[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3524-3529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I am here 
once again to help represent the progressive message of the Progressive 
Caucus.
  We are really, really pleased to be joined tonight by an absolutely 
stellar leader in our great country, none other than the chairwoman of 
the Progressive Caucus, the co-chairperson, Lynn Woolsey of California. 
Let me yield a little bit of time to the honorable chairwoman because, 
when she is on the floor, representing our great caucus in this great 
body in this great country, it is always fun to listen to what she 
shares with us. Actually, she is going to share a little bit about a 
letter that the Progressive Caucus wrote, among other things. I am just 
going to yield the floor to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for a moment so 
she can get us started off right.
  Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, how are you today?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I'm fine, Keith. Thank you again for pulling together a 
Progressive Caucus Special Order and for making it something that we 
want

[[Page 3525]]

to come down here and talk from our perspectives about as to what's 
going on in our Congress and in our country and overall in our world.
  Right now, this country of ours, this Congress of ours and certainly 
every single person I saw in my district--Marin and Sonoma Counties--
over the weekend are all talking about one thing, and that is the 
stimulus package, the recovery package, that we are debating between 
the House and the Senate. Now, after 1 week and 1 day of electing a new 
President, the House passed the President's recovery package, and we 
are proud of it. The Senate has changed it slightly--considerably. 
Really and truly, 90 percent is overlap in one way or another, but 
there are some misses that our leadership will have to deal with in 
conference.
  I don't know how many people understand what happens when the House 
passes a piece of legislation on an issue and then when the Senate 
passes a different piece of legislation on the same issue. In order to 
have a law, we have to have conferencing between the House and the 
Senate. It's bipartisan with Republicans and Democrats. The conferees 
go into a room, and they start working out the differences. The only 
thing they talk about is where the two pieces of legislation differ and 
where they can come together and agree.
  So now, what does this have to do with the Progressive Caucus?

                              {time}  2130

  Well, your Chairs of the Progressive Caucus, myself and Raul 
Grijalva, wrote a letter to the conferees asking for four important 
issues to be strengthened in conference between the House and the 
Senate.
  And maybe what you would like to do, Keith--I will talk about the 
first section and then hand it over to you to comment on, and then 
we'll go to the second, and third, and fourth; and then by then, we 
will be pretty much out of here.
  Mr. ELLISON. You bet.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. So I'm not going to go through all of the introduction 
that we said in the letter except we said, ``As the co-Chairs of the 
Progressive Caucus, we write to you today to express our great concern 
about H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. And 
we would like our leadership in conference to pay attention to four 
major issues.''
  The first one, investing in America's future. Our children. And then 
we went on to say that in the Senate bill, almost half of the funding 
cuts come from education. We consider this irresponsible, we consider 
it shortsighted. Eliminating funding for school construction not only 
hurts our Nation's children, but it also impedes job growth. What 
perfect growth for jobs is building schools for our kids that they 
need, and at the same time, providing jobs that pay a liveable wage.
  Additionally, the Senate cut funding for Head Start, Head Start and 
early Head Start, from 2.1 billion to 1.05 billion. And in our letter 
we said that this chips away at our Nation's future and places an 
overwhelming burden on families already feeling the strain of a bleak 
economy and that we requested that our leadership return the funding to 
the House-passed levels.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, Chairwoman, thank you for yielding back.
  I want to say--and just to agree with you--that investing in our 
young people, young people going to Head Start is one of the very best 
investments that any society can make. And you can get conservative 
economists, you can get liberal economists, any kind of economists you 
want; they can tell you that the biggest bang for the buck is investing 
in early childhood education, programs like Head Start.
  You're right to point out as well, Madam Chair, that we have about 90 
percent of the House and Senate bill is overlapping, but there's that 
10 percent that we're here to advocate about. And I think it's 
important that the American people know that the Progressive Caucus is 
going to be in there fighting for an inclusive version that embraces 
all Americans.
  And I want to thank you and Chairman Raul Grijalva for writing that 
letter. That's the kind of leadership that the American people expect 
from you.
  And I just want to also add that education is a critical point. The 
House bill allocated 2.1 billion for funding for programs to prepare 
children. And that was cut to about 1 billion in the Senate side.
  But let me also talk about higher education.
  The House voted to provide about 6 billion for higher education while 
the Senate compromised, ultimately eliminated 3.5 billion for higher 
education facility modernization and purchase of instructional 
equipment.
  Right now, as you know, Madam Chair, when a recession like the kind 
we're in right now, what do people do as they try to figure out what to 
do as they've been unemployed? They often go to school to try to 
upgrade their skills. And the opportunity to do this, the investment in 
that, has been not as fully there as it could be as it is in the House 
version.
  So we want folks to know that they can do something about this. The 
conferees are confereeing, and, you know, this is something that 
Americans don't have to sit back. It's not over yet. It's not done yet. 
This cake is still baking. So it's a time to try to be back involved.
  I yield back.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, and now, Keith, the second issue we addressed is 
investing in America's States and local communities. Recognizing the 
squeeze being put on State and local governments, the House, 
rightfully, set aside assistance--assistance to ease the financial 
crisis right here at home. That was slashed in the Senate's bill. It 
was slashed to $39 billion, which was a $49 billion reduction. States 
are seeing crises within education, within health care, job training, 
welfare programs; and it's really unclear, right now, how many States 
and localities will be able to function without the above-mentioned 
funding streams.
  And we requested that our conferees returned funding to the House-
passed levels.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, you know, I'm glad you mentioned that because Mark 
Zandy, who, again, was an adviser to John McCain, a Republican, said 
that the way to really stimulate the economy is to put it in certain 
areas and not so much in others.
  And if you look on this chart right here, Zandy's Estimates For a 
Multiplier Effect For Various Policy Proposals, what you find is that 
spending money for States has a pretty good stimulative effect. Right 
down here, ``revenue transfers to State governments.'' For every dollar 
we put into that, that will generate $1.36. That's an important 
expenditure right there that we could use to really stimulate the 
economy.
  This will bring back good benefits to the economy. So for the Senate 
to shortchange us by $40 billion is a mistake.
  Let me also say, too, that these are good jobs, these are--we're 
talking about cops, fire fighters, we're talking about people who are 
really out there filling potholes, doing important jobs, making sure 
that people are getting workforce training and development. These are 
critical functions.
  And you know what? I read, Madam Chair, that if you were to add up 
all of the State budget deficits that are current right now, it would 
amount to about $350 billion. I know my own State of Minnesota has 
about a $5 billion deficit. I know California, your State, is in need.
  So the thing is that what we're trying to do is make sure that we 
don't have layoffs at the State, that we don't have service cuts at the 
State, and that we're continuing to bolster and pump our economy up.
  So I'm glad you brought the aid to States out because it's very 
critical, very important.
  And I might add that temporary increase in food stamps has a very 
stimulative effect. For every $1, $1.73 is going to come back; 
increasing infrastructure, for every $1, $1.59 comes back.
  Now, I might add, Madam Chair, that certain things do not have a very 
stimulative effect. Things that don't really do much good in the 
situation we're in

[[Page 3526]]

right now would be making income taxes that are expiring in 2010 
permanent. That would not help. That has a very minimal stimulative 
effect. These kinds of things won't help. Making expiring capital gains 
tax cuts permanent has less--we put $1 in, we get less than $1 out. 
These kinds of things are important to keep in mind as we look at the 
stimulus proposal.
  Thank you. Let me yield back to you.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. The other thing we have to remember, Congressman 
Ellison, every single economist has told us you have to spend the right 
amount enough, otherwise it doesn't matter what you spend because it 
won't do the job.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. And we have lobbied for a really bold stimulus package. 
I personally would have had a package that had the tax cuts on top of 
the spending, and it probably would have totaled over $1.2 billion.
  Mr. ELLISON. Trillion.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Trillion dollars. Thank you. I still have a hard time 
saying ``trillion'' when I'm talking numbers.
  And that, I believe, would have been what we needed. Because, you 
see, we're only going to have one bite at this apple. I don't believe 
we're going to get a second chance. So I think it should be as bold as 
it can possibly be.
  And the third ``ask'' in our letter to the conferees was regarding 
investing in America's future, home ownership. We see this as one of 
the key elements in the Bush recession, the housing crisis that can be 
felt from Wall Street to Main Street. And that's why we think that the 
Senate action was actually wrongheaded.
  The Senate bill zeroes out $2.25 billion in funding for the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which would have provided funds to 
States and localities to purchase and rehabilitate abandoned and 
foreclosed homes.
  The House allocated $4.19 billion for that program. We requested that 
our leadership return the funding to the House-passed levels so that we 
would then make a statement about how important housing and 
neighborhoods are and that we shore up the neighborhoods that are 
suffering the most.
  Mr. ELLISON. You know, Madam Chair, no one has to tell you. You've 
been a parent. You've raised a family. You know how it is.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If you will yield a minute.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me yield.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I've been on welfare. I've moved--man, I can really 
relate to what's happening with people right now.
  My children, they were one, three, and five years old. Their father 
was emotionally ill, and he left us; and I went to work, of course. I 
mean, they were my babies. I wanted to take care of them and did. But I 
couldn't make ends meet. So I kept my work and kept my job. This was 40 
years ago, remember that.
  But we had to go on Aid For Dependent Children to round off childcare 
and health care. And we got so much more in aid and help then, 40 years 
ago, than poor people do now, poor moms. And I just don't know how 
they're making ends meet.
  We moved from a really nice home. We had two cars. I was 29 years 
old. We were the ideal family. And it just turned inside out.
  And my kids and I moved to a little two-bedroom cottage. I bought a 
little beat up Volkswagen, drove it to work every day. It had a flower 
on the side--this was in the 1960s, of course. But it was so hard. And 
we got so much help, more help than families get today.
  And that's why we want families in the stimulus recovery package to 
recover along with others that are going to get helped.
  Mr. ELLISON. You know, Madam Chairwoman, it's so important that you 
share that personal experience because there might be people watching 
this broadcast right now thinking, ``Man, you know, am I just like a 
bad luck accident? Am I just like somebody who can't make it? Is it my 
fault that I am unemployed? Is it my fault that something happened? We 
had mental illness in the family,'' through no fault of their own. 
They're feeling like, ``Wow, you know, it's not working for me.''
  So when you stand up here on this House floor as a Member of Congress 
saying, ``I have been there myself,'' it gives them great courage, and 
it makes them feel like there is a tomorrow; and it makes them feel 
like there are some people in this body who care and who understand 
what they're going through. Because, you know, I got charts and graphs 
up here with numbers; and, you know, you're choking on the world 
``trillion,'' and of course it's all ridiculous.
  But the point is that it is people who we're here fighting for. 
That's why the Progressive Caucus was formed. That's why we exist. 
Because the story that you just told, there are, unfortunately, too 
many stories like that being told. And there has got to be somebody in 
this body who will stand up for folks who are fighting, who are trying 
to make it, who are trying to take care of those three kids.
  I am so proud of our Nation that there was, at one time in our 
history, when we understood that welfare wasn't anything to be ashamed 
of. It was what we did for our neighbors because we, ourselves, could 
be in a tough situation. It was saying we're going to step up for our 
neighbors; we're not going to let them go without because we all know 
that we're one accident, one medical problem, one job loss away from 
being in that situation ourselves.
  So this is what a caring Nation does. It says that yeah, you may be 
living that middle class dream, but you don't know what's going to 
happen to you next year. And we are here for you because we're all 
Americans and we care about each other. This is the kind of thing the 
Progressive Caucus stands for, and it's why I'm so proud that you are 
our chairperson.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Keith.
  And, you know, I'm going to go into our fourth ``ask'' of the 
conferees, but I think it's important to say because this is probably 
why we're fighting so hard. When I was on welfare, I used to say to my 
friends--I was on welfare for 3 years, working the whole time. I would 
say to my friends, ``Well, I don't know how other women do this.'' They 
think, ``Are you crazy? What do you care about other women? You're 
working. You're going to be off of it pretty soon.''
  But, you know, I always knew that I was educated. I had college--
hadn't graduated but I had several years of college. I had great job 
skills, I was as healthy as a horse, my kids were really healthy. And, 
you know, I was assertive so I could make things happen. And I always 
worried that other women with children didn't have those same 
privileges that I had, actually, in growing up.

                              {time}  2145

  And it's never left me. It has never entered my mind that I made it; 
so why can't you? I know how important that help was.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. The Federal Government was there for me and my family, 
and you have to believe I've paid back.
  Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, you know, the Federal Government has 
been there for so many of us, even those of us who are under the mad 
delusion that we did it all ourselves. You know, you may be a big 
successful businessperson, but you get out of the bed in the morning 
knowing that if somehow you had a medical problem, 911, you could call 
them, and the EMS truck--that's the government--would come take care of 
you and take you to the hospital.
  If you do manage to get all banged up and clean, the water coming out 
of the shower, somebody's inspected it to make sure that it wasn't 
going to poison you.
  You get in your car and you get out on the road, that's the 
government, too, buddy, making sure that you have a decent road to go 
on.
  And then because people aren't driving a gazillion miles an hour 
driving crazy, there's a cop out there making sure that people obey 
traffic rules. That's the government as well.
  And there is a light that's properly regulating the traffic flow, the 
government. And then you drive to work and

[[Page 3527]]

you see your employees, and you know what, they were educated in public 
school, the government again.
  And after all of that help you turn around and said I did it all 
myself, and I don't want to pay these taxes because they're reaching in 
my back pocket, wait a minute; we've been helping you every single step 
of the way. Maybe the invention that you sell was on a government 
research grant.
  So many opportunities are afforded us because we come together, 
because we are a society that operates for the common good, and yet, we 
have some people who only want to say that it's all me, I did 
everything, it's just me, I don't want to pay any taxes, I don't want 
to help anybody out, I don't care about any poor people. I don't care 
if a husband had a mental health issue, couldn't maintain his 
livelihood; she ends up having to turn to a welfare system which really 
is a caring society. I don't care about them. I don't care about those 
three kids. I don't care about those homeless people.
  That kind of psychology is why we exist to try to tell people that 
we're better off together than we are apart. We're not trying to stop 
you from being able to do your own thing, but don't forget about the 
rest of us as you do your own thing.
  The taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. The taxes 
are what we pay if we want good roads, good water, clean meat, if you 
want to be able to eat a peanut and not fall out from salmonella 
poisoning. This is what it's all about.
  If you want to make sure that some of those women who were not as 
lucky as you, maybe who didn't have those job skills, maybe just 
weren't as fortunate as you, but we do have a system in place to do 
workforce training so they can get these skills and take care of 
themselves because we all want to be able to take care of ourselves. 
This is why the Progressive Caucus exists.
  So let me yield back to you again.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, just to finish this thought, every person we help 
who gets back on his or her feet pays back to the community and to the 
greater good.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. And that's what happens to most people who get help; 
some, not, but most do.
  So, knowing that, the fourth issue we have of asking of our conferees 
in our Progressive Caucus letter that our two co-chairs signed is 
investing in America's health care.
  Mr. ELLISON. Very important.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Fewer Americans have access to insurance and health 
care. The House appropriately invested in immediate and preventive 
care. The Senate bill cuts $5.8 billion that was directed towards 
grants and contracts to prevent illness through health screenings, 
through education; malnutrition, immunization, nutrition counseling; 
media campaigns and other activities related to health.
  The House actually had set aside $3 billion for prevention and 
wellness, and furthermore, the Senate version cut $5 billion that is 
intended to help unemployed workers pay for health insurance, reducing 
the Federal subsidy under COBRA coverage to 50 percent from 66 percent. 
That's something I have no idea how somebody can be out of work, living 
on unemployment, and afford COBRA. I mean that would eat up one whole 
person's unemployment or both family members that are working.
  So, practically speaking, the Senate bill ignores the fact that many 
States who have unemployment insurance benefits that are covering or 
need to cover the newly unemployed workers will receive less money for 
the unemployed workers and for pay for food or housing, and that's 
going to really wipe out our States. And then individuals who have to 
pay COBRA health coverage, that wipes them out, and we're not going to 
help them if you don't change that in the conference.
  So that's health care that's not going to be supported like it 
should.
  Mr. ELLISON. So let's look over the four things. Number one, the 
Progressive Caucus is in there pitching hard for education; two, for 
aid to the States; three, for homeownership; four, health care. The 
Progressive Caucus is fighting for America's people. I'm so proud of 
the leadership that you and Congressman Grijalva offer to us.
  Let me also add on this health care front, the pandemic food 
preparedness. That's a serious health care issue, and the House version 
included $900 million for food and the original Senate proposal only 
had $870 million. That could be a big difference for people who really 
need the help.
  I also want to just add on a few other items if I may. You mentioned 
the neighborhood stabilization program, very important program, and I 
want to mention that which I believe was the third item that we asked 
for in the Progressive Caucus letter.
  The neighborhood stabilization program helps local communities say 
that, look, if you have a bunch of foreclosures on a block, we're going 
to try to go in there and do something with that abandoned house 
because you know that if you have never missed a payment on your 
mortgage, you upkeep your property, you do a great job with your house, 
the second you get a foreclosed property next to you, your property 
value has just dropped. If somebody doesn't move into that house, and 
oftentimes they don't, the lawn may not get cut, the pipes may burst, 
people might steal the copper out of them, and it just creates a real 
nuisance to the whole neighborhood and drags the whole neighborhood 
down.
  Again, back to this idea of some people believe, well, I don't want 
to help anybody out of foreclosure because I paid all my bills. Well, 
look, if you can have the value of your home protected by making sure 
that people don't get foreclosed upon or that if they do, the 
foreclosed property doesn't just go down, that is helping you. That is 
helping you. But it's helping you in a way that recognizes you're a 
member of the community and not out there all by yourself.
  I also wanted to mention, as you mentioned, as we talked, there are 
other things like infrastructure development we've got to keep fighting 
for. Rural broadband access. In the Senate compromise, funding to 
increase broadband access in rural areas and other underserved parts of 
the country was reduced from $9 billion to $7 billion. That's more than 
twice as much as the House has offered.
  Also Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, let me tell you these help fund 
a lot of the police departments around the country. The fact is that we 
cannot stop protecting the public just because we have a recession. A 
lot of police departments, local governments as we talked about before, 
are under a lot of pressure, and the Senate proposal trims additions to 
the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program which provides formula 
funding to State and local police. And the compromise would cut $450 
million from Byrne grants, reducing funding from $1.5 billion to just 
about $1 billion, and that's not a good thing. We need to be able to 
stick out there.
  And I also can't neglect home weatherization services, where the 
House bill allows for a Federal program that provides funding to 
increase energy efficiency for low-income families. The Senate 
allocates only $2.9 billion for the program, while the House had 6.2. 
And of course, LIHEAP, I know that's a favorite program of everybody. 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, unlike the House bill, the 
Senate version does not include additional funds for LIHEAP, which help 
low-income families pay utility bills.
  So, again, the House bill is much better, and we hope that the 
conferees fight for the House version of the bill because that is what 
would help America much better.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. And if the gentleman will yield, nine-tenths of the list 
that you read off creates jobs. I mean, it doesn't just upgrade the 
home and keep and make it energy efficient, which is so important, but 
the people doing the work are employed, and they're employed in jobs 
that pay a livable wage, and that is so important.
  And one of the things we asked, not as one of the four key areas of 
the conferees, but that we let them know that we're concerned about the 
Senate's package in their investment in jobs because we wanted them to 
focus on

[[Page 3528]]

green technology, and we wanted them to focus on veterans, and we 
absolutely are insisting that they maintain the prevailing wage. I 
mean, if we're going to have Federal funds, if we're going to be 
creating jobs, we do not want to create jobs for slave labor, and we 
want jobs that can make the worker independent and able to take care of 
his or her family.
  Mr. ELLISON. A good, livable wage, green jobs.
  Let me say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is 
moving its way through Congress at this time, different House and 
Senate version, 90 percent of it overlaps but there are some important 
differences we just talked about.
  The bill, the Democrat bill quite frankly, H.R. 1, which passed 
through the House, would create about 3.7 million jobs. That's a lot of 
jobs. The House Republican plan would only create 1.3 million jobs.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Still a lot of jobs but we can do better.
  Mr. ELLISON. We can do more than twice as better. So we can't just do 
as the little we can do. We've got to do as much as we can do because 
unemployment is a serious issue.
  It's important to understand that jobs lost in the last 13 months is 
we've lost 3.6 million jobs. So, if we want to recover what we've lost 
in the last 13 months, we've got to have a bill like the House plan, 
and if we don't, we're going to be in a real situation.
  And folks need to understand--and I know you understand this very 
well--you know, if I lose my job, then I'm not going to get that 
haircut because I really cannot afford it. That's a 20 bucks I'm not 
going to spend. So now the barber didn't get that 20 bucks. Maybe 
there's a few other people who can't get their hair cut. So now maybe 
the barber's not making enough money to make his rent. So now he has 
got to say maybe I can't do barbering, maybe I've got to close down my 
little shop now because I don't have the volume of traffic coming in. 
So now this is a person out of work. So now maybe the barber would go 
to the diner across the street and eat lunch every day. They're not 
buying meals.
  So this thing has a ripple effect. So that's why it's important for 
us to pass a jobs and stimulus bill but a smart bill that invests in 
long-term recovery.
  You know what, I want to show you another jobs chart up here, and 
again, you very clearly pointed out the individual human toll. But just 
to do a little numbers for a moment, Job Losses in Recent Recessions. 
Now, if you look at that blue line, this is the recession of 1990. This 
is the 1990 recession. We were coming out of George Bush, the First, 
and that was the 1990 recession with the first George Bush. And so we 
had a recession then, and that was a Republican time and we had a 
recession, and those things seem to go together for some reason. But 
anyway, we had another recession in 2001 when Bush came into office. 
You know, Bill Clinton left America with a budget surplus.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right.
  Mr. ELLISON. And you know, the other party got in and they took care 
of that surplus real quick. But the 2001 recession dipped us down. We 
lost the volume job loss relative to the peak month. This is way down.

                              {time}  2200

  Now, the current recession is off the chart. That is the green line. 
Pow. We are not even measuring how far down. We don't know how far down 
we are going to go.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. This is not finished.
  Mr. ELLISON. This is not finished. And the fact is that the job 
losses that we are looking at--3.6 since when the recession started in 
December, 2007. Something must be done. We have to act now. Anybody who 
knows anything about economics knows that.
  And I will say this: while I really want the Senate version to 
improve, and I really am going to fight for that and encourage people 
to get on those conferees and have a better bill come out, I know that 
we have to do something. No action is no option.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. We need to pass the stimulus. The other thing the 
economists tell us, and they are absolutely right, we know that, 
besides--the first thing they tell us is, It's got to be big enough to 
make a difference. The second thing they tell us is, It's got to be 
done quickly.
  So we really have to come to agreement this week and get on with 
taking care of the recovery that people need in this country. We need 
to be making people first, we need to have people in need--we need to 
help them. We need to create jobs, we need to spur innovation, and this 
economy can and must get back on track.
  Mr. ELLISON. Now, I want to say, if the gentlelady yields back, that 
the American people are behind us here. Sixty-seven percent approved of 
President Obama's efforts to pass the stimulus. Only 25 percent 
disapproved. The Democrats in Congress scored a 48 percent approval 
rating. That is way up from before.
  And we had 42 percent of those disapprove of actions in Congress' 
majority. Unfortunately, the party on the other side of the aisle, the 
Republicans in Congress, have an approval rating of only 31 percent. 
But I think they could do better if they support the bill. I would love 
to see them improve their popularity by supporting the bill.
  It will be great to have a bipartisan bill. The first time it went 
through, we couldn't get one Republican vote, even though President 
Obama came to talk with them, even though he reached his hand out, even 
though he extended himself to try to get to this post-partisan world 
that we all really, really want. But he put his hand out and they left 
him hanging.
  Maybe it's going to come back around, and we can get a few Republican 
votes next time. But I just want to make clear that the American people 
are on the side of a stimulus package that will help them get back to 
work, and they believe that the President's doing the right thing by 
pushing this bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Also, Congressman, they knew who dug this hole. I mean, 
this is a deep, deep hole that our new President, Barack Obama, 
inherited. And expectations are that he dig us out of it and go forward 
at the same time. Now that is going to be very hard. But we are going 
to do our part in working with him to make sure this can happen. But it 
cannot happen overnight. We have to know that that hole is so deep that 
we don't know where the bottom is yet.
  So it seems so odd to me that the same people who dug the hole are 
the ones who are saying, We want to keep doing it the way we did it all 
along. The only way to solve this problem is to cut taxes some more.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady would yield back, you know the 
definition of insanity, right?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Doing the same thing over and over.
  Mr. ELLISON. And expecting a different result. Deregulation and tax 
cuts got us into this mess. But fair regulation and shared prosperity 
is going to get us out. And that's why the Progressive Caucus is here 
tonight, talking about the progressive message.
  Here's the Web site right down here. Congressional Progressive 
Caucus. Here's the Web site.
  If the gentlelady from California feels that we made our point 
tonight, what we are going to do is hand it over. But I think before we 
do, any parting comments you would like to make?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I would just like to thank you, Congressman Ellison, for 
what you're doing here to help the country see what the progressive 
``ask'' is. We have a progressive promise that will go over with them 
one of these days soon. But right now the most important thing we can 
do is stabilize the economy for those in this country. And it's going 
to affect everybody.
  I believe you're totally right. People are with us because they get 
it. If they are not hurting themselves yet, they certainly know many 
people who are.
  Mr. ELLISON. That's right. So this is the progressive message, this 
1-hour Special Order that the Progressive Caucus comes to the American 
people to talk about what is really happening, Mr. Speaker. We have 
been fortunate

[[Page 3529]]

to have the chairperson of the Progressive Caucus, who's been offering 
tremendous leadership, not only on economics, not only on an inclusive 
economics system, but also on war and peace. That's another thing that 
you have done such a great job on.
  How many 5-minute speeches have you given on the issue of peace?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Over 290.
  Mr. ELLISON. I don't think there's anyone who's done nearly as many. 
I think you probably have, like, broken a record somewhere along the 
line.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. People say to me, Why do you do that? You're just 
talking to an empty room. First of all, it's not an empty room because 
people are watching us. But that 5 minutes is the only 5 minutes I have 
every day that I can control my subject without it having to be part of 
what everybody else's agenda is. And, I am telling you, I said I was 
going to keep talking until our troops were home from Iraq. And, guess 
what? They aren't home yet.
  Mr. ELLISON. So you're going to keep talking.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I am.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me say, just like you have been there day in and day 
out, talking about peace, bringing our veterans home, we are going to 
be here week after week doing a Special Order with the progressive 
message. We are going to be encouraging people to get involved. It's 
not just about an outcome, it's also about a process.
  We want to encourage people to get involved. What can you do? You can 
write, you can call. You can raise your voice and let your voice be 
heard.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairwoman of the 
Progressive Caucus, and we will yield back our time.

                          ____________________