing.
  I think the American people should know that whenever you see CEOs 
from polluting industries, from financial services industries, from 
industries that have gotten a lot of help and benefit from the 
government talking about how other people should tighten their belt and 
have to lower expectations, this should be met with extreme 
displeasure.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Here's Lloyd Blankfein, and he's just one example, 
the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and part of what I really resent about it is 
he doesn't even know what he's talking about. He says:

       You can look at the history of these things, and Social 
     Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for 
     a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career.

  Well, first of all, the average beneficiary collects about 16 years, 
so a 30-year retirement after 25 years?
  Mr. ELLISON. He must be talking about himself.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I don't know what he's talking about.

       So there will be things. Maybe the retirement age has to be 
     changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, 
     maybe some of the inflation estimates have to be revised, 
     but, in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and 
     contained.

  Now, you know, this is a guy who's a pretty entitled fellow. And the 
idea of him pointing to these people who, you know, half of whom make 
less than $22,000 doesn't sit well with me and, I don't think, most 
Americans. It's not just that I think; we've asked most Americans.
  And, by the way, even people who voted for Mitt Romney said, Do not 
cut my Social Security and Medicare benefits. They don't want that. And 
it's not because they're stupid or greedy, as Alan Simpson would like 
to make them out to be. It's because, in this country, retiring with 
some level of security is something that people who've worked all their 
lives deserve in this country and something that should be a priority.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me quote Mr. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. He 
says:

       You're going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower 
     people's expectations of what they're going to get, the 
     entitlements, and what people think they're going to get 
     because you're not going to get it.

  That's what he said. Now, this gentleman is the CEO of a firm that 
received tens of billions of dollars----
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Tens of billions.
  Mr. ELLISON. Tens of billions of dollars from direct money and 
indirect money through access to the Fed at lower rates, and now has 
the audacity--is the only word you can use--to start talking about how 
somebody who is making $22,000 a year has to figure out what they're 
going to do.
  Here's the thing. I remember 2008 very well. I remember people's 
401(k)s taking massive hits directly related to the behavior of large 
banks. So it used to be that you had money you saved, money you saved 
on the job and then Social Security. Two sources of your retirement 
income are now dwindling in part because of the behavior of these 
banks, and one of the leaders of one of the biggest ones is talking 
about other folks having to get by on less.
  My question is: What happened to the basic concept of civic virtue? I 
mean, what happened to the basic idea that, yes, I may be a CEO and, 
yes, I have an obligation to my shareholders, but I also have an 
obligation to the community that has fed my business and I've got an 
obligation to the United States that has made it possible for me to do 
well.

                              {time}  1520

  What happened to the basic idea that we're sort of in this thing 
together?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, frankly, I think that idea is alive and well 
and was reflected in the elections on November 6----
  Mr. ELLISON. I agree.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That the idea that we are all in this together, that 
we do have some responsibility. And I want to tell you that there isn't 
a person that goes to synagogue or church or a mosque or a temple that 
doesn't learn about, we are our brother's and our sister's keepers, we 
do feed the hungry and take care of the poor, that we have an 
obligation to do that. So in our private lives, and in our faith lives, 
we're taught that as well.
  I mean, it's good economics, but it's also the right thing to do. And 
I also think it's a very American kind of ideal, and that, at the end 
of the day, that most people agree with that.
  When I say under $22,000, that's income. The average Social Security 
benefit is far below that. And so we're talking about very little, very 
little money to provide not a whole lot of security, but some security.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, I'd just like to advise the gentlelady that we've 
got about 3 more minutes in our hour, and I just wanted to encourage 
you to think about some of your essential points that you may want to 
repeat for the Speaker.
  But I just wanted to say that, look, you know, the Progressive 
Caucus--we're here with the Progressive message--is thinking about 
these fiscal deadlines that this country is facing. We do believe that 
we should try to come up with a fair deal in anticipation of 
sequestration and the expiration of deadlines on some taxes.
  We believe that the top 2 percent of the income scale should have to 
pay more. We believe that the Defense Department, which has seen its 
budget double since 2001, should have to take cuts.
  We believe we have to invest in jobs and get people back to work. And 
we believe we should protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 
Those are some takeaways that I think are very important.
  We do believe in negotiating. We believe that it's important to do 
so. We've already given up $1.5 trillion in the last term. People talk 
about what's on the table, what's off the table--$1.5 trillion should 
be on the table as cuts that have already taken place.
  I'd just like to leave the gentlelady the remaining time to 
summarize.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You have the sign, ``The Progressive Message,'' and I

[[Page H6534]]

am a proud member of the Progressive Caucus. But I believe that if you 
presented what you just said to the American people, in general, that 
the vast majority agree with that because it's fair. That's all.
  We are willing to find cuts, and as you pointed out, we've already 
done that. That's already been done with $1.5 trillion in cuts. But 
fairness means not just that starting from scratch, we cut everybody 
across the board, but we do it in a humane and fair and sensible way in 
our country. And I think the Progressive message is the American 
message, the one that we're hearing from the American people.
  So I thank you so much for your leadership. And going forward, I hope 
we can help to mobilize, along with the President, mobilize people to 
support these ideas.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentlelady from Illinois has the last word from 
``The Progressive Message.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________