[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15740-15743]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            JOBS-TEACHERS/FIRST RESPONDERS BACK TO WORK ACT

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise as the lead sponsor of the 
Teachers/First Responders Back to Work Act. I rise in favor of jobs, in 
favor of teachers, in favor of police officers and firefighters, 
keeping our communities safe, and the promise we made to first 
responders after September 11.
  We have a choice. I listened to the distinguished Republican leader, 
but it is interesting how history can be viewed through different 
lenses. What I failed to hear were the challenges this President and 
this country inherited from 8 years of policies that led us, in 2008, 
to the verge not of the great recession we had been referring to but on 
the verge of a new depression, where the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve and the former Secretary of the Treasury, under President Bush, 
came before Members of Congress and said: We have a series of financial 
institutions on the verge of collapse, and if they collapse, it will 
create systemic risk to the entire country's economy, and every 
American will feel the consequences of that.
  The result of that 8 years of largely unregulated process created 
excesses where large entities made decisions that ultimately became the 
collective responsibility of everybody in this country because a 
failure to have met those responsibilities would have meant a collapse 
of this country.
  Now, there are those in the Senate who are advocating we go back to 
those very policies. They talk about stopping each and every 
regulation. Those regulations ultimately--the lack of it and the lack 
of enforcement of it is what gave us the excesses we had.
  Additionally, we had the two wars abroad, which are totally unpaid 
for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window there. Tax cuts were 
totally unpaid for, and fiscal responsibility went out the window 
there.
  The culmination of all of that brought us to January of 2009, when 
the new President took office and had already inherited millions of 
jobs that had been lost prior to then. Around 7.5 percent unemployment 
was the starting point already. In the first quarter of 2009, before he 
could even do anything--he took the oath of office in late January, 
swore in a cabinet in February, and sent a plan up in March--another 2 
million jobs were lost.
  I find it interesting how we forget all of that, at least as a 
starting point.
  We have had 19 months of private sector growth--a little over 2 
million jobs. That is good news. But where we have been shedding many 
jobs is in the very essence of those in the public sector who teach our 
children, who prepare for the next generation and the competitive 
future of America, and who protect our communities--police officers, 
who protect us from crime, and firefighters, who respond when there is 
an emergency in our communities.
  With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we can 
fulfill our duty to educate our children and keep our communities safe 
or we can gamble our future on the political games we have seen here 
that disinvest in the future of our children and the safety of our 
communities.
  Almost 300,000 education jobs are on the chopping block this year in 
this country. At a time when other countries in the world are 
increasing their educational workforce, we are in the process of 
decreasing it. New Jersey, my home State, is facing a $10.5 billion 
shortfall in its 2012 budget. That means more cuts in State and local 
spending for education, and that hurts our children.
  The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act creates 400,000 
education jobs because an investment in our teachers is an investment 
in our children and in our collective future. We are talking about $30 
billion to States and local communities to retain, to hire, to rehire 
the teachers who have already been separated, to educate tomorrow's 
entrepreneurs.
  In my State of New Jersey, this bill would provide an additional $831 
million in funds to support an additional 9,300 education jobs that 
largely have been lost. New Jersey alone has lost over 6,000 teachers 
since 2008, slowing our economic recovery and creating a huge knowledge 
gap in our schools. What does that gap translate into in terms of lost 
knowledge? What does it mean to a promising young scientist who needs 
some guidance or a struggling student who needs a little extra help?
  I know about the power of a teacher. I know it through my own 
personal life. I have had several great teachers along the way, but one 
made a huge difference in my life. I remember her name--Gail Harper, my 
speech teacher in high school.
  You know, I know some of my colleagues won't believe this, but I was

[[Page 15741]]

among the most introverted persons at that time in my life. I didn't 
even want to take the speech course, but I was told by my guidance 
counselors that it was a must. I was a good student, an honor student, 
but I didn't want to take the speech course because I didn't want to do 
extemporaneous speaking, read assignments, or get up in front of the 
class, any of that. I was forced to take it. I would prepare my work, 
but I would not deliver it.
  Finally, Gail Harper, the teacher, said to me--she kept me after 
class, and she said: Robert, I don't know why you prepare yourself--
your preparation is great, but if you don't deliver this year, you will 
fail. My mother, who had fled a country to come to freedom, was 
convinced that I would be the first in my family to go to college. She 
told me that failure is not an option. When I heard Gail Harper talk 
about failure, I knew that was not an option. She worked with me to 
nurture my abilities so that I could break out of that self-imposed 
shell and really transform my life. In some respects, that I am here 
today speaking on the Senate floor is because of Gail Harper. I fully 
understand how teachers can make a huge difference in the life of a 
young person.
  We need to reinvest in teachers and education, in New Jersey's kids 
and in America's future. We need to get those 6,000 New Jersey teachers 
back in the classrooms and hire thousands more in every school in every 
State in America.
  Then I turn to the police and firefighters, and I remember living in 
the New Jersey-New York region on September 11 a little over a decade 
ago. On that fateful day, it was not the Federal Government that 
responded to the tragedies and the horror of the World Trade Center; it 
was local police, local firefighters, local emergency management who 
were the first responders, who risked their lives and gave their lives 
on that fateful day.
  We made a promise to every community that we would keep communities 
safe in America in a post-September 11 world, that we would give cops 
and firefighters what they needed to do their jobs.
  Every Member of Congress wanted to take a picture with a police 
officer or a firefighter. We called them heroes. Now, Republicans want 
to zero out the COPS Program that puts police officers on the beat. 
They want to break our promises after September 11, and I think it is 
time to make good on it with the $5 billion our legislation provides so 
communities can hire and keep cops and firefighters on the job. They 
are our first line of defense. We learned that after September 11.
  I don't care where one is on the political spectrum or what one 
believes the role of government is, we can all agree public safety and 
the security of our communities is government's most fundamental 
responsibility. We don't need police and firefighters just in the big 
cities--although they face some of the major challenges--we need them 
in every town and community.
  Over 2,700 communities applied for help to fund 9,000 officers in the 
last round for a total of $2 billion. But because of the opposition of 
those on the Republican side to keeping our promise to first 
responders, only $243 million was available, enough for only 238 of 
2,700 communities that applied. That is 9 percent, and it was capped at 
25 officers, no matter how big the city or how great the need.
  In New Jersey, more than 150 communities applied for funding to keep 
cops on the job. Only 12 of those 150 were funded. Those 12 communities 
were only able to hire approximately 78 cops over the course of the 
next 3 years. Right now, in New Jersey, there are 705 police officers 
who lost their jobs and can't find law enforcement work, 705 fewer 
sworn officers on the street, and there are 4,000 fewer officers in New 
Jersey than there were on December 31, 2009. Public safety is 
government's No. 1 responsibility, and it is time to deliver on that 
promise, after September 11, to our communities and our first 
responders. This legislation includes $5 billion to help first 
responders stay on the job, close the public safety gap, and keep our 
communities safe.
  Let me conclude by saying, according to a CNN poll released just 
yesterday afternoon, 75 percent of Americans support providing funding 
to State and local governments to hire teachers and first responders, 
including 63 percent of Republicans.
  We have a choice. With this legislation, we can fulfill our duty to 
educate our kids and keep our communities safe or we can gamble our 
future on political games that don't invest in our children, our 
economy, and the safety of our communities. I think the choice is 
clear. I choose educating our kids. I choose protecting our 
communities. I choose investing in our future and we do this all and 
pay for it at the same time.
  This is the beginning of a fight, and we will be back again and again 
to force our friends on the other side to make the choice again and 
again about whose side they are on. I think the choices are pretty 
clear. The American people have spoken. It is time to get our teachers 
and our first responders back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from New 
Jersey for this amendment. It is an amendment that is critically 
important to New Jersey, to Alaska, and to the State of Illinois 
because the Menendez-Casey amendment in my State means that 14,500 
teachers, firefighters, and policemen will stay on the job.
  If the Menendez amendment--which is part of President Obama's jobs 
package--does not pass, these people will be out of work. There will be 
more kids in the classroom, talented teachers will be laid off, there 
will be fewer cops on the beat in small towns and large, and 
firefighters will have to cut back in terms of their ranks and we need 
their protection. We can't let that happen. Senator Menendez has an 
amendment which deals with this responsibly. It pays for it. It doesn't 
add to the deficit, and that is where the objection comes in from the 
Republican side of the aisle because he pays for it by asking those 
making over $1 million a year to pay about one-half of 1 percent more 
in taxes, and the Republicans say: No way. We cannot ask the wealthiest 
people in America to pay one penny more.
  To me, it is hard to explain why we would want to deny our children a 
quality education, lay off teachers, make our streets a little less 
safe with fewer police, and run the risk of fewer firefighters because 
we don't want to ask people making over $1 million a year to pay one-
half of 1 percent more on their taxes. People who are making over 
$20,000 a week, we are asking them to pay one-half of 1 percent to save 
the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and police. It is interesting to 
me, because when President Bush offered his jobs bill years ago, with 
payroll tax cuts and cuts for businesses, these same Senators who are 
criticizing President Obama's version of the bill were voting for it 
and it wasn't paid for. It was added directly to the deficit. These 
deficit hawks were willing to vote for this with President Bush's name 
on it but now oppose it with President Obama's name on it. Is there a 
message there? I think there is a clear message.
  There are two things which drive the Republican caucus when it comes 
to this debate. First, protect those making over $1 million a year at 
any cost. Let America languish in this recession, with 14 million 
people unemployed, rather than ask the wealthiest, most comfortable 
people in America, to pay just a little bit more in taxes.
  Secondly, they consistently oppose proposals to deal with this jobs 
crisis if they are offered by the President of the United States. 
Senator McConnell said it earlier. It has been quoted over and over and 
over that his highest priority as the Republican leader in the Senate 
was to make sure President Obama was a one-term President.
  If we are driven only by that kind of motive, I assume it will make 
for good political headlines, but it ties our hands in getting things 
done. You see, in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything 
significant and, unfortunately, 53 on this side of the aisle need the 
help of 7 on the other side and they haven't been forthcoming. Last 
week,

[[Page 15742]]

we offered the President's jobs bill and said to the Republicans: At 
least let's proceed to the bill and offer amendments. We couldn't get a 
single Republican Senator to vote with us, not one. We had 51 votes for 
it--two Democrats did not vote for it--but we had no Republican 
support, none.
  So what is the Republican jobs bill? What would they do to turn this 
economy around and move us forward? Sadly, they have nothing to offer, 
nothing. Protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in America and 
say no to everything President Obama suggests. That is not a recipe for 
moving America forward.
  I like to listen to their arguments about cutting redtape to create 
jobs. I think to myself, do we have to eliminate the standards in this 
country for clean air and clean water in order to have a thriving 
economy? If we went the Republican way of eliminating these protections 
for America's families and children, would this be a better nation? I 
think not. Basic protections when it comes to air pollution, for 
example, mean an awful lot to a lot of Americans.
  I make it a point of going to classrooms and asking the kids in the 
classroom a question: How many of you in this classroom know someone 
who has asthma? I just asked that question in Mount Sterling, IL, a 
rural community, one that you wouldn't believe would be dealing with 
air pollution problems or pulmonary issues. More than half the class 
raised their hand: Yes, they all knew someone--at least half of them 
knew someone who was dealing with asthma.
  Every year, asthma is responsible for 9 million visits to health care 
professionals and more than 4,000 deaths in America. It is one of the 
leading causes of school absenteeism, accounts for 14 million missed 
school days annually. The average family spends between 5.5 percent and 
14 percent of its total income on treating an asthmatic child.
  So when the Republicans want to come forward and waive air pollution 
standards, eliminate the protections we are trying to put in place, 
they are endangering the health of people and children across America. 
That is the reality. To argue that the only way to build the American 
economy is by destroying public health standards to protect families 
and children is not the right answer. We have to find a balanced 
approach, one that takes into account the reality of science and the 
reality of business but certainly protects defenseless Americans from 
the kinds of changes which some Republicans are suggesting.
  Is this what it comes down to? Is this the only way to move the 
American economy forward, to say we may have to compromise the purity 
of our drinking water when it comes to mercury and arsenic in order to 
have the economy create jobs? What a terrible choice that is, and it is 
a real choice. Take a look at the amendment offered by a Republican 
Senator on cement kilns. Cement kilns generate toxic chemicals that end 
up in air pollution and eventually are deposited on Earth, many times 
in bodies of water such as the Great Lakes. What do mercury and arsenic 
do to the aquatic life in the Great Lakes and to the people who live 
around those Great Lakes? They compromise the safety of those great 
bodies of water.
  There are some who say: It goes into the air; It surely isn't going 
to hurt you. Yet the statistics show the opposite. Poor air quality in 
the most polluted U.S. cities can shorten the lives of residents up to 
2 years, on average. The American Cancer Society found that the risk of 
early death is over 15 percent greater in areas with increased smog 
pollution. Nearly two-thirds of those suffering from asthma live in an 
area where at least one Federal air quality standard is not being met. 
We can't ignore this public health reality. We have an obligation to 
the families who live in these cities, whether it is Chicago or 
Springfield or any city across America, to make certain we don't 
compromise basic air quality standards. That, frankly, is the only 
proposal we hear from the Republicans to create jobs. They want to 
protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in America and lessen the 
standards we use to protect innocent families from air pollution and 
deterioration of water quality.
  Before I got up to speak, the Chair showed me a headline from the 
Wall Street Journal. It is a headline we need to remind the Republicans 
of when they get into this debate about jobs. Do you remember how many 
times they mocked the President of the United States because he stepped 
up and said: I will not allow the American automobile industry to die. 
I am going to step in, he said, and help General Motors and Chrysler 
through a very difficult time. Do you recall what we heard from the 
other side of the aisle? It is the wrong thing to do. Let General 
Motors go bankrupt, the Republicans said. Even former Governor Romney 
said the automobile bailout was a bad decision. Here is Governor 
Romney, from a family who had a lot to do with the automobile industry 
and ought to have known a little better about it.
  The President of the United States said: It wasn't my ambition to 
step in and intervene and help major automobile companies, but I am 
going to do it because hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. The 
reality is, the President's decision was the right decision. It was the 
right decision not just for Michigan--and Illinois, I might add--but 
for the Nation. General Motors and Chrysler have now restructured. They 
have a leaner workforce, a stronger inventory, and better products. The 
report from the Wall Street Journal, which you showed me, shows that 
the profitability of automobile companies when you look across the 
board is now tipping in favor of American companies for American 
workers.
  There was also that story there that said, for the first time in a 
long time, we are importing jobs from Asia and Mexico in the automobile 
industry back to the United States of America.
  Some Republican Senators can come to the floor and say President 
Obama got it all wrong. Come on down to the Ford works, south of 
Chicago, and take a look at those workers filing in every single day to 
go to work.
  Then go over to Belvedere, IL, to the Chrysler facility, and see 
1,200 people going to work with good-paying jobs. They are there 
because this President stepped up and said we are not going to let 
these jobs go away. Many on the Republican side argued this was 
heretical and wrong. Explain that to the families who have these good-
paying jobs, right here in America, with good benefits.
  When I hear my Republican colleagues and friends come to the floor 
and criticize what President Obama has done in this economy, they had 
better stop and explain their early position opposing the President's 
efforts to make sure the automobile industry in America survives and 
thrives. Two hundred thousand workers today went to work for General 
Motors in America. If the Republicans had their way, GM would have gone 
bankrupt. Whether it would have survived bankruptcy no one knows. The 
President said we cannot run that risk. He kept the company in 
business, restructured, and now it is profitable again. That is a fact.
  I will say this too. When I hear the Republican leader come to the 
floor and argue that the President should speak for all Americans, I 
ask the Republican leader to take a look at the response of the 
American people to the President's jobs package. When the President 
says we should cut the payroll tax for working families who are 
struggling paycheck to paycheck so they have money to get by, 
overwhelmingly the people support it. When the President says we should 
help small businesses hire the unemployed, particularly veterans, 
overwhelmingly the American people support it. When the President says 
we should make sure that teachers and policemen and firefighters do not 
lose their jobs in this tough economy, overwhelmingly the American 
people support it. When the President says millionaires should pay a 
little bit more in their taxes to make sure the American recovery is 
underway, overwhelmingly the American people support that, too.
  In fact, 56 percent of Republicans, when asked, say that is a 
reasonable way to pay for a jobs program. Unfortunately, none of those 
56 percent serve

[[Page 15743]]

with the Republicans in the Senate who happen to believe their No. 1 
task and goal is to protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in 
America.
  We can do better. We need to make sure we move forward on a 
bipartisan basis to create jobs. This President inherited a very weak 
economy. Under President Bush we had more than doubled the national 
debt. When President Bush took office, our national debt was $5 
trillion. When he left office, it was over $10 trillion, two wars he 
didn't pay for, programs he didn't pay for, and tax cuts for wealthy 
people in the midst of a war--something no President had ever done. 
President Obama inherited that, and it has been a tough road, he will 
tell you, to get this economy back on track. Now he has a plan and the 
Republicans offer nothing. They vote against the President--whatever he 
wants they are opposing--and they vote against common sense, which says 
helping working families, helping small businesses, helping our 
veterans find jobs, and paying for it so it doesn't add to our deficit 
is a sensible approach to getting America back on the right track.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, put the 
campaigning aside for a moment. Take a look at what it takes to create 
jobs and bring your best ideas to the table. Let's sit down and put 
together a bipartisan bill. We will have the President's proposals as a 
starting point. Bring your ideas too. Let's do something for this 
country on a bipartisan basis. I think that is why we were elected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as always I listened with interest to my 
friend and colleague from Illinois. I did not come to the floor with my 
colleagues to discuss that particular issue, but it is interesting, the 
justification for the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, when the 
fact is there are thousands of small businesses and companies all over 
America that had to go into bankruptcy but did not get the bailout that 
was favorable to the trade unions. Why couldn't General Motors have 
gone into bankruptcy the way every other company and corporation has 
had to do in these hard economic times, restructured, and then gone 
back into business again?
  Instead, this administration and my friend from Illinois seemed to 
favor the trade unions who obviously got very favorable treatment 
rather than the normal bankruptcy procedures. Unlike the treatment the 
favored trade unions and automobile corporations were able to get, 
thousands of small businesses and companies all over America were 
unable to get the benefit of their largesse.

                          ____________________