[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6466-6469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here and rise today on behalf of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus for a Special Order hour on a topic. 
However, before we start that Special Order hour, I would like to yield 
to the lady from the Ninth District of Arizona (Ms. Sinema).


                             The STEADY Act

  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud college instructor 
of over a decade and perhaps, most importantly, a proud Sun Devil from 
Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, the largest and, yes, the 
brightest public university in our country.
  May 9 is Graduation Day for many of my students, and while I cannot 
be with them on their special day, I introduce a bill today in their 
honor, in honor of their hard work and their future contributions to 
our community and our economy.
  Today, I have introduced the Stability to Ensure the American Dream 
for Youth Act, the STEADY Act. The STEADY Act extends the 3.4 percent 
for Stafford student loans until June 30 of 2017.
  As we all know, if Congress fails to act by June 30 of this year, the 
interest rate on student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent. This will have an enormous impact on the cash flow and 
economic participation of students entering the workforce, starting a 
family, planing for the future.
  In college communities like the one I have the pleasure of 
representing, the economics of higher education are directly linked to 
every part of our daily economic activity. Consumer spending, home 
ownership, and employment opportunity are inexorably tied to the cost 
of education.
  My bill ensures that those who are in college or planning for college 
can continue to do so without worry of cutting their paychecks by an 
additional $1,000 of interest a year paid to the Federal Government.
  The STEADY Act ensures that they can plan for their future, plan for 
their family's future, and continue to contribute to our local economy. 
It allows added stability to get the education they need and find the 
job they want.
  Our communities sent us to Congress to fight for them and get things 
done. Today I'm thinking of my students who need a voice in this 
Congress. It's my hope that we will get this done for them.
  I think about Ariel Carlos, my student in ASU's School of Social 
Work. Ariel hopes to give back to our community as a social worker for 
seniors. He wants to help seniors who have worked and contributed their 
entire lives, help them continue to do so with health and support.
  Ariel and his wife, May, have kids, and they support each other by 
working hard. Ariel has had to work for a paycheck. He worked hard 
through his entire college career, taking out student loans along the 
way so that he and May could care for their family while he studied. At 
the end of his college career, Ariel found himself with a student loan 
debt of $45,000.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention that a new social worker in 
Arizona is likely to start his career making about $30,000 a year or 
less. For Ariel and his family, an added expense of $1,000 a year means 
less money for child care, less money for school books, less money for 
groceries.

                              {time}  1840

  $1,000 a year from his family's budget--to pay to the Federal 
Government--means less spending in our local economy and less savings 
for the future.
  The New York Federal Reserve recently noted that student loan debt is 
slowing our economy. Those with large student debt participate less in 
their local economies, delaying home ownership and family planning 
while forgoing long-term job opportunities. Students who should be 
planning their lives are instead nervous about their future and 
concerned about debt impeding their ability to get ahead.
  We have the opportunity to set things right for Ariel and May, to 
maintain a steady road for our economic future, and to make certain 
that the hard work that goes into our community stays in our community 
and pays off in our community.
  I ask my colleagues to join me today in support of the STEADY Act of 
2013.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you. And thank you for introducing that important 
bill to help students and families across the country.
  Today during the Special Order hour for the Progressive Caucus, we 
are here to specifically talk about the issue of income inequality in 
America and the growing gap between the wealthiest and the average 
person.
  Just today, Mr. Speaker, while we voted on legislation, we voted on a 
bill, the ironically titled Working Families Flexibility Act, which, in 
reality, would mean more work and less pay for hardworking Americans in 
my State of Wisconsin and across the country.
  As many of my colleagues have spoken on the floor this week, what 
this bill will do is to deny workers compensation for overtime--any 
hours that they would work over 40 hours a week. This is, in essence, 
an attack on workplace flexibility and an attack on the hard-earned 
wages Americans rely on.
  But what makes this bill even more onerous, though, is a topic of 
importance to our caucus, the Progressive Caucus, and to workers across 
America: the growing income inequality in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, it's hard to imagine why some of our colleagues are 
interested in reducing wages for Americans when multiple reports this 
week show that despite the fact that stock markets and corporate 
profits are close to all-time highs, wages in this country are stagnant 
at best.
  In fact, according to the St. Louis Fed, wages as a percentage of the 
economy have hit an all-time low. What does that mean in real dollars? 
Well, adjusted for inflation, an average worker who was paid $49,650 at 
the end of 2009 makes $545 less now, even before taxes and deductions. 
Meanwhile, because companies have slowed down hiring to control costs, 
many are operating with fewer employees, meaning

[[Page 6467]]

there's more work for those with a job, even though their wages aren't 
moving upward. To summarize, Americans are working harder while getting 
paid less, even before the bill the Republicans put on the floor this 
week.
  Mr. Speaker, given that our economy is still recovering from the 
recent recession, and close to 12 million Americans are still looking 
for work, it would make sense if all areas of the economy were facing 
tough times. But that's not the case. In fact, the stock markets and 
corporate profits are breaking records. Standard & Poor's 500 
corporations hit a record in the first quarter of the year; and last 
week, including today, the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average 
crossed 15,000 for the first time in quite a while.
  The wealthiest Americans only are getting richer. According to tax 
expert David Cay Johnston, in the first 2 years of our recovery, from 
2009 to 2011, close to 150 percent of the increased income in this 
country went to the top 10 percent of earners. Why? Because incomes 
fell for the bottom 90 percent of Americans.
  If you dive deeper into those numbers, the increasing inequity 
becomes even more staggering. Just in the past 2 years, the top 1 
percent saw 81 percent of all this country's increased income. Almost 
40 percent of the increased income since 2009 went to the top 1 percent 
of the top 1 percent, or those making at least $8 million a year. What 
does that mean? Our country, our Nation, has 158.4 million households, 
and only about 16,000 of those households have accounted for 40 cents 
of every dollar of increased income in this country in the last the 2 
years.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this trend of a growing income inequality 
can be traced back to more than just the 2 years following the 
recession. You can go all the way back to 1966 to find the last time 
the average adjusted gross income was lower in this country than it was 
in 2011. In between this time, 45 years, the bottom 90 percent 
Americans saw their income increase by an average of $59.
  What about the top 10 percent? Well, from 1966 to 2011, their income 
increased by an average of approximately $116,000. And what about the 
top 1 percent? Their income increased by an average of $629,000. And 
the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, the wealthiest in this country, 
have seen their income rise $18.4 million on average in the last 45 
years.
  Let me say that again. In the past 45 years, since 1966, the vast 
majority of Americans, 90 percent, have seen their average incomes 
increase by an average of $59, and the top 1 percent of the top 1 
percent have seen their incomes increase by an average of $18.4 
million.
  It's almost impossible to comprehend, but Mr. Johnston found a way. 
If you represented these increases in a line chart, and 1 inch is 
equivalent to $59, the top 10 percent's would go to over 163 feet. The 
top 1 percent's line would go to 884 feet, and the top 1 percent of the 
top 1 percent would go for 5 miles. One inch of increase, 5 miles of 
increase for the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent.
  So while the majority of us have gained only an inch over the last 40 
years, the uber-wealthy have gained not just inches but miles. Put 
another way, for every extra dollar of annual income earned by the top 
90 percent of Americans, an extra 311,000 went to the households in the 
top 1 percent of 1 percent.
  This growing income disparity, what does it mean? Well, it's bad for 
the economy. It's bad for our deficit, and it's bad for the most 
vulnerable in our society, and, of course, that's bad for the American 
Dream.
  As Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics recently said, 
for the economy to thrive, we need everyone participating: When a 
majority of Americans are left behind in the recovery, our economy will 
never truly thrive. In fact, there have been a number of studies that 
have said that the way to get the economy going is to make sure those 
who have the least have the money because they'll spend it. They'll put 
it immediately into the economy. When the wealthiest have the extra 
income, it often goes into savings. But for the average person, that 90 
percent, when they get the money, it goes right back into the economy 
and stimulates the economy. But when the average 90 percent of 
Americans only see a $59 wage increase in 45 years, that just doesn't 
put money back into the economy.
  Consumer spending, which constitutes 70 percent of our economy, is 
strained when wages decrease. This is particularly acute when low- and 
moderate-income workers spend nearly all of their paychecks as those 
studies have shown us. And when there's a lack of demand, there will be 
a lack of economic growth, which means a lack of jobs, which means a 
lack of opportunities for Americans.
  When we have vast income inequality, reducing our debt and our 
deficits becomes nearly impossible. When people are making less, we 
collect less in revenue. And at that point, the only way to balance our 
budget would be to drastically reduce funding for programs that 
primarily serve those with, guess what, decreasing incomes. It is a 
lose-lose proposition, and we shouldn't pursue it.
  What else is this bad for? Well, it's bad for college affordability. 
It's bad for health care costs, and it's bad for programs that help the 
elderly, including programs like Social Security. Multiple studies have 
shown us that huge income inequality makes Americans more pessimistic 
and less likely to believe that they have little in common with anyone 
else unlike themselves.
  The basic tenets of the American Dream are at risk when the income 
gap is so wide. When 90 percent of the country is so far behind the top 
tiers of the country, it's hard to make the case that if you work hard, 
you can get ahead. In fact, studies have demonstrated that the higher 
the income inequality gets in this country, the harder it is for people 
to move up and make a better life for themselves and their parents.

                              {time}  1850

  Let's just look at CEO pay, just to give you an idea how CEO pay has 
increased. In the last three decades, CEO pay has skyrocketed at a rate 
of 127 times faster than worker pay. In fact, from 1978 to 2011, CEO 
compensation increased more than 725 percent--faster than the stock 
market, and painfully faster than the 5.7 percent growth in worker 
compensation in the same period.
  The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased since 1950 by 1,000 
percent, according to data from Bloomberg. And the AFL-CIO, the 
American Federation of Labor, has found that CEO pay has reached a high 
of 354 times that of the average employee. Just decades ago, that ratio 
was in the 20 to 30 times average for the lowest paid employee, and now 
354 times. CEO pay has absolutely taken off, while everyone else's pay 
has been stagnant now for decades.
  I've recently started reading a book, ``Who Stole the American 
Dream?,'' by Hedrick Smith, a book that our whip, Mr. Hoyer, has often 
referred to for our caucus to read. It details exactly how the middle 
class has been under attack for the last 40 years largely due to a 
corporate takeover of our culture. I highly recommend this book to 
every American.
  This is a book that says Americans are willing to accept inequality 
in our society, to a degree. They understand that if you work harder, 
you should be able to get ahead. But they want it within a percent that 
makes sense and that we've had in this country for so long.
  This massive wealth gap in our country--where the top 1 percent 
captured 93 percent of the Nation's gains in 2010--undermines our 
social fabric and our ideal of equal opportunity. This has been caused 
by the way corporate interests have taken over our lives, our laws and 
our elections in the last several decades.
  According to ``Who Stole the American Dream?,'' up until the 
seventies, the middle class had thrived as increases in productivity 
were matched by increases in wages. When prosperity was shared, there 
was a stable relationship between business and government

[[Page 6468]]

and labor. Everyone pitched in, and everyone benefited and gained.
  Then, around the time President Nixon was in--when he put in place 
some very good business regulations--corporate interests decided to 
fight back. And we've seen over these decades how they fought back.
  One, they started importing cheap foreign workers for a wide range of 
occupations.
  They've moved jobs offshore, so many of our Nation's previously 
unionized blue collar jobs--even calling centers--have been sent 
overseas.
  And they've changed our laws, from bankruptcy laws to Tax Code 
changes, so that just in Tax Code changes alone workers could 
supplement existing pension plans with individual retirement accounts. 
But the result is corporations got rid of the robust pension programs 
to help people when they retire. Now workers cover 50 percent of their 
retirement costs, compared to 11 percent in the 1950s.
  Finally, there has been a race to the bottom. We compete now with 
Asian sweatshops, we import cheap foreign goods that undermine American 
small businesses, and there are major U.S. business operations that 
have moved overseas.
  So the bottom line is we need to have a thriving middle class, not 
the inequality of a $59 increase in the last 45 years for the bottom 90 
percent of the population, and the top 1 percent have an increase of 
$628,000. And the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent received an 
increase that's the equivalent of 5 miles to the 1 inch of increase 
that the bottom 90 percent have made.
  So what do we need to do? I think the Center for American Progress 
has noted a strong middle class can help promote the development of 
human capital and a well-educated population. It can create a stable 
source of demands for goods and services. One of the key findings of 
that book is that people, when they had that income matched by their 
productivity, it went back into buying more goods and kept the economy 
stable. When those changes took place, since the Nixon administration, 
that's what has helped to create the strong inequality.
  It incubates the next generation of entrepreneurs and supports 
inclusive political and economic institutions to make sure we have 
solid economic growth.
  So what do we need to do differently? One, we need to have tax rules 
that are fair for everyone. We need to make sure that everyone pays 
their fair share. We don't incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. 
And we promote the creation of jobs here at home.
  We look at things like capital gains like any other way we would tax, 
not differently for those with the most money, who make money off of 
money rather than off of their hard work. But we need to make sure 
there is equal tax treatment for everyone under the laws. And those 
companies that want to outsource their headquarters overseas to avoid 
paying taxes aren't allowed to do that. It's an important part of 
changing our Tax Code to get the equality back that we need to.
  Next, we need to invest in American workers. That means investing in 
education, investing in research and development, and investing in job 
training. Especially at a time that we have 12 million Americans out of 
work, we need to get people the skills so they can get back to work and 
work at jobs back here in America.
  We need to establish a livable--not a minimum, but a livable--wage so 
that people who are in that 90 percent, who are making so little gains 
right now, can put that money back into the economy and stimulate the 
economy from the bottom up, from the grassroots. That's what we need to 
do.
  Bottom line, we need to have trade policies that reward jobs in 
America and not reward jobs overseas. We've lost way too many jobs 
through many of our trade agreements overseas.
  And fundamentally, we need to change the way we finance our elections 
in Wisconsin and across the country. I can tell you from my practical 
viewpoint of spending 14 years in the Wisconsin Legislature and my time 
here, there is no question that we have seen a lurching of corporate 
influence and big-dollar influence in our elections that have 
influenced the bottom-line policies that have created this sort of 
inequality.
  So to summarize, we need prosperity over austerity in this country. 
And those are some of the things that we need to move toward.
  I could talk more about income inequality, but I just want to address 
for a minute if I can another part of this inequality, which is going 
specifically to the sequester.
  The sequester we have talked about now for a number of weeks, the ill 
effects on the economy of the sequester. We know 700,000 jobs between 
now and September 30 are at risk, including almost 36,000 jobs in the 
State of Wisconsin. The verdict on the sequester is clear and 
predictable, as we said. These mindless, reckless cuts are slowing our 
economic growth and taking away valuable resources to get the economy 
up and going.
  Congress continues to defy logic in this area. We're dealing with the 
sequester piece by piece. During the continuing resolution, we fixed 
meat inspectors. A few weeks ago, we fixed people who wait in line at 
airports. But what we haven't done is addressed those who aren't as 
well connected in this country and the problems that they're seeing on 
a daily basis with the sequester. That means for Wisconsin seniors, 
they're receiving fewer Meals on Wheels that help seniors--for many of 
which 50 percent of their daily nutrition comes from the Meals on 
Wheels program, those who receive that program.
  Close to 1,000 Wisconsin children and families will lose access to 
Head Start services. Just last week, I was in Beloit, Wisconsin, which 
is in a county, Rock County, that Representative Paul Ryan and I share. 
While we were down visiting that Head Start program, they told us that 
they were going to have to have fewer students in the program next 
year. And they already have a waiting list for low-income families to 
participate in these programs to give them a fair start in education.
  In the Bayview neighborhood of Madison, Wisconsin--one of my very 
first county board district and local governments--this neighborhood 
center, one of their very first programs was the Head Start program. 
That program will be closing because of the sequester and what we've 
done to that.
  Cancer patients and HIV patients are being turned away from cancer 
clinics and other clinics because of cuts to Medicare payments caused 
by the sequester. And nearly 125,000 low-income Americans will not 
receive rental assistance. In Dane County, that means people are going 
to lose that critical assistance right back in my district.
  Finally, over the Easter break I visited with people at UW-Madison, 
one of the world's premier research institutions. They're going to see 
a $35 million cut in funding--$17 million just in research alone--from 
NIH cuts.
  So that FAA solution that we did a few weeks ago was anything but a 
solution--it was barely a bandaid. In fact, that bandaid will only get 
us through September 30, and we're going to be back to long lines in 
airports and not having meat inspectors for companies that need to have 
meat inspectors to have people go to work every day.
  The bottom line is we need to fix the sequester now holistically, and 
we need to deal with that in this House.
  This piecemeal approach is irresponsible, it's inadequate, and it's 
offensive to the people of Wisconsin and the country who are caught in 
the political cross-fires of Washington, D.C. And it does nothing to 
help our economy or create jobs--in fact, just the opposite; it will be 
shrinking the economy between now and September 30.

                              {time}  1900

  The people of this country deserve a comprehensive national budget. I 
don't know why we can't get the Republicans to appoint conferees so we 
can have that budget. But until they do, we're going to continue to 
have the squabbles that you find all too often in Congress that don't 
address the sequester and don't give this country a roadmap for our 
finance's budget. Once again,

[[Page 6469]]

we are likely not to have a national budget.
  I would urge my Republican colleagues to appoint the budget conferees 
immediately so that we can not only pass a budget, but we can replace 
the sequester cuts for everyone, not just those who are the most well 
connected.
  I would like to talk just briefly in closing about the income gap 
that we have. There's another way of talking about this chart. When you 
talked about the bottom 1 percent being an inch to the 5 miles 
represented by the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, let me share 
another statistic that was shared with me.
  If you talk about that 1 inch being a football field, the top 1 
percent of the top 1 percent is equivalent to 86 football fields. So 1 
inch of a football field to 86 football fields. That's the gap in wages 
that we have with this inequality.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus was glad to be able to 
talk tonight about income inequality.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________