[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3335-3337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS: THE PEOPLE'S BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, we got word of a 
decision that may be the death knell for the budget proposal made by 
the majority of this body. The members of the self-styled Freedom 
Caucus have announced their refusal to support the plan that their own 
leadership has put forward. I am truly afraid of what they would offer 
as an alternative, because the budget being considered in committee 
this week is a far cry from what American families need.
  Mr. Speaker, at its most fundamental level, a budget is two things: a 
guiding document and a statement of values. The budget that the House 
Republicans have put forward--the budget that is not enough for the 
Freedom Caucus--makes it clear that they value special interests more 
than working families. It is a guiding document to an America that is 
bereft of opportunity for those who have worked or have studied or have 
fought for it.
  My colleagues and I are here on the floor tonight to support a very 
different plan--a budget that seeks to give everyday Americans the only 
opportunity they have ever asked for--the opportunity to work hard, to 
play by the rules, and to get ahead. It is a budget for the people, so 
it shouldn't come as a surprise that we call it The People's Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget would invest 
in our schools, our roads, our bridges, our workers, and our 
environment to put us back on the path to prosperity in a way that 
austerity never will, because the cuts of the past few years should 
have made one thing clear: trimming our spending does little to impact 
the long-term deficit, but it destroys working families, hinders the 
most vulnerable Americans, and threatens the future of our Nation.
  The People's Budget would invest $1 trillion in our bridges, roads, 
railways, and other infrastructure facilities to prevent the kind of 
devastating failures we have witnessed in Flint, Michigan.
  The People's Budget would fully fund Head Start, capitalizing on one 
of the best opportunities to give our young people a leg up in an 
increasingly global economy.
  The People's Budget would take steps to make debt-free college a 
reality for students, keeping higher education as a ladder into 
economic prosperity rather than making it a privilege for top earners.
  The People's Budget would fully fund affordable housing programs, and 
it would end persistent family homelessness with an investment of $11 
billion.
  The People's Budget would take a stand on protecting our environment 
from further damage by investing in clean and renewable energy 
resources and ending subsidies for oil, gas, and coal once and for all. 
And that is just the beginning.
  Our economy may be rebounding from the Great Recession, but there are 
plenty of Americans who have been left behind--stuck in roles with low 
wages, in long-term unemployment, in the gender and racial pay gaps 
that persist in this Nation, or in debt that keeps them from 
progressing in their lives. We can't afford to let this stand. We need 
a budget for the people, and we need it now.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget that was announced by the majority yesterday 
is truly a roadmap to ruin. It would leave seniors out in the cold by 
ending the Medicare guarantee. It would gut domestic programming with 
$6.5 trillion in cuts--the most outrageous and threatening action ever 
proposed by the majority on the Budget Committee. It would make the gap 
between average Americans and the wealthy few too great to bridge, 
taking away any chance at restoring the vibrant middle class our 
economy relies on. It would do the same thing that my colleagues have 
tried to do for some time, which would be to stack the deck for top 
earners and the well-connected at the expense of everyone else.
  The people need change. The people need a plan that levels the 
playing field, that gives them opportunities to succeed, and that puts 
their interests above the interests of corporations and the wealthy. 
The people need salaries to let them do more than just make ends meet. 
The people need a way to pay for affordable child care while they are 
at their jobs. The people need education for their children and 
teachers who are trained to give students the tools to succeed. They 
need roads that aren't crumbling and trains that stay on the tracks; 
they need bridges and tunnels that connect them with their jobs without 
their having to spend hours in traffic; and they need job training to 
find employment in a changing economy.
  The people, Mr. Speaker, need The People's Budget.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), my colleague 
and the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the Representative Watson Coleman. I appreciate 
the gentlewoman's leadership during the Progressive Caucus Special 
Order hour. Every week, she helps give the world the progressive 
message, and I am so grateful that she does.
  Mr. Speaker, let me mention that The People's Budget is really not 
just some document that members of the Progressive Caucus, when huddled 
in a room, drafted up. We actually believed that the people ought to 
participate in the writing of The People's Budget, so

[[Page 3336]]

we engaged not only the ideas of constituents from our districts but 
also those from other people, like from the Economic Policy Institute, 
the people in the labor community, and others, who all had great ideas 
about how to formulate our budget. Altogether, we included the ideas of 
44 different groups and of many, many individuals beyond that to 
support and help us draft The People's Budget. We want to thank all of 
them.
  This really is a People's Budget because it puts forward the main 
thing that any budget ought to put forward in a budget from Congress, 
and that is the promotion of good-paying jobs.
  Now, just because the unemployment rate has gotten to a lower level 
doesn't mean that we have got a great jobs picture for working 
Americans. The People's Budget would increase good-paying jobs by 3.6 
million, and we are very proud of that. While Republicans may think 
that the best way to judge a budget is by how many dollars from the 
Federal budget they cut, we believe that the main way to judge a budget 
is by how many Americans are put to work in good-paying jobs.
  How do we create these jobs?
  One, by investing in our infrastructure. The People's Budget invests 
in $1 trillion so that we can rebuild our roads, bridges, railways, 
water systems, and grids. We make sure that the crumbling 
infrastructure that faces us right now gets fixed. That includes 
infrastructure in Flint, Michigan, and in other cities around this 
country where water infrastructure is so hard-pressed.
  Beyond that, we will provide the protections that American workers 
need. The People's Budget calls for the protection of collective 
bargaining; it works to close the pay equity gap; it increases funding 
for worker protection agencies that crack down on wage theft and 
overtime abuses--but that $1 trillion will also save American lives.
  Two weeks ago, I and many members of the Congressional Progressive 
and Black Caucuses traveled to Flint, Michigan, and I saw firsthand 
what happens when governments are run like a business. When money is 
the only consideration and when the Governor thinks that passing an 
emergency manager law just to cut costs at the expense of children's 
health and clean water, we see what the results of that kind of 
thinking are and that it is penny-wise, but incredibly pound-foolish. I 
met dozens of families who were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, 
but also people who were touched by the evils of Legionnaires' disease 
because of waterborne illness.
  The People's Budget includes $765 million for the city of Flint so 
that we can replace toxic pipelines and provide health and education 
services for residents. Flint isn't the only city that is exposing 
residents to lead; so The People's Budget also includes $150 billion 
for waterlines nationwide.
  We can never allow a tragedy like Flint's to happen again, but we 
have to make the investments right now. It is a simple choice: Do we 
believe that we should have a State's tax cuts go to the richest dead 
people? Should we cut their taxes? Should we cut the taxes of 
multinational, giant, profitable corporations? Or should we spend the 
money to help ensure the health and welfare of American children and 
other citizens?
  I think we should look out for the American people. The People's 
Budget does that. We are glad to have the support of so many 
organizations, and we look forward to a very strong vote when the day 
arrives.


                       Stop Violence in Honduras

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make another statement which is 
unrelated to our budget, but it is still very important.
  I am profoundly saddened and angered by the murders of Berta Caceres 
and Nelson Garcia, two leading environmental activists in the nation of 
Honduras. These two murders were less than 2 weeks apart. It is an 
ongoing challenge that must be addressed immediately.
  Ms. Caceres spent decades fighting for the rights of Honduras' 
indigenous community, winning the Goldman Environmental Prize--an 
internationally recognized award--for her work. She was assassinated in 
her home while she was supposed to be under special protection by 
government security forces.
  Mr. Garcia was a member of Ms. Caceres' organization, the Civic 
Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. He was 
shot yesterday in front of his mother-in-law's home.
  Honduras and the world have lost two extraordinary advocates for 
environmental and indigenous rights, and also for social justice.
  We need to do more than mourn their losses. It is time to act. It is 
time to suspend assistance to the Honduras security forces until such 
time as we know they are not penetrated by illegal actors; until such 
time as we can be assured when they say they are going to protect 
somebody, those people are protected; and until we know and have 
confidence that American taxpayers' dollars are not being used to 
assassinate leaders who are doing nothing more than trying to improve 
the environment and increase the rights of indigenous people.
  These assassinations fit into a pattern of attacks that has taken 
place against Honduran activists since the 2009 military coup. The NGO 
Global Witness calls Honduras the most dangerous place in the world for 
environmental activists. More than 100 environmental activists have 
been killed in the last 5 years there, and many activists and community 
leaders remain at risk. We must do everything in our power to stop this 
violence and harassment in Honduras.
  Please rest in peace, Berta Caceres and Nelson Garcia. The people who 
remain behind will continue to fight for environmental justice and 
indigenous rights, and we here in the United States join that fight.


                       U.S. Supreme Court Nominee
                            Merrick Garland

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to spend a few minutes on another 
important topic as well.
  Today, President Obama nominated Chief Justice Merrick Garland to 
fill the vacancy that has been left on the Supreme Court by Associate 
Justice Antonin Scalia.
  Judge Garland has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme 
Court nominee in history. His work on the D.C. circuit court, an 
appointment to which he was confirmed with strong bipartisan support, 
has earned praise from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. 
He is qualified. He is competent. He is not the ultraliberal that many 
of my conservative colleagues feared.

                              {time}  1500

  Yet, following up on his promise that the Senate would consider 
absolutely no one that President Obama put forward, Majority Leader 
Mitch McConnell said today: ``It is a president's constitutional right 
to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's 
constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its 
consent.''
  I beg to differ. I think it is the President's constitutional 
responsibility, not just a prerogative, to fill the bench of the 
Supreme Court. Withholding consent, something that is typically done 
when a candidate is underqualified or inappropriate, is far different 
than just ignoring the process altogether.
  This is a political decision made about the only body that shouldn't 
be exposed to such things. It goes beyond just a filibuster or 
commentary from a few outliers.
  And if Republicans follow through with their plan, it would 
constitute the longest vacancy with no vote on a nominee ever. There is 
no precedent for this. There have been appointments, nominations, and, 
above all, hearings during Presidential election years.
  It is flat out ridiculous to refuse a man as qualified as Judge 
Garland even hearings. This is a dereliction of duty that surpasses the 
sadly run-of-the-mill inability of the majority to get anything done, 
from funding the government until the eleventh hour to passing a 
budget, to actually governing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I came to the floor without taking 
the

[[Page 3337]]

time to say this: The Senate must change course and consider Judge 
Garland on his merits. He has earned bipartisan support before, and he 
deserves it again.
  I need to remind this body and the Senate that the President of the 
United States was elected for a second term and that term includes four 
full years.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude my Special Order hour.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________