Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this designated hour at the beginning of this week for the Congressional Black Caucus, as it normally does, to come to this floor to bring forward issues that are very important to the American people. Tonight I join with my colleagues to speak about the importance of extending unemployment insurance benefits, growing our economy, and putting people back to work. So for the next hour, the Congressional Black Caucus will talk about the dire need for emergency unemployment insurance benefits and the fact that it is time for Congress to do its job.

I would like to thank my coanchor, Mr. Jeffries from New York, and our chair, the Honorable Marcia Fudge from Ohio, for their leadership and working tonight to bring forward these important issues.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from New York, Representative Clarke.

I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York. Thank you for your hard work and for bringing your perspective to the need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits to the 1.3 million Americans who, as of this week, have now lost receiving that benefit. This is the week that they would have otherwise received that unemployment insurance benefit in the mail. So this is real for some 1.3 million Americans who are struggling this week to meet their obligations to keep the lights on, to put food on the table and to pay the rent. This is the week. Each week that Congress fails to act, 72,000 Americans--additional Americans--lose their unemployment insurance benefits. One person every 8 seconds, Mr. Speaker, loses their uninsurance benefits when Congress fails to act.

That is why the Congressional Black Caucus is here this evening, to bring attention to this urgency of now. Every week, 72,000 Americans are struggling--additional Americans--on top of the 1.3 million who already, as of December 28, have lost their unemployment insurance.

So this is real, and the impacts are real.

I would like to go to the vice chairman now of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina, who provides tremendous leadership to our caucus and to the issues important to the American people, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I thank him for his profound remarks this evening and the call to action, not only for the leadership in North Carolina but for the leadership in this House to do its job in bringing legislation forward to allow us to vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the people of North Carolina and across America, who this week, now because of the failure of Congress to act, when they went to their mailbox to receive their unemployment insurance benefit, this is the week that they opened that mailbox and nothing was there to provide that bridge. So this is real, and so people are impacted.

This has been an insurance program that has received bipartisan support in the past, and there is no reason why this Congress cannot do its job to get this done now. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership.

I would like to now turn to the gentlelady from Texas, who brought forward and who raised the objections prior to our even adjourning in December, along with 170 of our other colleagues, calling on the leadership to not go on recess but, in fact, to stay here and do its job. We are where we are now, but we have raised these objections, and the gentlelady from Texas has raised these objections.

I would like to yield now to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate very much you bringing to our attention who is covered by unemployment insurance and putting a face to who is receiving this insurance. I am glad you focused on that term ``insurance'' and the fact that these are individuals who have paid into the program, as they have been gainfully employed for some time.

Due to no fault of their own, they are in need of this bridge. Many of them are in training, and this initiative of legislation you are proposing to link job-seekers to employer-based demands is exactly the type of reform that our side supports and that we are willing to work with the other side on, but we need to provide the extension of the unemployment benefits while we work on those reforms.

Right now, the Congress has failed to provide this bridge, and you have documented that very well in your remarks this evening. I thank the gentlelady.

Let me highlight, as well, some of the additional information on who is covered by unemployment insurance benefits. This is according to the Department of Labor: four out of five beneficiaries of unemployment insurance benefits, Mr. Speaker, are individuals with children in the household or another adult in the household, typically a spouse; 44.5 percent of individuals who receive emergency unemployment benefits are households with children. So just think about that for a moment. This is the week that those emergency employment benefits did not come in, the $300 or $400 or $500 that they may have received to help meet their basic needs this month. That impacted not only that job-seeker, not only that unemployed worker, but also their children.

Half of the people receiving emergency unemployment insurance have at least some college education. So for those who continue to use this rhetoric of these are people who are lazy, who are sitting at home channel surfing, they don't want to look for work, half of them are people already with college education or some form of education; 36.4 percent have high school degrees.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, 50 percent, over nine in 10 live in households with total income less than $75,000 a year. This is the working poor of our country. These are the people who are striving to be part of the middle class; and, if anything, they are using emergency unemployment benefits as a bridge until they can get back on their feet. I also want to point out that 43 percent are individuals with income over $75,000 a year. So this economy has hit virtually every stratum of income level, and so that is why it is important for this Congress to do its job in extending unemployment insurance benefits.

I want to commend the other Chamber, the leadership, Majority Leader Harry Reid from my home State of Nevada, and Republican U.S. Senator

Dean Heller, also from Nevada, in large part our State, because we have unemployment at about 9 percent. We are tied with Rhode Island for the highest unemployment in the country, not because job-seekers don't want to go to work, because the second highest industry in our State was construction and because of the bust of the construction economy in our State, there are no jobs or there are very few jobs for those trades workers, for engineering firms, for architecture firms. I have one architecture firm that has had to lay off 70 percent of their workforce in the last few years because there simply aren't the jobs in the construction sector. Despite the fact that our economy is beginning to rebound, it is not rebounding in all sectors or all regions of the country. That is why it is critically important that this Congress do its job to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the 20,000 Nevadans who have lost them, and the 1.3 million Americans who have also lost them.

I now would like to turn to my good friend and freshman colleague. It has been a great opportunity over the last year to get to know him and the work that he does in the great State of New Jersey and the commitment that he brings to serving the people of his congressional district. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Again, I commend you for raising your voice and urging this body to do its job on behalf of your constituents, the people of New Jersey who elected you to bring their perspective to this Congress. You are asking the same question many of us are asking, which is to our colleagues on the other side: Do they know what it is like to be unemployed? Do they know what it is like to have to look for a job day after day, week after week, submitting resumes not knowing if you are going to be called back? Do they know what it is like to struggle, or to look one of your children in the eyes and worry about how you are going to make ends meet? That is the reality for 1.4 million Americans today because Congress has failed to act. Whether they have been in that situation or not, they need to understand that is the reality for many Americans.

I thank you for your comments and for being here during this Special Order hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I commend you for your hard work.

Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is significant for many.

Like my colleagues last week, I went to a local work center in my district, Workforce Connections, to talk with and meet with a group of workers, job seekers, people who were looking for work. When I walked into the center, the one-stop center where everybody looks for the jobs on the job board was packed. There was a waiting list to get in in order to get onto a computer to search for jobs.

I talked to one unemployed worker. Her name is Alfordeen. I want to just share a bit of her story with you because it hit me that this is who I am fighting for. She is one of those 20,000 Nevadans affected by the expiration of her unemployment insurance.

She worked for 20 years doing patient admissions for a local medical facility in southern Nevada. She was laid off in 2012, which resulted in her losing her health insurance. Unfortunately, she was later diagnosed with breast cancer and has been living with one of her children while she trains to become certified to get another job. Alfordeen is using her remaining unemployment insurance benefits to cover some of her medical costs, and she just found out recently, fortunately, that she qualifies now for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

But what Alfordeen told me, what all of the workers I talked to told me, is what she wants most is what she had in 2012: to go back to work, to regain her independence, and to help others do the work that she loves by admitting them and helping them get health care.

So Alfordeen is an example to me of the 1.4 million Americans who are out there who are trying, who want this Congress to try as well. They expected us to do our job, and we failed them. We failed when we left in December, and we are failing them every day that we don't extend unemployment insurance benefits.

So I am urging my colleagues to not allow another day to go without us

taking action. It is true that one person every 8 seconds loses unemployment insurance. It is true that 72,000 additional Americans will be affected every week that this Congress fails to act. But we have the ability to do something about it, and that is why we are here tonight.

I want to turn now to my coanchor of this Special Order hour. He is a great colleague, someone who I have profound respect for. He works tirelessly on behalf of the constituents who elected him from New York. He brings so many great perspectives to the Special Order topics that we have been able to cover. I would like to recognize him now, the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from New York--the coanchor--and the chronology and the facts that you have laid out to make the case that, unfortunately, it is not just the unemployment insurance benefits that have been under attack by the House Republicans to reauthorize or to extend but that there have been other bridges that have helped the middle class--or those who are aspiring to be part of the middle class--in just the last year that this Congress has failed to act on.

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time we have left.

I would like to use that final 10 minutes then, Mr. Speaker, to close by highlighting the points that my colleague Mr. Jeffries just did a phenomenal job of laying out, one being that this is not the first time unemployment insurance benefits have been extended. In fact, this chart shows that while there is still more work to be done to help the unemployed--and I completely agree that our focus must be on creating jobs and on growing the economy. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus and individual Members like myself have proposed jobs-creating legislation. The first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress was a jobs-creating measure to help people in Nevada's Fourth District go to work, to help bring down our stubbornly high unemployment.

For those who are in the unemployment calculation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from January 2007 to date, unemployment insurance has repeatedly been extended, including by Republican administrations. It was in June of 2008 that then-President George W. Bush authorized emergency unemployment insurance benefits to be extended. What was the unemployment rate at the time? 5.6 percent. He didn't extend unemployment insurance one time--he extended it five times--and he didn't offer a proposal for how it had to be paid because it was an emergency. It was an emergency then, and it is an emergency now with the national unemployment rate just below 7 percent. When 1.4 million Americans who rely on the unemployment insurance benefit have now lost it, it is an emergency for these individuals, and it is an emergency for our economy.

So, for those on the other side who don't want to do this because it is the right thing to do for our neighbors, for hardworking Americans who have done everything that they can and at no fault of their own they are still unemployed, if you don't want to do it for that reason, then maybe do it because it is good for the local economy, because the money that is provided for under the unemployment insurance benefit is then spent by those beneficiaries in local grocery stores, and it is spent paying utility bills, paying rent, and that all helps affect the economy.

Failing to renew the emergency unemployment insurance program will cost the economy, as my colleague from New York said, over 200,000 jobs this year, including 3,000 jobs in Nevada, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expiration of the Federal unemployment insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than $400 million out of the pockets of American job seekers nationwide and of State and local economies, according to analysis done by the Ways and Means Committee. In Nevada, in the first week from the loss of uninsurance benefits expiring, $5.4 million has been lost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective fiscal policies to increase economic growth and to help employment.

So, if our colleagues on the other side don't want to do it because it is the right thing to do for those four out of five of the beneficiaries who have children, if they don't want to do it for half of the beneficiaries who have gone to some form of college, if they don't want to do it for the veterans who also rely in some part on unemployment insurance benefits, then do it for the local economy, but whatever your reason, do it.

I would like to ask my colleague if he has any final remarks that he would like to offer. Then I want to close by just debunking this pay- for argument that some on the other side have again proposed, which is that the only way they are going to vote for something is if there is a plan to pay for it.

I thank the gentleman from New York.

As I come to a close, let me just say directly that, President George Bush did it five times and not with a pay-for. On December 14, 2012, during his Weekly Radio Address, he was reminding the Congress that no final bill was sent to him extending these unemployment benefits for 750,000 Americans whose benefits would expire on December 28.

He went on to say:

These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay

for their mortgage or rent and their critical bills. They

need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot

let them down.

As I said, the unemployment rate at that time was below 6 percent, and it is now below 7 percent. It is time for this Congress to act, but if you demand a pay-for, then I have one suggestion: What about eliminating or closing a number of the corporate tax loopholes, such as eliminating the tax incentives for companies that get benefits for shipping American jobs overseas? Right now, the United States loses an estimated $150 billion annually to tax

avoidance schemes involving tax havens. Many of our largest and most profitable companies paid no Federal taxes in previous years.

So, for the other side to make this argument is disingenuous. It is unconscionable that you would hold hostage the benefits for 1.4 million Americans for 3 months at a cost of $6.5 billion when you have a Tax Code that is littered with corporate tax incentives for shipping American jobs overseas. If we were to close those tax loopholes, we could re-shore those jobs back to America, putting Americans back to work, reducing our unemployment rate, and growing America's economy. That is what we should be doing. That is why this Congress needs to act, and it is time for this Congress, under the leadership of the Speaker, to do just that.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with many Members to mark President Lyndon Baines Johnson's 1964 State of the Union Address.

Let me first take a moment to thank Leader Pelosi; our whip, Steny Hoyer; and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, for their tremendous leadership in leading our agenda for economic justice and for jobs.

This is truly a historic day in our fight to provide every American with a pathway out of poverty. This morning, we were joined here at the Capitol by Linda Johnson Robb, President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson's eldest daughter, to mark the 50th anniversary of her father's State of the Union speech in which he declared an unconditional war on poverty. At the time of his speech, the Nation's supplemental poverty rate was approximately 26 percent; 36 percent of low-income households struggled with food insecurity; and more than a third of American seniors were living in poverty.

And let me tell you, President Johnson got it. He recognized in his speech that poverty is a national problem requiring national organization and support. He knew that in a great society it is absolutely essential that we prioritize investments that lift millions out of poverty. As a result of his vision, his daughter reminded us this morning of the bipartisan and bicameral effort that followed, benchmark antipoverty legislation passed during the Johnson administration, including--and I want to remind everyone of these major initiatives that have significantly changed the lives of millions of Americans--the Civil Rights Act, the Urban Mass Transportation Act, the Criminal Justice Act, the Food Stamp Act, the Older Americans Act, Social Security amendments, the Voting Rights Act, the Housing and Urban Development Act, the Public Works and Economic Development Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, the Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Higher Education Act, the Child Nutrition Act, the Child Protection Act, and the National School Lunch Act, in addition to Head Start, Job Corps, of course food stamps, now known as SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The result of these policies and programs are undeniable. The poverty rate was cut nearly in half by the mid-1970s. They even had a personal impact on many of us here, a personal impact on me, providing a critical bridge over troubled waters when I was a single mother in the seventies, trying to raise two boys and go to college. And I am forever grateful to the American people for being there for me when I needed them.

And we know that today, 50 years later, these critical antipoverty programs continue to provide that support for vulnerable Americans and people living on the edge. Today, the Nation's supplemental poverty rate is now 16 percent, well below what it was in 1964. The programs put in place after the war on poverty, they work. They create economic security, return people to their dignity, and provide opportunities for Americans to lift themselves out of poverty.

According to a report released by the Center for American Progress yesterday, without the safety net initiated as a part of the war on poverty, ``poverty rates today would be nearly double what they currently are.'' And I will now insert that report into the Record.

[From americanprogress.org, Jan. 7, 2014]

Key Findings From Our New National Poll

One-quarter to one-third of Americans, and even higher

percentages of Millennials and people of color, continue to

experience direct economic hardship. Sixty-one percent of

Americans say their family's income is falling behind the

cost of living, compared to just 8 percent who feel they are

getting ahead and 29 percent who feel they are staying even.

Twenty-five percent to 34 percent of Americans report serious

problems falling behind in rent, mortgage, or utilities

payments or being unable to buy enough food, afford necessary

medical care, or keep up with minimum credit card payments.

While these numbers have somewhat retreated over the last

five years, they are still shockingly high, and the

disparities across demographic groups underscore how uneven

the current recovery has been.

A majority of Americans have a direct personal connection

to poverty. Fifty-four percent of Americans say that someone

in their immediate or extended families is poor, a figure

that has actually increased 2 points

since we conducted our first poll in. Nearly two in three

African Americans (65 percent) report a direct connection to

poverty, while 59 percent of Hispanics say the same.

Americans vastly overestimate the annual income necessary

to be officially considered poor. Perhaps expressing a more

realistic understanding of the economy than official

government measures currently capture, Americans on average

estimate that it takes just over $30,000 in annual income for

a family of four to be considered officially in poverty--

about $7,000 more than the government's poverty line. Most

respondents in the focus groups were shocked to hear that the

official poverty line was as low as it is; many suggested

that it represents a disconnect with the reality of rising

prices over the last few years. Americans on average also

report that it would take more than $55,000 in annual income

to be considered out of poverty and safely in the middle

class.

Americans now believe that nearly 40 percent of their

fellow citizens are living in poverty. When we conducted our

2008 poll, 13.2 percent of Americans were living below the

federal poverty line, but our survey found that Americans

guessed the number to be 29 percent. Today, with unemployment

at pre-financial crisis levels and a recovery ostensibly

underway for several years, government statistics tell us

that 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty level.

The public, however, believes that number is now 39 percent--

a stunning 10-point increase that flies in the face of

economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, consumer

confidence, the financial markets, and gross domestic

product, or GDP.

Americans strongly believe that poverty is primarily the

result of a failed economy rather than the result of personal

decisions and lack of effort. In a forced choice test of

ideas, nearly two in three Americans (64 percent) agree more

with a structural argument about the causes of poverty--

``Most people who live in poverty are poor because their jobs

don't pay enough, they lack good health care and education,

and things cost too much for them to save and get ahead,''

underscoring the current economy's failings in the areas of

wages, health care, education, and cost of living. In

contrast, only 25 percent of Americans agree more with a

personal cause--``Most people who live in poverty are poor

because they make bad decisions or act irresponsibly in their

own lives.'' Even white conservatives and libertarians prefer

the structural vision of a failed economy over personal

reasons for poverty by a wide margin (63 percent to 29

percent).

Retrospective evaluations of the ``war on poverty'' are

mixed, but Americans across ideological and partisan lines

believe the government has a responsibility to use its

resources to fight poverty. Americans do not generally have a

favorable impression of the term ``the war on poverty''

without additional context about the programs and goals

associated with the larger project. But after introducing

information to describe the war on poverty and its impact, an

overwhelming percentage of Americans--86 percent--agrees that

the government has a responsibility to use some of its

resources to combat poverty. Moreover, a majority (61

percent) feels that the war on poverty has made a difference,

albeit not a major difference, in achieving its goals (41

percent say war on poverty has made a ``minor difference'';

20 percent say it has made a ``major difference'').

Retrospective evaluations of the war on poverty, however, are

heavily divided by ideology, partisanship, and race. Nearly 7

in 10 (69 percent) white liberals and progressives believe

the war on poverty has worked, and more than 6 in 10 (64

percent) white conservatives and libertarians believe the

opposite.

Despite mixed feelings about the original war on poverty,

there is strong support for a more realistic goal of reducing

poverty by half over the next 10 years. Asked whether they

would support or oppose ``the President and Congress setting

a national goal to cut poverty in the United States in half

within ten years,'' 7 in 10 Americans said they would support

such a goal--40 percent of the public would strongly support

the goal--and only 22 percent would oppose it. This figure is

quite similar to the 74 percent of support reported in the

first study in 2008. Support for a national goal of cutting

poverty in half is very strong among African Americans (87

percent support, 58 percent strongly) and reaches roughly 80

percent among both Millennials (79 percent) and Latinos (79

percent). Sixty-five percent of whites support this goal as

do a majority of Democrats (89 percent), Independents (66

percent), and Republicans (54 percent).

The public is clear about its priorities for reducing

poverty--jobs, wages, and education. Asked which two areas

they believe are most important for new investments, 40

percent of Americans choose ``creating jobs and increasing

wages''; 30 percent choose ``job training and workplace

preparation''; 25 percent choose ``elementary and secondary

education''; 23 percent choose ``college access and

affordability''; and 21 percent choose ``early childhood

education.''

Americans also express very strong support for a number of

policies to help reduce poverty rates with particular

intensity around jobs, wages, and education but also on more

traditional safety net items. Of the 11 policy ideas tested,

five proposals received 80 percent or higher total support

and 50 percent or higher strong support from Americans. These

five policy proposals are: help low wage workers afford

quality child care (86 percent total support, 52 percent

strong support); expand nutrition assistance to provide

families with healthy food and enough to eat (85 percent

total support, 50 percent strong support); make universal

pre-kindergarten available for all children (84 percent total

support, 59 percent strong support); expand publicly funded

scholarships to help more families afford college (84 percent

total support, 54 percent strong support); and increase the

minimum wage and make sure it rises with inflation (80

percent total support, 58 percent strong support). A second

tier of anti-poverty proposals with roughly three-quarters

total support and more than 40 percent strong support

includes ideas for expanded tax credits like the Earned

Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit and access to

affordable health coverage, as well as proposals for a new

national jobs program and more refinancing of mortgages.

Policymakers should feel confident that the American public

will support efforts to expand economic opportunity, increase

access to good jobs and wages, and maintain a robust social

safety net. Harsh negative attitudes about the poor that

seemingly defined political discussions throughout the 1980s

and 1990s have given way to public recognition that many

Americans--poor and middle class alike--are facing many

pressures trying to stay afloat and get ahead in the

difficult economic environment. Supporters of anti-poverty

efforts should not be complacent in their efforts, however,

and should recognize that although Americans back government

action to reduce poverty, questions remain about the

structure and scope of these efforts and how effective they

have been over time.

Let me give you an example. SNAP lifted 5 million people out of poverty in 2012 alone; and according to a new report by the White House, released yesterday, unemployment benefits reduced poverty by nearly 1 percent in 2012 alone.

Without Social Security, nearly half of our Nation's seniors would live in poverty; and since 2008, unemployment insurance has kept 11 million people out of poverty, including 2.5 million children and adults in 2012.

We are going to talk about not only the history this evening but also about the challenges ahead.

I will now yield to Congresswoman Yvette Clarke from New York to speak about many of the challenges which remain, in addition to a historical perspective on the war on poverty.

I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman G.K. Butterfield.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Now I would like to yield to the Democratic whip, Steny Hoyer, whose Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity I am honored and proud to chair. I thank him very much for being here and for his tremendous leadership.

Thank you very much for that very powerful message, Mr. Hoyer.

Let me now yield to Representative Danny Davis from Illinois who continues to remind us of the formerly incarcerated individuals who have families and children living below the poverty line.

Thank you.

Let me now yield to the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Susan Davis, whom I served with in the California Legislature, who continues to remind us that middle-income individuals are worried at this point now of falling into the ranks of the poor. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much for your leadership and for being here with us tonight, Congresswoman Davis.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), someone who has been a fighter and a warrior for many, many years and who continues to remind us of our moral obligation, our religious obligation for many, to ensure that we continue this fight in the war on poverty.

I want to thank the gentleman for reminding us tonight of our moral obligation to the most vulnerable in our country. Thank you for being here.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), who will speak on behalf of not only her constituents but the entire country. She has come to Congress, hit the ground running, and continues to remind us of our veterans and the sacrifices that they have made, and to ensure their economic security. So many live on food stamps, unfortunately, as we speak. So thank you for being here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) whose subcommittee I serve on, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services.

I thank you so much for not only talking the talk, but walking the walk each and every day.

I yield now to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney) and thank you so much for your tremendous leadership.

Thank you very much.

Let me now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my good friend who constantly throughout his life has been waging this war on poverty. Thank you for being with us.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have many Members who still would like to speak, which really let's us know the importance of this issue.

I yield to Congresswoman Grace Meng from New York, a freshman from New York who has hit the ground running, is representing her constituents in a bold and brilliant way. Thank you for being with us.

Thank you very much.

Let me yield now to Congressman Pete DeFazio from Oregon, who has some stories he would like to tell about his constituents and what they are going through.

Thank you for that very powerful statement and for sharing those stories. All of us have stories very similar, but thank you for your constituents' testimonies.

I yield to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur from Ohio. I am privileged to serve with Congresswoman Kaptur on the Appropriations Committee, who constantly speaks for the voiceless. Thank you for being here.

Thank you for that very powerful statement, Congresswoman Kaptur.

I yield now to our assistant leader, my good friend Congressman Clyburn from the great State of South Carolina, who constantly and consistently talks about prioritizing and targeting resources to area needs, to the poor and low-income communities. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much for being here with us and for your leadership, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Let me yield now to the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have Congresswoman Schakowsky and Congressmen Green and Bishop here, who would like to insert their statements into the Record. We had an overwhelming number of Members who attended, and they did not have the opportunity to speak tonight.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Congresswoman Lee of Oakland, thank you so much for raising the consciousness of a Nation again.

I rise to join my colleagues tonight in support of raising consciousness about how important the programs have been over the years to reduce poverty in our country since the half-century-old effort of the war on poverty started by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, who wanted to replace despair with opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to place into the Record an executive summary of the Council of Economic Advisors, dated January 2014, that summarizes the great progress that has been made: poverty in our country declining by more than a third since 1967 because of important programs that Democrats created--Social Security, Medicare, the earned income tax credit, and unemployment compensation, which is being tested as we speak here today. The speaker from Ohio, where unemployment has just gone up, should bring up that bill to extend unemployment benefits that impacts millions of Americans across our country.

People who understand the value of work, they don't want any subsidy, they want a job--they want a job. The most important work we can do is to create jobs, but when they can't get a job, then to give them their earned benefits.

What is great about this evening is I was thinking back to the 1960s--I was pretty young back then--but there was a book written by Michael Harrington, ``The Other America.'' For whatever reason--maybe it was because President Kennedy was President--that book became almost like a small Bible. People read it and it raised their consciousness. I can remember President Kennedy campaigning in the mines in West Virginia and raising consciousness again about the conditions of miners and what they were enduring.

It is very important that we have that same kind of effort across our country to raise consciousness about how important these programs are for our children, for our seniors, for those who are out of work. By working together we, as a people, really do make a difference.

Congresswoman Lee, I want to thank you tonight for being part of that clarion call to raise consciousness of people who really care. The majority of Americans really do. As they are listening to Wall Street announce bigger and bigger and bigger bonuses, they know that there is a war on the middle class right now. So many Americans are falling out of that middle class. They know something is wrong. They want us to champion jobs here in Washington, D.C., and they want to make sure that that safety net is there for them if they hit the skids.

I just thank you so very much for doing this. I thank all of my colleagues who took the time tonight to be here and to issue a clarion call for consciousness for jobs in this country, for extending unemployment benefits, for maintaining Social Security, for maintaining the earned income tax credit, and making sure that our vigilant efforts continue to eliminate poverty in this country.

[From The Council of Economic Advisers, Jan. 2014]

The War on Poverty 50 Years Later: A Progress Report

Executive Summary

``Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of

hope--some because of their

poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many

because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair

with opportunity. This administration today, here and now,

declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this

Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.''

--President Lyndon B. Johnson, January 8, 1964

Fifty years ago, in January of 1964, President Lyndon B.

Johnson declared a ``War on Poverty'' and introduced

initiatives designed to improve the education, health,

skills, jobs, and access to economic resources of those

struggling to make ends meet. While there is more work to do,

in the ensuing decades we have strengthened and reformed many

of these programs and had significant success in reducing

poverty. In this report, the Council of Economic Advisers

presents evidence of the progress made possible by decades of

bipartisan efforts to fight poverty by expanding economic

opportunity and rewarding hard work. We also document some of

the key steps the Obama Administration has taken to further

increase opportunity and economic security by improving key

programs while ensuring greater efficiency and integrity.

These steps prevented millions of hardworking Americans from

slipping into poverty during the worst economic crisis since

the Great Depression.

Poverty has declined by more than one-third since 1967.

The percent of the population in poverty when measured to

include tax credits and other benefits has declined from 25.8

percent in 1967 to 16.0 percent in 2012.

These figures use new historical estimates of the Census

Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) anchored to

today's poverty thresholds. The SPM is widely acknowledged to

measure poverty more accurately than the official poverty

measure, which excludes the value of refundable tax credits

and benefits like nutrition assistance and has other

limitations.

By anchoring the measure to today's poverty standards we

are able to ask how many people in each year since 1967 would

have had inflation-adjusted family resources below the 2012

SPM poverty thresholds.

Despite real progress in the War on Poverty, there is more

work to do.

In 2012, there were 49.7 million Americans grappling with

the economic and social hardships of living below the poverty

line, including 13.4 million children.

While the United States is often seen as the land of

economic opportunity, only about half of low-income Americans

make it out of the lowest income distribution quintile over a

20-year period. About 40 percent of the differences in

parents' income are reflected in children's income as they

become adults, pointing to strong lingering effects from

growing up in poverty.

This significant decline in poverty is largely due to

programs that have historically enjoyed bipartisan

support and increase economic security and opportunity.

A measure of ``market poverty,'' that reflects what the

poverty rate would be without any tax credits or other

benefits, rose from 27.0 percent to 28.7 percent between 1967

and 2012. Countervailing forces of increasing levels of

education on the one hand, and inequality, wage stagnation,

and a declining minimum wage on the other resulted in

``market poverty'' increasing slightly over this period.

However, poverty measured taking antipoverty and social

insurance programs into account fell by more than a third,

highlighting the essential role that these programs have

played in fighting poverty.

Programs designed to increase economic security and

opportunity lifted over 45 million people from poverty in

2012, and led to an average of 27 million people lifted out

of poverty per year for 45 years between 1968 and 2012.

Cumulatively these efforts prevented 1.2 billion ``person

years'' of poverty over this period.

Social Security has played a crucial role in lowering

poverty among the elderly. Poverty among those aged 65 and

older was 35 percent in 1960. Following rapid expansions in

Social Security in the 1960s and 1970s, poverty among the

elderly fell to 14.8 percent in 2012.

These programs are especially important in mitigating

poverty during recessions. Despite an increase in ``market

poverty'' of 4.5 percentage points between 2007 and 2010, the

poverty rate, appropriately measured, rose only 0.5

percentage points due to both existing programs and immediate

actions taken by President Obama when he took office in

response to the worst financial crisis since the Great

Depression.

``Deep poverty''--defined as the fraction of individuals

living below 50 percent of the poverty line has declined as a

result of these programs. Without government tax credits or

other benefits, 19.2 percent of the U.S. population would

have been in deep poverty in 2012, but only 5.3 percent were

in deep poverty when these benefits are included.

Programs that strengthen economic security and increase

opportunity continue to be essential in keeping millions

of Americans out of poverty and helping them work their

way into the middle class.

Social Security benefits reduced the 2012 poverty rate by

8.5 percentage points among all individuals, and by 39.9

percentage points among those aged 65 or older.

Tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and

Child Tax Credit (CTC) reduced the 2012 poverty rate by 3.0

percentage points among all individuals, and by 6.7

percentage points among children.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--

formerly known as the Food Stamp Program--reduced poverty in

2012 by 1.6 percentage points among all individuals, and by

3.0 percentage points among children.

Unemployment Insurance (UI) reduced poverty by 0.8

percentage points in 2012.

Antipoverty programs have been increasingly oriented around

rewarding and encouraging work and are an important

source of opportunity for low-income working families.

Both the EITC and the partially refundable component of the

CTC increase the reward to work, offsetting payroll taxes and

providing a supplement to labor market earnings. Research has

shown this increases work and earnings, and increases

participation in the workforce, particularly for single

parents.

Some traditional antipoverty programs have been redesigned

to encourage and promote work. The vast majority of Americans

receiving nutrition assistance have a job or are either too

young to work, are over age 65 or are disabled. Meanwhile,

bipartisan welfare reform signed by President Clinton in 1996

strengthened work requirements and put a greater emphasis on

employment.

Despite concerns that antipoverty programs may discourage

employment, the best research suggests that work disincentive

effects are small or nonexistent for most programs.

Programs that help fight poverty and provide economic

security touch a wide swath of Americans at some point in

their lives.

Programs that fight poverty help a broad range of Americans

get back on their feet after economic misfortune. For

example, about half of taxpayers with children used the EITC

at some point between 1979 and 2006, and over two-thirds of

Americans aged 14 to 22 in 1979 received income from SNAP,

AFDC/TANF, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or UI at some

point between 1978 and 2010.

Social Security Old Age and Survivors' Insurance, Social

Security Disability Insurance, and UI are available to all

Americans with a steady work history. These social insurance

programs play an important role in keeping out of poverty

those who retire, experience a work-limiting disability, lose

a parent or spouse, or lose a job through no fault of their

own.

The economic and social benefits from these programs go

beyond just helping reduce poverty in the current

generation.

Increased access to SNAP for children has been found to

lead to better health and greater economic self-sufficiency

in adulthood.

Increased family income in childhood from the EITC and CTC

leads to higher student achievement.

The long-term effects of Head Start and other high-quality

preschool programs include higher educational attainment,

employment, and earnings, and lower rates of teen pregnancy

and crime, as beneficiary children become teenagers and young

adults.

President Obama's policies to restore economic security and

increase opportunity have helped reduce poverty.

The Affordable Care Act ensures all Americans have access

to quality, affordable health insurance, by providing the

resources and flexibility states need to expand their

Medicaid programs to all people who are in or near poverty as

well as financial help so hardworking families can find a

health plan that fits their needs and their budgets.

The President significantly expanded the refundability of

the Child Tax Credit, making it available to millions of

working parents who were previously ineligible. He also

expanded the EITC for larger families, who face

disproportionately high poverty rates, and for low-income

married couples. Together these expansions benefit

approximately 15 million families by an average of $800 per

year. The President is proposing to make these tax credit

improvements permanent and also to raise the minimum wage.

The Administration has advanced investments in early

learning and development programs and reforms for coordinated

State early learning systems. President Obama has proposed

the expansion of voluntary home visiting programs for

pregnant women and families with young children; Early Head

Start-Child Care Partnerships to improve the quality of care

for infants and toddlers; and high-quality preschool for

every child.

President Obama has advanced reforms of the nation's K-12

education system to support higher standards that will

prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace;

pushed efforts to recruit, prepare, develop, and advance

effective teachers and principals; and encouraged a national

effort to turn around our lowest-achieving schools. The

Administration has also put forward proposals to redesign the

Nation's high schools to better engage students and to

connect 99 percent of students to high-speed broadband and

digital learning tools within the next five years.

President Obama has proposed Promise Zones where businesses

partner with local communities hit hard by the recession to

put people back to work and communities can develop and

implement their own sustainable plans for a continuum of

family and community services and comprehensive education

reforms.

President Obama has proposed increased employment and

training opportunities for adults who are low-income or long-

term unemployed, and summer and year-round opportunities for

youth along with reforms to

our unemployment system to make it more of a re-employment

system, and community college initiatives to reform our

higher education system and support training partnerships

with business in high-demand industries.

Other achievements include making college more affordable

by reforming student loan programs, raising the maximum Pell

Grant, and establishing the American Opportunity Tax Credit

which is the first partially refundable tax credit for

college; placing 372,000 low-income youth into summer and

year-round employment in 2009 and 2010; improving access to

school meal programs that help children learn and thrive; and

extending minimum wage and overtime protections to nearly all

home care workers to help make their jobs more financially

rewarding.

The fundamental lesson of the past 50 years is that we have

made progress in the War on Poverty largely through

bipartisan efforts to strengthen economic security and

increase opportunity. As our economy moves forward, rather

than cut these programs and risk leaving hardworking

Americans behind, we need to build on the progress we have

made to strengthen and reform them. Going forward, we can't

lose sight of the positive part government can continue to

play in reducing economic hardship and ensuring access to

economic opportunity for all citizens. At the same time,

sustainable improvements are only possible if we create jobs

and speed the economic recovery in the short run, raise

economic growth in the long run, and work to ensure that the

benefits of a growing economy reach all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the ranking member and the chairman for this work.

I also thank Mr. Sensenbrenner, who we have worked with from the first stages of the PATRIOT Act, when the Judiciary Committee passed it out on a bipartisan basis after that terrible and heinous act of terror. Unfortunately, it was changed.

Today, I want to announce that megadata collection as we know it has ended. That is a major tribute to the American people, and the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee heard them.

More importantly, the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee stand united. Can we do more? Should there have been an open rule or a number of other amendments that Members wanted? Yes. I believe in participatory democracy.

Today, we end bulk collection under the PATRIOT Act section 215. We can always do better. Today, we prevent the bulk collection under FISA pen register and National Security Letter authorities and vow to the American people that we increase the transparency.

Let me make it very clear, when we first discussed and debated the PATRIOT Act, reverse targeting, to me, was heinous. It means that it captured an innocent American person as we were looking for someone who happened to be a terrorist.

Today, in this bill, we have any communications as to which the sender and all intended recipients are determined to be located in the United States and prohibit the use of any discrete, nontarget communication that is determined to be to or from a United States person or a person who appears to be located in the United States, except to protect against an immediate threat to harm. It is eliminated. Reverse targeting is no longer.

In addition, I introduced a bill some time ago called the FISA Court and Sunshine Act of 2013. In that bill, it required the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of the FISA Court, allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct surveillance needed to keep Americans safe.

I am pleased that, in section 402 and 604 of the USA FREEDOM Act, it requires the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion. It opens it up to the American people. That includes a significant construction of interpretation of the law and to submit to Congress within 45 days.

I thank the gentleman.

As indicated, the bill specifically contains an explicit prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things pursuant to section 215. The FREEDOM Act provides that section 215 may be used only where specific selection term is provided as the basis for the production of tangible things.

Clearly, we worked very hard to contain what was an amoeba that would not end. Finally, I believe section 301 of the bill, as I indicated, was included, as it was in my amendment in H.R. 3773.

Let me conclude by simply saying that the Bill of Rights lives. The Bill of Rights is for the American people, both the right to freedom, both the right in essence to privacy, and our respect for the gathering of intelligence to protect us from terrorists.

This bill, the USA FREEDOM Act, is indeed an enormous step forward. Let us work together to move us even more, but today, we end megadata collecting as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have made a giant step forward for civil liberties, respect for the integrity of the American people, and their right to freedom, as well as for the protecting of all of us from terror.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a co- sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3361, the ``USA Freedom Act,'' which is short for ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act.''

The USA Freedom Act is the House's unified response to the unauthorized disclosures and subsequent publication in the media in June 2013 regarding the National Security Agency's collection from Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering operation was swift and negative.

There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and a large percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of this NSA data collection operation, which exceeded by orders of magnitude anything previously authorized or contemplated, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threat to the civil liberties of American citizens.

To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National Intelligence declassified and released limited information about this program. According to the DNI, the information acquired under this program did not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber.

The DNI stated that ``the only type of information acquired under the Court's order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.''

The assurance given by the DNI, to put it mildly, was not very reassuring.

In response, many Members of Congress, including the Ranking Member Conyers, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, and myself, introduced legislation in response to the disclosures to ensure that the law and the practices of the executive branch reflect the intent of Congress in passing the USA Patriot Act and subsequent amendments.

For example, I introduced H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' bipartisan legislation, that much needed transparency without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or ``FISA Court.''

Specifically, my bill would require the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance needed to keep Americans safe.

I am pleased that these requirements are incorporated in substantial part as Sections 402 and 604 of the USA Freedom Act, which requires the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the FISA court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of law and to submit a report to Congress within 45 days.

I also am pleased that the bill before us contains an explicit prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things pursuant to Section 215 authority. Instead, the USA Freedom Act provides that Section 215 may only be used where a specific selection term is provided as the basis for the production of tangible things.

Another important improvement is that the bill's prohibition on domestic bulk collection, as well as its criteria for specifying the information to be collected, applies not only to Section 215 surveillance activities but also to other law enforcement communications interception authorities, such as national security letters.

Finally, I strongly support the USA Freedom Act because Section 301 of the bill continues the prohibition against ``reverse targeting,'' which became law when an earlier Jackson Lee Amendment was included in H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007.

``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the main concerns of libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, in giving expanded authority to the executive branch was the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, codified in Section 301 of the USA Freedom Act, reduces even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

In retaining the prohibition on reverse targeting, Section 301 achieves honors the Constitution by requiring the government to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.''

I should that nothing in Section 301 requires the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States.

Rather, a FISA order is required only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

Mr. Speaker, while the bill before is a good bill, it is not perfect. No legislation ever is.

In particular, my preference would have been to retain the provision in the bill as originally introduced establishing an Office of the Special Advocate to vigorously advocate in support of legal interpretations that protect individual privacy and civil liberties.

As initially contemplated, the Office of the Special Advocate would be authorized to participate in proceedings before the FISA Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, and to request reconsiderations of FISA Court decisions and participate in appeals and reviews.

Regrettably, the provision establishing the Office of the Special Advocate fell victim to a compromise and replaced with a provision authorizing both the FISA court and the FISA Court of Review, if they deem it necessary, to appoint an individual to serve as amicus curiae in a case involving a novel or significant interpretation of law.

Under this arrangement, the presiding judges of the courts must designate five individuals eligible to serve in that position who possess expertise in privacy and civil liberties, intelligence collection, telecommunications or any other area that may lend legal or technical expertise to the courts.

The Office of the Special Advocate arrangement in my opinion is superior because it provides for mandatory participation of the public advocate rather than the discretionary involvement of court designated amicus curiae provided in the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, nearly two centuries ago, Alexis DeTocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a copy of that op- ed.

I support the USA Freedom Act because it will help keep us true to the Bill of Rights and strikes the proper balance between our cherished liberty and smart security.

I urge my colleagues to support the USA Freedom Act.

NSA Reform Takes Its First Steps

The USA FREEDOM Act takes steps to:

End bulk collection under Patriot Act Section 215. The bill

requires the government to show the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court that the specific records it seeks from

phone companies pertain to a specific email address, account

number or other ``selection term'' before it can demand a

customer's personal information. It creates a new collection

authority for call records but takes meaningful steps to

ensure that such records are not vacuumed up wholesale, as

was happening under the secret programs revealed by Edward

Snowden.

Prevent bulk collection under FISA pen register and

National Security Letter authorities. The bill also requires

the government to use a ``selection term'' that uniquely

describes its surveillance target and serves as the basis for

collecting information from a telephone line, facility, or

other account. This would help ensure that the government

won't use pen registers and National Security Letters as

convenient substitutes for the 215 program.

Increase transparency. Finally, the bill requires the

government to provide to Congress and to the public

additional reporting on its surveillance programs, while

enabling companies who receive national security

informational requests to more fully inform customers about

the extent to which the government is collecting their data.

Additional governmental reporting requirements and more

particularized third party reporting authorities, however,

are needed in order to ensure that Congress and the public

have the information they need to perform truly robust

oversight.

While the bill makes significant reforms to U.S.

surveillance law, Congress clearly chose not to let the

perfect be the enemy of the good. And, to be clear, more work

needs to be done. Some of the additional reforms we are

calling for, which were in the original USA FREEDOM Act,

include:

Ensuring that judges in the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (FISC) have the authority to determine

whether an application passes legal muster and do not return

to being mere rubber stamps.

Limiting the circumstances under which the government can

gather records more than one ``hop'' out from a target to

help ensure Americans' information is not unnecessarily swept

up.

Closing the ``back door'' search loophole in the FISA

Amendments Act to prevent the government from searching

information collected under Section 702 of FISA for the U.S.

persons' communications content.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once again have this opportunity to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and to anchor--along with my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Representative Steven Horsford--the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, where for the next 60 minutes we have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people about an issue of great significance for the communities that we represent as well as for the entire country.

Income inequality is an issue that is of increasing concern to working families, to low-income Americans, to middle class folks, to those who aspire to be part of the middle class. We know that at this moment in time in 2014 income inequality is the worst that it has been in America since the Great Depression.

Now, we live in the wealthiest country in the world. Yet we know that all across America there are people who are struggling to put food on their tables, clothing on their backs or to provide shelter for their families. That is an unacceptable situation, and we know that things have gotten worse over the last 5 years since the collapse of the economy. The recovery, while progress has been made, has been uneven, inconsistent and schizophrenic in many ways. Some have benefited, particularly those amongst the wealthiest 5 to 10 percent of Americans, but others have fallen behind.

So, today, the Congressional Black Caucus will speak to the issue of income inequality, but it will also propose why it is something that needs to be addressed and what some of the things are that Congress can do, in working with the President, to deal with this pressing issue in America.

We have been joined by several distinguished members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is now my honor and privilege to yield some time to the dean of New York's congressional delegation, a legendary Member of the House of Representatives, the Lion of Lenox Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I certainly thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his eloquent, as always, observations.

It is an honor and privilege to be joined by the Representative from Texas, who has been a fighter on behalf of these issues--a voice for the voiceless and someone who is always on the front lines trying to deal with socioeconomic inequality wherever it might be found in America, but certainly in her home district anchored in Houston, Texas. Let me now yield to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas.

Earlier this month, we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the war on poverty. In this Chamber in January of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and announced a series of initiatives designed to combat chronic poverty in America. As a result of this effort, there were several legislative battles that were won in the march toward trying to create, as President Johnson said, the Great Society--Medicare, Medicaid, the Food Stamp Act, the school breakfast program, college work study, Job Corps, and minimum wage enhancement. These were all part of the war on poverty.

But, unfortunately, as we stand here today, in 2014, some in this Chamber have abandoned this war on poverty and instead have launched a war on the poor. As a result, we have seen income inequality grow. That is why it is such an important issue for us to confront now.

I am pleased that we have been joined by one of the strongest voices in the Congress for dealing with this issue, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, someone who is the vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative G. K. Butterfield.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.

As you pointed out, income inequality and poverty should not be a partisan issue. It impacts urban America and it impacts rural America. It impacts blue States and it impacts red States. It impacts the north, the south, the east, the west, and the heartland of this country.

That is why it has been unfortunate that, heretofore, we have seen a refusal by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to do commonsense things like raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which would lift millions of the working poor out of poverty and set them on a pathway toward the middle class.

Now, one of the places where income inequality is particularly pronounced is in my hometown of New York City, one of the greatest cities in the world, one of the richest cities in the world. But 25 percent of the population in New York City lives below the poverty line. In the shadow of Wall Street, the engine that drives the world economy, that is an unfortunate reality.

One of the people who has been raising this issue and fighting hard to address this back home in New York City is my distinguished colleague who represents the Ninth Congressional District, immediately adjacent to the one that I am privileged to represent. It is my honor to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.

I thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Yvette Clarke, and look forward to continuing the fight and the march toward socioeconomic justice on behalf of the people we represent back at home in Brooklyn and New York City.

It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to another good friend, the dean of the freshman class of the CBC, someone who has continued in the great tradition that had been set forth by his father and his predecessor and is carving out his own reputation as a fighter for justice on behalf of the people he represents back at home in New Jersey. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the Garden State, Representative Donald Payne, Jr.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very thoughtful observations and, in particular, for focusing on the need to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed across America. There has been a myth that really has been put forth unfortunately by those who seek to undermine this program that individuals who are receiving unemployment assistance, who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, simply are sitting home looking to collect a check without going out and actively searching for employment. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The reality is--and this is connected to the dynamic around income inequality that we are discussing here today--is that for every 2.8, 2.9 million Americans who are unemployed, looking for a job, there is only one job that exists. So obviously we need to do more in this country collectively to generate employment as opposed to exploiting good middle class jobs to other parts of the world and not seeing any reciprocal economic benefit in return.

I am thankful that I have been joined by the coanchor of the CBC Special Order, someone whose very district representing urban parts of Clark County in Las Vegas as well as rural parts of Nevada can speak to the issue quite clearly that income inequality and poverty in America is not simply an urban issue or a rural issue. It impacts all of America, and we are thankful here in this Congress that he has been such a strong champion for his district and for these issues that are impacting people all across the country.

Let me yield to my good friend from Nevada, Steven Horsford.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada for the very precise and comprehensive analysis that was given today on the House floor.

There were several important points that you raised that I would like to elaborate on and perhaps have a follow-up discussion. One of the issues that you discuss relates to the failure of the economic expansion as well as the recoveries that have taken place increasingly over the last several decades to benefit in any proportional way people in the middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle class. This has been a trend that we have seen for

the last 30-plus years. It has been particularly pronounced in the 5 years or so since the economy collapsed in 2008.

When we look at the recovery, I mentioned earlier today that it is a particularly schizophrenic and inconsistent one because we know that the stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, CEO compensation is way up and the productivity of the American worker is way up, but middle class wages remain stagnant.

Now, why is that a problem? This chart illustrates the fact that essentially since 1950, the productivity of the American worker--our ability as workers throughout this country to produce more in a more efficient fashion, costing less in time and resources, has consistently and exponentially increased--the productivity of the American worker. But essentially over the last 30-plus years or so, wages connected to that output of the American worker have remained flat.

So what does that mean? That essentially means that while the American worker is far more efficient and effective in doing their job and in being more productive, the profits and the output generated by the American worker have not inured to the employees. It has inured to the employer and a very small percentage of individuals.

So when we talk about income inequality, we are not saying that we have a problem with success. We are saying everyone should benefit from the success that the American worker has created as opposed to just a small number of individuals--the so-called job creators. We are thankful for their ingenuity and their effort; but the reality is the productivity of the American worker has increased, yet the middle class has not benefited.

Back between 1978 and 2001, CEO compensation had increased 876 percent--CEO compensation between 1978 and 2001. And what has happened as it relates to compensation for the average American worker during that same time period? It has increased 5.4 percent. That is a shameful difference, one that we should not tolerate in this great country.

The other observation that my distinguished colleague made related to the fact that if we increase the minimum wage, it will not just benefit millions of Americans by lifting them out of poverty. Parenthetically, why in the world would we want a society where people work full-time throughout an entire year yet find themselves in poverty? That makes no sense. But increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy, as my colleague indicated, because it increases consumer demand. An increase in consumer demand leads to economic growth, an increase in economic growth leads to additional job creation, and everybody benefits. It is a commonsense solution.

So let me now turn to my colleague from Nevada for some parting thoughts. And I appreciate, as always, your comprehensive analysis and observation.

I thank my colleague.

In summation, income inequality is a threat to our economy and the integrity of our democracy, and we must do everything possible to right this wrong in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.