[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14204-14210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CORRECTING THE RECORD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to rise this evening with 
some of my colleagues to repudiate some of the comments that have been 
made here tonight, to correct some of the record, and to provide, I 
think, the real story, Mr. Speaker, of what is going on in America and 
compare that--and my friend from Iowa, who was up here prior to me 
stated that it's about the record. And I would 100 percent agree: it is 
about the record.
  And if you look at the past few years prior to the Democrats taking 
over, our friends on the other side had complete control of the entire 
Federal Government. And in States like Ohio, they had control of the 
whole Ohio Government.
  And with President Bush, Republican House, Republican Senate, they 
had an opportunity to implement their economic policy. They had an 
opportunity to implement their foreign policy. They had an opportunity 
to implement their energy policy. They had an opportunity to implement 
their health care policy.
  All across the board, our friends on the other side had an 
opportunity to govern this great country. And the end result, we saw 
just a few short years ago with deregulation of Wall Street, turning a 
blind eye to what was going on, hoping that the health care problem 
would go away, hoping that the energy policy, the energy problems we 
had in this country would go away.
  And the end result was what happened just a couple of years ago with 
the complete collapse of the American economy, with trillions and 
trillions and trillions of dollars lost by American families and 
American businesses, with millions of people losing their homes due to 
foreclosure, with the Federal Government down here saying that 
government never works, it has no role, no place in our society, let 
the free market work, let Wall Street run the show, let the 
multinational corporations run the show.
  And we will do everything in our power, while President Bush was in 
office, to completely denigrate the responsibilities of having a 
referee on the field to monitor Wall Street shenanigans, Mr. Speaker, 
to make sure, learning from history, that if you let Wall Street go 
without any regulation, that they will run free and, for a short time, 
monitor themselves. But then after a while, they will get greedy and 
they will cheat, and it will become inherent in the system. And at some 
point, as we saw many economists predict the collapse that they said 
maybe would happen in '08, maybe '09, or maybe '06, they thought it 
would come a little bit earlier. But there were economists out there 
that could see what was going to happen. And it did. The unregulated 
free market Wall Street collapsed and took Main Street with it.
  For example, our friends on the other side, just in the last week or 
so, when this Congress and this President passed a complete overhaul of 
the regulations of Wall Street to make sure that this doesn't happen 
again, our friends on the other side voted against it, Mr. Speaker, 
voted against regulating Wall Street after we all just watched, as a 
country, and as the world watched, this system collapse because people 
just started moving money around.
  You want to talk about family values and taking responsibility?
  We are now holding Wall Street's feet to the fire, and our friends on 
the other side said, nope, we're going to side with the big banks. 
We're going to side with Wall Street. We're going to side with the 
status quo. And to me, Mr. Speaker, that's unacceptable. That's 
unacceptable.
  And we have a bogey man America now. Oh, we've got to hold up. A San 
Francisco agenda's coming. Or here comes socialism. It's coming at you.
  This time in our country's history requires very sober, mature 
analysis of the facts and an attempt to build a consensus around 
solutions. And our friends on the other side have consistently said no, 
no, no, no to everything that we've done.
  Now, you can't disagree with everything. My goodness gracious. 
Everything?
  Regulating Wall Street, saying we need a referee on the field to keep 
an eye on the big banks and the big-time money firms on Wall Street, to 
say they need regulated and you say, no?
  To say that we wanted to pass unemployment insurance at this very 
difficult time, and the Republicans put up procedural block after 
procedural block saying no?
  They come out and readily admit we've got to pay for $30 billion in 
unemployment insurance, but we don't have to pay for $650 billion worth 
of tax cuts that go primarily to the top 1 percent of the people in the 
United States of America, millionaires? That doesn't need to be paid 
for?
  So what we're here tonight to do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for this 
Chamber and for the American people, and to put into the Congressional 
Record, the choice, the difference between the party that is now 
governing the country, and the party of George W. Bush, who left us 
this mess.
  Now, no one's saying that we can fix this overnight; but, basically, 
what happened is that we were in a football game, and President Bush 
was the quarterback. And when they took President Bush out as 
quarterback, we were down 50-0. And now President Obama is in as the 
quarterback; Democrats are now in on the team. And we may not have won 
the game yet, but

[[Page 14205]]

we're still in the second quarter, and the score is now 50-21. But 
we're moving in the right direction.
  And when you look at where the Bush economic policies that everyone 
on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, rubber stamped, those 
policies cost our country millions and millions of jobs; 8 million jobs 
were lost because of the economic collapse on Wall Street, which was 
the final result of the Bush economic policies.
  Millions of people and their homes went into foreclosure because of 
the Bush economic policies. Trillions of dollars in wealth were lost 
because of the Bush economic policies.
  We were bleeding jobs. The January that President Obama came into 
office, we were losing almost 800,000 jobs in that month alone, in that 
month alone.
  And so this President and this Congress took a series of bold 
measures that weren't necessarily the most popular measures to take, 
but definitely needed, mature measures to help stabilize our economy 
and turn it around.

                              {time}  2100

  And that, Mr. Speaker, beyond all facts to be presented, worked. Now, 
as I said, we are not anywhere near where we need to be, but it worked. 
The stimulus package worked. Did it work well enough? Probably not.
  But I can only imagine what would have happened if our friends on the 
other side were in charge and there wasn't any stimulus package at all. 
How many thousands and thousands of teachers would have been laid off? 
How many thousands and thousands of State workers would have been laid 
off? Police and fire would have been laid off because our friends on 
the other side said, No, we're going to implement a political strategy 
that means we have to repudiate everything that President Obama does. 
We have to hope that he does poorly. We have to root against the 
President. We have to root for the President to fail. We have to root 
for the country to fail so that we could maybe benefit politically in 
the next election.
  And that's what's happened.
  ``No'' to the stimulus. ``No'' to unemployment compensation. ``No'' 
on reducing dependency on foreign oil. ``No'' to taking on the 
insurance companies. ``No'' to Wall Street reform. ``No'' to the banks. 
``No'' to providing more credit for small businesses. ``No'' to tax 
credits. This is the one I really like. Our friends on the other side 
voted against getting rid of the tax credits that incentivized moving 
jobs offshore.
  Now, can you imagine saying that, you know, there are some things I'm 
for and some things I'm against. Our friends on the other side voted 
against a closing of a loophole to disincentivize jobs moving offshore 
where Democrats are closing that loophole and incentivizing American 
manufacturing. Things made in the United States again, making things in 
the United States again, those times where our parents and grandparents 
grew up where we made things as a country, where we built things.
  And that's what the energy revolution is all about. We send a billion 
dollars a day offshore. A billion a day, Mr. Speaker, offshore to oil-
producing countries that don't like us all that much, and in many 
instances take our money and fund terroristic acts, try to in the 
United States and across the world. And then we have to spend money in 
our military to combat the global terrorist acts.
  So if we come up with the idea of can't we produce our own energy 
here with nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar and put people back to work 
in the United States making the 8,000 component parts that go into a 
windmill, making the 400 tons of steel that go into a windmill, making 
the component parts that go into a solar panel, this is the idea of 
putting America back to work. And our friends on the other side, Mr. 
Speaker, are saying, No. Let's keep giving tax cuts to the oil 
companies so that they can keep drilling when we only have 2 percent of 
the world's oil in the United States of America.
  There's a real choice here. There's a real difference here. And it's 
important for all of us to recognize the choices that have been made 
down here and the differences between the two parties.
  So we stabilized things. We went from losing 750,000 jobs in that 
first month in January, and now we have an average monthly job growth 
of 170,000 jobs a month here in the United States. Not nearly enough. 
We need more. And we're working on more by helping small businesses, 
eight-plus small business tax credits to help create jobs, including a 
tax credit to create jobs here in the United States--as opposed to a 
tax credit that our friends on the other side support to move jobs 
overseas--so that we can put Americans back to work making things, 
manufacturing things, and taking on China. That's what these policies 
are all about. A green revolution in the United States is about 
resuscitating manufacturing in the United States.
  And let me say that if you had a 401(k) or if you have a retirement 
plan, it looks a heck of a lot better today than it did when our 
friends threw us the keys. Most families have gained about 60 percent 
of their wealth back because of the increase in the stock market 
because of the policies of this administration, the bold policies of 
this administration.
  We have seen 98 percent of families in the United States in this past 
year see a reduced level of taxation.
  Again, it's in vogue today in America, especially if you're a part of 
the neoconservative radical right wing that has taken control of the 
Republican Party, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, to put up another 
bogeyman to say, They're raising your taxes. Well, we haven't. Ninety-
eight percent of Americans have seen a reduction in taxes.
  And so we are doing what we need to do to get us out of this economic 
catastrophe that President Bush and his Republican Party left this 
country. Deregulated Wall Street, looked the other way; let the 
insurance companies run crazy over the health insurance industry. And 
we've seen skyrocketing costs, incentivized ``drill baby drill,'' 
continue down that road while oil-producing countries take our money 
and fund terrorism when we could be investing that money in the United 
States and manufacturing renewable energy products here.
  So we have seen, Mr. Speaker, a dramatic change over the course of 
the last 2 years.
  So the choice is quite clear. Do we return back to the failed tried 
and tested policies, the worn-out, trite policies of the Bush 
administration? Do we trot those back out after we saw where they took 
us?
  You know, here's the thing that I love.
  Our friends on the other side say, Well, if we just cut taxes for the 
people that make all the money, it will trickle down and it will 
benefit everybody else. We tried that, Mr. Speaker. Those were the 
policies of the first 6 years of this decade. Bush came in, passed his 
tax cuts, and we didn't see extreme economic growth. We didn't see the 
middle class rise. We didn't see wages go up. We saw more offshoring of 
jobs to China and foreign countries. We saw the tax burden pushed off 
on the middle class. We saw health care costs skyrocket and go through 
the roof, continuing to take money out of the pockets of middle class 
families. We saw tuition costs go up all across the country, 9 percent 
a year.
  And Pell Grant, because our friends said, Well, you're on your own; 
we don't even want to invest in education. You know, Pell Grants did 
not keep pace with where they needed to be. And our friend who was here 
earlier was talking about the student loans, how the Department of 
Education took over the student loan program and the free market. Yeah. 
Because the banks were charging our kids 8, 9 percent.
  You want to keep that system going where you've got to take out a 
student loan and you get out of college and you owe $20,000 or $30,000 
to get a college education? Or heaven forbid you get a master's degree 
or go to medical school and you come out with hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in debt so that banks could make a profit off of trying to 
educate our kids so we could be globally competitive? That's what the 
other side wants to do, Mr. Speaker. They want to keep that system in 
place.

[[Page 14206]]



                              {time}  2110

  They like it just the way it was. Everybody was happy. The insurance 
companies were happy. The multinationals were happy. The banks were 
happy. Wall Street was happy, but we weren't happy as a country. And 
not only did the banks charge 8 or 9 percent for a student loan, check 
this out. The government said, if a student defaults on that loan, 
we'll pick up the tab. Jesus, I mean, wouldn't it be nice to be a bank 
under George Bush. You mean I get to loan this student and this family 
a student loan at 8 percent and if they default on it, the government 
will come in and pick up the tab? Hey, we should all go into banking 
and be that lucky.
  They set up a system, Wall Street did, that if there were lots of 
profits and lots of economic activity, they reaped all the benefits and 
the wealth was not spread throughout society. They would benefit. And 
that if it failed and collapsed, they would bring the whole country 
down with them, Main Street included. And then President Obama gets in 
and we pass the most sweeping Wall Street reforms since the Great 
Depression and our friends on the other side voted against it, just to 
keep the status quo.
  So let's recap a little bit. Bush comes in, Republicans rubberstamp 
his agenda, they cut taxes for the top 1 percent. They try to privatize 
Social Security and Medicare. Their policies are implemented across the 
board, economic, energy, foreign policy, right down the line. After 
they're all implemented, the economy completely collapses and shuts 
down.
  And then the Democrats come in. We get the keys to the car. The 
wheels are spinning, wobbling. There's cracks in the windshield. 
There's steam coming out of the engine. The tailpipe's dragging on the 
ground. There's no back window. It's like the car from ``The Big 
Lebowski'' that the Dude used to drive. So this thing's just wobbling 
down the aisle, wobbling down the street. We get the keys to the car. 
We take some bold needed actions, and our friends on the other side 
don't even try to solve the problem, don't even try to solve the 
problem.
  But what has happened is we went from losing 700,000 jobs a month to 
creating on average 170,000 jobs a month. We saw the stock market go 
from a little over 6,000 up to 11,000, and 60 percent of the wealth 
returned to American families. We have seen a reduction in student 
loans, an increase in Pell grants, an increase in the minimum wage, 
making sure everybody in the country has health care. We tried to 
provide, and we have provided, tax incentives for businesses who create 
jobs here in the United States of America as opposed to our friends on 
the other side who voted against closing the loophole to bring jobs to 
the U.S. They wanted to keep the status quo which incentivized people 
and businesses moving their companies offshore. And our friends on the 
other side don't want us to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and 
have consistently voted against initiatives to resuscitate 
manufacturing here in the United States and invest in green 
technologies and green energy here in the United States. So on and on 
and on.
  In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, which I think really highlights the 
difference between the two parties is, if you look at the alternative 
budget provided by the Republican Party here in the House of 
Representatives, it privatizes Social Security and it attempts to turn 
Medicare into a voucher system for our senior citizens. Again, a leap 
back to the Bush-era policies. Do we really want to go back there?
  I'm the first to say, Mr. Speaker, we haven't done everything right. 
I could talk about my disagreements I have with some of what the 
President has done, or everything we're not all in agreement here. But 
clearly, there's a difference between what we have done and what our 
friends on the other side handed us after full implementation of their 
agenda.
  I'd like to yield to the gentlelady from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Who has her Florida orange on tonight.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do, that's because I bleed orange and blue, 
and Mr. Ryan knows that, and I appreciate the recognition.
  And we're also joined by our good friend who has been a weekly staple 
of these important message hours where we're trying to communicate to 
our constituents and to people across the country and to our colleagues 
about the progress that we've been able to make that has been so 
significant and evident.
  One of the things that I wanted to highlight--Mr. Ryan, I'm not sure 
if you have gone over any of this--but I think an important chart that 
we usually begin with when we talk about the private sector that has 
been made, the private-sector employment increases over the past year 
and a half.
  And if you look December of 2007 all the way through to June of 2010, 
you can see the dramatic job losses that occurred during the Bush 
administration. The Bush administration ended right about here in 
January of 2009, and when President Obama took over, we at this point 
in the year passed the Recovery Act, the stimulus package that injected 
$787 billion into our economy, both in terms of an infusion of spending 
as well as tax cuts, 98 percent of Americans received a tax cut, mostly 
focused on tax cuts for small businesses and working families. And then 
at that point, that's when you see the job growth curve start to shift 
from almost 800,000 job losses a month in the month before President 
Bush left office and President Obama was inaugurated, then you begin 
starting to gain jobs to today where you look in June of 2010 where we 
have added jobs for six straight months, an average of 100,000 jobs per 
month, almost 600,000 jobs created this year alone. And if we keep on 
this pace, by the end of this year we will have created under President 
Obama's leadership and the Democratic leadership in this Congress more 
private-sector jobs in this year than the entire Bush presidency. I 
mean, that's just the facts, and it's an unbelievable fact.
  We have turned the economy around, and we've begun to go in the right 
direction. We have a long way to go but look at the other indicators. 
Look at the stock market. Look at the three straight quarters of growth 
in the GDP. Look at the 11 straight months of growth in the 
manufacturing sector. America has always been about making things. Mr. 
Tonko and Mr. Ryan are from communities where your constituents, the 
people that sent you here to represent them, they're used to rolling up 
their sleeves, doing a hard day's work for a hard day's pay and making 
stuff, and we want to make sure that we can get America back to work 
making things again. And that's why we have our Making it in America 
agenda that we're going to be talking about over the next few weeks as 
we enter the August recess period.
  And we're so pleased to be joined by our good friend Mr. Tonko, a new 
Member who has been doing a fantastic job.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Wasserman Schultz. It's a 
pleasure to join with you and Representative Ryan on the floor here to 
talk about what's happening.
  You talked about Representative Ryan's district and mine being about 
making things. I thought tonight I would share some numbers that 
personalize it to the 21st Congressional District in New York, the 
greater capital region. Let's look at some of the numbers.
  Beechnut, which produces baby foods, a tremendously powerful economic 
engine in our Mohawk Valley. Their total jobs right now, new positions, 
are at 106; 52 in the management position and some 54 in new factory 
positions. These are workers that will be producing on the line. It is 
a strength to our region.
  X-ray Optical. The X-ray Optical system says that they need to share 
with the world that throughout this recession they have maintained 
their workforce. In their order of business, they believe this is a 
monumental feat.

                              {time}  2120

  So we are thrilled that they are able to survive throughout this 
economic climate without any layoffs, any

[[Page 14207]]

firings. Certainly the jobs in the capital region are plentiful, or 
becoming more plentiful. The Albany Medical Center has more than 400 
openings, including nurses, technicians and other specializations. 
General Electric company needs some 200 engineers, researchers and 
financial analysts. Certainly GlobalFoundries is hiring some 69 people, 
mostly engineers and technicians. Comfortex has hired 40 people since 
May and is looking for 15 additional workers.
  This time last year the State Labor Department in New York reported 
that there were some 3,800 registered job openings in our area. Now 
it's reporting that there are some 6,000 job openings.
  The unemployment in the Albany area is down to some 6.6 percent, and 
just recently 2,900 jobs were added to the regional private job sector 
this past June. So these are numbers personalized to one congressional 
district in one State.
  As we continue to see this sort of increase in jobs across the 
country, we begin to understand that the dynamics of the Recovery Act 
are indeed important. There are those who might bemoan that investment. 
We stop the bleeding of the recession; and for slightly less than a 
trillion dollars of investment, we see factors now like $18.5 trillion 
lost in the last 18 months of the Bush administration in household 
income that was just lost in that 18-month period. We have recovered 
some $6 trillion of that household income as a result of the Recovery 
Act. So when we talk about that, a down payment of under a trillion 
dollars has recovered some $6 trillion household wealth.
  I think that's an amazing return for the dollar. That's an amazing 
recovery, and so the Recovery Act is not only producing that private 
sector job growth, as my two colleagues indicated this evening with the 
chart that they have presented; it's also recovered some $6 trillion in 
household income and for a down payment, again, of under a trillion 
dollars. That's a great return.
  So I think America is poised for greatness. This cleansing process 
has been painful; but it allows us to go forward with the sense of 
commitment to innovation, to a clean energy economy, to the sort of 
emerging technologies and the innovative genius that is uniquely 
American.
  If we can move forward and take a number of these success stories, 
success stories in our R&D centers, in our basic research and allow 
them to be deployed into manufacturing sectors and into the workforce 
by taking those passions and making the investment that we need to 
make, we cannot only respond with a jobs agenda but respond to some 
socioeconomic ills out there.
  Our energy crises in this country, several crises under the umbrella 
of energy, can be addressed by investment in technology, investment in 
R&D and, certainly, job growth that comes into a new dimension that 
allows jobs to be created from the trades on up to the PhDs. It covers 
the full gamut, and I think that's the sort of investment we are 
talking about here.
  We are talking about advanced battery manufacturing. We are talking 
about smart meters, smart grids, smart thermostats. These are the 
investments that could be made, people that will install energy 
efficiency improvements in homes and make businesses more productive, 
maintaining homes at a cheaper cost by using less electricity and 
creating jobs in the process.
  I am thrilled to join you both as colleagues here this evening 
because we have a message, we have a great message to share and people 
need to know. The public needs to know that this investment was made in 
a very deliberative, laser-sharp focus-type manner that allows us now 
to begin to see the improvements that are taking hold. Had nothing been 
done, had the previous administration been allowed its way, we would 
have seen that straight-line decline continue until we hit the Great 
Depression.
  So I think we are on the right course; we are now bearing northward 
with that V formation and we are going to continue to grow north to 
make certain that we continue to grow the private sector economy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it's important for us to say we have tried 
the old way, and this is what we have been trying and attempting to 
fix. Here you will see, again--or even a rise in manufacturing. What 
the Democrats are saying here, and you see 2, 4, 6 months of job growth 
in the manufacturing sector, and what Democrats are saying is that is 
part of the economic stimulus package, that is part of moving towards a 
green economy where our people in our country have always made things, 
have always gone to the factory and made things.
  Not everybody can be in an ivory tower; not everyone can do the 
research. If we are going to succeed as a country, we need the middle 
class of our country to make things.
  You can see that our policies are beginning to work, beginning to 
take hold; and the idea of taking a billion dollars a day that leaves 
our country and goes to oil-producing countries that don't like us all 
that much, that fund terrorism, and then we have got to fund the 
military to chase them all around the world, is an ignorant policy. 
It's a frivolous policy that doesn't work.
  So what we have done is made investments in wind and solar and the 
batteries and things that the gentleman stated earlier so that we can 
do the cutting-edge research, but then we can make it here.
  We could manufacture those products here; 8,000 component parts go 
into a windmill, 400 tons of steel. Solar panels are filled with 
different components. In Toledo, for example, they are doing a lot of 
different solar panels, in Toledo, Ohio.
  Let's make this stuff in the United States of America again so we can 
get back to a time when our parents and grandparents throughout the 
country could go to work and make something and watch it ride down the 
road or look at the steel in a building, in the concrete and the 
windows and the framing and everything that goes into it.
  That's what we are moving back to. We have broken with the past, we 
have broken with the Bush economic policies that our friends on the 
other side have rubber stamped. We are now moving in a new direction, 
not nearly as quickly or with the celerity that we all want, but we are 
going in that direction.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, a couple of years ago, when we would 
be out here each night with the 30-Something Working Group, our symbol 
was the Republican rubber stamp that was emblematic of the philosophy 
of our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  I think we should take a walk down memory lane. Maybe we want to 
bring the rubber stamp back because it does appear that they have not 
shed those tendencies, and that's evidenced in the choice that 
Americans are going to have over the next few months.
  Let's go through some of those choices. You are talking about how 
important it is that we go back to making things in America, that we 
revitalize the economies that had manufacturing as the backbone of 
cities and towns throughout this country, throughout the Northeast and 
the Rust Belt and even--I don't even like the term ``Rust Belt'' 
because it implies something that's irretrievable. You know, once 
something is rusted out, your perception is it's not able to be 
regained.
  I know we don't believe that, and we believe in investing in the 
concept of making America and that it's more than just a concept, that 
we are going to put resources into making sure that when we have a 
choice that we choose to make sure that it's Americans that are doing 
the manufacturing for the things that we need here, and we are doing 
that by backing that up with action when it comes to our policy 
decisions as well.
  So are the Republicans. Their actions are vastly different than ours. 
We propose to close tax loopholes that allow outsourcing U.S. jobs 
overseas and use the savings to pay for hometown tax credits for small 
businesses to expand manufacturing jobs. And what do they do? They 
vote, ``they'' being the Republicans, vote 170-1, 170 Republicans

[[Page 14208]]

voted ``no,'' to 1 that votes ``yes'' to protecting tax breaks for 
companies that shipped jobs overseas; 170-1 they voted to keep that tax 
loophole intact so that we could continue to allow companies to get tax 
breaks when they ship jobs overseas.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Could I make a point real quickly. That vote is 
such an example that the other side seems to just be playing politics. 
They want Obama to fail, and they want to be able to say----
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They have said it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, they have said it. And they want to be able to 
say, see, we had nothing to do with any of that. So being so 
ideological that they vote against getting rid of tax cuts that 
incentivize off-shoring business. I mean, that says it all. It's one 
thing to say you are against some of this stuff, but that too?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's take it one step further. It's not just 
bad enough, okay, to say they voted to protect the tax break. On top of 
that, 95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect 
those tax breaks, signed a pledge, put their name on the line and said, 
I am going to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

                              {time}  2130

  It's absolutely mind-boggling. We want to make sure that we protect 
companies and give tax breaks and incentivize companies that make 
decisions to create jobs here in the United States, in your district in 
New York, in your district in Ohio, in districts across this country. 
And they would rather have those jobs created in China and in other 
countries and boost up their economy.
  Mr. TONKO. If the gentlelady would yield, you talk about telling 
statements on the floor or the behavior in and around Washington that 
proves very telling, actions sometimes speaking louder than words. The 
activity that has taken place on this floor as it dealt with America 
COMPETES, here was a major bill invested in by the Science and Tech 
Committee, a number of groups overviewing this legislation, monumental 
to the future of America's workforce, to manufacturing, to investment 
in basic research, in R&D. And there were all sorts of efforts made to 
hear everyone, to be totally inclusive about that final package that 
was developed and then presented on this floor, approved in committees 
and travels to the floor, and then the game of ``gotcha'' politics 
takes hold.
  We use all kinds of stall tactics, all sorts of gimmicks to 
embarrass, to trap people, to really circumvent the real issue of how 
do you strengthen manufacturing, how do you put together a package that 
invests in the research monies that are required. How do you invest in 
the training of the future workforce, beginning in the educational 
networks, so that STEM--the science, technology, engineering, and 
math--concepts can all be learned in a way that will enable us to have 
the workforce of the future? That effort was so very important. It 
almost went to defeat. It was pulled as a bill on the floor, and a few 
weeks later we figured out how to get around the politics spirit that 
existed.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. TONKO. Yes, I will.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And your point is very well taken. We had to 
use a procedural motion just to be able to get around there being an 
obstacle to the America COMPETES Act coming to the floor and being able 
to get a straight-up vote. And when it came right down to it, we were 
for it and most of them were against it.
  Mr. TONKO. And I think the actions taken by the majority in this 
House--Speaker Pelosi and members of the Democratic majority--have been 
about job creation, private sector growth. What I don't think the other 
side realizes is that what we have out there is middle-class anxiety 
and uncertainty that's at an all-time high. They're concerned about 
paying their mortgage. They're concerned about paying for education, 
for credit card bills that they have, for medical bills. And they are 
impacted. They are losing jobs through no fault of their own, and now 
finally they will see hope growing as we grow that private sector 
situation. That is the dynamic that has really been avoided and not 
addressed by the minority in this House.
  When they asked to have control back--I think what we need to look at 
is the contrast, and we've mentioned this, Representative Wasserman 
Schultz, several times over in our frequent visits to the floor. But 
what we need to do is take the big picture, the big frame here and 
allow people to see the contrast.
  We're looking at a group that drove the car out of the ditch. We 
towed that car out of the ditch. When the minority in this House was in 
the majority working with the previous administration, they drove this 
car right into the ditch and couldn't get it out. And then up comes the 
new team, and what we have done, working with the President and with 
the leadership in this House, is towed that car out of the ditch, and 
now they want the keys back to drive. And we say ``no'' because we need 
to go forward, not backward. We need to continue to pursue a 
progressive agenda.
  I think when we look at those big picture issues, Social Security--
and where they are with that issue? They want to privatize. They want 
to put it at risk. Imagine the trillions of dollars that would have 
been lost had we enabled them in 2005 to have their way. I wasn't yet 
in Congress, but fortunately the Republicans did not get their way and 
they did not privatize Social Security. We are now here attempting to 
keep that out of their wish list of privatization.
  They also wanted to voucher out the Medicare program, a very 
successful program for our seniors. They want to put a voucher system 
in. We're trying to keep it and maintain it, develop the security of 
that system into the future.
  They liken our work on Wall Street reform akin to attacking an ant 
with an atom bomb. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It's 
a deception that they're proud of. And a number of other things.
  They asked our President to apologize for coming down hard on BP for 
not responding effectively and efficiently and in rapid pace to make 
certain that we save our environment in the Gulf States area.
  So there are all these snapshots that we need to look at. And there 
is a contrast. There is a team that wants to go back to the failed 
policies of the past. There is a team that wants to promote an agenda 
for the future. I firmly believe that what we need to remind them is 
that there is this anxiety level, this uncertainty with our middle-
income Americans, with middle-class America that is at an all-time 
high. And they are now beginning to see that there is a difference 
between the former majority and now this Democratic majority. I think 
we have a track record of history that will show that when we're in 
control, we deliver for America's working families. I think that's a 
record for which we can be very proud and which really speaks to the 
strengthening of America, her families, and her economy.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.
  Just to veer a little bit in a different direction towards, again, 
the choice that Americans are going to be facing, because your facts 
are stubborn things. You can run away from a lot of different things. 
Facts are just persistent in chasing you. They've been chasing the 
Republicans, those stubborn facts, for a long time. One of the facts is 
that Republicans are consistently on the record of voting against 
statutory pay-as-you-go legislation.
  Now, back in the Clinton administration when PAYGO was first 
established--and that was a tough, tough vote that Democrats led the 
way on, made sure happened under President Clinton's leadership--the 
country finished his Presidency with a record surplus, which was handed 
to President Bush and he promptly squandered in just a few short years.
  If you look at this chart, we will start back in the Reagan 
administration. And I want to start back in the

[[Page 14209]]

Reagan administration because--walk with me down memory lane, shall we?
  Mr. TONKO. Do we have to?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know it's painful, but I think it's 
instructive.
  As you walk with me down memory lane, let's look at under which 
Presidents we operated on a deficit and under which Presidents we 
operated at a surplus. President Reagan, $1.4 trillion deficit. 
President Bush, didn't get any better, got worse, $3.3 trillion 
deficit. Go to President Clinton, we went from a record deficit at the 
time to a record surplus of $5.6 trillion. And then when President Bush 
finished office after being handed a record surplus, he finished office 
with an $11.5 trillion deficit, handing that record to President Obama. 
And, as you said, after having driven our economy off a cliff, now the 
Republicans are asking for the keys once again.
  Facts being stubborn things, as I mentioned, the Republicans 
consistently voted against statutory PAYGO. In fact, under the Bush 
administration, they allowed statutory PAYGO to lapse, which is, in 
large part, why we ended up in a deficit situation. They deficit-spent 
like drunken sailors--two wars not paid for, the Medicare prescription 
drug part D program. As good and as pleased as we are that seniors have 
their prescription drugs paid for, we know that program was deeply 
flawed, could have been a thousand times better. Ultimately, we were 
able to fix it in the Affordable Care Act.
  But they blindly spent, through tax cuts and spending, and now 
suddenly seem to have found religion when it comes to spending and 
deficits.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Wasserman Schultz, if you will allow me to 
just make a comment here.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure.
  Mr. TONKO. When you talk about the $11.5 trillion deficit, when the 
Bush administration ended is when I arrived in Washington as a 
freshman, several months ago now, in my first term. I distinctly recall 
that economists of all stripes, from far right thinking to far left, 
found unanimity in that they thought we needed to invest in solving 
this deficit situation because the time had long but passed since 
something like that needed to be done.

                              {time}  2140

  The denial under the deficit growth, which became a record 
proportion, could have been resolved if they had changed their 
policies, if they had looked at the failure and tried to turn it 
around. So, by the time the new administration took hold in January of 
2009, the requirement was there. It was basic. Every economist was 
suggesting and was strongly urging that it took investing. So we really 
had to take additional moneys that drove the deficit a little larger, 
but it was to stop the bleeding of the recession because the likelihood 
of disaster was tremendous, so there was no choice but to further 
invest.
  That deficit really drove additional investment requirements, but 
because of the track record we are showing this evening, it did have 
its corresponding results. There were lucrative dividends that came 
from those investments, but they were the smart investments that, yes, 
grew the deficit slightly, but they finally stopped the bleeding and 
now show the growth.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. One of the things that is important to note, 
Mr. Ryan, is that, when we became the majority once again in 2006 and 
over the last several years, we reestablished statutory PAYGO. First, 
we established it in rule. Then we passed it in statute. One hundred 
percent of the Republicans in this body voted ``no.'' They voted 
against making sure that we made a commitment in the law to not spend 
more than we take in, to pay for the legislation other than in 
emergency spending, and obviously, we've been in an emergency. We've 
been, you know, pretty careful about what we declare as an emergency, 
making sure that we have covered the legislation with pay-fors. They 
haven't believed in pay-fors in years and years, if ever.
  Let's keep in mind the tax-cutting policy that they had, which was 
exclusively focused on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, which 
also wasn't paid for. I mean tax cuts are spending, and there is 
nothing wrong with tax cuts. We have to balance tax cuts with our 
spending policy, but when you don't collect revenue, that is less 
revenue that we have in the Treasury, which affects the deficit as 
well. So I mean their total disregard for balancing the books is not 
something that they're going to be able to run away from, and we are 
not going to let them run away from it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I'm just standing here, listening to you both.
  When you piece this all together, their philosophy, which obviously 
didn't work because we saw how it ended, is to cut taxes for primarily 
the top 1 percent of the people--millionaires and multi-, 
multimillionaires--and expect that money to get reinvested. We all saw 
that the money was reinvested, for the most part, abroad in China and 
in other countries, so that was part of the offshoring.
  Then their philosophy was to completely look the other way. It was to 
take the referee off the field on Wall Street, and let those people who 
are making all this money continue to find out all these other schemes 
to make more money--that's how that ran--even to the tune of the 
student loans where they let banks give student loans and charge 8, 9 
percent. Then the government would back the loan if somebody defaulted. 
So the system was set up to allow just the wealthiest people in the 
country to keep making money any way they saw fit.
  Mr. TONKO. If I might add to that, I think also--and history will 
show--that it was a partnership with big interests. It was with Big 
Oil, with big banks and with the big insurance industry. In the 
beginning stages of the Bush Presidency, we saw some of the attempts 
there for trade contracts, for contracts with China. When we look at 
the investment, when we look at the job market, it can be broken down 
into three elements--agriculture, manufacturing, and financial 
services.
  Well, it appeared as though the manufacturing was kind of pushed 
aside. We didn't see the kind of execution of these trade contracts to 
favor manufacturing. Instead, somehow, they were gripped by the special 
interests of big banks, and they ruled in these contracts that were 
developed.
  So I think that, you know, history will show that manufacturing 
didn't have a high priority with these groups. When you see the 
emerging technologies, when you see the innovation, the American 
innovation, there were many small businesses that were continuing to 
grow, which could have prospered with the appropriate treatment from 
Washington--policies, programs, resources--and that just didn't happen. 
Then we saw the further relaxation of regulation with the financial 
services sector.
  So tools were being developed to intentionally circumvent regulation, 
to relax regulation--perhaps avoiding an aggressive approach with 
drilling deeper in the Gulf States. All of this created a failure that 
brought America's economy to its knees, and it was all about 
partnerships with special interests--big companies, big industries--
that really had a grip on what was happening here, and it has caused a 
lot of failure.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Tonko, I want to bring us back to the 
choice, to the choice of going in the direction that we have been 
taking the country, which is a new direction to reinvest in America, to 
make sure that we can create jobs here and not give tax breaks to 
companies that send jobs overseas, to reestablish statutory pay-as-you-
go rules so that we can make sure we pay for the legislation we pass 
and so that we don't spend more money than we take in.
  Let's walk through some of the other bills that we have passed here 
to make sure we can focus on our own economy and can compare the record 
because, again, this is going to be about a choice that Americans are 
making.
  How about the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act? That was 
legislation that provided loans to small businesses and access to 
capital for small business start-ups to help support the economic 
recovery and to create jobs. Ninety-eight percent of Republicans voted 
against that legislation.

[[Page 14210]]

  How about the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act? That was a bill 
that provided tax incentives to spur investment in small businesses and 
that granted small businesses some tax penalty relief. Ninety-seven 
percent of Republicans voted against that legislation.
  How about the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act? It is 
legislation that would help create or save more than 1 million American 
jobs and prevent corporations from shipping jobs overseas and sticking 
American taxpayers with the bill. Eighty-three percent of Republicans 
voted against that legislation.
  There is the HIRE Act. That bill would give small businesses tax 
incentives to hire jobless Americans. Between February and May of 2010, 
an estimated 4.5 million new workers were hired, making American 
businesses eligible for up to $8.5 billion in tax exemptions and 
credits under the HIRE Act. Ninety-seven percent of Republicans voted 
against that legislation.
  I could keep going. I mean, really, this is an unbelievably long list 
of job-creating legislation that we have passed, that we have put out 
here on the floor of this House.
  Mr. TONKO. Oh, absolutely.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Over 95 percent of Republicans voted against 
it.
  So we could continue to move in the direction in which we have been 
going--job creation, spurring the economy, investing in America--or we 
could backslide toward the Bush era and go back to the exact same 
agenda as they have committed to focusing on, but I'm not sure that 
I've met anybody who wants to go back to that agenda.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right. I think what we are proposing and have been 
investing in is a pro-growth agenda for our country, and that is not as 
simple as cutting taxes for rich people and hoping and praying that 
they somehow will invest in the manufacturing in the U.S., you know, 
and in other investments in the U.S.
  We need to rebuild our infrastructure in this country--roads, 
bridges, waterlines, sewer lines, and combined sewer in all of our big 
cities. We've got to invest. That's going to put people to work, and 
that's going to rebuild our country. Our highways and our bridges, 
we're going to invest in those. We're going to rebuild our country, and 
that's going to lead to economic development and to economic growth. 
We're going to invest in technology--green technology--and in National 
Institutes of Health biotechnology, which is ultimately going to make 
us healthier and create more jobs.
  Those investments aren't made by the private sector, and we need to 
make those investments which will directly put people back to work. So 
we want to go back to the philosophy we had in this country in the 
1950s, in the 1960s and a little bit in the 1970s, when we had balanced 
growth, a rising middle class, strong wage growth, and increases in 
productivity. This is as opposed to what started in the 1980s, except 
for the blip during the Clinton administration, which was deregulation 
and letting the big dogs, as you said earlier--big insurance, Big Oil, 
big banks, and multinational corporations--come into Washington, D.C., 
and run this show, too. That doesn't work for Main Street.
  Ultimately, I think, as difficult as these last couple of years have 
been, we have gotten to see the supply side economic policy and what 
really happens once it is fully implemented. We saw the end result of 
that.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. TONKO. To my colleague from Florida and my colleague from Ohio, I 
would say this: I believe, the sense I get is that there's a very 
thoughtful process now to provide the strong incentives to grow small 
business, to grow private sector jobs, done in a way that really shows 
respect, respect for the taxpayers' dollar, and wanting to pull us out 
of this recession that was so deep and so long. And I think it's 
happening.
  I know that the innovative genius will be inspired by the legislative 
route we're taking, by the priorities we're establishing, with the 
budget priorities that we have put into play.
  And it's about growing jobs. It's about giving people the chance 
again to feel the greatness of America, the greatness of America that 
allows us to know that we have it within our potential, we have it 
within our grasp.
  And I firmly believe that we will do our manufacturing, and our jobs 
will grow in the manufacturing sector because we do it smarter. We do 
it smarter.
  And, Representative Wasserman Schultz, thank you for the opportunity 
to share with you and Representative Ryan thoughts that I have and that 
we all share on how we're going down the right course.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And I look forward, as we go into 
the August recess, talking with our constituents about how we've begun 
to turn this economy around.
  I want to close out the last couple of seconds with the focus on tax 
cuts, remind people that tax bills in 2009 were at their lowest level 
since 1950, and we look forward to continuing to work on that, striking 
that balance.
  And Mr. Ryan, we'll turn it over to you to close us out.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We're going to continue to go down the road. We're 
not going to turn back. We've had too much success. We've got a long 
way to go.

                          ____________________