[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3131-H3137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INEQUALITY AND FAIRNESS FOR ALL AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Handel). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
DeSaulnier) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I wanted to spend a 
few moments on what, to me, is the most important domestic issue in our 
country right now: the issue of inequality and fairness for all 
Americans. It is at historic levels of disparity from where it should 
be, historically both from an economic standpoint, an ethical 
standpoint, and, in my view, a moral standpoint. It is important for 
Congress to know what the experts know and to share that with this 
House and with the American public.
  I am pleased to partner with some of my good friends: Representative 
Lee, who I hope will be here soon, a good neighbor in northern 
California, who has done such extraordinary work around poverty and 
inequality; and also Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut, who has also helped 
us to put this Special Order together.

  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), 
my good friend and colleague, and a national spokesperson on issues of 
inequality.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding. I appreciate all of the work Congressman 
DeSaulnier does in this area. And I want to thank him for raising this 
particular issue for this Special Order.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with him that inequality is the issue of the 
moment. Not only does inequality funnel money from working Americans up 
to the richest people, but what do they do with the money once it is up 
there? There is only a certain number of boats you can ski behind, only 
a certain number of houses you can buy, and only a certain number of 
luxury cars you can buy.
  What do the billions go to? Much of it goes to things like merger and 
acquisition, and also political influence. It is very important to 
understand that as economic inequality has grown, political inequality 
has also grown. Nowadays, the money goes into some super-PAC: some big, 
giant thing where they do independent expenditures and pour money in 
against their enemies and pour money in in favor of their friends.
  Politics in America has become the battle of the billionaires now. 
You have to get a billionaire on your side in order to win. I mean, we 
know that whether it is the Coates', or the Mercers, or the Adelsons, 
or whoever it is, it is some big, rich person who is going to sponsor a 
political candidate, and that is who gets to represent us in what is 
supposed to be a democratic society. So I think that it is critical to 
make the link between economic inequality and political inequality.
  I will say again, when we get economic inequality to the degree that 
it is, one of the other things that is purchased, besides political 
influence, is mergers and acquisitions.
  I would just like to point out to everybody that it doesn't matter 
what industry you are talking about, markets are deeply concentrated 
and anticompetitive. If you are talking about like a pharmacy--not a 
pharmaceutical company, but a pharmacy--CVS, Walgreens, we used to have 
Rite Aid and, of course, they merged together. And, of course, there is 
another merger coming up. Every day you open the paper, there is some 
other big company buying up some other big company, concentrating 
markets, making the barriers to entry even higher so that the small-
business person is just locked out.
  It costs a lot to get into business now. If your opponent, who is 
some big, huge company, doesn't want you in the market, they can just 
drop their prices, suffer the losses, because they are big, run you out 
of business, and raise them right back on up.
  But if you look at any market--beer, hamburger, chicken, online 
search engines, anything you want--almost all of them are deeply 
concentrated--two, three, maybe four--companies representing 80 or 90 
percent of the industry, which cuts off opportunity, limits 
competition, and it is bad for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I have a few more things to share, but I will kick it 
back to Congressman DeSaulnier for now. Maybe he can kick it back to me 
a little later, and we will just have a conversation for a little 
while.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, that sounds good to me.
  Madam Speaker, I do want to say, as a former small-business owner, 
having owned restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area for many years, 
I can definitely identify with your comments that all too often Main 
Street America, those entrepreneurs who employ most of our workers, are 
at a distinct disadvantage.

                              {time}  1730

  And, unfortunately, I always felt this as a small independent 
restaurant owner, that the desires of a lot of my fellow restaurateurs 
that were nationally owned were not necessarily my desires. I supported 
the community. I was

[[Page H3132]]

active in the community. I was in the Rotary or went to Rotary, was 
very active. They didn't have that kind of Main Street presence.
  I do think that we have deserted that kind of--we collectively, I 
think, in this body, have all too often deserted that constituency, 
which is so much a part of not just our economy, but our culture in 
America.
  Ben Franklin, when he started, went through and was trained by his 
father and his older brother. Somewhat controversially, he came to 
Philadelphia and walked down the street and started a business.
  So, to your point, I think that is really important, that when you 
look at the fabric of America, what this inequality talks about--and as 
we go through this, it will sound from somewhat of an academic 
perspective because we have listened to the experts. We have listened 
to experts, particularly in my area in northern California at Berkeley 
and Stanford, but we have gone to others.
  This presentation will be about what the economic history and what 
the economics are telling us so that everyone can accept this in terms 
of the historical record and the facts as Thomas Piketty put in his 
best selling economics book, very dry, ``Capital in the Twenty-First 
Century,'' which I take a lot of my influence from.
  When the majority was going through their tax reform bill, I happened 
to pick up a compilation of economists--it was very broad, from their 
ideological perspective--called, ``After Piketty''; and as I was 
reading this, I already knew this, and I thought this tax plan is 
probably the worst medicine to give this environment because it will 
only make it worse, in my view, based on a hopeful thought that all of 
this will trickle down from the wealthiest.
  We know that in an economy like the United States, where 70, 75 
percent of it is consumer driven, you need people to spend money. 
Myself, as a small-business person, if people didn't have disposable 
income to come in my door to pay for the food, I couldn't pay my 
employees. I couldn't do all the things I wanted to do to engage in the 
community. So this is the fabric of the American economy, but it is 
really about the fabric of the American culture and what we want for 
our kids.
  One of the most disturbing things is being a baby boomer and the 
parent of two sons in their thirties and to see their struggles as they 
do well and play by the rules and do as is required of them. What we 
are passing on, my generation and future generations, is not just the 
challenge of a prospectively lower life expectancy, but all the despair 
we see in too many communities in this country that this last election, 
according to the ultimate winner in the Presidential campaign, was 
about reaching them.
  Over a quarter into his term, I defy anyone to say where the average 
person in multiple communities is seeing a benefit, and this is going 
to be a challenge.
  So I put up here, there have been many famous admonitions through 
history, starting with Plato and Aristotle, about this issue, about the 
inequality issue of humans treating other humans. The first one I would 
like to point out because it comes from Adam Smith--Adam Smith, who 
wrote ``The Wealth of Nations,'' the great Scottish political economist 
whom many people in the Chicago school and people who believe in this 
idea of trickle-down economics look to and the invisible hand that he 
so famously wrote about.
  But the quote on the top here, I think, is a very clear demonstration 
of his view in the late 1700s in spite of his perspective on many 
things, and it is the first quote on the chart: ``The disposition to 
admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to 
despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is 
the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral 
sentiments''--Adam Smith.
  The second quote is from someone whom we are all familiar with. A 
great American, a great Republican progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, said: 
``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state 
because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of 
government,'' a quote rooted in a passage from Luke in the Bible.
  That passage says and is quoted often in our political discourse: 
``To whom much is given, much is required.'' That is part of what Jesus 
of Nazareth said when he was giving his gospels on the mountain as part 
of the Sermon on the Mount or prelude to that.
  And the last quote, I think, is very demonstrative for the situation 
we are in and leading up to these next elections both in 2018 and 2020. 
The great jurist, the first Jewish American to be a member of the U.S. 
Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, said: ``We can either have democracy in 
this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a 
few, but we can't have both.''
  With that, I would like to briefly go through four charts that I 
think are visually demonstrative of the problem we are exposed to, and 
I would like people who are watching to particularly look at the 
timeframe on the graphs.
  So it has been talked about going back to when America was great. 
These charts will demonstrate that this period of time, that a lot of 
us who had parents who fought in World War II, grandparents who fought 
in World War I, heard their stories about that national commitment in 
both those instances and in both generations.
  I grew up in a household outside of Lowell, Massachusetts, hearing my 
French-Canadian grandparents and my Irish grandparents talking about 
coming to Lowell, Massachusetts, to work in those textile mills for the 
opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their kids.
  Indirectly, of course, I benefited from that, because their kids were 
the first kids in their family who went to college, my parents. But 
they had to endure World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II, 
a transformative period of time that then led to what some economists 
will now say was really a unique period of time where there was great 
economic growth after the war, during the Eisenhower administration and 
after that, Truman through Eisenhower and beginning with Roosevelt, 
where everybody was benefiting.

  So this great consumer economy was a benefit to everyone sharing the 
wealth and the historical disparities that we have come to from outside 
that.
  So if you want to go back to the best world, the best parts of that 
world, acknowledging that America had real challenges there around 
race, and continues to have, that had to be addressed. We had real 
challenges around sex and sexism that had to be addressed. There were 
other issues about things that we needed to deal with in this country 
that are urgent, and we have dealt with since that time. So I don't 
want to make it sound like everything was wonderful. We had our 
challenges.
  One of the great things about this country, as so many people have 
said, is we acknowledge our weaknesses, but we address them and aspire 
to move on. I would say we are at one of those points where we are 
particularly challenged in that regard.
  So, if we could go to the first of these charts, in particular, I 
want you to look at the dates, because this will be consistent in the 
four diagrams we are going to bring up. The dates starting on the far 
left in the early periods, the 1920s, which actually was the gilded 
age, and then through to 2013.
  So this particular chart talks about inequality and that historical 
perspective. In the United States, right now, income inequality has 
grown rapidly by every statistical measure for 30 years. America's top 
10 percent--and this is not class warfare. This is a discussion of what 
the statistics tell us and what that implies for our democracy and the 
benefit that we all should derive as it is written in our sacred creeds 
in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and also in our 
other great commentary.
  So America's top 10 percent, approximately 32 million people, now 
average more than nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent, 
or about 293 million people. Think of that. The top 10 percent, 32 
million people, many of them got their wealth from talent and good 
work. Some of them have not had as much talent and hard work, and that 
is human nature.
  But because of the policies that we have passed--and as my friend 
from Minnesota has alluded to, the influence in politics, in our 
election process, that is more extreme than it has ever been

[[Page H3133]]

in the history of this country. It has always been there. It has always 
been part of our dynamic.
  Being from California, there is a famous quote from a former speaker 
of the State assembly that money was the mother's milk of politics, 
sort of a day-to-day look as a working politician, but now we are at 
extreme, extreme levels.
  Independent expenditures, to what my friend from Minnesota talked 
about, in the Supreme Court decisions around Citizens United and 
SpeechNOW, two decisions in 2010, have created a world that this 
country has never seen before, where the Supreme Court decided in those 
two decisions by a 5-4 majority that the American public and their 
representatives had very limited ability to put any kind of controls 
over what is called independent expenditures. Those are funds that are 
written. And the one condition is those people who are doing that 
cannot communicate or be in party with the campaigns.
  You can go and see how that has dramatically changed in the last 
cycles and will continue to get worse in this next cycle. This last 
cycle, the Presidential cycle, it got up to, I believe, just about $9 
billion of independent expenditures that are largely not held 
accountable.
  So next, America's top 1 percent, roughly 3.2 million people, 
averaged 40 times more than the bottom 90 percent. America's top 1 
percent, or one-tenth of a percent, or roughly 325,000 people, average 
over 198 times the income of the bottom 90 percent, or roughly 293 
million people.
  The top 1 percent of America's income earners have more than doubled 
their share of the Nation's income since the mid 20th century. This is 
the period post-World War II. The incomes of the top 1 percent peaked 
last during the 1920s, during the start of the Great Depression. So you 
can see this again, the concentration.
  Again, people will start pounding their chest and saying: ``You are 
starting class warfare.'' The numbers speak for themselves. These 
numbers are driven and they are attributed--if people at home want to 
see where we got these numbers so they are not driven by fake news, 
they are driven by impartial, nonpartisan constituencies. And the point 
is just to say that we have got a problem.
  So, again, at the last peak, this gave us great social displacement, 
gave us, arguably, the conditions that created World War I, definitely 
gave us the conditions that gave us the Great Depression, gave us the 
conditions, fortunately, that led to Franklin Roosevelt and the New 
Deal, and through this sweet period where the economy was growing by 5, 
6 percent, and it was generating benefit across all demographics and 
did what Henry Ford said when he started making his Model T. He said:

       I want a product that is a quality product that my workers 
     can afford, so I want to pay my workers enough to pay for 
     this car.

  This is the sweet spot that people talk about going back to.
  Now we are here. Well, if history is right and taught us anything, 
and what Piketty talks about in a very classic economic historian view 
and his view of Western democracy and economic trends, his view is 
these are inevitable.
  This is my perspective, of course. I am not trying to put words in 
Dr. Piketty's mouth.
  But this was sort of an anomaly, when you look through Western 
economic industry, according to Piketty, which was the best-selling 
economics book in modern history.

  So that would make one wonder what comes after this, and what Piketty 
suggests and others suggest is there is a correction. And the question, 
I think, we have for this time in our history is: What kind of 
correction is that going to be? Is it going to be the correction that 
we want in this House, this sanctum sanctorum of democracy, the House 
of Representatives, where we battle it out, we express ourselves and 
our ideologies, our perspectives--our constituencies have very 
different world views--but we acknowledge that this is not right, this 
is a problem, and this is not America as we envision it or our great 
leaders envisioned it, whether it was Washington or Lincoln?
  Lincoln once famously said:

       If wages and capital are not equal, if they become 
     different, then we have lost democracy. And if capital, in 
     particular, gets beyond wages, we have really lost democracy.

  And he also cryptically said:

       I have the Confederate Army in front of me, but I have the 
     northern banks behind me, and, honestly, I fear the latter 
     the more.

  There is nothing wrong with capital; there is nothing wrong with 
investment; but, from a historical perspective, this is not a healthy 
economy. We want a mix, and we want everybody to enjoy it.
  So just to go on, between 1992 and 2002, the 400 highest incomes--
that is, individuals--reported more than double, even after the dot.com 
bubble burst. So, corrections, they still increased more. The benefit 
of the recoveries after the dot.com bust and after the recession 
benefited, again, this disparity, the people at the top end of the 
spectrum. Since 1979, the before-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of 
America's households increased more than four times faster than the 
bottom 20 percent.
  Through much of this introductory part, we have been talking more 
about everybody in the middle income, but it has really disadvantaged 
poor people.

                              {time}  1745

  So when we talk about doing away with healthcare or Social Services 
or food stamps, it is really a cruel, sort of Dickens type of bargain 
where people who are already suffering will suffer more.
  CEO compensation. With the unions playing a smaller role than they 
did decades ago--and, during this period, during the Eisenhower 
administration, in particular, almost a third of American workers were 
in a union--it was the glory days of America; but it was also the glory 
days, and this wasn't a coincidence, of American workers having a voice 
in American economy and with their employers, where they partnered.
  So since then, CEO compensation and average workers have changed. 
With unions playing a smaller role, down to 11 percent from almost 35 
percent, than they did decades ago, the gap between CEOs and workers 
was eight times larger in 2016 than 1980. Union participation has 
declined to 11 percent, as I said, from its peak in the 1940s and 
1950s.
  As of 2015, 100 CEOs--and I don't say that they don't have talent and 
capabilities, but this is just a historical fact. Since 2015, 100 CEOs 
had company retirement funds worth $4.7 billion, which is a sum equal 
to the entire retirement savings of the 41 percent of U.S. families 
with the smallest retirement funds. That is just the 41 percent that 
don't have retirement.
  So imagine that; 100 individuals, who are supposed to be not just our 
economic captains, they are supposed to be our social and community 
captains, and they were once. In the 1970s, CEO compensation was 
roughly about four times the median income for their workers. So if you 
went to Ford or Motorola, there was a different corporate culture then, 
a feeling of social responsibility. It still exists, but it exists in 
this context: Now it is almost 300 times.
  So when you look at large companies that are global, think of that, 
of their median global employees, this is the disparity. So it is just 
another thing that we should be cognizant of.
  Retirement savings. Workers with employer 401(k) plans have a median 
balance of just $18,433.
  So let's talk for a minute about paycheck income, and then I would 
like to ask if my colleague would like to jump back in. This will only 
take a second.
  So paycheck income. We are talking about a few different things, but 
they all add up to the same thing. So what do you get? Your paycheck, 
if you are lucky enough to have investments in your home or in the 
stock market or in any other kind of investment.
  Less than half of American workers actually have investments on Wall 
Street. So when we look at Wall Street going up, this is the disparity 
between what we measure as helping the economy and what is happening on 
Main Street.
  So the average person on Main Street, who doesn't have any investment 
on Wall Street--and it is interesting. When Wall Street started to go 
down recently, it was because there were statistical reports from the 
Department of Labor that wages were finally coming up. It is not lost 
on me that Wall Street would be concerned

[[Page H3134]]

about inflation because wages are finally going up for American 
workers, which is obviously a problem.
  Paycheck income. For more than three decades, wages have been 
stagnant. Typical American workers and the lowest-wage workers have 
seen little or no growth in their real weekly wages in that time. So 
when you consider cost of living, which is going up exponentially in 
areas like where I live, in the San Francisco Bay area, and these urban 
areas, like D.C., where young people are constantly moving to because 
that is where the jobs are, between 1979 and 2007, paycheck income of 
the top 1 percent of the U.S. earners exploded by over 256 percent; 256 
percent for the top 1 percent, but stagnant for the rest of us.
  While productivity has increased at a relative rate since 1948, since 
the 1970s, wages have not. So we are more productive than we have ever 
been. The American workforce is more productive, when we talk about 
these glory days, than they have ever been because they have accepted 
compromise and working with innovation to make us more productive.
  We have put a second income into the household. The value of women 
coming into the workforce has made such a change, not just to our 
economy, but to our way of life. Unfortunately, as opposed to other 
industrialized countries, we haven't provided the infrastructure for 
usually the woman who comes into the workforce to replace their 
activities at home; so early education, high quality education, things 
like that, not to mention the fact of pay disparity between genders, 
which I will now go to.
  American women are now almost as likely to work outside the home as 
men. So in 1973, 14 percent, if memory serves me right, of women with 
children were in the workforce full time; 1973. By 1994, that number 
had changed to 74 percent. So think of that in the context of social 
change; the benefit it gave us from having talented women being in the 
workforce and being more in the culture, but we didn't provide the 
infrastructure that they had provided, in my view, when they were at 
home raising kids and being part of the community. It was a good change 
for this country, but we didn't adapt to it from a public sector.
  You look at the French and the Western Europeans, it didn't happen as 
dramatically there, but they provided the infrastructure, which we 
should here.
  Women still make up only 27 percent of the top 10 percent of the 
labor income earners; so this is the glass ceiling. Among the top 1 
percent of women, they make up slightly less than 17 percent of 
workers. At the top 1 percent level, a woman makes up only 11 percent.
  Bonus pay. This is a big issue that has come in the last 20 years. In 
2016, we were going to incentivize, or before that, during the Clinton 
administration, incentivize performance. Unfortunately, our performance 
wasn't tied enough to the benefit for everybody, the economy, the 
company, the investors. It was more skewed toward the investors.
  So in 2016, Wall Street banks--this was 2016, just recently--doled 
out $24 billion in bonuses to 177,000 of largely New York Wall Street-
based employees; $24 billion for 177,000 of America's 320-plus million 
people and 175 million workers. This is 1.6 times the combined earnings 
of all 175 million Americans who work full time at the Federal minimum 
wage of $7.25.
  The CEO of McDonald's--when I was in the California Legislature when 
we were trying to raise minimum wage, we figured out they were fighting 
against raising it to $15 and indexing it for inflation, but the CEO's 
compensation was almost $35,000 an hour. I don't think his commitment 
or his quality to work was that different, and it wouldn't have been in 
the 1970s.
  This bonus pool was large enough to have lifted all 3.2 million U.S. 
fast food workers or all home care aides or all restaurant servers and 
bartenders up to $15 an hour.
  Madam Speaker, I will take a little break if it is appropriate and 
yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I definitely want to thank the gentleman 
for the important information he has shared with us tonight. Folks who 
are tuned in definitely, I believe, are interested in this topic. In 
fact, it is the thing that most people think about.
  As I am here tonight, I would say, Madam Speaker, that we just 
celebrated, or shall I say we just memorialized the loss of Martin 
Luther King, which it was his 50th anniversary of his passing, of his 
assassination back on April 4. And just recently, this is the year that 
we passed the fair housing law in 1968, so it has been 50 years.
  A lot of people, when they think of King, they think, oh, he helped 
African Americans defeat Jim Crow segregation, and that is true. That 
is one way to look at it.
  But when he died, he was marching with sanitation workers who were 
paid so little they could not make ends meet. They weren't allowed to 
go into adequate shelter when it was raining, so two of them, one day, 
happened to go into the back of the garbage truck. The garbage truck 
had a malfunction, and those two men were crushed in the garbage truck, 
and so that initiated a strike which Martin Luther King came and joined 
two times, it being the last fight he was ever in.
  Why do I bring up this point? Because we think of America as being 
more evolved since that time. We think, oh, we have got voting rights; 
we have gotten rid of discrimination. It is illegal now.
  But I will tell you what. Despite the fact that we still are battling 
for racial equality, we have absolutely slipped backwards in the fight 
for economic empowerment for working people, no matter what their 
color.
  In 1968, the Federal minimum wage, if it had been adjusted for 
inflation, would be about $11.62. But as the gentleman just mentioned, 
it is now $7.25. And the server minimum wage, the tip minimum wage is 
$2.13. People don't believe me when I say that, but it is $2.13.
  How can it be legal to pay a server $2.13? They say, oh, they make it 
up in tips. Do they? What if their tips aren't given to them? What if 
there is wage theft, which happens all the time?
  I want to thank the gentleman from California for mentioning that in 
1968, the average CEO got paid about 20 times more than the average 
worker. Today, it is above 300 percent, 300 times. So the inequality 
has dramatically not just enriched the rich, it has made working and 
middle class and the working poor suffer.
  There are--and this is a shocking statistic. There has been a 60 
percent growth in people living under the Federal poverty guideline 
since 1968. That is wrong, and this tax bill that we just passed will 
do nothing other than make it all that much worse.
  It is a cruel irony that, in the face of this spread, this gap that 
working people are experiencing relative to their richer fellow 
Americans, that we would say, oh, you know what we need to do? Give the 
rich people even more money.
  Now, again, I am not anti-rich. I wouldn't mind being rich myself one 
day. But I do hope that if I ever were to be doing well financially, 
that I would not pull the ladder up, climb up the ladder and then pull 
it up so that people can't even follow me.
  Wait a minute. That is exactly what they are doing. They are trying 
to take away the Affordable Care Act, which actually gave millions of 
people healthcare for the first time. They want to put work 
requirements on receiving Federal benefit and aid. They want to make it 
tougher to be working class and poor. It is outrageous.
  I just want to wrap my own comments up tonight by just saying it 
doesn't have to be this way. Poverty is not something that simply 
happens like the weather. It is not a storm and, oh, boy, how did that 
ever happen? No, it is a series of decisions made by people who have 
political power, who advantage some and disadvantage others.
  It is things that we do, and it is also things that we don't do. It 
is when we just let markets concentrate and don't engage in legitimate 
anti-trust action; and it is when we pass a tax bill that we know, 
before anything has happened, that 83 percent of the benefits will go 
to the top 1 percent. This is how you create massive inequality.
  There are things we can do about it. I think we could start by 
passing a policy that links CEO pay to raises for workers. What if a 
CEO thinking about, you know, I am going to get my pay, I am going to 
get a big fat old bonus. Oh, okay. If I do that, I have got

[[Page H3135]]

to make sure my folks get some of this too. What if we passed a policy 
like that?
  What if we said you couldn't deduct those bonuses off your taxes the 
way that they do now?
  What if we actually said to ourselves, we are going to have a very 
high estate tax? I think that is fair enough. I mean, what did you do, 
other than negotiate a birth canal, to get all that money? I think that 
we should reward work, not just birth.
  I think, what if we said we are going to make majo investments in 
public wealth? What do I mean by public wealth? Well, I don't know, the 
parks, the roads, the bridges, the transit, the schools. What if we 
invested in those public institutions that actually help everybody come 
up?

  Even the rich folks can go to the public park. We don't ration that. 
We say it is something for all of us.
  What if we said we are going to make sure that the right to join a 
union is a right that we are going to protect and defend, knowing that 
the fortunes of unions--when union density goes up, working class 
people do better. When union density goes down, working class people's 
wages stagnate and go down.
  What if we lifted the minimum wage to a livable wage?
  What if we had real consumer protection?
  What if we said that everybody can go to the doctor?
  I believe that we should have universal single-payer healthcare. That 
is my opinion, and I hope others join me.
  What if we did things like looked at the labor policies that they 
have in some countries around the world?
  Do you know, in Germany, Madam Speaker, that workers have to be on 
the board of the corporation if the corporation is above a certain 
size?

                              {time}  1800

  That makes sense. They certainly are affected by what the company 
does.
  In Germany, if there is a slowdown, a recession, and that happens, 
everybody takes fewer hours rather than just laying off people who are 
just relegated to the unemployment lines, who see their skills 
deteriorate and who are just out of the workforce and it is hard to get 
back in.
  What if we did these things? What if we said to ourselves that we 
were going to have a trade policy that really factored in how is this 
policy going to impact the local economy and workers? I definitely 
think trade is a good thing, but what if we thought about how it is 
going to impact this worker, these workers, this factory right here?
  What if we got rid of the idea of right to work and said everybody in 
American can join a union?
  This would make America a stronger country for working Americans. It 
would improve our economy. It would put money in the hands of working 
Americans, and it wouldn't stop people from getting rich if they got a 
great idea and made a lot of money. It wouldn't stop people from 
amassing any wealth, but what it would do is make sure that people at 
the middle and the bottom of the economy had a greater shot and a 
better share.
  My Republican friends' vision for the economy is that, look, you 
know, here is how you have a good economy: You don't make rich people 
or big companies pay any taxes, and you shuffle all the property taxes 
and the sales taxes. You let those things be on the shoulders of the 
working folk. Then you don't spend on public institutions like public 
schools or anything. You just let those folks do the best they can.
  If those kids aren't smart enough to be born to rich parents who send 
them to private school, forget about it. We are just going to underfund 
that, or we are going to do charters, and then we will let individuals 
own those schools and make money off of them.
  Their idea of a business model is to smash the workers down, treat 
the workers like a cost, push their labor costs as far down as they can 
get it, and amass the wealth at the top as much as they can, allow 
stock buybacks, and don't regulate anybody, and don't have any rules of 
the game so that you get a free-for-all, and then when the economy 
finally goes bust, oh, you know, we just go back to John Q. Taxpayer 
and Jane Q. Taxpayer and make them bail them out.
  Anyway, I think there is a better way. I think we can have a better 
economy. We can have a democracy. We can have an economy that allows 
for free enterprise and we can have a public sector that makes sure 
that liberty and justice and opportunity are for everyone, not just a 
few.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison) for his passion and his commitment.
  I just want to mention a couple things before I turn it over to my 
incredible colleague from Connecticut, who brings such passion and real 
insight to these issues.
  But as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) said about minimum 
wage, in the 1960s, if you worked a full-time job and you earned the 
Federal minimum wage with an average amount of overtime, you earned 55 
percent of the median household income nationally.
  So think of that. You could work a minimum wage job in the sixties, 
and you could have enough to earn at least half of what the rest of 
your citizens were doing. So you could pay for housing. You could get 
by.
  I know there are a lot of things, but if we had indexed that for 
inflation this whole time, it would be very different.
  And just a few statistics on extreme poverty, because Mr. Ellison 
brought this up.
  So extreme poverty or absolute poverty is the definition by the 
economics profession. It is not limited to nations outside our borders. 
So we like to talk about the rest of the world has come up from $1 a 
day on average of these poor countries to $2 a day.
  To my great chagrin and shock, 3.2 million people in the United 
States now live on under $2 a day. Think about that. The United States 
of America, 3.2 million people. This is extreme poverty that we often 
ascribe to very, very underdeveloped poor countries.
  According to Oxford economist Robert Allen, absolute poverty in the 
United States is anything under $4 a day due to the costs.
  Can you imagine trying to live on $4 a day. But, yes, over 3 million 
of our fellow citizens attempt to.
  In comparison, let's say based on this, if you took the $4, then you 
go up to 5.3 million Americans are in this economic definition of 
absolutely poor by global standards. There are more people in absolute 
poverty in the United States than in Sierra Leone or Nepal.
  In comparison, zero percent of the populations of Germany, Iceland, 
Switzerland live in absolute poverty. Two-tenths of a percent of Great 
Britain and three-tenths of a percent of France live in absolute 
poverty, respectively.
  So this is just the extreme that I think we have to hear about 
because too often we gloss over the issues in this Chamber of people 
who are really struggling, the absolutely poor, the very poor, the most 
vulnerable amongst us, while we correctly try to help everybody in the 
bottom 90 percent, particularly middle income, but we have got to help 
everyone.
  With that, I yield to my wonderful friend from Connecticut, who is 
such a passionate, determined, eloquent spokesperson in this Chamber 
for issues around poverty and inequality.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  April 11, 2018, on page H3135, the following appeared: With 
that, I yield to my wonderful fiend from Connecticut, who is such 
a passionate, determined, eloquent spokesperson in this Chamber 
for issues around poverty and inequality.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: With that, I 
yield to my wonderful friend from Connecticut, who is such a 
passionate, determined, eloquent spokesperson in this Chamber for 
issues around poverty and inequality.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I want 
to thank him for his commitment and passion to this issue, and for 
organizing this effort tonight, and to join with him and our colleague 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to focus on the issue of income 
inequality.
  And for those of us who serve in this institution, we have a moral 
obligation, a moral responsibility, to help those who are in punishing 
poverty.
  It was more than 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson and a 
bipartisan Congress worked together to create the social safety net. 
And that social safety net is representative of the values of this 
great country where it says that it is not every man or woman for 
himself or herself, but it is our shared responsibility for one 
another, our accountability for one another, and particularly in times 
of need.

  Their priority--their priority--bipartisan Members of this 
institution, was to lift families out of poverty.
  Their tools?
  Programs to help end hunger, creating good-paying jobs, provide 
affordable healthcare, guarantee a quality education for all of our 
children.
  But, unfortunately, and I will be specific here, we have an 
administration,

[[Page H3136]]

we have a President, and we have a Speaker of this body, Mr. Ryan, who 
are not fighting a war on poverty. They are fighting a war on working 
families and the poor.
  President Trump and Speaker Ryan do not value the beneficiaries of 
these programs. They do not value these people's lives, unless they 
happen to have an estate or a corporate spending account. They want 
corporations and the wealthiest Americans to see bigger profits, even 
if the poor suffer greater pain.
  Republicans have repeatedly gone after the nutrition programs, the 
food stamp program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; programs 
that help people bounce back from tough times and to retire with 
dignity after a life of hard work.
  When I did research for a book that was published last year, ``The 
Least Among Us: Waging the Battle for the Vulnerable,'' what I found 
is, when it came to nutrition programs, who were the people who were 
engaged and involved?
  Bob Dole, Republican from Kansas. George McGovern, Democrat.
  When you looked at the child tax credits, George Bush was for a child 
tax credit, as well as Jay Rockefeller. Democrats and Republicans who 
came together on these issues for refundable tax credits for families 
to help lift them out of poverty.
  When you take a look at a whole variety, Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, while there may have been differences in the Chamber as they 
debated them, but when it came to the vote, they were passed on a 
bipartisan basis because, it is my view, that the folks who served 
there understood why they were elected and what this institution is 
about and how it provides opportunity for people in this country.
  That is what our job is here, is to provide opportunity for the 
people of this country. It is about educating needy children, feeding 
hungry families, supporting our veterans, and shielding seniors from 
poverty.
  Those are not the great achievements that the other side of the aisle 
looks at. They are grating to our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. It is about the view that these are the takers, not the makers; 
that they relax in a hammock and don't want to get up and go out to 
work, demeaning hardworking people in this country.
  The majority in this body and in the Senate and in the White House 
are forcing everyday Americans to pay for their $2 trillion tax cut for 
corporations and for the wealthiest Americans, and now they want to use 
this tax cut scam as an excuse to gut services and investments that are 
critical to our families and our communities.
  I just want to go back for a second, because I was here. This was on 
the food stamp program. I was here for the Contract with America. Wow. 
1995.
  Do you know where it went?
  Let's abolish the school lunch program. Let's block grant the food 
stamp program. Let Medicare wither on the vine.
  The fact is life hasn't changed that much. There is a consistency 
about some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Yesterday, under the guise of reviewing welfare, the Trump 
administration is once again targeting the most vulnerable among us.
  The President's latest executive order would make it more difficult 
for people to access services: healthcare, nutrition, housing. A tax on 
our social safety net does not reflect our values, nor does it make 
sense at all.
  The biggest issue that people are facing today is that they are in 
jobs that just do not pay them enough money to live on. So we must do 
more to end poverty and to end income inequality, and that does begin 
with wages.
  Now, the social safety net has helped millions of Americans. 
According to Brookings Institution, the poverty rate has declined by 
more than one-third since 1967, in large part due to the success of our 
safety net programs. It continues to help millions. In an average 
month, the food stamp program benefits help feed one in four children 
in the United States.
  What good news, then, that, Mr. Speaker, his view of what should 
happen is that if people are humiliated enough, that in fact they will 
try to figure out how to make do for themselves.
  That is not what this country is about. It is a slap in the face to 
hardworking Americans. It is time for a better deal for Americans, one 
that does prioritize job creation, as you have talked about, rising 
incomes, a 21st century economy that levels the playing field for the 
working class and the working poor.
  And I am reminded of the words of Bobby Kennedy, whose legacy 
fighting poverty should be a model for all of us, and just let me quote 
him. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman has read this quote, if I 
know him: ``I believe that as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. 
Government belongs wherever evil needs an adversary and there are 
people in distress.''
  This is what our role and our responsibility is, is to help to 
provide that opportunity. Do not let people be abandoned in this 
country for some ideological views or the sense that we need to make 
sure that the wealthiest, the millionaires, the billionaires, the 
corporations, need to be the winners in our society.
  It is not just Congress' moral obligation to help those in poverty, 
it is our duty. That is why we were elected to come to this 
institution. We should not be abandoning the people who put their faith 
and trust in all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for focusing on this issue 
and thank him for including me.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. No, the thanks are all mine, my friend and colleague, 
for your passion and your empathy for understanding.
  Since I quoted Scripture, I just want to tell people watching, we 
were both raised Catholics, and a lot of that brings in the social 
gospel and our passion for it. I am not a Biblical scholar, so I may 
refer to something inaccurately.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her lifetime commitment on these issues.
  And how important at this critical moment where we live in this 
Dickens-kind of America, where we are doing so much as a survivor of 
cancer, both of us, and we know of the investments in the NIH and the 
National Cancer Institute and every other disease. There is just this 
strange dichotomy in this Dickens-kind of world where we are benefiting 
from rational, dispassionate, bipartisan efforts on that hand, and on 
the other hand, we let this continue to exist. And I would argue that 
we are making it worse in our decisions in the last 2 months. So I 
thank the gentlewoman for being here.
  This chart, to be boring after that wonderful, compassionate moment, 
just talks about total wealth. So you see, the total wealth over these 
same periods of years for the richest 10 percent--this 15 percent is 
families between 10 percent and 50, so this is the 50 percent margin. 
And this is everything below the 50 percent.
  So 50 percent of Americans are down here. The lowest 1 percent, you 
can see where their wealth is. Wealth inequality is ever greater than 
income inequality, so this is total wealth. In 1982, the poorest 
American listed on the Forbes list of America's richest 400 had a net 
worth of $80 million, and they had a life of value. Many of those 
people had a very deep commitment to this country and a social 
commitment. I know many of those people.
  That generation, across the board, had a different view of things. 
But it was in our corporate culture, and I would argue, unfortunately, 
shareholder profits has driven too many very shortsighted investments 
in this country, both in the private sector and certainly in the public 
sector.
  In 2016, the richest Americans needed a net worth of $1.7 billion to 
reach the Forbes 400. The average member held a net worth of $6 
billion, over 10 times the 1982 average, after adjusting for inflation.
  We will go to our next chart, and then I will wrap up, Madam Speaker.
  The net worth of America's top 1 percent holds nearly half of the 
national wealth invested in stock and mutual funds. So this goes to 
watching the stock market--while it is important for this country and I 
am not disparaging that--this disconnect, it may be going up, but does 
it benefit everyone?
  It benefits everyone to a degree, but certainly to a lesser degree, I 
would argue, than it has in the past, in those years of post-World War 
II. The billionaires who make the Forbes 400 list now have as much 
wealth as all African-

[[Page H3137]]

American households, plus a third of America's Latino-Hispanic 
populations combined. In other words, 400 of our wealthiest citizens 
have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households, and 5 
million Hispanic-Latino households.
  At the end of the 20th century, the typical White family held a net 
worth six times greater than the typical African-American family. That 
gap is growing.
  So this particular chart is from the work by Piketty. The blue line, 
as you can see, is the percentage of capital, the amount of capital as 
a percentage of GDP in this country, and the red line is wages. These 
green bars are where we have had recessions.
  The important point to make in all of the slides is, the sweet spot 
where wages and capital were close to what Lincoln admonished us we 
should be, is where everybody benefited. And when you get to this, as 
in the Gilded Age, the concern here tonight is: What do we do about 
this? Do we respond, as we always have, through our civic institutions, 
to this institution, to this room, where Americans have struggled with 
these issues and come out with a product that largely benefited 
everyone, all Americans?
  And it didn't benefit it based on any kind of demographic group. It 
benefited it in its best moments based on the merit of your hard work 
and willingness to work an honest day. Most Americans that I know, 
working people in my district and throughout this country that I have 
visited, don't ask for too much, in my view. They aspire to make enough 
to buy a home, to raise a family, to retire in comfort, and to leave 
the next generation wealthier and fuller than their generation.
  We are failing in that obligation, and some of that obligation is for 
all of us. And I would reach out to those who are benefiting the most 
from this, and many of them, Warren Buffett and others, Bill Gates, 
have addressed this issue. But we really need them to lead us to a 
conversation about if this is right. If this historical record and the 
economic historians are right, how do we correct this? How do we 
correct it in such a way that is constructive and use these 
institutions to make sure that we improve upon this and really make 
America as great as it can be.
  So in my opening, I talked about the Christian admonition from the 
Bible about to those who are given much, much is expected, required. 
This has been through our political liturgy, such as it is in this room 
and others, that there is a social obligation, a social contract. And 
we have an obligation to protect individual hard work and merit. Those 
two things are things that Americans believe in. And when they work 
together, they work for everyone.
  The other thing that has come from many of our spiritual backgrounds 
is something that John Winthrop talked about when he left England and 
brought those Puritans to the shore of Massachusetts to start anew, a 
place that I have been to many times in my youth growing up outside of 
Boston.
  But Mr. Winthrop, future-Governor Winthrop, admonished to his 
shipmates, he said that where we are going, we should always be as a 
city upon a hill. And it comes from the Sermon on the Mount, that we 
should be as a city upon a hill because the rest of the world will look 
upon us.

  It has been popular in our culture in both parties. Jack Kennedy, in 
a speech in 1961 before the Massachusetts legislature as President 
said: ``We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a 
hill--the eyes of all people are upon us.''
  Today, the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, 
in every branch, at every level, national, State and local, must be as 
a city upon a hill.
  Kennedy continued and finished by saying history will not judge us, 
and I would say that this is true for us today, here.
  Kennedy said: ``History will not judge our endeavors--and a 
government cannot be selected--merely on the basis of color or creed or 
even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and 
stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as 
these.''
  Kennedy concluded: ``For those to whom much is given, much is 
required.''
  And I conclude with Ronald Reagan who talked about a city on a hill 
often. He talked about it on the eve of his election in 1980. And as 
his farewell address, his last address to the country in the Oval 
Office on January 11, 1989, Reagan said: ``I've spoken of the shining 
city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite 
communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, 
proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, 
and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a 
city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity.''
  And Reagan concluded by saying: ``And if there had to be city walls, 
the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and 
the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.''
  Ronald Reagan was right. Jack Kennedy was right. We should be as a 
city on a hill. And with the inequality we currently have in this 
country, I would argue the rest of the world does not look at us that 
way.
  If we want to fulfill those obligations handed down to us through 
Scripture and our own political scripture, we have to have the courage 
and the confidence to address these issues in this Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________