[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19107-19113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2030
                                TAX CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Teague). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege of the 
floor and the opportunity to share some thoughts with my colleagues on 
the Democratic side.
  I was going to go to the tax issue which is before the American 
public. The President has cut a deal with the Republicans. And I know 
that on our side, we have some concerns about this, but I really think 
we need to spend just maybe a couple of minutes about what we just 
heard. We just heard the gutting of the health care reform program. 
Have no doubt about this, general public and the people out there: The 
program that was put together last year on health care is an effort 
that will be successful to provide health insurance for the 40 million 
to 50 million Americans that don't have health insurance and for the 
thousands each and every day that lose their job and lose their health 
insurance.
  The Republican Party is committed to gutting the health care program, 
and it's stage one. When they come into power in this House next 
January, they are going to begin a concerted effort of moving more and 
more wealth to the highest and the richest men and women in America 
that have already seen a quintupling of their wealth in the last 20 
years.
  So let's have a very clear understanding of this. By gutting the 
health reform program, you will see stage one of the Republican effort 
to shift money away from the working men and women to those who are 
already fabulously wealthy. Not in the last 70, 80 years has America 
seen such an accumulation of wealth among the very, very few and a 
disproportionate holding down of the great middle class in America. The 
health reform program was an effort to provide one of the most critical 
things that every person and every family needs, and that is access to 
health care. We'll put that aside. We'll come back to that.
  But the issue of the day today on everybody's mind, the President 
doing his press conference, saying he's cut a great deal with 
Republicans. We don't think it is. Last week, this House passed a very, 
very important piece of legislation that laid out a significant tax cut 
for the working men and women in America, those people who get on a bus 
in the morning, get in their car, commute to work, spend their 8, 9, 10 
hours working, come home and take care of their family. That tax 
package that this Democratic House passed last week is a good, solid 
tax package in it provides a reduction in taxes for the working men and 
women, the middle class of America, and it is simultaneously one of the 
most important stimuli that we can provide to get this economy up and 
moving. When coupled with the unemployment insurance, it is a very, 
very strong package.
  What's been negotiated with Republicans is a real serious problem for 
America. If you care about the deficit, then you'd better be paying 
attention, because the proposal that's before us, as negotiated by the 
President and the Republicans, is going to significantly increase the 
deficit. The program that we put forward will stimulate the economy 
and, in the out-years, significantly reduce the deficit.
  Let's just take a look at the difference. I put this one up last week 
when I was talking about this issue and we laid out the Obama tax 
proposal, which no longer is the case. Obama and the Bush tax cuts have 
come together. But on the Obama tax proposal, every working family in 
America that earns an after-adjustment--that is, the adjusted gross 
income--of less than $250,000 will receive a significant tax reduction 
in the range of some $6,000 for those at the top end and downward for 
those who are earning just $10,000, a very small tax cut, but 
nonetheless, a very significant one at 53.
  So this is what we voted on last week, one that put the working men 
and women, the middle class, to an advantage. Now, what's been cut, the 
deal that's been cut is one that puts this one aside and instead 
substitutes the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the Republicans have won 
the day with their supporters. We're talking about the filthy rich in 
America. We're talking about the billionaires who are going to receive 
an enormous benefit for the next 2 years. Average, for those who have 
an adjusted gross income over $1 million, the average tax cut for them 
is over $100,000 a year. So what are they going to do with it? Well, I 
guess they can go out and buy a Mercedes-Benz E-Class, one each year 
under the proposal that's made.
  But what is the cost to the economy? The cost to the economy is $150 
billion, $150 billion that will have to be borrowed--probably from 
China--to finance a tax cut so the very, very wealthy in America can go 
out and buy two Mercedes-Benz in the next 2 years, or maybe they want a 
new villa in the South of France. Is this going to stimulate our 
economy? We think not. We think this proposal's a bad deal for America.
  Now let me just show you one other piece of this, and that is that 
this tax cut also will cause America to go further in debt. The deficit 
is a very serious problem, but this tax cut proposal has already been 
proved to not work, and the proof is in the decade 2001 to 2010. During 
the Clinton period, with taxes higher--these cuts were not in effect--
22.7 million jobs were created. The proposal to give to the wealthy 
$150 billion additional tax relief generated 1 million jobs in the 
decade 2000 to 2010. So right there is historic proof that these tax 
cuts don't necessarily create economic growth. And the only economists 
that will say they do are the Republicans, who happen to have used the 
money from these very same corporations and individuals to finance the 
most scurrilous, secretive campaigns ever in America's history. That 
was the Citizens United case that opened the doors to secret money 
financing campaigns. What do you think they're going to do? Maybe 
they'll buy a Mercedes or maybe they'll use these tax cuts to come back 
to further undermine the working men and women of this Nation with the 
kind of proposal you just heard on repealing the health care reforms.
  Okay, enough from me right now. We'll come back at this issue. But 
I'm joined today by two of my colleagues, Congressman Paul Tonko, from 
the great State of New York, and Mr. McDermott, from the equally great 
State of Washington.
  Mr. Tonko, would you please join us.
  Mr. TONKO. Yes. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us 
together this evening for an hour's worth of discussion.
  Obviously, I think we need to stay extremely well focused, laser 
sharp in

[[Page 19108]]

our focus on what's affordable and what return we get for the spending 
that is being called for for tax cuts. Now, I know that, as you pointed 
out, when we saw the Bush tax cuts for which we borrowed from China to 
pay for, we saw that there was very little return coming from that 
investment. The analyses that have followed those tax cut years 
indicate that we just simply did not get that trickled down.
  However, conversely, with the Obama tax cuts that were part of the 
Recovery Act, which was the largest single middle-income income tax cut 
in this Nation's history, the strength that came to the economy was 
very much measured. We saw where that effort to assist middle-income 
families paid great dividends. There were those efforts made to stop 
the bleeding of the recession. People began to spend in their regional 
economies. People were spending on those day-to-day necessities. And so 
I think it was beneficial to our American economy, certainly to our 
individual States' economies, and certainly to the regional effect that 
it had.
  So I think we can make a very strong case about investing in the 
middle strata, in that income demographic that will allow for a great 
return. And so we need to contrast there the Obama taxes and the Bush 
taxes and look first at the outcomes that have been generated, the 
benefit to the economy in general. And I think it's very clear that 
when we assisted that working family economy, when we assisted the 
middle income strata in our country, there were great dividends that 
were paid by that investment.
  Then, to the affordability, $700 billion to $900 billion worth of 
investment, of spending for a tax cut where there may not be a great 
return simply will compete with other forces: investing in job 
creation, job retention; investing in research so that we can compete 
in a global economy; making certain that our unemployment insurance 
opportunities, the stretching out of that dividend is affordable; 
making certain that we go forward and address the deficit situation.

                              {time}  2040

  People who have called for deficit response are now looking at what 
we're doing with this tax cut discussion. And I think it's very 
important for us to have the priorities that will speak to deficit 
reduction, development of an innovation economy, research and 
development investments that allow us to stay a world-leading Nation in 
this global economy.
  And as to your point made about Citizens United as a case, I believe 
that as we give breaks here to that economy we are going to see more 
propensity, we are developing the opportunities for people to invest in 
these campaigns in a way that will stop progress. Because the voices of 
progress on this floor and down the Hall in the United States Senate 
will be snuffed out by the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United 
that enables people to invest in campaigns that are the opposition to 
sound health care reform, Wall Street reform, job creation efforts that 
we have been making, the small business loan activity. All of this will 
be turned backward. It will be snuffed out if we continue to assist 
these efforts like the Citizens United case that enables people to 
invest in individual campaigns, and corporations, both domestic and 
foreign, that can get involved in these campaigns.
  Think of it, you take on Big Oil, you do the reforms on the floor, 
and in the next election you should fully expect that this Court 
decision enables people to invest to the sky's limit where they choose. 
The same would be true with big banks and big pharmaceuticals, big 
insurance companies. So by giving these opportunities to those who are 
going to use these dividends in that manner, we are again challenging 
and threatening the voice of progress in this House and in the United 
States Senate.
  So I think there are really good reasons for us to be very 
analytical, very theoretical, very focused in how we package this 
program for tax cuts. And at this time I think the record stands clear 
that affordability and accountability for what we invest in, what's 
returned is realized, are all part of the decision-making process and 
have to be front and center as we move forward.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very much. I just was taking 
one little piece, and I want to then turn to Mr. McDermott. The 
proposal that was announced today, the Republican-Obama tax cut 
proposal, would send $70 billion a year to the wealthiest billionaires 
and millionaires in America. What could that $70 billion be used for?
  Now, a teacher, let's just say a teacher gets $50,000 a year. If you 
took $50 billion of the $75 billion, you could hire a million teachers 
in the classroom beginning January 1, 2011. A million teachers. Choices 
are being made here. Do you want $70 billion to go to the wealthiest 
people in America, the top 2 percent, or would you like to use that $70 
billion to build schools? Let's take $20 billion of the 70 billion, we 
will build schools, we will improve the classrooms, we will bring 
technology to the classrooms, and use the remaining $50 billion to hire 
a million teachers in our classrooms. Now, there's an investment that 
will last. That's the kind of thing we can do.
  Now, that's just an option. Mr. McDermott, could you please join us 
here and share with us your perspectives on this?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that 
Representative Garamendi is talking tonight on this issue because it's 
one that we're going to argue over the next couple of weeks. And people 
ought to understand or have an opportunity to understand what really is 
going on. And I think that what the value of these kinds of hours is is 
that we can educate people about what's happening.
  A man named Jacob Hacker wrote a book which is now on the newsstands 
called ``Winner-Take-All Politics.'' It really is a description of what 
has happened to the American economy and the American public over the 
last 30 years. If you just remember one fact, in 1980 the top 5 percent 
of people had $8 trillion worth of wealth. That's 1980, 30 years ago. 
Today, that top 5 percent have $40 trillion. They have quintupled, they 
have gone times five what they had in 1980.
  The movement of money up to the top by the tax structure has been 
dramatic. And the average people who are out there working, both 
husband and wife are working, and they've been struggling, they've been 
working more hours, they have barely seen any increase in their net 
worth over the last few years, especially with the drop in real estate 
prices and the fact that pensions are gone, and all these things are 
happening. The people on the bottom have not reaped the benefits.
  Now we come to what we're doing here. These taxes were put in before 
either of you came to the Congress. They were put in in 2001 in order 
to expire in 2010. As long as they defined them as expiring, they 
didn't count. They were just temporary. So they put in this huge 
giveaway for the whole society at the top, and expected that the people 
would come in in the year 2010 and reenact them.
  Now, the Republicans are faced with a dilemma. In about 3 weeks 
they're going to take over this House. The Republicans will have the 
House of Representatives. They will have control of the Senate through 
the filibuster and the fact that the Democratic majority is reduced. So 
they are going to be forced to deal with this issue if we don't. They 
want us to deal with it. They bullied the President into putting this 
package together, and they're trying to give him the bum's rush to get 
it all done before they take over in January because they know a 
secret.
  They have over there a number of people who ran for election saying 
they would not raise the debt limit and they would not increase the 
deficits, and yet the first bill that would be presented to them is to 
cut taxes and increase the deficit. And they know it. And they want to 
get it done. The Democrats are being pushed into it.
  Now, how did they do it? Well, it's very simple. We care about 
workers. We care about the unemployed. We care about people who don't 
get a check to put food on the table and pay

[[Page 19109]]

the rent and keep the lights on. So, we want to take care of the 
unemployed. The unemployment program ran out the 1st of December, and 
it's more running out by the end of December. You are going to have 2 
million people lose their ability to put food on the table for their 
own children at Christmas time.
  So the Republicans said, all right, we're not going to deal with this 
unemployment thing. We're going to stop it. We're going to stop it. And 
we're going to use it as the lever by which we force the Democrats to 
give us this tax break for the rich.
  So the decision that's going to be made on this floor is shall we 
give--the bill that the President put out today, I am voting against 
it. I will make that real clear. It says 1 year of unemployment 
benefits for the unemployed in this country, and we're going to give 2 
years, $84 billion, or you say 70, but whatever, it's somewhere up 
above $75 billion that goes to people on the top who already are rich 
beyond belief. And the hostages in this whole thing have been the 
unemployed.
  What is absolutely unconscionable is what has been done to the 
unemployed. This is the second time. Last August they let it drag 
through about 51 days where nobody got a check because the program had 
expired. And unless you have been unemployed, you don't understand what 
that means. That means nothing comes in the mailbox, no check. So you 
have no way to go down to the grocery store and get food for your 
family.
  Now, what do you in that case? People say, well, they go on welfare. 
No, they don't. There's no welfare program today. The only thing that's 
available for somebody who is without an unemployment check is food 
stamps. Or they can of course go to the food banks. The food banks are 
panicked by the fact that we have not extended unemployment benefits 
because they gave it all away at Thanksgiving, and here comes the month 
of December, and people are coming in droves, and they have nothing to 
give them.

                              {time}  2050

  That's what's going on in America. The people on the other side that 
would say we would not--this is what Mitch McConnell said. If you 
listen to him, it drives you nuts, because he said if you won't pass 
the tax break for the millionaires, nothing is going to happen in here. 
That kind of attitude is simply wrong, and that's why what you are 
doing here tonight, letting people be aware of what's happening and 
what the options really are, and what the impacts are going to be, is 
very important.
  Because the whole of the base in a democracy is an informed 
electorate. If we don't understand what's going on, if people aren't 
paying attention, they are going to wind up saying how did this happen? 
Well it happened because we didn't pay attention.
  This is a real turning point for the President and the Democrats in 
this year. Because what we do here will set the stage for the next 2 
years. We will be backing up. I learned when I was a kid on the 
playground, bullies will make you back up. And if you keep backing up, 
you will be backing up your whole life.
  You have got to stop at some point and say ``no,'' we are not going 
any further, you do it. And I really think that the Democrats would be 
much better off to force the Republicans to put up the votes for this 
event. They are going to try and slip around and say, well, we will 
give you 10, 15 votes but no more.
  I think what you are doing here is starting to put the pressure on 
that whole process, and I commend you for doing it. Thank you.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott.
  I notice that our colleague from the great northeast, New Hampshire, 
has arrived. I think you have had a lot to say about this issue in your 
tenure here. If you would please join us and share with us your 
thoughts.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity.
  Thank you for bringing the Nation's attention to this problem. This 
is absolutely stunning. We spent a year and a half listening to our 
campaign opponents talk about borrowing and spending, borrowing and 
spending. Indeed, we really do have to get control of the debt. We have 
been working on that but suddenly they have blown that to pieces 
because everything in this bill is going to be paid for by borrowing 
the money.
  So the middle class, who needed these tax breaks and deserve these 
tax breaks, will now carry the debt for the very wealthy who didn't 
need them and will get huge, huge amounts of money, all borrowed, 
probably from China, and then they will tell the middle class, but, 
look, there is something here for you too. You are going to get a piece 
also. But, by the way, you are also going to be paying for it because 
we are borrowing the money. So if you don't pay for it your children 
will pay for it.
  Shame on all of us if we allow this to happen after talking about 
this debt and saying we are really getting serious about the debt. I 
mean, I campaigned on this in 2005. I said the debt was like an 
iceberg, and we were about to crash into it. We borrowed from the 
Chinese, and that was a national security risk as well as an economic 
risk.
  For a year and a half, ironically all of us who are Democrats have 
been whacked by Republicans for this debt that they ran up during the 
Bush era, and now they are turning around and saying, well, you know 
for all the people who are uninsured, or people who don't have jobs and 
the unemployment benefits, those are not the people we want to focus on 
now. We want to make sure that the wealthiest receive even more, and we 
want the middle class to pay for it. It's just wrong on so many levels.
  So for those people who are listening, who are concerned about the 
debt, they need to understand that all of this money to pay for will be 
borrowed. It's not a gift; it's borrowed money, and if we don't pay for 
it our children will get stuck paying for it, plus interest, of course.
  And why would they need it? I understand the middle class needing it. 
They certainly do. But why do we have to do this for the wealthiest. 
There are many who have great social consciousness and are saying, 
well, we really shouldn't get this money. We don't need it, and we 
shouldn't get it.
  So why are the Republicans driving this, absolutely refusing, 
absolutely refusing to give unemployment benefits to those who have 
been victimized by this recession, unless we also took care of the top? 
I think the Republicans are quite clear about that, and we understand 
what happened in the last election, and I think it's disgraceful.
  The other part of this that's so important, though, is the part where 
they carried on about Social Security. Social Security is at risk. We 
have to change Social Security. And we said, no, you don't, you just 
have to tweak it. You have to bring more income into it and stabilize 
it, because it's not just a Social Security problem. I read where a 
journalist said it's actually a retirement problem, that there are 
many, many millions of Americans who will not have adequate retirement 
and that Social Security is absolutely the floor.
  So what are we doing here knowing that Social Security actually has 
to have more money coming in? We are cutting again. Again, we are 
cutting what people pay into it for a year. And then how are we going 
to make up the money? Oh, we just going to borrow it from the general 
fund. And how will the general fund get the money? We will just borrow 
it. And where will we borrow the money? Oh, probably China.
  This is insanity, I think it's fiscally irresponsible. I think it's 
awful that the Republicans held the unemployed in this country hostage 
to this tax bill, and we simply must fight for this. We have to fight 
for the middle class. Thank you very much for bringing attention to 
this.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Ms. Carol Shea-Porter from the 
great State of New Hampshire. You have always been right on the issues.
  I think we need to really understand what is in this proposal that 
this House passed just last week, which was a very, very significant 
tax cut for the working men and women of America,

[[Page 19110]]

the people that are out there every day, going to work, putting in 
their 8, 10 hours a day, bringing home the paycheck at the end of the 
week. The tax proposal that we put together takes care of children, 
providing the child care tax credit.
  It becomes permanent in our piece of legislation. In the one that has 
been proposed, it expires in 2 years. Then what happens to taking care 
of children?
  If you happen to be a student, in our proposal, the student loan 
interest deduction, it stays permanent. It stays there for the next 
generation. For those kids that want to go to school, their families 
can get this, not for just 2 years but permanently.
  So what was negotiated by the Republicans? A 2-year proposal in which 
this particular tax reduction for the working men and women and their 
children ceases.
  You want to get married? Well, you are married. Good for you. Our 
proposal would make permanent the extension of the marriage tax 
deduction. Right now there would be a new penalty imposed on married 
people unless we extend it.
  So we said, no; married people, married couples and those who file as 
couples would get a permanent reduction in their taxes.
  So you are a small business person. You have a company. You have a 
farm. You have a ranch, and you have the opportunity under our proposal 
to permanently, into the future, receive a lower capital gains tax rate 
if you were to sell your company.
  So for small businesses, this is what we propose for the small 
businesses and other people who might have investments. Now, that's not 
for the wealthy. It phases out at $200,000 of income for an individual 
and at 250,000 for a couple.
  In our proposal, not what the President negotiated with the 
Republicans, but rather in our proposal, there is a tax cut for those 
couples who file an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or less, and the 
alternative minimum tax would be focused to avoid the penalty that 
would exist in the alternative minimum tax. So what we did was to very 
carefully construct a tax reduction proposal that focuses on the 
working men and women, the great middle class, the middle income of 
America, so that they would have the benefits, not the very, very 
wealthy in America.
  Unfortunately, what's been negotiated is exactly the opposite. What's 
been negotiated is, instead of a permanent reduction that benefits the 
working men and women, the middle income of America, a proposal has 
been put in place that terminates in 2 years and provides an 
extraordinary benefit to the very, very wealthy top 2 percent, the 
billionaires, those who have an adjusted gross income over $250,000, 
literally the billionaires in America and the millionaires in America.
  How much is in it for them? Well, by a calculation that my staff and 
I made earlier today we said $70 billion a year that, as you said, Ms. 
Shea-Porter, would have to be borrowed.
  And who is going to pay for it? The working men and women in the 
years ahead. What would that $70 billion be used for? What's the 
alternative?
  The most critical investment any, any society can make is an 
investment in education. We know from the reports that just came out 
today that the American education system is not producing students who 
are capable of competing in tomorrow's economy. We are in the bottom 
half of student ability in math and science, where the future lies.

                              {time}  2100

  What if we took that $70 billion that the billionaires don't need and 
instead invested it in education?
  I said earlier, average teacher pay, $50,000. Is that about what it 
is in your area? It is in ours. Senior teachers would get somewhat 
more. Junior teachers would get significantly less. But let's just say 
it's $50,000. If we took $50 billion of the $70 billion, or maybe it's 
$80 billion, that the extremely wealthy get and instead say, no, no, 
you're not going to get it, we're going to invest that money in our 
children, in their education. One million teachers. Do the math. One 
million teachers. Fifty billion dollars could buy 1 million teachers in 
the classroom beginning in January. Those that have been laid off could 
come back. Classroom size could be reduced. Isn't that better for 
America than giving the rich, the richest of the rich, $70 billion? I 
think so. Use the remaining 20 to improve our classrooms, buy the 
technology, put the computers in place. Twenty billion dollars would do 
it. And that's in year one. It could be repeated in year two.
  Mr. President, Mr. Republicans, you cut a bad deal for America. It's 
a bad deal for America. A better deal, instead of giving the rich more, 
give our children something.
  Let me turn to my fellow representative from the great State of New 
York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.
  From your district in California, Representative Garamendi, to 
Representative Shea-Porter's district in New Hampshire, to my district 
in upstate New York, the middle income community, the working families, 
are all resonating with their message, that it's their turn. We 
borrowed, as was indicated by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire, in 
the decade that preceded this administration from China to pay not only 
for tax cuts but for two wars and for Medicare part D, for a doughnut 
hole that now is driving seniors to the brink of poverty. Where was the 
fairness in all of that? Because their bearing of the burden is far 
greater as a percentage of their income household-wise than the upper 
income strata. So the consequences here are borne unfairly.
  And so I think that what you've described here in the contrast is an 
opportunity to start anew, with a new focus, where children and 
students, married couples, seniors, working families, all are given 
highest priority, where they can dream the American Dream, where 
they're empowered. And when we empower our middle income community, 
we're empowering all of us. Someone needs to build the product. Someone 
needs to buy the product. And if you deny the purchasing power of our 
middle income families, we have destroyed the economy of this Nation. 
And so it makes great sense and provides great opportunity to go 
forward with this new thinking. Otherwise, we revisit the failed 
policies of President Bush's administration, where we saw no job 
growth, where we saw the decline in business, manufacturing began to 
fold, where we lost one-third of our manufacturing base. We need to go 
back to those policies. What's driving the deficit today is 
unemployment. And if we can invest in research and development, if we 
can invest in basic research, in the innovation economy, then we will 
provide hope for our working families across the country.
  I think what's often lost in the discussion on the great package that 
we did was that everybody, everybody, will get a break, a tax cut, on a 
level of income including those who are millionaires and billionaires, 
will get a tax break on the first $250,000 in that household. So it's 
not like we're denying anyone. We're just saying, let's empower that 
middle income crowd, that community, in a way that gives them their 
share now, of a stake in the investments that are made here in 
Washington and then shared across this great country. That is the kind 
of shot in the arm that's required right now. Because we see these 
tremendously difficult statistics out there. It took a long time to get 
into this mess. And I know that the expression made by the voters in 
this last election was that it didn't happen quick enough; the recovery 
didn't happen quick enough. Well, this is a revisiting of the failed 
policies of the past that drove us into the worst times since the Great 
Depression. Our colleague spoke earlier about the divide between those 
who are comfortable and most comfortable. That has grown to the widest 
that has been known in, I think, days since the Great Depression. And 
we have seen more concentration in the top 1 or 2 percent of wealth in 
this country of the economic recovery, of profit. We just saw a record 
profit established in the last

[[Page 19111]]

quarter. Since record keeping over the last 60 plus years, there was 
more profitability for our business community in this country in the 
last quarter; when you annualize that, it breaks all records. So we 
need to look at all the statistics out there. We need to be very 
cognizant of what's happening and what isn't happening. And I think the 
way we do that is through the soundness of the policy that we advanced, 
that really promotes I think the sort of effort that enables us to 
strengthen the purchasing power of our middle income community. And we 
also attempted in this House, without help from the Republicans, to 
provide a stretch-out on that unemployment insurance program. So we are 
doing those elements that respond with great sensitivity to the 
unemployed who are still searching for employment. We attempted every 
which way to stretch that opportunity from this House. We have advanced 
a tax cut for those households, couples under $250,000. Everybody can 
qualify in that tax cut because it caps at that threshold and works 
itself through across all of the income levels of families in this 
country. So we have done, I think, a very reasonable package, we have 
done it with great focus and great hope that it will drive the growth 
of the economy and produce hope in terms of jobs created and retained 
and will not bring us back to those failed policies. I think we have 
forgotten the trillions that were lost. There was $18.5 trillion lost 
in the last 18 months of President Bush's tenure. That was a huge, 
devastating blow to this country. There were 8.2 million jobs lost, 
which are tough to recover from. But we have had many successive months 
of private sector job growth. So we need to continue along the 
thoughtful sort of policies; and the progress that has been achieved, 
while incremental, is a steep climb toward recovery rather than falling 
deeper as was the case when we hit rock bottom in March of 2009. We 
have been recovering and I think now is the time to just add to that 
effort, not lead us backward into the failed policies of the past.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The gentleman from New York could not be more correct, 
that the policies of the Bush administration, their tax policies, 
created a huge deficit, two wars that were not paid for but rather 
money borrowed, most of it again from China, and a total backing away 
from the regulation of the financial industry led to an extraordinary 
crash of the American and indeed the world economy. What is being asked 
of us now is to put back in place the tax policy that was part of that 
great decline. And a point that you made, if I might just bring it out 
one more time here, is that that tax policy that was started in 2001 
and is now being proposed by our Republican colleagues and our 
President is a continuation of the drift--excuse me, it's not a drift--
a cascade of wealth from the middle class, from the working men and 
women, to the wealthiest Americans. Is that wise policy? It certainly 
doesn't create jobs. There are very few economists except some very 
right-wing Republican economists who would argue that by giving more 
money, in this case $150 billion minimum, maybe $180 billion, to the 
wealthiest is going to somehow create jobs. Nobody would rationally 
argue that. However, on the other hand, it's been argued very clearly 
that one of the most stimulus, job-creating, encouragements to the 
economy is unemployment insurance. But our friends on the Republican 
side have said very clearly that they're going to put their foot right 
on the neck of the most unfortunate Americans, the unemployed, and hold 
them down until they're able to get their buddies, the wealthiest of 
Americans, an additional tax break.

                              {time}  2110

  That is what is going on here. They are using the most harmed 
Americans in this economy, an economy that collapsed under the 
Republican administration, holding those unemployed down, putting their 
foot on their neck and saying, You cannot have anything until our 
wealthy backers have more. Shame on them. Shame on them. That is not 
good American policy. That is not even humanitarian. And we are up 
against the Christmas holidays. They are using this as a lever. It is 
dead wrong, it is inhumane, it is cruel, and it shows not one iota of 
compassion. Until they get their wealthy taken care of, those people 
who don't need more, they are going to hold 2.5 million Americans on 
the ground without food, without gifts for their families, without even 
a Christmas meal. That is what the Republicans have said. That is the 
deal which has been cut, and it is one we should oppose. Do I feel 
strongly about this? Yes, I do.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I wanted to say, this is not just Democrats who are 
saying this. Republicans who are no longer in power have also been 
attacking these plans. David Stockman, the former director of the 
Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration, 
called these tax cuts ``unaffordable.'' He is one of many voices who 
said this. Unfortunately, the Republicans who are in power now are not 
listening. It is fiscally irresponsible.
  We need that income; we had to have that revenue so we could pay our 
bills. If we had that revenue, what could we do with it? Or if we were 
going to borrow, what should we have borrowed for?
  To begin with, we could start paying our military men and women more. 
This year they are having a very tiny increase. They are outraged, and 
I don't blame them. They have been serving this country honorably. We 
have been at war for 8 years. They are exhausted, and now they are 
getting a very tiny pay raise. We could have used it for that.
  What else? We could have helped mom and pop small businesses, the 
businesses on Main Street. Rather than giving those tax cuts to the top 
1 percent, we could have used that money to help our small businesses 
that are struggling.
  What else could we have done? We could have put money into 
infrastructure and created jobs. We could have been building things. 
You walk around Washington and you see beautiful buildings that were 
built during the Depression. They put men and women to work, and they 
left something behind for the next generation. I have said, if you are 
going to borrow money and you are going to have the next generation pay 
for it, you better leave them something to look at. We could have done 
that. We could have fixed some of our infrastructure. It is crumbling 
all over the country. We have deferred maintenance.
  And we have not taken care of just that. You talked about education. 
I'm on the Education and Labor Committee. We know we are failing our 
children. We could have put money there.
  Where else? How about money for research and money for basic medical 
care.
  You know, every time I hear the Republicans in power here say: 
everybody is going to have to feel the pain, I say to myself, I know 
who they mean, and they don't mean them. They mean the middle income 
and below. They are the ones who are going to feel the pain. And by the 
way, they are the ones who are also going to have to pay for this 
because, once again, it is borrowed money. I think it is absolutely 
disgraceful.
  Given the past campaign that we all experienced where the borrow-and-
spend theme, borrow-and-spend was just hammered, absolutely hammered, 
as if the Bush era hadn't happened, as if George Bush hadn't created 
the greatest deficits in history, as if the Republicans hadn't been in 
charge when that happened, they said that they were going to fix that. 
They had learned their lesson. Remember on the floor, we heard many 
times that they had learned their lesson, but they hadn't. Here they 
are, holding people's unemployment hostage to make sure that their 
benefactors get their tax cuts.
  I think it is outrageous. I think it is stunning. I think it is so 
cynical that it is ugly to watch. And I will not support that.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Shea-Porter, thank you so much. You were talking 
about the many options available to us, the choices we are making. In 
this

[[Page 19112]]

tax policy, we are making a choice to invest in America's future, that 
is, the working men and women of America, or investing in the very 
wealthy. All of it with borrowed money. If America is going to make it, 
then we are going to have to rebuild America's industrial strength. 
These are choices.
  There are ways that we can rebuild America's industrial strength. One 
of them is to stop exporting jobs. Now, the American Tax Code until 
just a month ago provided a $12 billion annual tax break to American 
corporations who sent jobs offshore. Yes, that's right. How could that 
be? Well, it was in the Tax Code. The Democrats said that's wrong, and 
we passed a tax bill that ended that nefarious, useless, job-harming 
tax proposal. We brought $12 billion back into the Treasury, put a stop 
to the incentive for American corporations to ship those jobs offshore.
  Did the Republicans support that job-creating program? They did not. 
Only a handful. I mean, one handful actually voted with the Democrats 
to end a tax break that encouraged the off-shoring of jobs. An example 
of how we can bring jobs back to America is to set our tax policy in 
place so we don't encourage the off-shoring of jobs.
  Another piece of this is to use our tax money to build jobs in 
America. Very quickly, and then I want to turn to my colleagues in the 
final 15 minutes of this hour. We spend a lot of money. Our gasoline 
tax, our diesel fuel tax is used to maintain our highways and to buy 
buses and trains and light rail systems and things that move people. It 
is all well and good. But much of that tax money is used to purchase 
buses, light rail, trains that are made in foreign countries. My 
proposal is, hey, that is our tax money; let's spend it on equipment 
that is made in America. You want to build a bridge, use American 
steel. You want to buy a bus, our tax money, buy an American-made bus. 
You want to build a light rail system with our tax money, buy an 
American made light rail system.
  If we just use our tax dollars in a way that promotes American 
industry, we can grow America. I think of Walt Whitman and his 
beautiful poetry about the great industrial strength of America, the 
way America would get up in the morning and build. I don't think Walt 
Whitman would be very enthusiastic about American industry today given 
our policies. But if we institute policies that are make it in America 
so that America can make it, once again these are choices about where 
we are going.
  Manufacturing matters. Walt Whitman understood that the strength of 
America was in its industries. We have forgotten that, and apparently 
our Republican colleagues are perfectly willing to give American 
industries a tax break to ship jobs offshore. The Democrats are not. We 
ended that.
  Mr. Tonko, you and I have talked about this. You were there for the 
vote to end that tax break.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And I loved the converting of tax policy into 
a job focus.
  My question rhetorically to the opposition party has been the 
marketing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was all around jobs. These are 
the job-creating tax cuts. My rhetorical question is: Where are the 
jobs? We saw one of the most dismal stretches of job loss and job 
creation under that Bush Presidency than ever recorded in the Nation. 
And to Representative Shea-Porter's point, left with an historic 
largest deficit. So that was complications beyond belief, a multitude 
of problems that then endured and gripped the household budgets and the 
profitability of small businesses across this country to the point that 
we sunk to the lowest of records in March of 2009.
  So now our focus rightfully should be about job creation and 
retention. My district, the 21st Congressional District in the State of 
New York, houses the eastern portion of the original Erie Canal, barge 
canal. It gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns. 
These mill towns became the epicenters of invention and innovation.

                              {time}  2120

  So that pioneer spirit is in the American DNA, I am convinced. I 
cannot accept for a moment that our manufacturing heyday is a thing of 
the past. We can be the kingpins of manufacturing. We need to invest in 
that manufacturing element so that small businesses and manufacturing 
centers can be that driving force for job creation and retention.
  How does it happen? You modernize with investments.
  I served as president and CEO at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy 
Research and Development Authority. I saw what happened when we 
partnered with the business community to enable them to cut energy 
costs for production. It's easy. We have shelf-ready opportunities 
today that can then retrofit into these manufacturing centers and 
enable them to be more profitable, more efficient. That means, as 
profitability, the transitioning over to more jobs and more ideas that 
can come from the manufacturing elements in our given neighborhoods and 
our communities, in our regions, in our congressional districts.
  So it can happen, but you need this plan of attack that will go to 
putting American workers into deeply rooted jobs that will be here to 
grow in this country.
  We saw what happened when we helped businesses take their large 
industries--take their jobs--offshore, and we paid them to do that. So 
I applaud the efforts that you have created and in which others have 
joined in this House to create the package that says ``no'' to that 
sort of investment, but ``yes'' to American workers and working 
families and ``yes'' to our small business community, which is the 
backbone of our economic recovery.
  We profess small business to be the springboard to economic recovery. 
If we believe that, let's act accordingly and not take this step 
backward that gives tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the 
expense of investments in the small business community, investments in 
the working households of families across this country and, certainly, 
at the expense of investments in children, in students, in working 
couples, in married couples, who will get a break from our tax package 
bills, and in senior citizens, all of whom deserve our sensitivity here 
in this Chamber so as to do what is best for the middle-income 
community of this country.
  Again, to repeat myself, empowering them by strengthening their 
purchasing power strengthens all of us from the least comfortable to 
the most comfortable. I think it is the map, the blueprint, for a 
successful comeback from the lowest, toughest economic point that we 
have seen as a Nation. Now, to crawl out of that pit, we need to do it 
thoughtfully and with laser-sharp focus, and I think our legislation 
advanced in this House does that.
  I have enjoyed working with the two of you, with other 
Representatives and with the leadership in this House to make that 
effort so that we can have the smartest and most analytical response.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, once again, you speak with great wisdom and 
with a sense of history. It is about choices.
  Apparently, the Republicans and the President want us to take $140 
billion, $150 billion, $160 billion and give it to the wealthiest of 
Americans, to the top 2 percent, as if they need help.
  What if we took that money and invested it in--oh, I don't know--
green technology? in wind turbines? in solar or in buses and 
transportation? $150 billion, what would it buy?
  I would suggest, with the first $70 billion, in year one, invest in 
teachers and in schools. With the next $70 billion or $80 billion, 
invest in--well, let's build the great manufacturing sector once again 
in the great Northeast; 160 years ago, my great, great grandparents 
left the textile mills in your territory, Ms. Shea-Porter, and moved to 
California. It was good for them, but it left the great Northeast 
without the textile industry. You are trying to rebuild your 
industries--health care technologies and other kinds of advanced 
technologies--which could use the incentive of $70 billion.
  Ms. Shea-Porter, we've got another 5 minutes. Why don't you take four 
of

[[Page 19113]]

those, and then we'll wrap in the last minute.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you.
  I think it is important to reiterate that we are very happy when 
Americans do well financially. We want every American to do well 
financially. I have said many times before that each one of us hopes to 
have a little more money, and I said that my kids hope that I have a 
little more money also. It's not a question of success. We want 
everybody to be successful.
  The problem that we have here is that we are borrowing money that 
middle-income taxpayers will have to pay back, plus interest, in order 
to give those who are already extremely successful--and I'm glad that 
they are--money that they don't need. Then we will carry the debt and 
put this country further at risk.
  So, when we want to tell the truth about the debt, this has to be 
part of the story: that it was proposed--and I fear could be passed--
that we borrowed more money, probably from China, and we gave it to 
those who least needed it while we ignored all the great pressing needs 
of our country.
  I fear for the middle class. I know that we all grew up at a time 
when our parents believed that we would do better than they did 
financially, and indeed we did. I put myself through college, but I was 
able to work double shifts in the summer at a factory, and then I was 
able to work through the school year to pay for that. Now, no matter 
how hard people work in the summer and no matter how hard they work in 
the winter, they can't afford to pay for college tuition.
  So what are we going to do for those children? What are we going to 
say to their families? Sorry. We've borrowed enough money. Do you 
understand that we borrowed the money to give it to the wealthiest so 
that we can't give it to you? What are we going to do, crush their 
dreams, their hopes and their possible paths to the same kind of 
success? This is just wrong on every level.
  If you look at children today, you will recognize that, chances are, 
they have family members who are underemployed or unemployed, that 
their families are struggling to pay the rent or to pay the mortgage, 
that the cost of everything has gone up dramatically, and that their 
families can't afford to save for their educations. What do we say to 
them later? You have to understand that it was just so important to 
make sure that we gave you this debt and increased your debt so that we 
could take care of those who didn't need it.
  I don't understand this, and I think that most Americans looking at 
this don't understand it either. We celebrate people's good fortunes 
and successes. We are happy that they have been so successful, but we 
should not borrow money to give them what they don't need.
  Let's invest in America. Let's invest in the next generation. Let's 
help our seniors out. How many seniors fall in the doughnut hole and 
can't even afford to pay for their prescriptions? Will we say, Well, we 
can't help you because we can't afford it? Let's build infrastructure. 
Let's help small businesses. Let's create jobs. Let's get people 
working again. People really don't want unemployment checks. They want 
jobs.
  How many jobs bills did we try to pass, which were passed out of the 
House but which sank in the Senate? There was so much Republican 
opposition to creating jobs. Yet here we are, saying the only way we 
can help people with unemployment is if we yield to the Republicans and 
say, okay, we'll give tax cuts to the very wealthiest also.
  This is a sad moment, a very sad moment on this floor and in the 
Senate. I hope that the American people will rise up and say, No, this 
is not fair to the middle class.
  Thank you very much for doing this.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Shea-Porter, thank you so very, very much.
  We have just a minute left. As you were speaking from your heart 
about the status of Americans today, I was thinking about last fall 
when I took my family down to the Roosevelt Memorial. On one of the 
placards carved in the stone is his statement: The test of America's 
progress is not that those who have much should have more but that 
those who have little should have enough.
  Isn't that where we are today? Isn't that what FDR was saying in the 
1930s during the Great Depression?
  Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We appreciate the hour to discuss 
this very, very important issue.

                          ____________________