[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14172-14178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I'm the cochair 
of the Progressive Caucus. Tonight, I come before the people on the 
floor of the House of Representatives to discuss important issues 
facing our economy and the huge challenges that our Nation is facing, 
particularly with regard to the events that are going to take shape 
right after the election.
  The Progressive Caucus has come together, Mr. Speaker, and thought 
very carefully about what a deal would look like and should look like. 
I want to talk about that tonight. I want to go into what we call the 
Deal for All and to elaborate on some of the complexities that are 
facing our country and how this is a time where we really need to focus 
on the real core of what is important to make sure that as all these 
fiscal matters come together, the United States and the people of 
America, particularly the working people, come out on top and in the 
right space.
  Before I dive into that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to yield just for a 
moment to talk about the great service of Ambassador Chris Stevens. 
Ambassador Stevens was a dedicated public servant, and he and the 
individuals who lost their lives in Benghazi recently have to be 
remembered for the dedicated service that they lent to our country. 
It's important to note that Chris Stevens loved Libya, loved Libyans; 
and it's not

[[Page 14173]]

any accident that Libyans took to the streets not to attack America, 
but really Libyans came to the street holding up placards apologizing 
for the act of these terrorists who killed Americans and Libyans when 
they assaulted the consulate in Benghazi, and many of them held up 
placards extolling the great virtues of Chris Stevens. And it's 
important to point out that as Americans are watching these things 
unfold across the Middle East, that the last thing Chris Stevens would 
want would be for us to withdraw or pull out of Libya.
  This horrible incident that occurred in Benghazi was not done by the 
Libyan people. It was done by terrorists who have nothing but contempt 
for the democracy in Libya, which is unfolding; and that is why they 
would take their action against the consulate as they did do. But it's 
important to note that there were about seven Libyans who died. The 
numbers are yet coming in. Of course, they're subject to being revised. 
But there were a number of Libyans who lost their lives trying to 
defend that consulate. And I think Americans should keep that in mind. 
They also should keep in mind that as the outbreak of these protests 
across the Middle East--you have one in Yemen, you have them in Libya, 
you have them in Egypt--it is important to point out that leaders of 
these countries have apologized for these things, particularly Yemen 
and Libya. And Egypt eventually got there.
  And it's important to point out that Americans should know that this 
is not representative of certainly the will of the Libyan people. And 
there are a lot of people across the region who support the United 
States and support a good relationship with the United States. We 
should not allow ourselves to be confused by these events. I could 
easily see how people could be; but when you see dedicated public 
servants risking their lives to build bridges, the last thing we want 
to do is withdraw and abandon these relationships that have been fought 
hard for and now have been paid for in the blood of our heroes, 
Ambassador Chris Stevens being one of them.
  So I do want to just wrap up this section of my discussion tonight 
and just point out Chris Stevens, a dedicated servant of the United 
States, a dedicated and committed man who has gone and offered the 
ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his country to build bridges between 
people and particularly to help build democracy in the weak state of 
Libya, a state that threw off a dictator.
  Chris Stevens went there to help the people and to help them build a 
democracy, and he must be remembered for his great sacrifice and also 
that of the individuals who lost their lives with him, four Americans 
and several Libyans. And as the names come forward and as their names 
are released, we'll come back to this microphone and share the 
information with the people.

                              {time}  1940

  So now let's talk about the business we're here to talk about, Madam 
Speaker. Tonight, we're talking about the Progressive Caucus message. 
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the organization in Congress 
dedicated to talking about what's good for the average working 
American, making sure that the average American's interests are looked 
out and regarded highly as we move forward.
  I want to talk a little bit about the Budget For All, and not only 
the Budget For All, but also the Deal For All.
  I want to get right to the point. Everybody is talking about the 
fiscal cliff. The sequestration cuts are going to come into effect. 
These are significant cuts both in military and nonmilitary domestic 
discretionary spending, which will be devastating to important programs 
like transportation, like health care, like research, like education. 
They'll put significant cuts in these important programs, lay off a lot 
of people, perhaps even exacerbating our already too-high unemployment 
rate.
  But not only that, we see that the Bush tax cuts will expire, the 
payroll tax will expire, the so-called doc fix will expire, the AMT 
will expire. There's a number of things coming together, and many 
people who watch the news know that after this election, we're going to 
see a significant amount of activity around how we Members of Congress 
will be able to pull our fiscal situation back together in a way that 
hopefully avoids big cuts to important programs, hopefully avoids great 
pain that working class people might suffer if we don't come together 
and come up with some deal.
  You've heard a lot of discussion about a grand bargain. But if we do 
any deal, the core values of the deal, we need to say first and upfront 
what this deal must include.
  The first thing this deal must include, and I'll start with this 
poster here, Madam Speaker, is protection for America's social safety 
net. Let me start with a quote from President Roosevelt where he says: 
``Every man, woman, and child is a partner.'' In 2012, these words come 
to life when we see that more than 58 million people rely on Medicaid. 
That's a lot of people, Madam Speaker; 48 million rely on Medicare; 
more than 61 million rely on Social Security.
  So with the idea in mind that everybody is included, everybody 
counts, everybody is contemplated in our American life, it's important 
to point out that as we move forward with this Deal For All, or any 
deal that we might have, that it's important to maintain the social 
safety net, particularly in very difficult economic times. If you slice 
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, you are going to literally be 
harming the interests of millions and millions of Americans. Therefore, 
a key feature of any deal will be preservation of benefits for the 
people who need them most--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
  Madam Speaker, the next slide, the next poster here is a poster that 
talks about how we need to move our Nation's military towards the 
ability to deal with 21st-century threats. That will mean that we need 
to do some changes, some adjustments; and Cold War-era weapons systems 
are just not what this particular moment calls for.
  So the second feature of the Deal For All will be that the military, 
which has seen its budget literally double since 2001, will have to 
share and do some paring down, but not just paring down, literally 
advancing. But some of these old Cold War-era weapons systems and some 
of these things that are fit for dealing with the Soviet Union just 
aren't necessary any more. They're expensive, cost a lot of money, and 
they don't help us meet the threats we're facing right now.
  So the second feature of the Deal For All would be moving our 
military to a position where it's dealing with 21st-century threats, 
not simply maintaining old expensive programs that we don't really 
need.
  The third feature of the Deal For All would be that we would ask 
Americans who have been well-to-do Americans, people who have benefited 
tremendously under the Bush tax cuts, to do a little more. Now, I know 
my friends in the Republican caucus and some conservatives often say 
that taxes, why would you want to punish somebody for being successful. 
Well, we think that America has done so much for so many that to help 
pay a little bit more to this country that you love is not a 
punishment. In fact, it's actually something that we would expect 
people to do. And there's a lot of very well-to-do people who agree 
with that point of view.
  We actually have a piece of an idea called the Buffett rule because a 
very rich man says that, hey, a rich man like Warren Buffett should not 
be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, which he does.
  So Americans of various economic classes agree taxes are not a 
punishment. They are the cost of funding a civilized society; and if 
we're going to meet the budget challenges facing our Nation, we're 
going to have to get some revenue, and it might well come from the 
people who have benefited so much under the Bush-era tax cuts.
  Then, finally, but perhaps most importantly, Madam Speaker, we need 
to get Americans to work. This is a key feature of what any Deal For 
All must include.

[[Page 14174]]

  So tonight, we're talking about the Deal For All, and we're talking 
about the fiscal cliff, and we're talking about what any fair agreement 
would have to include. This is not bargaining chips, Madam Speaker. All 
four of these things are key. In order to have a safe, sound budget fix 
or grand bargain, we're going to have to have something to get 
Americans back to work, and we're talking about an infrastructure bank, 
a longer-term transportation bill, various things I'm going to talk 
about tonight.
  But putting Americans back to work, asking the military to share in 
the cuts, and to revamp our military for a 21st-century world.
  Three, asking the top 2 percent to pay a little bit more by allowing 
the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for the top echelon. It would only mean 
that the top rates would go from 35 to 39\1/2\ percent.
  Finally, we're going to protect Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid because these programs are essential and vital, particularly 
in times where people are truly having tough economic times.

                              {time}  1950

  So that's where we start the conversation tonight, focused on dealing 
with a proper resolution to these huge budget fights that we are about 
to have because so many important features of our fiscal reality are 
coming to expiration on December 31.
  So I want to say that this deal that I think that we should have, we 
should work on, Mr. Speaker, and this Budget for All, this Deal for All 
as well, it's something that I think we can reach, we should reach. The 
American people need us to try to work toward a solution. This is why 
the Progressive Caucus has come together and said this is what we 
should do:
  We should have a deal. The deal will be comprehensive, a deal that 
could help us avoid the harsh realities of sequestration, that could 
avoid the complete expiration of all the Bush tax cuts or the extension 
of all the Bush tax cuts, a deal that will help us do the doc fix and 
do all the things we need to do.
  We do need some kind of agreement, but the agreement has to have some 
key benchmarks. I've laid them out to you, and I'll just repeat:
  Ask the richest to help pay the freight for America;
  Ask the military to share in the cuts; good, safe, sound cuts that 
will help position us for the 21st century are available;
  We need to make sure that we protect those who benefit from Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid;
  And, most importantly, we need to grow the economy by investing in 
jobs.
  But we have had some difficulty getting together, and I'm not 
surprised. Colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on the Republican 
side of the aisle, have been, Mr. Speaker, slow to try to come together 
and work out the deals that we need, but we do extend our hand. 
Hopefully, we will be able to come together and work out these problems 
because the American people depend upon us to do that.
  But I do want to say that we have seen some real challenges over the 
course of the year just in terms of getting things done. So I think 
this is the time when we really need to come together and focus on 
what's needed. But in order to be fair, Mr. Speaker, I think the people 
should know what some of the real serious challenges that we've been 
facing are.
  I just want to make note right now that we have had a Congress where 
obstruction has been the norm. It doesn't have to stay that way--and I 
urge colleagues on all sides of the aisle to work together. But I'll 
never forget being in this Chamber just about a year ago, a little more 
than a year ago, when, because of obstructionism, we could not come 
together. The Republican caucus refused to vote to raise the debt 
ceiling, something that had been done literally dozens of times both 
under Democrats and Republicans. But they refused to do it, and this 
political rancor resulted in the downgrade of America's bond rating.
  This was a tragic moment that happened a year ago, but it marks the 
obstruction that we've seen. Hopefully, this kind of obstruction will 
not be what we see going forward.
  But I think it's important that much of the obstruction that we began 
to see had to do with the budgetary position that we saw starting with 
the Congress from the very beginning. The bottom line is that it 
started with the idea that we could only have massive cuts and no 
revenue. Our colleagues even continue to this day to talk about how 
terrible the economy continues to be, but their only prescription for 
fixing it is to take, as President Obama said, two tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans and call us in the morning. That's funny, but 
it's, sadly, true as well. Tax cuts seems to be their only prescription 
for all problems facing the American economy.
  We started out this Congress with a budget being laid out. It was 
talked about as the Ryan budget, but really it was the Republican 
budget. He may have been the author of it, but they all voted for it, 
embraced it. But this budget, where we started out with massive cuts, 
didn't balance for a long, long time. The budget never really added up, 
and it still doesn't.
  So in order to get to a deal or some kind of grand bargain to deal 
with our fiscal challenges that are coming right up soon, we need a new 
spirit of cooperation, and it cannot be based on the budget that was 
offered by Paul Ryan and backed by the Republican Congress. Like I 
said, it didn't add up.
  The fact is that my Republican friends think that businesses always 
want a tax cut. I owned a small business myself. I was a lawyer. I had 
a law firm. I had staff that I had to pay. I had machines I had to 
purchase. I had rent that I had to pay. I had a payroll that I had to 
make. What I needed was clients coming through the door so that would 
justify me adding and hiring more people. But just tax cuts alone is 
not what small business people need. What they really need is greater 
demand, which is what we're not addressing if we don't deal with the 
key feature in the Deal for All, which is to invest in jobs.
  If people can't buy, Mr. Speaker, then stores can't sell; if stores 
can't sell, they can't hire; and if they can't hire, people can't buy. 
This is the heart of the problem: slack demand, high unemployment, 
people who do have jobs nervous about making purchases. This is the 
heart of the problem and what we've got to address. Misunderstanding 
these simple ideas about the importance of the American consumer having 
enough wherewithal to buy things that they need is really part of the 
heart of this problem that we're in right now.
  This idea of thinking that, oh, yeah, just a tax cut will solve the 
problem, or, oh, yeah, and get rid of all the health and safety 
regulations, too, these two things could never bring America 
prosperity. But making sure that Americans are working and optimistic 
about their economic future will absolutely help this economy, and it's 
what we've got to do. I think through the Deal for All, any bargain we 
come to will put us on the right footing as long as we keep those key 
features in place.
  So here's the thing: We've got to get to the point where we're 
working together. The key to that is to scrap this budget, this Ryan 
budget the Republicans have adopted. We've got to scrap that idea that 
we can't raise any taxes, that raising taxes is bad, that taxes are 
wrong, and that taxes are always a problem and that they're a 
punishment. We've got to scrap that idea. We know better than that.
  So many of our colleagues even signed pledges that they wouldn't 
raise taxes, and this, of course, has been a problem. The only pledge I 
say around here is the Pledge of Allegiance.
  But the fact is that we've got to scrap this idea so that when we 
face this real serious fiscal cliff, some people are calling, that we 
are able to negotiate. This means letting go of some of our long-held 
attachments, starting with the so-called Ryan Republican budget and 
these no-tax pledges. If we were able to do that, we could solve our 
problems.
  Again, it's not all tax raising. It's going to be cuts, too. We have 
some

[[Page 14175]]

ideas about where we can cut in a way that makes our country stronger, 
but there will have to be a mixture of both of these things.
  I just want to talk a little bit about the Ryan Republican budget and 
just to help dramatize what some of the key problems are with it and 
why it's not workable and why we need to reject it as we move into this 
fiscal time. We're going to have to deal with this fiscal cliff, as has 
been named.
  One of the key features of why it's not going to work and why it's 
wrong is that it ends the Medicare guarantee. It replaces it with 
vouchers. Some people around here like to talk about ObamaCare. Well, I 
far prefer ObamaCare to voucher care. And it makes it dangerously more 
expensive for seniors and the disabled. We don't want to put seniors in 
a more precarious financial situation, which is what the Ryan voucher 
care idea would do.
  The Ryan budget, adopted by the Republicans, would also cut Medicaid 
funding by 34 percent. It cuts away tens of millions of needy people 
and turns the program into an underfunded block grant program. This is 
a sad way to treat some of our most vulnerable citizens. And you should 
know, Mr. Speaker, that Medicaid actually impacts seniors, too, because 
so much of the money that funds nursing home care is from Medicaid. So 
it's not just Medicare. Medicaid cuts, 34 percent, would be very 
harmful.
  The Ryan budget also cuts transportation by 25 percent. Now, 
transportation is a job creator. Transportation puts Americans to 
work--building roads, bridges, transit, helping people get from here to 
there. I can imagine high-speed railcars.
  I'm from Minnesota. I'd love to see us have a high-speed train from 
Duluth to Minneapolis to Chicago. It would be a great thing. It would 
put lots of people back to work, and it would improve productivity. It 
would allow people, after it's built, to get from here to there faster 
so they can get to meetings, so they can do what they need to do, and 
stop the bottleneck, cut down on carbon emissions and move people 
around, not just cars.

                              {time}  2000

  Transportation, a huge job creator, cut 25 percent in the Ryan 
budget.
  Cuts education by 40 percent, 45 percent. Now, if there's one engine 
of economic development, having smarter, better-trained people has got 
to be the core of that, and yet education is cut by 45 percent in the 
Ryan budget.
  So the bottom line is, these are some of the key things that are 
wrong with this budget. There are many more. I plan on talking about 
them.
  But I want to just return to my theme a little bit, Madam Speaker, to 
say that we are facing a fiscal cliff. Americans do need to focus on it 
and do need to call their Members of Congress and say focus on the job 
at hand. We need you to focus your attention. We do know all these 
things are expiring. What are you people in Congress going to do about 
it?
  What we're saying we've got to do about it in the Progressive Caucus 
is that we do need to come together and have a deal, but the deal has 
to have four pieces. And I'll repeat, Madam Speaker.
  We need to make sure the military shares in the cuts by being more 
efficient. We need to make sure that we protect Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. And we need to make sure that we are putting 
jobs up front and investing in American jobs to a very large degree. 
And we need to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute a little bit 
more so we can meet our budgetary challenges. That's what the 
Progressive Caucus says we need to do.
  We've had difficulty coming together because, well, quite frankly, 
obstruction, Republican obstruction has made it difficult to move 
forward and do anything.
  Why did we have the obstruction?
  Because we started out with signing pledges that we won't raise 
taxes, and we had a Ryan budget that imposed significant and deep cuts 
that have already resulted in a number of public sector workers being 
laid off and Federal employees having a reduction in their health care. 
And so these things, this sort of obstructive nature and insisting on 
cuts only, has been the source of the problem.
  In order to get to a solution, we need people to come off these rigid 
positions so that we can do the people's business.
  I mean, just to sort of like think about the level of obstruction, I 
already mentioned, Madam Speaker, last August, how dramatic it was when 
the Republican majority refused to raise the debt ceiling and caused us 
to have a downgrade in our bond rating. That was a sad moment.
  But we've also wasted a lot of time. For example, we voted 32 times 
to repeal ObamaCare. And I do call it ObamaCare because Obama does 
care, which is more than I can say for some. But in this time, we had 
time for cutting or voting to repeal ObamaCare 32 times, but we didn't 
have any time to offer serious fixes to the economy.
  And I just want to mention that President Obama, to his credit, has 
done, I think, great and excellent work in offering solutions. They 
just simply, Madam Speaker, have been ignored. I mean, it's really kind 
of sad when you think about the fact that the President has offered 
real serious and important solutions to the problems of the Nation and 
yet, they really, really have not been seriously addressed.
  For example, the President called us all here and talked about the 
American Jobs Act. This is a great piece of legislation. But, do you 
know, Madam Speaker, we've never even had a vote on it. We never even 
had an opportunity to say who wants the American Jobs Act. It was 
simply something that the Republican majority in the House wouldn't 
even address.
  The fact is that there were great ideas in this bill, and I just want 
to talk a little bit about those ideas because I think that they would 
really do a lot of good.
  It includes a national infrastructure bank bill, a proposal that we 
would be able to fund by the Federal Government putting some seed money 
and then leveraging that money, that public money, with some private 
sector bonds. We would then have a fund of money that we could then use 
to make investment in important infrastructure that would be a key and 
important element of the program.
  We would be able to make investments in the transmission lines that 
would help take wind energy from the western part of my State in 
Minnesota and bring it to where the population centers are.
  We would be able to improve our grid and have a smart grid that would 
make energy use much more efficient and much more effective. And we 
would be able to use this infrastructure bank bill to be able to fund 
programs all over the United States where we wouldn't only build things 
that we need, we would improve them.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers has addressed this issue, 
Madam Speaker, and what they said is about $2.3 trillion of 
infrastructure maintenance needs to be done. You know, I come from the 
city of Minneapolis and in my city, about 5 years ago we had a bridge 
fall into the Mississippi River.
  Maintenance in this country is critical. We have bridges that are old 
and deteriorating all over this country. We have bridges that are in 
need of repair, roads as well.
  And we also have other projects that need to be taken care of in 
terms of our grid, in terms of wastewater treatment, in terms of all 
types of important infrastructure tools, but we are not investing in 
them. In fact, we're relying on the things that our grandparents gave 
us. We're relying on Eisenhower-era infrastructure because we haven't, 
in our age, focused on the needs of the American people to have an 
infrastructure bill.
  You know, just to talk a little bit more about the American Jobs Act, 
it would also extend cutting payroll taxes in half for 98 percent of 
businesses. It would also offer a complete payroll tax holiday for 
added workers or increased wages. It would extend 100 percent expensing 
throughout this year, and if we were to pass it, maybe even longer. And 
this continues to be an effective way to incentivize new investment.

[[Page 14176]]

  And also, it would address and reform regulatory reductions to help 
entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital. We do need to help 
small business people be able to get the money they need to do 
investment in their company, and that means access to capital.
  The American Jobs Act would also have a returning heroes hiring tax 
credit for veterans. This is something we addressed already, which is a 
great thing, but it would move on from there, and it would prevent up 
to 280,000 teacher layoffs.
  Madam Speaker, you should know, we have had, now, about 30 months of 
private sector growth. But we have had also significant number of 
months of public sector layoffs, mostly teachers. This is because of 
these draconian cuts that the Federal Government has made, and State 
governments have been affected by and, therefore, city and local 
governments. But we would be able to address these massive public 
sector worker layoffs, which are really hurting our economy. And of 
course, teachers have been some of the most negatively impacted of all.
  We also would move from that idea to another great one: modernizing 
at least 35,000 public schools across the country. You know, our public 
schools across this Nation, our kids go there, they spend hours and 
hours a day trying to learn there. But many of them are in very bad 
repair. Some 35,000 public schools need help. We can support new 
science labs, Internet-ready classrooms, and renovations to schools 
across the country in rural and urban America.
  The American Jobs Act, with all these great ideas, never got a shot 
in this Congress. It would, as I said, call for infrastructure 
investment with a national infrastructure bank, which I've talked about 
already.
  I didn't mention airport improvements. I did mention waterways. But 
it would put literally thousands of workers back on the job.
  And also, we need to wire up this country. We would expand access to 
high speed wireless, as part of a plan for freeing up the Nation's 
spectrum.

                              {time}  2010

  Now, I want to just remind you, Madam Speaker, that our Nation at one 
time didn't have the entire country on the electrical grid. There was a 
program called Rural Electrification, which was a program under the 
Roosevelt administration by which our Nation just decided that you 
would not have to leave the countryside, the rural areas, to take 
advantage of electric lights, but we would wire the whole country--and 
we did.
  The new wiring, the new Rural Electrification program, is connecting 
all of America with high-speed wireless. This is a project we should 
embark on. It's worthy, and it would help improve economic activity. It 
would help revitalize rural communities, and people wouldn't have to 
move to the urban centers for work. It would be a great thing.
  The American Jobs Act also included pathways back to work for 
Americans looking for work. Of course, we have a serious unemployment 
problem, and we see some of our friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle shaking their fingers, criticizing. Well, where are the jobs? I 
remember Speaker Boehner asking, Where are the jobs? Often, when I hear 
that from my colleagues, I think to myself, well, the jobs are in the 
American Jobs Act. Can we take it up? Can we have a vote on it?
  There is something we can do for Americans who are looking for work. 
One of the most innovative reforms to the unemployment insurance 
program in 40 years is a program which is part of an extension of the 
unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans who are looking 
for work from losing their benefits.
  The President's plan would include innovative work-based reforms to 
prevent layoffs and give States greater flexibility to use unemployment 
insurance benefits to fund and support job seekers, including things 
like, one, work sharing, unemployment insurance for workers whose 
employers choose work sharing over layoffs; two, a new bridge-to-work 
program, a plan that builds on and improves innovative State programs 
and where those displaced workers take temporary voluntary work and 
pursue on-the-job training; three, innovative entrepreneurship and wage 
insurance programs. States could also be empowered to implement wage 
insurance to help reemploy older workers in programs that make it 
easier for the unemployed workers to start their own businesses.
  So these are a number of things contained in the American Jobs Act 
which we have never had a shot at, and it's a key feature of what we 
propose in the Deal For All: get to work. We've got a country to 
rebuild. This is absolutely the case, but if the Republican majority 
would allow us to take up the American Jobs Act, I am confident there 
is something in there that my colleagues would like.
  Maybe they'd like the $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-
term unemployed workers. That would be a great benefit to workers and 
employers.
  They might like another feature of the American Jobs Act, that of 
prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers 
when hiring. We know now that many workers who have been out of work 
and out of the market for a while are asked, Do you have a job? No. 
Have you been unemployed? If the answer is--yes, for a certain amount 
of time--well, we're not going to hire you, which simply prolongs the 
problem. These are valuable workers with good skills, and they should 
have a shot in getting back into the workforce.
  We might also find support for expanding job opportunities for low-
income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for 
subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer and 
year-round jobs for youth. One of the groups of people that has been 
really hard hit during this recession is young people. The American 
Jobs Act proposed by President Obama addresses youth employment; yet we 
haven't had a chance to deal with it because of Republican 
obstructionism.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to let go of their attachments. Let go of the pledges. Let go of the 
Ryan budget. Let's come together to solve our problems. Many of them 
can be found in the American Jobs Act.
  For example, there is a whole section in there on tax relief for 
every American worker and family. Now, I don't think we need to extend 
tax cuts for the richest folks, because they don't need them; but when 
people do need them, Democrats are happy to cut taxes, and we have. We 
cut payroll taxes for about 160 million workers. We could extend that 
if the President's plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last 
year. Another thing is allowing more Americans to refinance their 
mortgages at today's near 4 percent interest rates. It would put nearly 
$2,000 a year in a family's pocket.
  But the American Jobs Act--an excellent vehicle for putting Americans 
back to work--never really had a shot because, as the minority leader 
in the Senate said, the number one priority for the Republican caucus 
was to make President Obama a one-term President. Is it right to make 
getting rid of Obama your top priority when we have so many Americans 
out of work and when we have an economy that really has never come 
back? I think that is not a good thing, and I wish we could move away 
from that and start focusing on the things that people really, really, 
really need.
  In fact, I go back to the Deal For All, which is the Progressive 
Caucus' idea for how we negotiate what the basic foundation of any deal 
needs to be. It's simple the way things are shaping up. After all the 
dust has settled from the 2012 election, an average middle class family 
could face tax increases of $2,000 unless Congress acts. That's how 
important it is for us to do something and to act. This fiscal cliff 
they talk about is an opportunity to address the budget in a 
responsible way that grows our economy and puts Americans back to work.
  We talked about the American Jobs Act. There are other great ideas, 
as

[[Page 14177]]

well; but too many folks in Washington and too many folks here in the 
Capitol would rather cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which 
are benefits that millions of Americans depend on.
  As I said, this particular chart shows it all. When you see the huge 
numbers of people who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, 
rather than getting together and working on a problem, they'd rather 
cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits that millions of 
Americans depend on and raise taxes on middle class Americans to 
protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. It's as simple as 
that.
  So let's just take a look at what's at risk, Madam Speaker. One in 
every four families depends on our Social Security system--61 million 
folks, including 36 million retired Americans. It's important for 
people to remember that Social Security also cares for people with 
disabilities and survivor benefits for people who have parents who pass 
on. So many children in this country today are surviving on those 
benefits which some of us in Congress are trying to protect and others 
are trying to cut. Nearly every American senior can depend on Medicare 
to cover health care costs.
  Turning Medicare into a voucher system, as the Republicans have 
proposed, would not only make seniors pay thousands more for Medicare--
about $6,000 more estimated--but it would leave as many 65- and 66-
year-olds without any health care coverage at all, which would be a 
shame. It would return our Nation to a time when seniors were in 
desperate and bad shape.
  So that's why the Progressive Caucus is proposing the Deal For All. 
They are commonsense proposals that would solve our deficit problems 
and protect the American middle class.
  The Deal For All says that any plan cannot slash benefits for 
millions of America's seniors, children and disabled Americans who 
depend on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  The Deal For All says we must make and ask and expect that the 
wealthiest 2 percent pay their fair share of taxes and close loopholes 
that let companies ship jobs overseas.
  The Deal For All makes smart cuts to defense spending--not just any 
old cuts, smart cuts, efficient cuts--to focus our Armed Forces on 
combating 21st-century risks.
  The Deal For All also calls for any plan to invest in America's 
future by putting Americans back to work.
  Yes, we are facing a fiscal cliff, as some call it, but that doesn't 
mean the middle class should get pushed over the edge of that cliff.

                              {time}  2020

  If working and middle class people are going to take a hit in tough 
times, it shouldn't be to pay for tax breaks for rich folks and 
millionaires and billionaires and oil companies. It's time for all 
Americans of every economic situation to step up and do what's right 
for this country, and it's time we had a deal in Washington that 
reflects our values.
  I just want to elaborate on this a little bit by telling you, Madam 
Speaker, about how the Progressive Caucus has been bringing experts 
together to study this issue. This is not just something we've thought 
up. We've brought experts from the field, economists, people who really 
focus hard and have expertise in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
jobs, how to reduce the military budget in a wise way. We've brought 
folks together to discuss this.
  In fact, yesterday was one of the hearings that we've had, and the 
Progressive Caucus was hard at work holding a hearing. We're going to 
put some of it online so people can see it. We had these experts from 
across the political spectrum--some conservatives--to detail the best 
ways to avoid the fiscal cliff and to rejuvenate the economy without 
harming essential protections for the middle class. The pending fiscal 
cliff is an enormous opportunity to address our jobs crisis. I say 
``jobs'' first, Madam Speaker, and then we need to put our country on 
the path to fiscal health.
  The Progressive Caucus is laying the groundwork to make sure that any 
agreement reflects these core values. Our bipartisan panel yesterday 
confirmed that the best way to grow our economy is from the middle out, 
not from the top down. No trickle down. We also cannot expect to put 
Americans back to work unless we protect Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and ask the wealthiest to contribute their fair share.
  We had Larry Korb come in, and he is a person with an extensive 
background, a very wise gentleman, is politically on the conservative 
side, but has done a lot of important research on how we can reduce our 
military footprint in a smart way. Mr. Larry Korb was a very well-
prepared witness and shared his views and was really a big help as he 
laid out his presentation.
  I just want to share with you a little bit about what he had to say, 
Madam Speaker, because it really was fascinating. I would urge people 
to check out Mr. Korb's presentation online. He had a number of things 
that would really provoke a lot of important thought, and they're 
online. You can go to the Progressive Caucus Web site and see some of 
that.
  Let me talk a little bit about what he said. Mr. Larry Korb was asked 
how best to summarize his take on the current defense budget, and he 
pointed to our poster, this one right here. Mr. Korb made himself very 
clear when he said, Don't pay for a 20th-century military in the 21st 
century, which I think sums it up. I'll elaborate more on what he had 
to say, but we had another expert who I think I would like to direct 
people to listen to, Ms. Maya Rockeymoore. She is the chair of the 
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. She said, 
``Changes to programs must be based on what is best for the 
beneficiaries, not on what is expedient for reducing America's debt.'' 
She also went on to add that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 
are vital to the economic and health security of millions of senior 
Americans.
  Chad Stone was also there, and he talked about the jobs picture. He 
actually referenced our poster right here, as well. Chad Stone, he is 
the chief economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He 
said that piling tax cuts on will only lead to Draconian cuts in 
programs that millions of Americans rely on. So we can't go with this 
cuts-only approach. We've got to have some jobs, and we've got to have 
some investment.
  Steve Wamhoff from the Citizens for Tax Justice put it best. He said:

       I think all of us here agree that the most important job 
     for Congress right now is to help the economy to create jobs. 
     Tax cuts are one of the least effective tools to accomplish 
     this goal.

  We had a great lineup. I urge folks to go on our Web site and study 
what they had to say. But I do want to go back for a moment to just 
talk about the ideas Larry Korb had to share. He mentioned 
sequestration. He said that sequestration is certainly not a smart way 
to cut the defense budget because it's just an across-the-board cut, 
but close analysis and careful cuts and strategic ones could help a 
lot. He talked about how the Pentagon actually is pretty well endowed. 
He talked about how if the automatic sequestration defense cuts were to 
go into effect the fiscal year of 2013, non-war expenditures of the 
2013 base, he said the budget will be reduced by about $55 billion down 
to what is about $500 billion and remain at that level in real terms 
for quite a while. He said that this will result in total reduction of 
about $500 billion over a decade from the projected levels in defense 
spending. He also went on to note that it also means that the Pentagon 
will still be spending more in 2013 after sequestration than it did in 
2006. So they're not going to be poor by any means.
  At the height of the Iraq war in 2006, we still would have been 
spending more than that if sequestration goes into effect, but he's not 
just saying do sequestration. He's actually promoting a strategic and 
smart way to do some cuts. He says that the United States military can 
do well, defend our Nation, and protect our country for about $500 
billion, and that seems to make sense to me. We'd still be spending so 
much more than any other country in the world.

[[Page 14178]]

  He went on to also note that in short the military really doesn't 
have a resource problem. They have what they need to defend the 
country. He noted that if sequestration goes into effect, it would not 
be ideal to just do across-the-board cuts, but there are a number of 
weapon systems that could be retired and a number of strategies for 
reducing the military budget that would not hurt national security, but 
would really put our country in a position where we are dealing with 
our financial problems in a forthright way. I think that it makes sense 
to really look carefully at these ideas.
  Maya Rockeymoore went on to note, when she talked about Social 
Security, that it does not contribute to our Nation's deficit. If you 
look at Social Security, it actually runs a surplus, and we don't need 
to cut Social Security. What we need to do is to recognize that this 
important program is a program that has been one of the most successful 
in the history of the United States; and if we abandon our commitment 
to our seniors and the disabled, we will be abandoning a core principle 
of our country.
  Mr. Chad Stone was important in his testimony, as well. As we wrapped 
up, I was most impressed that it's not just about cuts, that we also 
need to grow our way out of this recession. That means investing in 
jobs. I think the American Jobs Act and many other things would put us 
farther down the line if we were to make those proper investments.
  That's what I want to say about the economy tonight. I'd like to urge 
people, Madam Speaker, to focus their attention on the so-called 
``fiscal cliff.'' It is coming up. We will see expiration of the Bush 
tax cuts. We will see expiration of the payroll tax. We will see 
expiration of the doc fix. We will see expiration of the AMT. There 
will be a number of things coming together all at the same time. There 
will be budgetary negotiations.
  But no matter what they are, they've got to include protection of our 
social safety net: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The 
military must share in the cuts. The wealthiest Americans must help us 
get some revenue. Finally, we've got to put jobs up front and center 
and grow this economy.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________