[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17054-17059]
[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 gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here representing the 
Progressive Caucus and talking about our fiscal situation now that I 
think a lot of people out there are worrying about, confused about, 
don't know how it's really going to affect them, wondering what the 
heck we're doing. Sometimes Members of Congress who aren't part of the 
negotiations are wondering what's going on too. But what I want to talk 
about today are the things that are at stake for ordinary people in our 
country, the things that are on people's minds as we deal with these 
economic issues that face our country.
  I am Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky, and I represent a district, a 
very diverse district, in Illinois, diverse in every way--economically, 
certainly by race and ethnicity--and I think in many ways a microcosm 
of the country. I know that we're getting a lot of calls from our 
constituents. The calls that I'm getting were reaffirmed by a poll that 
I saw on Tuesday in our National Journal Daily on page six that says: 
``Poll: Entitlement cuts feared most in cliff talks.'' It goes like 
this:

[[Page 17055]]

  As President Obama and congressional leaders race to avert the fiscal 
cliff, Americans remain concerned that whatever budget deal they strike 
will cut too much from Medicare and Social Security, according to the 
poll. More of the Americans surveyed are worried about such cutbacks 
than seeing their tax bills rise, the latest United Technologies/
National Journal Connection poll has found.
  I was looking at who was involved in the poll. In total, 35 percent 
of Americans are worried it will cut too much from government programs 
like Medicare and Social Security; 27 percent--that's eight points 
less--that it will raise taxes on people like you; 15 percent, it won't 
meet its target for reducing the Federal deficit and debt; 13 percent, 
it will allow for too much Federal spending. Only 13 percent were 
worried it will allow for too much Federal spending in the next 2 
years.
  But when I looked at, for example, women, 40 percent of women are 
most worried about those cuts in Social Security and Medicare and other 
government programs. Forty-six percent of people whose income is 
$30,000 or less, that's what they're really, really worried about; 
that's the thing they're worried about most.
  So most Americans, that is their top concern--not really so much that 
their taxes are going to go up and not really so much about the 
deficit. They're worried about the cuts in the programs that mean so 
much to their lives.
  So that's really what I wanted to talk about today. If any Members 
are listening in their offices and they want to come down and talk 
about the fiscal cliff, as it's called--many of us don't see it as a 
cliff, nor as a slope, that we actually have time to set the problem 
straight. That's what most economists are saying, that if we go a few 
weeks into January, it's not the worst thing so that Americans 
shouldn't panic about this. But if you want to come down and talk about 
that, I am really happy to do that.
  I wanted to welcome one of my colleagues, Hank Johnson, here to the 
floor today to add his thoughts. I know he had another something he 
wanted to talk about this afternoon, and I welcome you. Thanks for 
coming down, Congressman Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Always my pleasure, Representative 
Schakowsky, to be with you. You are such a staunch advocate for the 
middle class, the working poor, the poor. You are a champion for the 
people, so I'm happy to be here with you and happy to share some time 
with you.
  But first I wanted to express the fact that last night I came in to 
do a Special Order on the situation happening in Michigan where a 
surprise attack, a sneak attack, by the right-wingers resulted in the 
passage of legislation which I won't refer to as right-to-work 
legislation, it's more appropriately named crush-the-union legislation. 
I came up last night to the floor to speak on that issue.

                              {time}  1330

  As I am prone to do, I use a lot of analogies, and so last night I 
used an analogy that some find offensive. And I certainly was not 
meaning to be offensive or use a derogatory term. Everybody knows what 
the N word is. The N word, Mr. Speaker, is used to describe a group of 
people. And the N word used to be fashionable, or it used to be 
socially acceptable to use the N word. But, now, we don't say the N 
word. We refer to that word as ``the N word.''
  I had never heard of the M word, Representative Schakowsky. The M 
word is a word also that describes a group of people. It, at one time, 
had been commonly used as a descriptive term. It was, at one time, 
socially acceptable. But to my discovery, just within the last 12 hours 
or so, I have found that the use of the M word is no longer socially 
acceptable.
  Now, the M word refers to a group of people, the little people. But 
when we say ``little people'' I'm not talking about the Leona Helmsley 
little people. I'm not talking about the 47 percent. I'm not talking 
about the takers instead of the makers, as some would describe them. 
I'm not talking about the middle class, working people, poor people, 
working poor people. That's not what is meant by the ``little people'' 
term. It really refers to a medical condition. ``Dwarfism'' is the name 
of that medical condition. And sometimes I guess one can even say 
``abnormally small people.'' I like that term better than ``dwarfism.''
  So, I wanted to say to all of those who may have been offended by my 
use of the ``M word,'' I want you to know that it was out of ignorance 
and not spite or hatred that I used that term. And please know that I 
will never use that term again. I will never use that term again.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think, actually, you have done a service to make 
people understand that there are those who are deeply offended by it 
and that we should all learn what to say so as not to offend people.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. That's correct. It is a learning moment for 
me and perhaps many others out there.
  But I'll tell you, if you want to find out more about little people 
or abnormally small people or unusually small people, there is a Web 
site, there is a group actually called the Little People of America, 
and their Web site is at lpaonline.org. I went to that Web site this 
morning and looked through it, and I have been awakened to the 
sensitivities involved. And so anyone who I offended has my deepest 
apology.
  But, the analogy that I used, even though it used the wrong wording, 
was a great analogy in my personal opinion. And it is understood that 
when you put a big fish, a predatory fish, into a bowl with a small 
fish, that small fish has to learn how to get along with that big fish 
or else they'll get eaten.
  That's what the organization known as ALEC is all about, because it 
puts the legislators, individual legislators, in a group setting with 
the corporations, the big fish. And those legislators who are members 
of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, they get together, 
and they do the work of the corporate big fish who are members of that 
organization.
  So last night, that's what we were talking about, and I'm going to 
yield back to Representative Schakowsky to resume this discussion, and 
I will participate as I can.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. I appreciate both--you know, 
sometimes as legislators we like to think we're always right, and 
sometimes we make mistakes, inadvertent mistakes. And coming to the 
floor to actually clear the air I think is really commendable, and I 
appreciate that.
  And also, your talk about the decisions that were made in Wisconsin--
you know, government is to serve the people, the best interests of the 
American people. And right now, we're trying to figure out how are we 
going to, in a fair way, ask Americans to be able to fund the programs 
that we need, to fund the services that we need as a country, to make 
sure that our roads are there and drivable, to fund our military so 
that we can be safe and strong, to help States to fund their law 
enforcement, et cetera, all those things that are important to 
Americans, and as I mentioned earlier, including things like Medicare 
and make Medicaid.
  Budgets aren't just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper, and 
government policies aren't just documents. But, in many ways these are 
moral statements about who we are as a country. I think we have to ask, 
are we really a poorer country today than we were 70 years ago when 
Social Security went into effect, when Social Security went into effect 
to say that we're not going to let older people end up in the poorhouse 
or out on the street, that we're going to have an insurance policy that 
they pay into, that everyone pays into during your working life, so 
that we can ensure that when people reach the age of 62, 65, 67, that 
they're going to be able to retire with some level of dignity?
  At the time that Social Security was passed 70 years ago, there was a 
three-legged stool. One was this new program, Social Security, to 
provide retirement benefits that you paid for; two, private pensions, 
that was kind of the common normal then. Many of those private pensions 
were won because workers were able to collectively

[[Page 17056]]

bargain and get pensions for their family. The third were savings, 
savings for people.
  So between all of that, we thought we'd be able to see a country now 
where the elderly were lifted out of poverty and they had some 
semblance of security.
  Well, are we really poorer today than when we made that decision that 
we're not going to let old people end up in the poorhouse? That was a 
decision on how to fund a program that has never once missed a monthly 
check ever. In the 70 years plus, never ever has Social Security missed 
a monthly check. So it's been a program that works really, really well.

                              {time}  1340

  And I just want to point out that Social Security helps middle class 
families, not just older people. I have two grandchildren who get a 
Social Security benefit. Why? Because, tragically, their mother died. 
So it is an insurance policy for all families.
  The other great thing about Social Security is that unlike many 
pension programs, there's actually a cost-of-living adjustment. You 
don't get it every year, as seniors know. There really hasn't been an 
increase in the economy so much in certain years, but it has been a 
success, a treasure to our country.
  Some people want to put Social Security on the table as part of this 
discussion to reduce the deficit that we face.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Social Security is one of the hallmarks of 
American civilization. It civilizes us where we can have a mechanism 
where we all come together to contribute our money into a pool as we 
work; and when we retire, we have a way of avoiding the poorhouse; we 
have a way of living out our lives with dignity and with comfort. 
You've paid your dues, you deserve to live out your retirement in a 
comfortable way. You put the money in, and you will get the money out. 
And as you say, we've never missed a payment and never will.
  It being a hallmark of our civilization, it is something that many 
other countries have yet to put in place for their people. They have 
yet to see the wisdom, as our past leaders have seen, that you lose and 
your society weakens in accordance with how you treat your elderly and 
how you treat your children and how you treat the disabled. They also 
are able to get Social Security benefits. So it helps people. It's our 
social safety net. This is a collective. It's a mechanism whereby the 
whole supports each other, the weakest of these, if you will.
  Social Security is not broke, nor is the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government is not broke. It has had to borrow money. And when 
we say borrow money, we really mean we offer Treasurys out to the 
public to purchase, and we pay interest on those instruments. When an 
investor feels good about how solid the American system is, they want 
to put money into it. They want to put money into it because they know 
that this is the safest place to invest money. They know that they'll 
be able to get their money out when they want to take it out. They know 
that they will get their money back with the interest that has been 
promised to them.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say that right now we're paying very low 
interest because people do have confidence in our American economy and 
in those Treasury notes and it is a good, safe, and solid investment.
  And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. People have confidence in America. It's 
because of our civilization, and it's because of the forward thinking 
of our past leaders. It is our responsibility to continue that sense of 
responsibility to the people--not to the leaders, not to the chosen 
few, but to the people. We the people established this government, and 
it's ironic that people have now been turned against government as an 
institution. They believe that government is the problem. They've been 
led to believe that government is the problem. Sometimes government 
does have problems or causes problems; but I can tell you that in the 
history of this country, the American Government has been phenomenal. 
That is why we're the greatest country in the world. That is why we are 
the freest country in the world and we are the most prosperous Nation 
in the world.
  We are not broke. Our Social Security trust fund is not broke. It's 
solvent. And the bills that we have to pay, we will definitely pay as 
we always have. It makes sense to borrow money now, by the way, if you 
can get it for 1 percent or 2 percent, and you can then use those funds 
to put people back to work in this economy, which is in need of a shot 
in the arm. I might point out, though, that unemployment is down to 7.7 
percent, the first time since between 2007 or 2008 and despite the 
vigor that has been used in trying to suppress it by politicians in 
this body, despite their efforts to keep the economy from moving 
forward so that they could elect a President that they wanted to elect. 
They wanted to make our current President look bad, so they did 
everything they could to thwart action to make the economy better, but 
it has gotten better despite their efforts.
  I was really hoping that post-election we would see a change in the 
direction of my friends on the other side of the aisle in terms of 
being responsible about government and our responsibility to make sure 
that government works of, by, and for the people. I was hoping that we 
would see a difference. We still have time, Representative Schakowsky. 
We still have time. It's not the end of the year. I, myself, I would 
like to be home for Christmas like everyone else, but my highest duty 
and responsibility is to be here and to help this Nation move away from 
this dangerous fiscal cliff that is coming up.
  The fiscal cliff is actually here, and there is a lot that we agree 
on in terms of avoiding that fiscal cliff. But it seems like the thing 
that is holding it up is the top 2 percent, just wanting to preserve 
the expiring tax cuts for those top 2 percent. They would do that at 
the expense of the 98 percent that we all agree that we need to extend 
the tax cuts for. I just don't understand why it's going to take so 
long for us to----
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's talk about that for a minute.
  It seems that there are those on the Republican side of the aisle who 
are willing to go to the mat to protect tax cuts for the very 
wealthiest Americans, people who make $250,000 and more. Of course, our 
proposal is to say that the first $250,000 of income for everyone, even 
if you make $500,000 a year, on the first $250,000--I think we all 
agree that we should extend those tax cuts. It's for the dollars above 
$250,000 that some of our colleagues are saying, no, we are not going 
to ask those people even to pay a penny more than they were.

                              {time}  1350

  Yet they're saying the only way that we will consider that, the only 
way that we will consider taking a little bit more from the wealthiest, 
is to go to the poorest.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Into that Social Security.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'm not talking about children. The poorest adults 
are people over 65 years of age and persons with disabilities. Their 
median income is $22,000 a year. The median income for older Americans 
is $22,000 a year. Really? Somehow this is a fair balance to ask the 
wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--to pay a little bit more, but 
darn it, we're not going to do it unless we get those poorest people 
through their Social Security, through their Medicaid, through their 
Medicare to pay a bit more? It doesn't seem right to me.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Representative Schakowsky, I think it's wrong 
that we would tell people who have paid into the Social Security system 
throughout their lives that now you're going to move the goalpost and 
put a couple of years more on there before eligibility, that you're 
going to up the age of eligibility.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Especially for Medicare. They're talking about that.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. They want to do that for Medicare as well. 
That

[[Page 17057]]

Paul Ryan budget would actually decimate the Medicaid system. They just 
want to whack off a third of the Federal funding and then turn it into 
a block grant program.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think it's something like $850 billion that would 
come out of the Medicaid fund. I know.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Then as to Medicare, they want to turn that 
into a voucher program and put a 1 percent cap, I think, on the cost-
of-living increase and then give that in the form of a voucher to 
people so that they can go out and purchase insurance on the open 
market.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, and go to private insurance companies.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. It seems to be a concerted attack on 
that social safety net that has made us such a great civilization, 
which is that we take care of each other. It's an attack on that. It's 
in accordance with a philosophy of laissez-faire economics.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say one area in which I disagree a bit 
with you. Most Americans support these programs. I'm talking about huge 
percentages of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--who 
say, no, we don't think that Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid ought 
to be cut. We don't think so.
  So I think, in terms of the role of government, most Americans see 
that it's important that when it comes to education, when it comes to 
infrastructure, when it comes to public safety, when it comes to health 
care, government cannot do it all. Americans aren't saying, just take 
care of me. From cradle to grave, I want you to take care of me. No. 
Americans are willing to work hard and play by the rules, but they see 
an important role for government. If we cut government too much, in 
some ways, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Here is what I 
mean:
  It is true that the Internet really did come from research that was 
done by government. Look at the billions and billions--I don't know--
maybe trillions of dollars, and then look at the advance of the 
Internet and everything that led from that--bio research, talking about 
curing diseases. Then, of course, the money that comes from that for 
the pharmaceutical industry, et cetera, mostly comes from the National 
Institutes of Health, the Cancer Institute, et cetera, in coming up 
with the cures and the medications. That's government research. I mean, 
look at NASA and the space research. It was really the Federal 
Government, in many ways, that developed the aviation industry. So we'd 
better be careful about cutting government too much.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We definitely do. I think we've spent about 
1\1/2\ percent per year of the Federal budget on the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration from 1958 up until a few years 
ago.
  Can you imagine if the United States Government had left it up to 
private industry to achieve what happened in 1969, which was that we 
landed a spaceship, with men inside, and stepped foot on the Moon? Now, 
some who are not particularly scientifically astute will say, Well, 
what do we get out of going to the Moon?
  I, not being the most astute scientist myself, wouldn't be able to 
explain all of the benefits that society has enjoyed as a result of 
that victory and as a result of the space program that has continued, 
but I will tell you that, at this point after 50 years of investment, 
we've now entrusted the private sector to continue the exploration of 
outer space, and private industry is going to take us further than we 
have been.
  So that is the role of government. It's a support structure. It's an 
investment in the lives of the people.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Think about the potential in the energy industry if 
we just help to promote some of these clean, renewable energy 
technologies.
  One of the things on this cliff is the end of the wind energy 
production tax, which has been so incredibly successful in helping 
build this wind industry that is ready to take off but still needs a 
bit more support. This means clean energy to my State, Illinois, and 
the Middle West, where we've got lots of wind--it's free. And investing 
in wind energy--if that expires, we're going to lose 7,000 jobs in 
Illinois alone because of the failure to help invest in the wind energy 
industry.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's not profitable at this time for private 
industry to invest in such a new way of producing energy. There's no 
profit in it, so they won't do it. Government has the leadership and 
the vision to understand where we need to go, how we need to take our 
people into the future. We--the public policy apparatus, the 
government, we the people, the government being of us--have a 
responsibility not just to enhance short-term profits; we have a 
responsibility as a government to plan and prepare for the future of 
this great Nation.
  We also have an inherent responsibility to lead the world. We're all 
in this world together. We all are going to breathe the same air. We're 
all going to drink from the same pool of water that exists on this 
planet. So we being the greatest Nation in the world are really 
shirking our responsibility by reducing government down to the size 
where you can drown it in a bathtub. I think that's the analogy that 
Grover Norquist used.

                              {time}  1400

  If you did that, where would America be? How would we have built the 
Interstate Highway System?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was Eisenhower; wasn't it?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. A Republican, by the way, 1958, I 
believe it was, decided that this country needed an interstate highway 
system. Where would we be if we had not committed the dollars to get 
that done?
  When we did that, it was an investment in the future prosperity of 
this Nation to link cities, towns, and States with a way, a mode of 
transportation. They did that in the 1800s with the railroad system, 
another situation where the Federal Government supplied the seed money 
and gave away the land to help it become a profitable industry.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Along rail lines, along highways, of course, that's 
the engine of commerce that keeps not only our wheels turning, but the 
stores--everything going, all of the infrastructure.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. That's what it's all about. Government is the 
entity which primes the economic pump through which prosperity then 
flows.
  So we're now at a point, though, where: Are we going to turn 
everything over to the big businesses, and are we going to reduce the 
ability of people to be able to come together in a workplace and 
bargain collectively? Are we going to take steps to eliminate people 
from voting so that those who are the chosen ones can elect the people 
of their choice, and all of the rest of the people are just supposed to 
expect to be treated benevolently by those who are seeking to exploit 
the capital, the human capital, and make as much money as they can? At 
whose expense is that?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about how government helps to prime 
the pump. So government spends money, and it spins out and often 
becomes commercialized. There are three ways that we can really deal 
with our economy right now to make it stronger: We can raise revenue, 
that's raising taxes; we can cut spending; and the third--that's not 
talked about enough--is the issue of growth in the economy, jobs. Jobs, 
jobs, jobs. That's what grows the economy.
  I am so proud that our President, as part of this overall deficit 
reduction plan, has recommended spending about $50 billion on jobs. 
They would spend money on infrastructure, infrastructure spending 
that's supported by both business and labor because it is so important. 
And it's kind of a no-brainer. If you spend money that will create 
jobs, you now have people, one, who are not having to get unemployment 
insurance or food stamps. They are working and can support their 
families, so we get them off public support. And, two, now they're 
paying taxes. They're going out and they're buying stuff, and 
businesses are going to have to hire more people because they're buying 
holiday presents for their kids. They're buying winter coats now. So 
there is an economy through growth. That is an underrated portion when 
we talk about how do we save our economy.

[[Page 17058]]

  I have been circulating a letter among our colleagues, Representative 
Johnson, saying we ought to encourage investment, that we ought to 
encourage spending on jobs in this deficit reduction, this economic 
growth package.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We have to stimulate, as government does, 
economic vitality. We can do that. It has been done repeatedly 
throughout the history of this country. A great example is the recent 
$787 billion stimulus that was passed back in, I think, 2007.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Some people say it didn't create any jobs. Well, I 
think the testimony is that many of our colleagues, almost all of our 
colleagues, showed up at the ribbon cuttings.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, with the big checks. And they were 
actually clamoring for that Federal money, and it made an important 
difference. It allowed States and local governments to retain teachers 
and firefighters, police officers, construction workers. You know, the 
whole nine. That's, in part, the reason why we have such an uptick in 
our economy, however modest it might be right now. That $787 billion 
stimulus has made a difference, and I'm glad.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It actually created millions of jobs.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, it sure did.
  And so I readily signed on your letter that you're circulating, your 
``Dear Colleague'' letter. And I'm glad to know, as well, that the 
President has included a modest $50 billion stimulus aspect in his 
proposal to strike a grand bargain and avoid the fiscal cliff. So all 
of these things are a part of what is hopefully being negotiated now.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about a difference in philosophy and 
even economic philosophy. There are those who call that top 2 percent 
the job creators. Well, if that's true, then where are the jobs? 
Because most of the growth, almost all of the growth in income over the 
last many years has gone to the wealthiest Americans where, for 
ordinary Americans, their income has remained flat.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Actually, since 1979, the income, or the 
after-tax income, of the top 2 percent has increased by about 372 
percent, if I recall the correct number, 372 to 378, while, as you say, 
regular working people, the middle class, their incomes have remained 
flat. It's actually a redistribution of the wealth of the country.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. When we have a situation in this country where the 
top 1 percent of Americans, 1 percent, control as much wealth as the 
bottom 90 percent, that's not a healthy situation. I don't want to 
moralize about it. It's just not a healthy situation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, it's not healthy. And it's amoral. Greed, 
when you've got to get more, more, more and you're not willing to 
share, you're not willing for everyone to prosper; and when you think 
that a person is poor because they don't want to get out and work, they 
have bad habits, they didn't do this, they didn't do that and, 
therefore, they deserve to be where they are now. But me, I did it the 
old-fashioned way, I inherited my money. And so don't blame me. I'm 
going to make more money and I don't care about you, I'm going to make 
money off of you, that is rather immoral, rather shortsighted.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have to tell you, I introduced legislation that 
actually would increase the taxes on people starting at a million going 
up, ratcheting up, different tax brackets up to a billion dollars.

                              {time}  1410

  And I've got a lot of very rich people who say, yeah, that's fair. 
That's right.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's only a few, like Sheldon Adelson, the 
Koch brothers, who want to control the public policy apparatus. They 
want to control government so that they can have government to make 
them more money. That's all they're interested in is themselves, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But let me just say this: the other philosophy, 
though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will 
actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people, 
hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more 
money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy. 
They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and 
that's going to spread throughout the economy.
  Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably 
are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do 
nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for 
everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We all do better when the money is 
circulating. Those on the top end, they're going to continue to make 
money; but those who are just working people, regular working people, 
and those who aspire to the middle class, when that money is 
circulating, then we can all, collectively, become more wealthy, and we 
will all spend more dollars, and that means more goods and services 
have to be produced, and that means you have to have people employed to 
service the needs of those with the money.
  So it's just really common sense. Instead of trying to break the 
unions, we should be trying to solidify the relationships that the 
unions have established with their employers.
  Detroit is a fine example of how the greatest, richest union, the 
Auto Workers Union, came to the table with the corporate bosses, after 
the corporate bosses had run the business into the ground, and needed a 
bailout from government, and President Obama made a determination that 
we're going to invest money in GM and in Chrysler, and we're going to 
not let those companies go bankrupt.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was a lot of jobs that would have gone down.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And so we spent $700 billion. And it was the 
United Auto Workers union that sat down at the negotiating table with 
Big Business, worked out what some may call give-backs. It actually 
gave up some of the benefits that it had signed contracts for with the 
employer.
  These are things that actually created the middle class, things like 
working days, working hours, wages, benefits, retirement, those kinds 
of things that people would not have had unless they had been 
represented by a union and we had strong unions.
  So those things workers gave back in part to make sure that the 
corporations could maintain or regain stability. And so now, just a 
short, 3, 4, 5 years later, GM is back to being the number one car 
maker in the world.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And all the money's been paid back to the United 
States Treasury.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I think they still owe us a little bit. We 
still have some GM stock. The Federal Government still owns some GM 
stock, which they're going to have to repurchase those shares from us. 
So we are still involved, but that's another example of the role of 
government.
  And I, myself, I'll never be one to hate government. And I try to 
explain to people why government is not the problem. Government is a 
part of the solution.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Part of the solution.
  Can I just ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentlewoman from Illinois 
has 5 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to say a few things about organized labor.
  I'm old enough, Congressman Johnson, when I was growing up, one 
person could work in the steel mills on the south side of Chicago, 
tough job, but you could not only make a decent wage that put you in 
the middle class; you could buy a car, you could have a little house, 
modest house, and you could even afford to send your kids to college. 
You had health care benefits. You had a pension, a private pension. And 
that was the normal. That was the normal in the United States. You 
worked hard, often really hard, but you could, you know, make a wage 
that would afford you a good, middle class life.
  I think there's a lot of people who think that, well, unions, that is 
so 20th century. You know, that was yesterday. We don't need them 
anymore

[[Page 17059]]

today. But I want to say that if we have a low-wage economy--you know, 
some of the companies that are coming back to the United States, you 
know what they're saying, that the differential in wages between the 
United States and Bangladesh is insignificant enough that they might as 
well come back and make their products in the United States.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You've got an educated work force, relatively 
speaking. You've got enhanced transportation abilities here to get your 
goods and services to market quickly, as opposed to the expense and the 
security of coming across the water. And I'm happy that businesses are 
looking to re-establish their production facilities inside of America. 
That's good corporate consciousness.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me end with this since we just have a couple of 
minutes. As we face all these negotiations that are going on, I think 
there's a couple of bottom lines. One--and the President has been very 
clear--we are going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a 
bit more.
  And, number two, I think we ought to say that those programs that 
help people have a decent retirement--Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, as well--that that is the wrong place to go in order to 
balance our budget. We don't have to go to the poorest people. We can 
make those programs more efficient. We can cut the costs of those 
programs, but we don't have to reduce the benefits and further 
impoverish people who aren't making a lot of money right now.
  For me, those are sort of bottom lines for the deal that we want to 
make. All of us are in this together. We should all see each other as 
our brother's and sister's keepers. With that kind of philosophy in 
mind, I think we can come up with some sort of an agreement that serves 
our country, that serves its people, that is just and fair and helps us 
go forward.
  Do you have a final word?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, that's enough said. Let me say how much I 
enjoyed our colloquy today, and I look forward to continuing to work 
with you to ensure that America remains the great Nation that it has 
always been.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________