[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5248-5253]
[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, and I will claim 
the

[[Page 5249]]

time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. This is the Progressive 
Caucus' moment where we come together and talk about our ideals, our 
values, the things that are critically important, we believe, to all 
Americans.
  This week, I'm joined by two outstanding leaders in the Progressive 
Caucus and in the Congress and in America, Hank Johnson of Georgia and 
Lynn Woolsey of California. I want to invite both of my colleagues to 
jump in as they feel inspired to do so, but let me just set the 
groundwork a little bit.
  This week, we saw a number of things occur. One of the things that we 
saw this week is the Buffett rule that was taken up in the Senate. The 
Senate voted on the Buffett rule on a policy that requires millionaires 
and billionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families and 
working people.
  I want to make it clear: we don't begrudge anybody for doing well; 
but we do believe, in a country as great as America, if you have been 
privileged enough to do well, that maybe you should do something for 
America. This wildly popular measure was filibustered and therefore 
defeated in the Senate. According to the CNN international poll, nearly 
three-fourths of Americans support the Buffett rule and believe it 
should be law. Despite this, Republicans in the Senate blocked the bill 
from even getting a majority vote.
  I mention this particular situation this way as I begin our dialogue 
that we'll have tonight over the course of this hour because I think 
that this is emblematic of the problem that we're facing today. We're 
going to talk tonight about Citizens United; we'll talk about a lot of 
things. But one of the things that I think is emblematic of the problem 
we're facing here in the U.S. Congress today is that what the 
overwhelming majority of Americans want the overwhelming majority of 
Americans don't get, something like the Buffett rule. The reason why is 
the pernicious and corrosive effect of money in politics today.
  So, we are the Progressive Caucus. We're honored to be before the 
American people today, Mr. Speaker. We are the caucus that, yes, will 
stand up for civil and human rights for all people without regard to 
your color, your culture, your sex, your gender, your sexual 
preference, your religion, wherever you were born--national origin. We 
believe that all Americans are valued and believe in liberty and 
justice for all.
  Yes, the Progressive Caucus is the caucus that's going to say that if 
you work hard every day, you ought to be able to make enough money to 
feed your family in America. And, yes, we believe that if you've been 
able to be in this great country of ours and do well in this 
environment, you ought to do something, you ought to pay enough taxes 
so that the needs and the costs of our society can be paid for. And, 
absolutely, we believe we have a duty and obligation, a responsibility 
to the environment and our natural world.
  Now, we're not ashamed to stand up for these values: peace, working-
class prosperity and fairness, environmental sustainability, and civil 
and human rights for all people. We care about these things and we're 
going to. But today, we're going to discuss a number of issues, 
including the Buffett rule, Citizens United, ALEC, the budget, the Ryan 
budget, and a whole range of issues.
  At this point I'm going to hand it over to my colleague and friend, 
Lynn Woolsey of California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I'd like to thank the chairman of the Progressive Caucus 
for bringing this together today to talk about what's so important to 
the people of the United States of America, our country, and in turn 
the world.
  I want to say a few things about the Buffett rule just to fill out 
that discussion. There are some things we know: the Buffett rule is 
fiscally responsible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 
Buffett rule could reduce the deficit by anywhere from $47 billion to 
$162 billion over the next decade. The Buffett rule is widely 
supported, as the chairman just said. The Buffett rule would restore 
the principled fairness of the Tax Code because it ensures that 
millionaires can't game the system to pay a lower rate than middle 
class families.
  Overwhelming majorities of Americans across the political spectrum 
believe millionaires should pay their fair share. An overwhelming 76 
percent of Americans support increasing the taxes paid by people who 
make more than $1 million per year, which includes 75 percent of 
Independents and 56 percent of Republicans.

                              {time}  1440

  The majority of millionaires themselves support the Buffett rule. In 
a recent poll of millionaires, an overwhelming 68 percent support the 
Buffett rule. Millionaires support the Buffett rule.
  And remember, it's taxation above $1 million and it's stepped up. It 
isn't the minute you hit $1 million you're taxed at a much greater 
rate. It's over. From $1 million up, the taxes will go up.
  Seven thousand millionaires paid no individual income taxes in the 
year 2011. Seven thousand millionaires didn't pay any personal taxes in 
2011. According to the Tax Policy Center, 7,000 millionaires--it was 
that tax center that told us that.
  The Republican budget would shower even more tax breaks on 
millionaires while putting more of the burden on the middle-class 
families. While Democrats are fighting to restore fairness in the Tax 
Code, the Republican budget offers extreme right-wing alternatives--
that's my opinion--that would shower millionaires and billionaires with 
tax breaks at the expense of the middle class, and that would further 
skew the system in favor of the wealthiest Americans.
  So we've got a lot of statistics. We know the facts. We're ready to 
support the Buffett rule. Millionaires, themselves, support it. So the 
question is: Why can't we get the people we work with in the U.S. 
Congress to support the Buffett rule?
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, I would say this to the gentlelady. You know, much 
of it has to do with the fact that we have a disproportionate 
percentage of wealthy interests. The fact is you've got money coming 
in, lobbyists paid for, campaign donations, all this stuff, and now 
we've got the onset of the super PAC and we have the Citizens United 
decision.
  And if you ask yourself why can't we pass the Buffett rule, why can't 
we pass the public option, which is wildly popular, why can't we get 
environmental regulations we need to protect our lungs and our health 
and our Earth, why can't we do these things, and the reason why is 
because of the disproportionate corrosive effect of money in our 
government.
  This is why earlier this week we were able to pass something, a 
Declaration for Democracy, which reads:

       I declare my support for amending the Constitution of the 
     United States to restore the rights of people undermined by 
     Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity 
     of our elections and limit the corrosive influence of money 
     on the democratic process.

  We have a lot of people who signed this particular document. But not 
just Members of Congress signed it. Some people who signed it were city 
council members, were community citizen activists. There are people 
from a broad cross section of American life, because they asked the 
same question you ask, Congresswoman Woolsey: Why can't we pass the 
Buffett rule? Why can't we pass environmental protections? Why can't we 
pass the public option? Why can't things that Americans want get 
through?
  The reason they can't get through is because you've got the lobbyist 
money being poured in. You've got campaign donations here. You're about 
to see a whole plethora of ugly, nasty, divisive, corrosive attack ads 
in this upcoming Presidential election.
  The bottom line is, if we get this money out, what will happen is 
that citizens' voices will emerge past the money. Citizens' voices will 
come up, and citizens will have their will reflected in the Congress 
more so.
  It was an awesome lift to pick up health care, and we didn't even get 
all the things we wanted in there, but we got a lot of things we 
wanted.

[[Page 5250]]

  But why didn't we get all the things we wanted even though they were 
popular? The corrosive, divisive effect of money.
  I think the health care industry was putting in, like, $14 million a 
day to lobby against the Affordable Care Act. And of course you know 
with all that kind of pushing and shoving and cajoling, it just gets 
incredibly difficult.
  So I want to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia, who has some 
important information about a number of things.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I'd first like to address, Congressman, the 
issue of taxes and fair taxes. Yesterday, or, actually, the day before 
yesterday, I stood with a group of ``Fair Taxers,'' people who are 
recommending the fair tax as an alternative to our current system. And 
I stood with them and I spoke to them, told them that I was not there 
to endorse the fair tax; I was there to tell them that I believed that 
it was something that Congress should definitely study. We shouldn't 
just put it aside.
  There's no doubt that we need fundamental tax reform in this country, 
and the fair tax is a vehicle to open the door for Congress to start 
reviewing other possibilities, including the fair tax, as a way of 
fixing our inherently unequal Tax Code. And our policies--if we can't 
pass the Buffett rule, which simply says that a millionaire would not 
pay a less effective rate than working people, and so, in other words, 
the maids and the butlers and everyone else who--the secretary----
  Mr. ELLISON. The police officers.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Cops who patrol the area, the security 
guards----
  Mr. ELLISON. Teachers, nurses.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia.--that control the estate of these rich folks, 
the firefighters, ambulances that will come pick them up, they don't 
pay the same tax rates as those people.
  And 70,000 of the millionaires in the country didn't pay a dime in 
income tax, and enjoying all of those benefits--police, fire. It's 
truly amazing to me that we are still not at the point in this country 
where we are willing to consider redoing our complicated Tax Code.
  It's just ridiculous that it's not working. And we can't even pass a 
bill in this Congress which mandates that common people pay at a rate 
that is not in excess of those that the millionaires enjoy. That's just 
an issue of fairness. It's not fair. It's not right.
  I would suggest to you, Congressman and Congresswoman, that perhaps 
the reason why we're seeing this kind of favorable treatment afforded 
to millionaires by this Congress is because almost half of the incoming 
freshmen, I understand, are millionaires. I think the figure is about 
43 percent. And if someone can correct me on that, I'd stand corrected. 
But my information is 43 percent of the Tea Party freshmen are 
millionaires, and so they benefit from these laws, these trickle-down 
economics laws, and they've been enjoying them since 1980. That's when 
voodoo economics, as George Herbert Walker Bush called it, trickle-down 
economics, voodoo economics, or whatever you want to call it, it has 
not worked. But we still have proposals today to make it work.
  And it's evident by what we did today, with a $46 billion tax cut for 
what's called ``small businesses,'' but, actually, a small business 
with 500 employees, when we only have about 1,000 businesses in the 
country with 1,000 or more employees. So we're actually talking about 
big business when we talk about 500 employees.
  It's a one-time, 1-year, $46 billion tax cut that they get, according 
to this legislation that we passed today, and it's totally unpaid for.

                              {time}  1450

  Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to add a couple of things about the Buffett rule. 
There is so much to talk about that, I'm sure, our C-SPAN viewers and 
probably most of the Members of Congress really don't realize.
  The 400 highest-earning Americans in 2008, who made an average each 
of $271 million, paid an average effective Federal tax rate of just 
18.1 percent. At the same time, a married couple earning $70,000 a year 
paid a rate of 25 percent. Is that just unbelievable?
  Mr. ELLISON. Amazing.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. The Buffett rule seeks to restore balance to families, 
and the Tax Code would make sure that no millionaire would pay a lower 
tax rate than middle class Americans. In fact, the Buffett rule is 
targeted. The legislation will only impact taxpayers with a taxable 
income of over $1 million who are not paying a minimum tax rate of 30 
percent. So realize that. Of the 144 million tax returns filed in 2010, 
fewer than 500,000 of them--0.1 percent of the taxpayers--had taxable 
incomes of over $1 million. Remember, these are taxable incomes because 
there are lots of write-offs.
  Mr. ELLISON. So the people who have the kind of money you just 
described are actually a small part of the population, but I think 
they're punching above their weight because they have an inordinate 
influence in the political process.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. You're right. They have an influence in the political 
process, and average working Americans don't realize that that's not 
them. The families who earn $70,000 a year are taxed on that at a rate 
of 25 percent.
  Mr. ELLISON. So, if you're making 70k a year, paying 25 percent of 
your income in income taxes, that means, if there is an increase in 
your property taxes, you're really going to feel that. That's going to 
punch you right in the stomach. That's going to make a difference in 
whether the kids can get braces or not. That's going to make a 
difference as to whether or not you can put a roof on the house. It 
will make a huge difference. $70,000 is actually doing pretty well, but 
small variations can change your life.
  If you're a two-income household and are making $70,000 and if one of 
the partners in the relationship gets sick or dies, that means 
catastrophic expenses on the family because, if you're spending at a 
$70,000-a-year level and you lose a household member, you've got all 
those bills with just the one person, and then you're going to be in 
bankruptcy. This is why we know 56 percent of all bankruptcy filings 
are driven by medical debt. This is how this happens even to middle 
class people. But the Buffett rule and putting Americans to work and 
doing a lot of things are really what the Progressive Caucus is all 
about. It's about addressing these systemic problems we're talking 
about today.
  So I just want to let everybody know, if you want to check out what 
the Progressive Caucus says about the Buffett rule, you should know 
that we have the Buffett rule contained in our budget.
  We put America back to work by front-loading jobs in our budget. We 
invest in America's future by investing in infrastructure, and we 
reduce the deficit, in part, by asking the wealthiest and most 
privileged Americans to do the patriotic thing and pony up a little bit 
more to help America.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's disturbing to me, with all that the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus has done to try to level the playing 
field in this country for working men and women, that we would all be 
lumped together and called names.
  I want you to comment about one of our colleagues who, in response to 
a question asked of him--how many Communists are there in the United 
States Congress?--this Congressman stepped up to the mike in a calm and 
polite manner--thoughtful-looking, with a pensive look on his face--and 
he said, I believe that there are between 78 and 81 members of the 
Communist Party who are Members of Congress.
  Now, can you respond to that, Congressman?
  Mr. ELLISON. Do you know what? I have to demur and say that I'm not 
that excited to respond. I've responded on Ed Schultz. I've responded 
on Wolf Blitzer. I've responded on Martin Brashir, and I've just said 
it's not true. It's a false statement. It's untrue. It's unfair. It's 
unkind. It raises the level of vitriol and insult in this body, and of 
course, it's tough enough around here already. We don't need to hurl 
false accusations against each other.
  I would just urge the public to remind Members of Congress that we 
need to have a little bit more civility

[[Page 5251]]

around here and that, if you do want to make an ugly comment or a 
negative comment about your colleagues, at least try to make it 
somewhere within 10,000 miles of being true. This is absolutely false.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Sir, the next day, a statement was released 
by the gentleman. The statement was to the effect that the entire 
membership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are card-carrying 
members of the Communist Party. I just think that it's important that 
we say, first of all, that that's not true and, secondly, that it has 
no place in the rational dialogue and in the honest dialogue that we 
seek to have here amongst us on both sides of the aisle. It has no 
place.
  Mr. ELLISON. One thing I don't want to do--and I'm just speaking for 
me. If he calls us names, I'm not going to call him names. If he calls 
us names, I'm not going to call them ugly names like that. There are a 
lot of ugly names that you could call someone who has a right-wing 
perspective on the extreme. We don't engage in tit for tat, because 
that's childlike. We're adults. We're here to discharge a 
responsibility on behalf of the American people. We swore an oath to 
uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, and that is what I'm going to 
do. I'm not going to be distracted by somebody who is not clear on what 
we're supposed to be doing here. I'm going to stay focused on what 
we're here to do.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to say, by caring about American workers, 
by caring about women and children, by caring about our seniors, by 
wanting to put food on the tables of all Americans and help them with 
clean air and good food and clean water, if that labels us, so be it. 
All that says to me is somebody is very frightened about the good 
things we do. I think we should move on now.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, I agree.
  I also want to point out that to label folks as Communists and 
Socialists just because they believe in fairness for the working people 
of this country is not true, and I think that it should be called out 
because, if it's left unaddressed, then some folks will think it's 
true.
  With that, I certainly would love for us to get into a discussion 
about Citizens United, Congresswoman.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.
  I believe that it's evermore important that we do something about the 
Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturns 
nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws in this country which limit 
corporation involvement in political campaigns.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) will control the remainder of the 
hour as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. In that action by the Supreme Court, big business was 
given a louder voice than the individual in this country. If we want to 
protect our democracy, that's what we have to bring an end to, all that 
money coming into the political system without transparency and making 
the average citizen feel like their voice means nothing.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, I believe that you have hit 
the nail on the head. This Citizens United ruling by the United States 
Supreme Court definitely puts corporations in a position of superiority 
over just the regular working people of this country. The reason why is 
because corporations have now been afforded the same rights that 
individuals have, to speak freely and with no regulation. Congress 
refuses to even consider any regulations on that speech for purposes of 
campaigning and affecting the outcome of campaigns.
  This is a decision that is devastating to the working people of this 
country, the people who don't have a voice like the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce or like some unknown super PAC that is formed on the eve of an 
election, funded anonymously, and used to affect an election and used 
in such a way that you can't even mount a response to it because the 
cascade of money is in that PAC and you have the slightest ability to 
raise the requisite amount of money to match it. They control the 
outcome of these elections with the money, and that is a devastating 
blow to our democracy.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Hank, the entire time I've been in the Congress--I mean, 
I've been here for 20 years now, and we've had a Republican majority 
and we've had a Democrat majority. But when the Republicans have been 
in the majority, they use as part of their mantra that they are 
returning government to the people.
  Excuse me. Citizens United takes government away from the people. I 
don't hear them trying to change that. They--the other side of the 
aisle, the party in the majority right now--seem to be defending 
Citizens United.
  The other thing they are doing at this moment is they are trying to 
upend the Presidential campaign finance system. They want to drown out 
the voice of the people and give more power to the well-heeled special 
interests in the Presidential elections as well. Those elections go 
quite well with public financing. People choose on their tax form 
whether or not they want to give to the Presidential elections.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, that was something that has 
happened this year that perhaps not a lot of people know about is that, 
under this Republican-controlled 112th Congress, the House has voted to 
do away with or abolish the $1 checkoff on a tax form that you send in. 
You can check the box and it will automatically deduct a dollar from 
the amount that you owe or the amount of whatever refund you're 
entitled to. That $1 then goes into a pot to be distributed among the 
candidates who applied for this funding.
  So everything that had been put in place to try to make everything 
equal, along with giving people their rights to invest to a certain 
amount in campaign-related donations, everything is being dismantled 
systematically. It certainly does not help the people on our side of 
the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, who traditionally have 
depended on workers unions and labor organizations to be the deep 
pockets for our campaign contributions.
  I had a visit from one of my good friends in labor the other day back 
in my district, and this gentleman has grown to be a good friend of 
mine. He's a good man. He is a full-time union worker, works for the 
union, the administrative part of the union, not just represented by 
the union. He told me that with all of the people in the union who are 
out of work today--and we've got a few jobs in the Atlanta area that 
are near completion. After completion, even those workers who are able 
to work won't have any more work, and then there's nothing else on the 
agenda that these people can go and get jobs at.
  He said it's gotten so bad with the attacks on labor and the 
unemployment to where the workers represented by the union can't pay 
the dues, and then the moneys having been drawn down by the unions to 
take care of the workers to assist them during this extended period of 
unemployment are on the decline and almost exhausted. After telling me 
that, he said, Today is my last day employed at the union because they 
had to let me go. We both sat there and we cried.
  It was really touching, because that gentleman is in the same boat 
that many other workers are in, and the union which represents those 
workers is suffering greatly. They won't be able to do what they have 
done in the past for campaigns. But these super PACs and wealthy 
individuals who fund them--anonymously, much of the time--can afford to 
actually put millions in and billions in. This is a very serious 
situation that we face in this country.
  Who's going to win, is it money or is it the people?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Congressman, the one beacon of light in the system is 
the public financing of Presidential campaigns. I have to remind 
everybody, that's voluntary. People volunteer $1 a year out of their 
tax return to support

[[Page 5252]]

the public financing of the Presidential races. They have to opt to do 
that. They don't have to. It's served our country well, and it's a very 
limited expense. It needs updating. It doesn't need dismantling. We 
need more public financing of our Federal election, not less.
  Actually, if I had my way, we would have public financing, we would 
have a much shorter campaign season, and we would also publicly finance 
advertising as well as set spending limits and not turn campaigns--it's 
an industry in this country now that certainly employs thousands and 
thousands of people. But it spends a lot of our time and individual 
money in order to get people elected.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. I would echo those comments, 
Congresswoman. You know, Members around here, some folks spend 60, 70 
percent of their time, instead of being in committee meetings, they are 
out making phone calls trying to raise money for their next election. 
It's not, it doesn't augur well for the country's future for us to 
have, you know, this kind of leadership, in other words, leadership 
that depends on others to make the decision. They come in, vote on it, 
and then go back to the phones making calls.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. I have been so fortunate because I represent a 
district that I fit. You know I'm retiring, but I have represented this 
district for 20 years, and I have fit so well that I have not had to 
raise millions of dollars.
  I have watched my colleagues who are in these districts that could go 
either way and where now Citizens United has brought this super-PAC 
money in against them, and I don't know how they do it. I mean, what a 
way to ruin our democracy, to have the people you elect to represent 
you spend much of their time raising money instead of raising 
consciousness, instead of raising issues, instead of fighting for what 
we know needs to be done in this country.
  This corrupt campaign finance system we have, with the special 
interest money, is going to actually corrode our democracy. If we don't 
step up to it on both sides of the aisle, everybody is going to be 
affected by it, not just Democrats.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, I am going to tell you, Congresswoman 
Woolsey, that's why I am going to hate to see you leave, and I know you 
have been here for 20 years. That's a long time to be anywhere. You 
have certainly been an unrelenting spokesperson for equity and fairness 
for all, and you have been a voice for peace, and you have been a voice 
for telling the truth. You are, indeed, a rare breed in Congress, and 
I'm personally going to miss you, and I know many others will too.
  But I'll tell you, Congresswoman, there are people on the other side 
of the aisle and some, I know, feel the same way that we do. They don't 
like the way or the route that our country is going. We've even had 
some good people over there who have already been defeated for 
reelection based on that special interest money coming in at the last 
minute, shaking things up and telling a bunch of lies, and then the 
public votes a good Representative out.
  I think people on both sides of the aisle are being hurt by what's 
happening in America right now, and I'm hopeful that this next election 
will see the kind of change that needs to come here. We need to take 
care of the people's business. This is their Congress, this is not the 
corporations' Congress. We should be of, by and for the people, not of, 
by and for the corporate special interests.
  You know, I'm afraid that's where we are now. I, myself, have been 
fortunate so far to be in sync with the people of my district and so, 
consequently, I've not been forced to go out there and raise a billion 
dollars, but I still have to raise money.
  I would prefer a system where I could just be a legislator and we 
could have a fairness in our elections, everyone starting with the same 
amount of money to spend; and that way it's not the money, it's your 
message that counts.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. If everybody has a certain amount of time on air, 
they can spend it putting down their opponent, or they can spend that 
time letting their constituents know who they are. If they want to be 
negative, they can do it the way they want to, but they will probably 
find out it's much more wholesome and people will like them a lot 
better when they know them for who they are and not as put-down 
artists.
  When you say there's folks from the other side of the aisle, and I'm 
sure there are, I think that it's our job now to pull together a core 
here in the Congress who are willing to limit the influence of 
contributors and who are willing to curb the power of political action 
committees and impose spending limits and not let corporate America 
have a bigger voice than the average voter.
  Somehow or another, I think it's going to be possible, but it's going 
to take leaders like yourself, Hank, to make that happen, so I'll be 
cheering for you.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, I believe you are right about that. But 
I will say, though, those moderates on the other side of the aisle who 
I am referring to are the prime targets of the interests that want to 
get rid of them and go to an extreme. So folks over here on the 
Republican side of the aisle are forced to comply with the party line 
or else they'll suffer the consequences.
  Even when they follow the party line here, they think, okay, well, we 
don't trust this person over here because there's some new blood over 
here that talks much more extremely, and so we want to get rid of that 
person here and put this new person in.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, if we eliminate special interest money, if we have 
the Declaration for Democracy and have a constitutional change, the 
United States Constitution regarding this Citizens United action of the 
Supreme Court, I think we can help turn that around.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, you know, Congresswoman, you lead into 
the Declaration for Democracy, which I had the pleasure to sign 
yesterday, along with many of my other colleagues; and I am sure that 
the longer that this is around, the more that people will sign up. Have 
you had an opportunity to sign?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I signed the little card. I haven't signed that one, but 
I'm looking why aren't I on there. I mean, that's how much I support 
it.
  Actually, Leader Pelosi has signed the declaration. It's very well 
received in the Congress.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I'm going to read it. It's the Declaration 
for Democracy, and it reads as follows:
  I declare my support for amending the Constitution of the United 
States to restore the rights of the American people undermined by 
Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity of our 
elections, and limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic 
process.
  Anytime we start talking about putting limits on any activity and 
creating more fairness, then we get labeled as socialists and 
communists and we're just people that care. I don't care what you call 
it, we're in support of this Declaration for Democracy, which would put 
the reins of government back into the hands of working people, poor 
people, everyone. Even the corporations would have a seat at the table, 
but they would not speak any louder than you or I; and I think it's 
very important. So I was proud to sign the Declaration for Democracy.
  We are in a climate where we have an organization that is set up to 
connect the corporate influence, the corporate money, the special 
interests. We have an organization that is set up to pair those special 
interest corporations with legislators from the various State 
legislatures of the Nation.

                              {time}  1520

  About 60 percent of the legislators in the United States--the State 
legislators--have joined this organization. It's called ALEC. ALEC is 
the American Legislative Exchange Council. And what ALEC does is it's 
funded, of

[[Page 5253]]

course, by business interests, billionaires and millionaires, and 
companies. What it does is it invites the legislators to join. It 
really entices them to join by offering them for a mere $50 a year--and 
the taxpayers, of course, pay that--as a professional fee or 
professional cost. And so the legislators join. Then he or she gets to 
go off on these 2- and 3-day weekends at some location like Hilton Head 
or Jekyll Island or Martha's Vineyard, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, wherever 
they can be alone and with some anonymity and in a luxurious setting.
  So these legislators who join go to these locations for the retreats. 
The business interests are there because they're underwriting it. And 
then they get together in committees, and the committees work out 
various model laws that are produced before the folks even get there. 
They're told about these model laws in the committees that they work 
on--the committees being the legislators and the business interests. 
And the public's interest is not there. It's all done in secret.
  And so the result is that the legislators come home, and they have 
legislation which they can claim as, This is my legislation and I'm 
introducing it. And, By the way, this is my 80th piece of legislation 
that I have introduced and it has passed and I'm a busy substantive 
legislator.
  So it makes them look good out there on the campaign trail. Nobody 
knows what the substance of that legislation is and what it actually 
does and how much it costs. And then, for introducing that legislation, 
the legislator is rewarded with a campaign contribution also from the 
same corporations and individuals associated with those corporations.
  So based on that formula right there you've got business being done 
behind closed doors to benefit folks other than the people who elect 
these legislators, and then you never know who those legislators are 
because that's private information. They keep it private. But if you're 
a member, you can log into the Web site and then go to a page and find 
out who all of the corporate and who all the legislative members are. 
You can only get access to that if you're a member. And to become a 
member you have to be prescreened in advance to make sure that you are 
like-minded. And if you can pass that muster, they will let you in.
  So this is the same organization that announced yesterday that they 
would not be involving themselves--they're disbanding their committee 
that had to do with social issues, as they call them, including voter 
rights. And so the Trayvon Martin killing, the shooting and killing of 
Trayvon Martin and then the claim of self-defense, stand your ground, 
but, really, shoot to kill legislation, that legislation was produced 
by an ALEC committee.
  I'm glad to know that committee will no longer be in action, but the 
damage has already been done. As a result of that, you have had some 
corporations that have decided that this is not--we didn't buy into 
this. We didn't buy into this social thing. We just joined ALEC because 
we wanted to deal on the committees that deal with our issues--taxes, 
FDA, whatever. We wanted to deal on those things, but instead ALEC has 
gone to an extreme.
  Now we have corporations that are threatened with boycotts of their 
goods and services jumping off the ALEC bandwagon, and that caused ALEC 
to announce yesterday that, We're not going to deal in any more social 
issues.
  So I think that is instructive of the power of the people. If the 
people only know what is happening, the people will come together, 
despite the differences that we have. We can look at each other and 
say, Okay, you are older than I am. Plus, you are a white woman. And 
so, therefore, we don't have anything in common. Or I could say that 
this person over here doesn't have the same sexual orientation as I 
think they should and so therefore I'm going to condemn them to 
purgatory just on that basis alone. Or we can look at somebody and say 
Well, they've got a hoodie on. He's wearing a hoodie, and it's a black 
guy in a neighborhood. He can be 9 years old, he can be 15, or he can 
be 17; but he's still threatening me just by his mere presence. We size 
people up like that.
  But when we really get down to it, our interests are the same. And if 
we can get past the fear that we have of each other and the 
misunderstanding that we have about each other, we can come together 
and we can reclaim this country so that it will be a government run by, 
of, and for the people. And so that is my goal, to continue to work 
towards that, if my citizens think that I'm worthy of continuing to do 
that.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________