[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6794-H6799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here representing the
Progressive Caucus and talking about our fiscal situation now that I
think a lot of people out there are worrying about, confused about,
don't know how it's really going to affect them, wondering what the
heck we're doing. Sometimes Members of Congress who aren't part of the
negotiations are wondering what's going on too. But what I want to talk
about today are the things that are at stake for ordinary people in our
country, the things that are on people's minds as we deal with these
economic issues that face our country.
I am Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky, and I represent a district, a
[[Page H6795]]
very diverse district, in Illinois, diverse in every way--economically,
certainly by race and ethnicity--and I think in many ways a microcosm
of the country. I know that we're getting a lot of calls from our
constituents. The calls that I'm getting were reaffirmed by a poll that
I saw on Tuesday in our National Journal Daily on page six that says:
``Poll: Entitlement cuts feared most in cliff talks.'' It goes like
this:
As President Obama and congressional leaders race to avert the fiscal
cliff, Americans remain concerned that whatever budget deal they strike
will cut too much from Medicare and Social Security, according to the
poll. More of the Americans surveyed are worried about such cutbacks
than seeing their tax bills rise, the latest United Technologies/
National Journal Connection poll has found.
I was looking at who was involved in the poll. In total, 35 percent
of Americans are worried it will cut too much from government programs
like Medicare and Social Security; 27 percent--that's eight points
less--that it will raise taxes on people like you; 15 percent, it won't
meet its target for reducing the Federal deficit and debt; 13 percent,
it will allow for too much Federal spending. Only 13 percent were
worried it will allow for too much Federal spending in the next 2
years.
But when I looked at, for example, women, 40 percent of women are
most worried about those cuts in Social Security and Medicare and other
government programs. Forty-six percent of people whose income is
$30,000 or less, that's what they're really, really worried about;
that's the thing they're worried about most.
So most Americans, that is their top concern--not really so much that
their taxes are going to go up and not really so much about the
deficit. They're worried about the cuts in the programs that mean so
much to their lives.
So that's really what I wanted to talk about today. If any Members
are listening in their offices and they want to come down and talk
about the fiscal cliff, as it's called--many of us don't see it as a
cliff, nor as a slope, that we actually have time to set the problem
straight. That's what most economists are saying, that if we go a few
weeks into January, it's not the worst thing so that Americans
shouldn't panic about this. But if you want to come down and talk about
that, I am really happy to do that.
I wanted to welcome one of my colleagues, Hank Johnson, here to the
floor today to add his thoughts. I know he had another something he
wanted to talk about this afternoon, and I welcome you. Thanks for
coming down, Congressman Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Always my pleasure, Representative
Schakowsky, to be with you. You are such a staunch advocate for the
middle class, the working poor, the poor. You are a champion for the
people, so I'm happy to be here with you and happy to share some time
with you.
But first I wanted to express the fact that last night I came in to
do a Special Order on the situation happening in Michigan where a
surprise attack, a sneak attack, by the right-wingers resulted in the
passage of legislation which I won't refer to as right-to-work
legislation, it's more appropriately named crush-the-union legislation.
I came up last night to the floor to speak on that issue.
{time} 1330
As I am prone to do, I use a lot of analogies, and so last night I
used an analogy that some find offensive. And I certainly was not
meaning to be offensive or use a derogatory term. Everybody knows what
the N word is. The N word, Mr. Speaker, is used to describe a group of
people. And the N word used to be fashionable, or it used to be
socially acceptable to use the N word. But, now, we don't say the N
word. We refer to that word as ``the N word.''
I had never heard of the M word, Representative Schakowsky. The M
word is a word also that describes a group of people. It, at one time,
had been commonly used as a descriptive term. It was, at one time,
socially acceptable. But to my discovery, just within the last 12 hours
or so, I have found that the use of the M word is no longer socially
acceptable.
Now, the M word refers to a group of people, the little people. But
when we say ``little people'' I'm not talking about the Leona Helmsley
little people. I'm not talking about the 47 percent. I'm not talking
about the takers instead of the makers, as some would describe them.
I'm not talking about the middle class, working people, poor people,
working poor people. That's not what is meant by the ``little people''
term. It really refers to a medical condition. ``Dwarfism'' is the name
of that medical condition. And sometimes I guess one can even say
``abnormally small people.'' I like that term better than ``dwarfism.''
So, I wanted to say to all of those who may have been offended by my
use of the ``M word,'' I want you to know that it was out of ignorance
and not spite or hatred that I used that term. And please know that I
will never use that term again. I will never use that term again.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think, actually, you have done a service to make
people understand that there are those who are deeply offended by it
and that we should all learn what to say so as not to offend people.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. That's correct. It is a learning moment for
me and perhaps many others out there.
But I'll tell you, if you want to find out more about little people
or abnormally small people or unusually small people, there is a Web
site, there is a group actually called the Little People of America,
and their Web site is at lpaonline.org. I went to that Web site this
morning and looked through it, and I have been awakened to the
sensitivities involved. And so anyone who I offended has my deepest
apology.
But, the analogy that I used, even though it used the wrong wording,
was a great analogy in my personal opinion. And it is understood that
when you put a big fish, a predatory fish, into a bowl with a small
fish, that small fish has to learn how to get along with that big fish
or else they'll get eaten.
That's what the organization known as ALEC is all about, because it
puts the legislators, individual legislators, in a group setting with
the corporations, the big fish. And those legislators who are members
of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, they get together,
and they do the work of the corporate big fish who are members of that
organization.
So last night, that's what we were talking about, and I'm going to
yield back to Representative Schakowsky to resume this discussion, and
I will participate as I can.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. I appreciate both--you know,
sometimes as legislators we like to think we're always right, and
sometimes we make mistakes, inadvertent mistakes. And coming to the
floor to actually clear the air I think is really commendable, and I
appreciate that.
And also, your talk about the decisions that were made in Wisconsin--
you know, government is to serve the people, the best interests of the
American people. And right now, we're trying to figure out how are we
going to, in a fair way, ask Americans to be able to fund the programs
that we need, to fund the services that we need as a country, to make
sure that our roads are there and drivable, to fund our military so
that we can be safe and strong, to help States to fund their law
enforcement, et cetera, all those things that are important to
Americans, and as I mentioned earlier, including things like Medicare
and make Medicaid.
Budgets aren't just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper, and
government policies aren't just documents. But, in many ways these are
moral statements about who we are as a country. I think we have to ask,
are we really a poorer country today than we were 70 years ago when
Social Security went into effect, when Social Security went into effect
to say that we're not going to let older people end up in the poorhouse
or out on the street, that we're going to have an insurance policy that
they pay into, that everyone pays into during your working life, so
that we can ensure that when people reach the age of 62, 65, 67, that
they're going to be able to retire with some level of dignity?
At the time that Social Security was passed 70 years ago, there was a
three-legged stool. One was this new program, Social Security, to
provide retirement benefits that you paid for; two, private pensions,
that was kind of
[[Page H6796]]
the common normal then. Many of those private pensions were won because
workers were able to collectively bargain and get pensions for their
family. The third were savings, savings for people.
So between all of that, we thought we'd be able to see a country now
where the elderly were lifted out of poverty and they had some
semblance of security.
Well, are we really poorer today than when we made that decision that
we're not going to let old people end up in the poorhouse? That was a
decision on how to fund a program that has never once missed a monthly
check ever. In the 70 years plus, never ever has Social Security missed
a monthly check. So it's been a program that works really, really well.
{time} 1340
And I just want to point out that Social Security helps middle class
families, not just older people. I have two grandchildren who get a
Social Security benefit. Why? Because, tragically, their mother died.
So it is an insurance policy for all families.
The other great thing about Social Security is that unlike many
pension programs, there's actually a cost-of-living adjustment. You
don't get it every year, as seniors know. There really hasn't been an
increase in the economy so much in certain years, but it has been a
success, a treasure to our country.
Some people want to put Social Security on the table as part of this
discussion to reduce the deficit that we face.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Social Security is one of the hallmarks of
American civilization. It civilizes us where we can have a mechanism
where we all come together to contribute our money into a pool as we
work; and when we retire, we have a way of avoiding the poorhouse; we
have a way of living out our lives with dignity and with comfort.
You've paid your dues, you deserve to live out your retirement in a
comfortable way. You put the money in, and you will get the money out.
And as you say, we've never missed a payment and never will.
It being a hallmark of our civilization, it is something that many
other countries have yet to put in place for their people. They have
yet to see the wisdom, as our past leaders have seen, that you lose and
your society weakens in accordance with how you treat your elderly and
how you treat your children and how you treat the disabled. They also
are able to get Social Security benefits. So it helps people. It's our
social safety net. This is a collective. It's a mechanism whereby the
whole supports each other, the weakest of these, if you will.
Social Security is not broke, nor is the Federal Government. The
Federal Government is not broke. It has had to borrow money. And when
we say borrow money, we really mean we offer Treasurys out to the
public to purchase, and we pay interest on those instruments. When an
investor feels good about how solid the American system is, they want
to put money into it. They want to put money into it because they know
that this is the safest place to invest money. They know that they'll
be able to get their money out when they want to take it out. They know
that they will get their money back with the interest that has been
promised to them.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say that right now we're paying very low
interest because people do have confidence in our American economy and
in those Treasury notes and it is a good, safe, and solid investment.
And I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. People have confidence in America. It's
because of our civilization, and it's because of the forward thinking
of our past leaders. It is our responsibility to continue that sense of
responsibility to the people--not to the leaders, not to the chosen
few, but to the people. We the people established this government, and
it's ironic that people have now been turned against government as an
institution. They believe that government is the problem. They've been
led to believe that government is the problem. Sometimes government
does have problems or causes problems; but I can tell you that in the
history of this country, the American Government has been phenomenal.
That is why we're the greatest country in the world. That is why we are
the freest country in the world and we are the most prosperous Nation
in the world.
We are not broke. Our Social Security trust fund is not broke. It's
solvent. And the bills that we have to pay, we will definitely pay as
we always have. It makes sense to borrow money now, by the way, if you
can get it for 1 percent or 2 percent, and you can then use those funds
to put people back to work in this economy, which is in need of a shot
in the arm. I might point out, though, that unemployment is down to 7.7
percent, the first time since between 2007 or 2008 and despite the
vigor that has been used in trying to suppress it by politicians in
this body, despite their efforts to keep the economy from moving
forward so that they could elect a President that they wanted to elect.
They wanted to make our current President look bad, so they did
everything they could to thwart action to make the economy better, but
it has gotten better despite their efforts.
I was really hoping that post-election we would see a change in the
direction of my friends on the other side of the aisle in terms of
being responsible about government and our responsibility to make sure
that government works of, by, and for the people. I was hoping that we
would see a difference. We still have time, Representative Schakowsky.
We still have time. It's not the end of the year. I, myself, I would
like to be home for Christmas like everyone else, but my highest duty
and responsibility is to be here and to help this Nation move away from
this dangerous fiscal cliff that is coming up.
The fiscal cliff is actually here, and there is a lot that we agree
on in terms of avoiding that fiscal cliff. But it seems like the thing
that is holding it up is the top 2 percent, just wanting to preserve
the expiring tax cuts for those top 2 percent. They would do that at
the expense of the 98 percent that we all agree that we need to extend
the tax cuts for. I just don't understand why it's going to take so
long for us to----
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's talk about that for a minute.
It seems that there are those on the Republican side of the aisle who
are willing to go to the mat to protect tax cuts for the very
wealthiest Americans, people who make $250,000 and more. Of course, our
proposal is to say that the first $250,000 of income for everyone, even
if you make $500,000 a year, on the first $250,000--I think we all
agree that we should extend those tax cuts. It's for the dollars above
$250,000 that some of our colleagues are saying, no, we are not going
to ask those people even to pay a penny more than they were.
{time} 1350
Yet they're saying the only way that we will consider that, the only
way that we will consider taking a little bit more from the wealthiest,
is to go to the poorest.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Into that Social Security.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'm not talking about children. The poorest adults
are people over 65 years of age and persons with disabilities. Their
median income is $22,000 a year. The median income for older Americans
is $22,000 a year. Really? Somehow this is a fair balance to ask the
wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--to pay a little bit more, but
darn it, we're not going to do it unless we get those poorest people
through their Social Security, through their Medicaid, through their
Medicare to pay a bit more? It doesn't seem right to me.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Representative Schakowsky, I think it's wrong
that we would tell people who have paid into the Social Security system
throughout their lives that now you're going to move the goalpost and
put a couple of years more on there before eligibility, that you're
going to up the age of eligibility.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Especially for Medicare. They're talking about that.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. They want to do that for Medicare as well.
That Paul Ryan budget would actually decimate the Medicaid system. They
just want to whack off a third of the Federal funding and then turn it
into a block grant program.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think it's something like $850 billion that would
come out of the Medicaid fund. I know.
[[Page H6797]]
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Then as to Medicare, they want to turn that
into a voucher program and put a 1 percent cap, I think, on the cost-
of-living increase and then give that in the form of a voucher to
people so that they can go out and purchase insurance on the open
market.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, and go to private insurance companies.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. It seems to be a concerted attack on
that social safety net that has made us such a great civilization,
which is that we take care of each other. It's an attack on that. It's
in accordance with a philosophy of laissez-faire economics.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say one area in which I disagree a bit
with you. Most Americans support these programs. I'm talking about huge
percentages of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--who
say, no, we don't think that Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid ought
to be cut. We don't think so.
So I think, in terms of the role of government, most Americans see
that it's important that when it comes to education, when it comes to
infrastructure, when it comes to public safety, when it comes to health
care, government cannot do it all. Americans aren't saying, just take
care of me. From cradle to grave, I want you to take care of me. No.
Americans are willing to work hard and play by the rules, but they see
an important role for government. If we cut government too much, in
some ways, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Here is what I
mean:
It is true that the Internet really did come from research that was
done by government. Look at the billions and billions--I don't know--
maybe trillions of dollars, and then look at the advance of the
Internet and everything that led from that--bio research, talking about
curing diseases. Then, of course, the money that comes from that for
the pharmaceutical industry, et cetera, mostly comes from the National
Institutes of Health, the Cancer Institute, et cetera, in coming up
with the cures and the medications. That's government research. I mean,
look at NASA and the space research. It was really the Federal
Government, in many ways, that developed the aviation industry. So we'd
better be careful about cutting government too much.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We definitely do. I think we've spent about
1\1/2\ percent per year of the Federal budget on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration from 1958 up until a few years
ago.
Can you imagine if the United States Government had left it up to
private industry to achieve what happened in 1969, which was that we
landed a spaceship, with men inside, and stepped foot on the Moon? Now,
some who are not particularly scientifically astute will say, Well,
what do we get out of going to the Moon?
I, not being the most astute scientist myself, wouldn't be able to
explain all of the benefits that society has enjoyed as a result of
that victory and as a result of the space program that has continued,
but I will tell you that, at this point after 50 years of investment,
we've now entrusted the private sector to continue the exploration of
outer space, and private industry is going to take us further than we
have been.
So that is the role of government. It's a support structure. It's an
investment in the lives of the people.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Think about the potential in the energy industry if
we just help to promote some of these clean, renewable energy
technologies.
One of the things on this cliff is the end of the wind energy
production tax, which has been so incredibly successful in helping
build this wind industry that is ready to take off but still needs a
bit more support. This means clean energy to my State, Illinois, and
the Middle West, where we've got lots of wind--it's free. And investing
in wind energy--if that expires, we're going to lose 7,000 jobs in
Illinois alone because of the failure to help invest in the wind energy
industry.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's not profitable at this time for private
industry to invest in such a new way of producing energy. There's no
profit in it, so they won't do it. Government has the leadership and
the vision to understand where we need to go, how we need to take our
people into the future. We--the public policy apparatus, the
government, we the people, the government being of us--have a
responsibility not just to enhance short-term profits; we have a
responsibility as a government to plan and prepare for the future of
this great Nation.
We also have an inherent responsibility to lead the world. We're all
in this world together. We all are going to breathe the same air. We're
all going to drink from the same pool of water that exists on this
planet. So we being the greatest Nation in the world are really
shirking our responsibility by reducing government down to the size
where you can drown it in a bathtub. I think that's the analogy that
Grover Norquist used.
{time} 1400
If you did that, where would America be? How would we have built the
Interstate Highway System?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was Eisenhower; wasn't it?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. A Republican, by the way, 1958, I
believe it was, decided that this country needed an interstate highway
system. Where would we be if we had not committed the dollars to get
that done?
When we did that, it was an investment in the future prosperity of
this Nation to link cities, towns, and States with a way, a mode of
transportation. They did that in the 1800s with the railroad system,
another situation where the Federal Government supplied the seed money
and gave away the land to help it become a profitable industry.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Along rail lines, along highways, of course, that's
the engine of commerce that keeps not only our wheels turning, but the
stores--everything going, all of the infrastructure.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. That's what it's all about. Government is the
entity which primes the economic pump through which prosperity then
flows.
So we're now at a point, though, where: Are we going to turn
everything over to the big businesses, and are we going to reduce the
ability of people to be able to come together in a workplace and
bargain collectively? Are we going to take steps to eliminate people
from voting so that those who are the chosen ones can elect the people
of their choice, and all of the rest of the people are just supposed to
expect to be treated benevolently by those who are seeking to exploit
the capital, the human capital, and make as much money as they can? At
whose expense is that?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about how government helps to prime
the pump. So government spends money, and it spins out and often
becomes commercialized. There are three ways that we can really deal
with our economy right now to make it stronger: We can raise revenue,
that's raising taxes; we can cut spending; and the third--that's not
talked about enough--is the issue of growth in the economy, jobs. Jobs,
jobs, jobs. That's what grows the economy.
I am so proud that our President, as part of this overall deficit
reduction plan, has recommended spending about $50 billion on jobs.
They would spend money on infrastructure, infrastructure spending
that's supported by both business and labor because it is so important.
And it's kind of a no-brainer. If you spend money that will create
jobs, you now have people, one, who are not having to get unemployment
insurance or food stamps. They are working and can support their
families, so we get them off public support. And, two, now they're
paying taxes. They're going out and they're buying stuff, and
businesses are going to have to hire more people because they're buying
holiday presents for their kids. They're buying winter coats now. So
there is an economy through growth. That is an underrated portion when
we talk about how do we save our economy.
I have been circulating a letter among our colleagues, Representative
Johnson, saying we ought to encourage investment, that we ought to
encourage spending on jobs in this deficit reduction, this economic
growth package.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We have to stimulate, as government does,
economic vitality. We can do that. It has been done repeatedly
throughout the history of this country. A great example is the recent
$787 billion stimulus that was passed back in, I think, 2007.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Some people say it didn't create any jobs. Well, I
think
[[Page H6798]]
the testimony is that many of our colleagues, almost all of our
colleagues, showed up at the ribbon cuttings.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, with the big checks. And they were
actually clamoring for that Federal money, and it made an important
difference. It allowed States and local governments to retain teachers
and firefighters, police officers, construction workers. You know, the
whole nine. That's, in part, the reason why we have such an uptick in
our economy, however modest it might be right now. That $787 billion
stimulus has made a difference, and I'm glad.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It actually created millions of jobs.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, it sure did.
And so I readily signed on your letter that you're circulating, your
``Dear Colleague'' letter. And I'm glad to know, as well, that the
President has included a modest $50 billion stimulus aspect in his
proposal to strike a grand bargain and avoid the fiscal cliff. So all
of these things are a part of what is hopefully being negotiated now.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about a difference in philosophy and
even economic philosophy. There are those who call that top 2 percent
the job creators. Well, if that's true, then where are the jobs?
Because most of the growth, almost all of the growth in income over the
last many years has gone to the wealthiest Americans where, for
ordinary Americans, their income has remained flat.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Actually, since 1979, the income, or the
after-tax income, of the top 2 percent has increased by about 372
percent, if I recall the correct number, 372 to 378, while, as you say,
regular working people, the middle class, their incomes have remained
flat. It's actually a redistribution of the wealth of the country.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. When we have a situation in this country where the
top 1 percent of Americans, 1 percent, control as much wealth as the
bottom 90 percent, that's not a healthy situation. I don't want to
moralize about it. It's just not a healthy situation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, it's not healthy. And it's amoral. Greed,
when you've got to get more, more, more and you're not willing to
share, you're not willing for everyone to prosper; and when you think
that a person is poor because they don't want to get out and work, they
have bad habits, they didn't do this, they didn't do that and,
therefore, they deserve to be where they are now. But me, I did it the
old-fashioned way, I inherited my money. And so don't blame me. I'm
going to make more money and I don't care about you, I'm going to make
money off of you, that is rather immoral, rather shortsighted.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have to tell you, I introduced legislation that
actually would increase the taxes on people starting at a million going
up, ratcheting up, different tax brackets up to a billion dollars.
{time} 1410
And I've got a lot of very rich people who say, yeah, that's fair.
That's right.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's only a few, like Sheldon Adelson, the
Koch brothers, who want to control the public policy apparatus. They
want to control government so that they can have government to make
them more money. That's all they're interested in is themselves, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But let me just say this: the other philosophy,
though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will
actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people,
hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more
money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy.
They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and
that's going to spread throughout the economy.
Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably
are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do
nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for
everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We all do better when the money is
circulating. Those on the top end, they're going to continue to make
money; but those who are just working people, regular working people,
and those who aspire to the middle class, when that money is
circulating, then we can all, collectively, become more wealthy, and we
will all spend more dollars, and that means more goods and services
have to be produced, and that means you have to have people employed to
service the needs of those with the money.
So it's just really common sense. Instead of trying to break the
unions, we should be trying to solidify the relationships that the
unions have established with their employers.
Detroit is a fine example of how the greatest, richest union, the
Auto Workers Union, came to the table with the corporate bosses, after
the corporate bosses had run the business into the ground, and needed a
bailout from government, and President Obama made a determination that
we're going to invest money in GM and in Chrysler, and we're going to
not let those companies go bankrupt.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was a lot of jobs that would have gone down.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And so we spent $700 billion. And it was the
United Auto Workers union that sat down at the negotiating table with
Big Business, worked out what some may call give-backs. It actually
gave up some of the benefits that it had signed contracts for with the
employer.
These are things that actually created the middle class, things like
working days, working hours, wages, benefits, retirement, those kinds
of things that people would not have had unless they had been
represented by a union and we had strong unions.
So those things workers gave back in part to make sure that the
corporations could maintain or regain stability. And so now, just a
short, 3, 4, 5 years later, GM is back to being the number one car
maker in the world.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And all the money's been paid back to the United
States Treasury.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I think they still owe us a little bit. We
still have some GM stock. The Federal Government still owns some GM
stock, which they're going to have to repurchase those shares from us.
So we are still involved, but that's another example of the role of
government.
And I, myself, I'll never be one to hate government. And I try to
explain to people why government is not the problem. Government is a
part of the solution.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Part of the solution.
Can I just ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentlewoman from Illinois
has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to say a few things about organized labor.
I'm old enough, Congressman Johnson, when I was growing up, one
person could work in the steel mills on the south side of Chicago,
tough job, but you could not only make a decent wage that put you in
the middle class; you could buy a car, you could have a little house,
modest house, and you could even afford to send your kids to college.
You had health care benefits. You had a pension, a private pension. And
that was the normal. That was the normal in the United States. You
worked hard, often really hard, but you could, you know, make a wage
that would afford you a good, middle class life.
I think there's a lot of people who think that, well, unions, that is
so 20th century. You know, that was yesterday. We don't need them
anymore today. But I want to say that if we have a low-wage economy--
you know, some of the companies that are coming back to the United
States, you know what they're saying, that the differential in wages
between the United States and Bangladesh is insignificant enough that
they might as well come back and make their products in the United
States.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You've got an educated work force, relatively
speaking. You've got enhanced transportation abilities here to get your
goods and services to market quickly, as opposed to the expense and the
security of coming across the water. And I'm happy that businesses are
looking to re-establish their production facilities inside of America.
That's good corporate consciousness.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me end with this since we just have a couple of
minutes. As we face all these negotiations that are going on, I think
there's a couple of bottom lines. One--and the President has been very
clear--we are
[[Page H6799]]
going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a bit more.
And, number two, I think we ought to say that those programs that
help people have a decent retirement--Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, as well--that that is the wrong place to go in order to
balance our budget. We don't have to go to the poorest people. We can
make those programs more efficient. We can cut the costs of those
programs, but we don't have to reduce the benefits and further
impoverish people who aren't making a lot of money right now.
For me, those are sort of bottom lines for the deal that we want to
make. All of us are in this together. We should all see each other as
our brother's and sister's keepers. With that kind of philosophy in
mind, I think we can come up with some sort of an agreement that serves
our country, that serves its people, that is just and fair and helps us
go forward.
Do you have a final word?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, that's enough said. Let me say how much I
enjoyed our colloquy today, and I look forward to continuing to work
with you to ensure that America remains the great Nation that it has
always been.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________