The Progressive Message

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I'm Congressman Keith Ellison. We're claiming this hour on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, which tonight is going to feature a number of critical issues, all focusing on the importance of the rights of women and the assault they have been under in this Congress.

To lead off our hour and to get started, I first want to introduce a good colleague from the great State of California--Oakland, California, who's going to lead off our hour.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been a champion of the rights of all people. She has been a champion for peace and justice around the world. And she has been an unswerving champion for civil and human rights not only for women, but for all people around the world.

So let me first recognize, on behalf of this Special Order hour, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Congresswoman Lee, I yield the floor to you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee, a fearless, unrelenting struggler for the rights of all people.

Tonight we're here with the Progressive Caucus. We're talking about the harm that H.R. 358 would do to women's rights. It would hurt the rights of women in three important ways. It would deprive women of comprehensive health insurance coverage, eliminate emergency lifesaving protections, and undermine health care benefits in the Affordable Care Act. For the first time, private health care insurance coverage for women will be restricted.

And so to carry the discussion further, and from a very important perspective, my good friend from New York--also a tireless fighter for the rights of all people, a leader in the area of choice and women's rights--let me yield the floor to Carolyn Maloney.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote, in order for women to receive the best health care and disease prevention, they must have access to all medically appropriate, legal medical procedures, regardless of the ability to pay. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians opposes legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical care. These proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government between a physician and a patient.

My question to you is: This bill, H.R. 358, the very deceptively titled Protect Life Act, does this bill have scientific and medical backing behind it as the opposition to this bill has? In other words, do they have trained medical professionals operating on the basis of science supporting their position?

I yield to the gentlelady.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. The gentlelady has been very eloquent about the assault on women's health. If you don't mind, given that you are a member of the Joint Economic Committee, which is a bicameral committee, bipartisan committee, I think, in the Congress, I wonder if you don't mind talking with me just a little while about the assault on women's economic prospects.

In your opinion, Congresswoman Maloney, how will assaults and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security impact women, given that women statistically live longer than men and have a greater representation for use of those important programs? Are we seeing not just the health but also the economic viability of women under threat, as well as seeing important programs that women rely on disproportionately cut into?

I yield to the gentlelady.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentlelady shedding some light on this issue because the fact is that today we were looking at a bill that would restrict women's health care access.

But you know that we have been trying to fend off assaults on the viability of women's economic situation. We still know that women earn about 80 cents for every dollar men make. This is unexplained, or it is explained. It's explained by gender discrimination.

And I think it's important for even men to take account of this important fact, that if your wife or partner is being discriminated against in the workplace because she's a woman, then your total family income is being hurt because of sex discrimination in the workplace. It's important that men and women come together to fight these attacks on women's rights because, even though the direct victims of this kind of discrimination are women, this invariably hurts the entire family, and so this is everybody's business to stand up for the rights of all people.

I tell you, one of the things that really concerns me is this gap in pay between men and women. The median weekly--women earn about 81.2 percent of what men earn. In addition to that, they have assaults on their access to health care. When you add these things up, what does this mean in terms of the majority's commitment to women's rights? What does it all add up to?

I wonder if the gentlelady might offer her views on this subject.

I yield to the gentlelady.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Now, Congresswoman Maloney, I know you might have to run, but I appreciate your standing here with me tonight because I think that the people of America, Mr. Speaker, need to hear from a person like yourself, Congresswoman Maloney, who has been laboring in the vineyards of economic and civil rights, both, for a few years now. You know what you're talking about, you've been doing this work, you've served the community for many years, and I just want to see if I can get your views on another issue, and that is that one of the things that Republicans have been doing is having this program to cut, cut, cut government services, which, of course, has led to reductions in public employees.

So, for example, while the private sector has added about 1.7 million jobs over the last 12 months--of course, during the Bush administration we were losing jobs--the public sector has lost about 400,000 jobs. When you consider the fact that women are disproportionately likely to work for the public sector, their employment decline has been particularly hit when public sector employees get laid off.

So I want to keep connecting the dots tonight, if I may. We started out the conversation with the cuts to women's health in this deceptively entitled bill, the so-called--I don't even want to repeat it because it is so wrong, but the Protect Life Act, actually it's a ``not to protect women's life'' act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. But then we move on to cuts to important programs that older women are disproportionately relying on, we move to the wage gap, and now we're seeing that these cuts to public employees are falling more heavily on the shoulders of women.

You mentioned an agenda. Are we really talking about an agenda here, not just a single program but a whole agenda?

I yield to the gentlelady.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. I like the jobs bill as well. It's too bad that the American Jobs Act was not even able to be debated in the Senate yesterday. You would think that we could debate the bill at least. If Republicans have different ideas about job creation than we do as Democrats, I'm okay with that. Let's debate it, and let's get it out on the floor. But they don't even want to have the debate. You mentioned the public sector getting support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, as you know, the President challenged them, the Republicans, to do this. He said, look, I'm putting my bill up here, you bring yours up here, and we'll see which one creates more jobs. And folks like Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised both Republicans and Democrats, took an evaluation. He said the Republican plan is not likely to create any jobs next year. Well, people are employed this year and next year. And what are they doing about it? Well, they're just cutting basic services in local government, they're getting rid of health regulations in the EPA, they're doing things like creating cultural fights, like the one they did today, trying to sort of divide Americans based on people's deeply held views about the issue of abortion when we need to be getting people back to work, which is, in my view, trying to take our eye off the ball.

But I just wanted to throw out a couple of facts that I think may contribute to the dialogue. Here's one: In September, 2011, a month that just passed, the public sector lost 34,000 jobs. Eighty-two percent of those jobs were women's jobs. This is an important fact. This is according to the National Women's Law Center. And then also, the damage in the public sector was driven largely by cuts to local governments' education. I'll say that again. And, Congresswoman Maloney, you're a former teacher, so I know this is close to your heart. The damage in the public sector was largely by cuts to the local governments' education.

In this field, one that is nearly three-quarters women, 24,400 jobs were lost from August to September. Since the recovery began in 2009, this field has lost more than 250,000 jobs. What does it mean when we, as a society, disinvest in public education?

One thing it means is that women workers will be hit harder because that's who three-quarters of our teachers are. It also means that our young people will be deprived.

As a person who has been in the classroom, Congresswoman Maloney, what does that mean when a classroom goes from 20 kids to 35 kids? What does it mean to the kids who might not be catching on to the lesson or who may have a learning disability? I mean, is it even possible for a competent, caring teacher to teach all the kids given that some may need extra help?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, you just mentioned a moment ago this idea of reinvesting in our schools. Today, I had a visit from a number of superintendents in my State of Minnesota. They were not all from the Fifth Congressional District, which I'm honored to represent, but they were from a cross-section around the State.

They told me that there were literally nearly 100 different school districts going to the voters for a referendum so that they could pay their basic expenses because the State government is backing off its commitment to education because the Federal Government is backing off its commitment.

The fact of the matter is we have a disturbing trend here.

They said, Look, if we could just get the part of the American Jobs Act passed that would help us with these old and outdated and rupturing boilers, these old, beat-up pipes, this poor ventilation, these windows that are not opening and closing properly--if we could get some help with our capital budget--that would free up money for us to hire teachers and to do some real instruction.

What do you think of that part of the American Jobs Act which goes to this issue of investing in our schools and in keeping our teachers out there and preventing 280,000 teachers from being laid off? What do you think about this idea of, really, just making sure that the infrastructure of our schools is sound for our kids and for the people working in the schools?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, I know that you have to take care of other important responsibilities, so I want to just thank you.

I just think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for people to know that Congresswoman Maloney is the author of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act. It's when you go and use your credit card and don't get back a bunch of fees and stuff you didn't even bargain for--terms being changed without any notice to you. When you used that credit card and were late on that card, sometimes they used to jack you up on the card you weren't even late on because you were late on some other card. They can't do that anymore.

When people benefit from credit card justice, you have to thank Carolyn Maloney. You cannot just use that card and say, Wow, things are better than they used to be with this card. They're better because Carolyn Maloney

fought tirelessly.

This was an uphill climb for you. It wasn't easy. You had to work on editorial boards; you had to work on Republicans; you had to work on Democrats; you had to work on the Senate. You had to just pound the pavement night and day; yet you got that done, and this country cannot pay you back for the good work you did.

Congresswoman Maloney, I wish you many, many, many years here in this Congress; but no matter how long you stay here, I just want you to know that that accomplishment is a towering achievement which will stand the test of time and is historic. So I don't want to hold you up, because I know you've got to go do some important things, but I just didn't want you to leave without my mentioning how important that service that you gave was, not to mention the work that you do every single day, including the work you do on the Joint Economic Committee, on the rights of all people as well as on women's rights.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank you again, Congresswoman Maloney. You have a wonderful evening and, again, thank you for all of the great work you have done and thank you for your help tonight. I am just going to remain a few more minutes to help the American people understand what is in the American Jobs Act.

The American Jobs Act is an excellent piece of legislation. We have been talking a lot tonight here at this Progressive Caucus Special Order about women's rights, but we've also been talking about jobs and, of course, these subjects go right together.

But it's important, as we talk about this subject tonight, that the American people know what's in the American Jobs Act. The American Jobs Act will put Americans to work when jobs are needed, which is now, not later, not next year, not some other time, now.

The emphasis of the American Jobs Act is immediacy. It will preserve and create jobs now. It will put money in the pockets of working Americans now. It will give businesses job-creating tax breaks now. And it will provide a boost to the economy right now.

So this is what we're aiming for in the American Jobs Act. Republican colleagues have failed to produce any kinds of a jobs bill. The only time they ever talk about jobs is when they're not talking about jobs. They say that cutting important health regulations will create jobs. They won't.

They say that cutting taxes for people at the very top of the American income scale, corporations, will create jobs. It won't. Corporations already are awash in corporate profits. They're not using the money to create jobs, and they won't use the money even if we give them more money because what they don't have is customers. Why don't they have customers? Because people aren't working.

Americans need to be put back to work, and when businesses find that they have customers and orders they will hire people to fill those orders. When they have excess capacity, they are not going to just hire people. They're going to hire people when they need to hire people because they've got sales that they need to make.

Of course, this is a basic and fundamental difference of opinion that we have with our Republican colleagues about the way the economy works. But I do believe that after years and years of trying, trickle-down economics must be discarded, must be dismissed, must be thrown away as a discredited economic theory.

Trickle-down economics, which is the Republican mantra--they believe in trickle down. They believe if you give rich people enough money maybe the money will trickle down to the rest of us.

This has been a failed economic policy. They are wrong. They have been proven to be wrong, and yet they never stop coming here saying, if we just gave the rich people another tax cut, if we just gave the rich corporations, who don't pay any taxes now, more money. If we just gave them more money, all those profits that they have they might maybe hire somebody. They're wrong, and history has proven them to be wrong. I don't know why they cling to this outmoded, discredited, discarded theory of economics, but they cling to it.

The American Jobs Act would do something different. It would put people back to work, and with people working again, this will boost aggregate demand, aggregate meaning added up, cumulative demand. And with that, more customers, more people with money to buy and spend, this economy will take off and the store will hire people because they will have a reason to. So the American Jobs Act goes right to the problem.

But here's the other thing. The American Jobs Act calls it a Jobs Act, and it is. But there's something also very important that the American Jobs Act does that I wish got more play. It invests in our Nation's basic infrastructure, and it invests in our Nation's human capital.

It puts targeted tax breaks--not just giving money to rich people and corporations who have plenty of money and who won't use it to hire people--but it gives targeted tax breaks and puts money in the pockets of American workers and American employers so that they will add and grow jobs. And it puts the money into job training, which does skill upgrades for our people so that they are more productive and better at what they do. The job saving and job-producing actions will put paychecks into the economy, will provide vital economic needs and invest in economic growth.

I just want to quote Mark Zandi for a moment, this economist who works for both Republicans and Democrats. He is unbiased, and here's what he had to say. He says, President Obama's job proposal would help stabilize confidence and help keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession, add 2 percentage points to GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.

Now, that's a big deal. Wouldn't the people watching this show, Mr. Speaker, like to be able to see America go from 9.1 percent unemployment to 8.1 percent unemployment? I think this would be great, and here's the best thing about the American Jobs Act. It's paid for.

Unlike the two wars that the Republicans got us into in the last decade, unlike the big PhRMA Medicare part D, unlike the tax breaks under George Bush and the Republican majority, these, the American Jobs Act, is paid for.

President Obama has offered pay-fors in this which cover the cost of the bill. This is something the Republicans are not used to, which is why they may not quite understand the American Jobs Act. They like to spend money that we don't have. That's what they did with the two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what they did with the Bush tax cuts. And that's, of course, what they did with the Big Pharma giveaway.

But this bill is paid for. The American Jobs Act is paid for, which may be why they don't support it, because they don't understand things that are paid for. They just understand spending and adding to the deficit.

But the Republicans have not only failed to produce or support any jobs bill of their own, other than just absurdly claiming that getting rid of important health regulations is going to create jobs, they're refusing to even act on the American Jobs Act. In fact, Majority Leader Eric Cantor has already said the Jobs Act was dead, his words.

The Republicans not only failed to produce or support any jobs bill, they are refusing to act on this bill, and I think Eric Cantor has also said it was ``unacceptable,'' another word that he used. Now, that's, again, fine with me.

If the majority leader could say, look, I don't like this part, but I can maybe go for that part, let's get the bill up here, all four amendments, debate this thing. But by all means let's start talking about jobs around here. The Republicans are more invested in protecting millionaires from paying their fair share than helping their middle class to work.

By a 16-point margin, Mr. Speaker, the Americans support President Obama's proposal to create jobs, 52 percent to 36 percent. Fifty-two percent of Americans want it, 36 percent of Americans don't. By a 16-point margin Americans support President Obama's proposal to create jobs.

By a 15-point margin, more Americans trust President Obama to do a better job creating jobs than congressional Republicans, 49 percent to 34 percent. Sixty-two percent of all Americans, Mr. Speaker, and at least 62 percent of the people surveyed support a balanced approach. That means cutting spending and raising revenue to reduce the deficit.

And, Mr. Speaker, three out of four Americans support raising taxes on Americans with incomes of $1 million or more. These are the so-called job creators Republicans like to talk about. The only problem is they haven't been creating any jobs.

But what will create jobs is businesses and small businesses that have orders and have consumers and have people working and have people who have money to spend at their businesses. That's what will create jobs.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the American people that the three components of the American Jobs Act are designed to win. One, the American Jobs Act and reinvesting in America, preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and keeping first responders, firefighters, and police officers on the job. Two, modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country.

Mr. Speaker, myself and Congresswoman Maloney were talking about this. She's a former teacher. We were talking about supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms, school innovations, both rural and urban. But as I talked about earlier today, the superintendents and the schools that I represent, some of them have boilers that are about to go out, windows that aren't fixed up right, roofs that need repair, basic stuff.

This would put thousands of Americans back to work as we give our young people a good decent place and a modern place to go learn in.

Of course, another part of the American Jobs Act, all under this important category of investing in America, is making immediate investments in infrastructure, modernizing our roads, our railways, our airports, and putting hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work; Project Rebuild, a great effort, an effort to put people back to work, rehabilitating homes and businesses and stabilizing communities, leveraging private capital and scaling up successful models of public-private collaboration; and, of course, expanding wireless Internet, expanding wireless Internet to 98 percent of Americans by freeing up the Nation's spectrum.

The second element of this important American Jobs Act which Republicans should support and Democrats do support is tax cuts for employers and employees. This is not just some giveaway. This is targeted tax cuts that are designed to succeed.

Some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle like to say Democrats don't like tax cuts. This is not true. We are for tax cuts when they are targeted and designed to help the average working American, not just some giveaway to rich people. And, of course, I have nothing against rich people. I like rich people. In fact, one day when I leave Congress and go back to the private sector, maybe I can be one of them. But the fact is right now, right now the fact of the matter is we need tax cuts that are targeted and designed to spur the economy, not just giveaways, hoping and praying that the money will trickle down.

Specifically what I'm referring to is cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year. The President's plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers' payroll taxes in half in 2012, providing $1,500, a tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security trust fund.

This is important because things are tough around the house. Things are tough around the kitchen table, and Americans could really use this, particularly now. It will help maintain aggregate demand, and it would be very helpful.

Also, allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today's near 4 percent interest rate, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family's pocket.

Also, cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses. The President's plan will cut in half taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll.

Mr. Speaker, another important element of the American Jobs Act that has to do with this tax issue is a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages. The President's plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll by adding new workers or increasing wages. That's a targeted tax cut. That's a tax cut that's going to get people to hire somebody, not just some give money to rich people and hope they hire somebody. This is a targeted tax cut that will actually be of value.

The next one, Mr. Speaker, encouraging businesses to make investments by extending 100 percent business expensing into 2012. This extension would put an additional $85 billion in the hands of businesses next year.

The third thing that I think is important to mention is helping the unemployed with pathways back to work. Some people like to refer to our social safety net. I think it is much more effective to refer to it as our social safety trampoline. That is when you fall down, America, caring, compassionate Nation that we are, provides a way for people to bounce back. And that is what the third element of this American Jobs Act does. Returning heroes, offering tax cuts to encourage businesses to hire unemployed veterans.

Now, I know there are some Republicans who would vote for this provision. There's got to be. Businesses that hire veterans who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer would receive a tax credit up to $5,600, and that credit rises to $9,600 for veterans who have a service-connected disability. Now, I have just got to believe that there are a few Republicans who would give a green vote to a good piece of legislation like that.

In the same vein of helping our unemployed, the most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years, as part of the extension of the unemployment insurance, to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President's plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give States greater flexibility to use unemployment insurance funds to best support job seekers and connect them to work, including in this innovative program things like work sharing, unemployment insurance for workers whose employers choose work sharing over layoffs.

Second, improve reemployment services for long-term unemployed through counseling eligibility assessments.

Three, new bridge to work program. This plan builds on and improves innovative State programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary, or pursue on-the-job training.

I'm about at the end of my time tonight. This has been the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are here with the progressive message, which we like to come to as often as we can. What we're talking about tonight is standing up for the rights of women. More than 50 percent of Americans are female. My daughter is one of them. I just want to argue that for this country to rise to its full measure of greatness, we have to have full and equal rights for everybody, especially women.

Today, there was an attack on women's constitutional rights today. There also have been assaults to programs which women disproportionately rely on like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and also employment sectors that women are employed in such as the public sector. This is too bad, and we need to stand up against it. But also jobs. Instead of dealing with divisive social issues where Americans of honestly held conscience disagree very severely on this issue of pro-choice/pro-life, instead of dealing with these old issues, things that we have been fighting over for years and will probably never be solved, why don't we talk about jobs.

And so we did go into the American Jobs Act tonight where we talked about the key parts of this important bill by President Obama. First, investing in our infrastructure and in our people skills; second, targeted tax breaks designed to put people back to work, not just giveaways for the rich; and, third, help for the unemployed. These are three very important features which I believe will really help America.

All we want is a chance to debate these issues on the House floor. We can bring amendments, debate them, vote some up, vote some down, but it's just wrong to deny the American people a chance to get a good jobs bill. So tonight, I just want to wrap up by saying that it's always a pleasure to come before the House and discuss critical issues facing the American people.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source