Floor Statements

I want to thank you, Congressman, for making the issue of jobs the front and center issue.

We've been here all week long, and one of the things that I find just shocking is that we have not dealt with the issues that are really in front of the American people. And the number one issue is jobs.

We haven't dealt with future jobs that students could perhaps get if they got the education, which has to do with the doubling of interest rates on student loans, which is due in a few weeks unless the Republican majority acts. We certainty have not taken up a transportation bill that would extend extensive work to people. As many as 280,000 education jobs are on the chopping block in the upcoming school year due to pressure on State budgets.

So the bottom line is that this is an interesting week that we live in because there is no doubt--no one of the 435 Members of this body are under any doubt--student loan rates are doubling, unemployment is record high, and yet we didn't deal with any of these critical issues. I'm really shocked. I'm astounded. I'm under the impression that we're all here to work hard.

I'm one of those who doesn't like to sort of imply or even say that the Republicans are sabotaging jobs for political advantage because it's hard for me to imagine that any true public servant would ever do something like that, but there are a lot of folks out here who believe that is the case. I want our Republican colleagues to disprove that premise by getting some pro-job, pro-education legislation that we all can agree on.

Another thing that I'm glad to talk about is with regards to the Obama job plan. Under the American Jobs Act, Obama has laid out a plan. He has set forth a set of ideas, and one of the elements that I want to talk about a little bit is the job program for the long-term unemployed.

Obama has talked about dealing with the issues of the long-term unemployed, people who have been out of work, and you know, who have been chronically out of work for a long time--they call them the 99ers. It's modeled after an unemployment program in Georgia. Under that program, workers continue to collect unemployment benefits, plus a small stipend to cover transportation and other expenses at no expense to the employer. After 8 weeks of training, the company may hire the person or not, and it can amount to a free tryout.

So I think that the Obama administration, under the American Jobs Act, is being responsive to the needs of the American people. I think the same cannot be said for the House of Representatives under the Republican majority. Under the American Jobs Act, the Republicans could bring it up today. Some of these ideas are things that they have proposed, and they won't even take those up. So this is really disappointing.

I think people who have been chronically unemployed for weeks and weeks and maybe perhaps years--I talked to a woman who has been out of work for 2\1/2\ years. This woman has a college degree, she is a highly trained professional from my district--Lauren, if you're watching, you know that I'm talking about you. I think the American Jobs Act has just what the doctor ordered if the Republican majority will take it up.

Well, Congressman, if we had listened to the Founding Fathers, we'd be quite aways ahead. It's interesting, in the political rhetoric you hear, some people claim the Founding Fathers, but they don't claim the real Founding Fathers, the ones who actually had the foresight to make America a strong economic country by making sure that the government played an important role in making sure our economy was working, by promoting transportation, patents, currency protection and things like that.

But I would say that as we work here today, and as we think about all of the things that our Nation needs, none are more important than putting Americans back to work, I think. The American Jobs Act is a plan set forth by the President, and he's set this forth at a time when he's reaching his hand out. He's extending his hand. He's trying to get the Republican majority in the House to work with him.

But apparently they just won't do so because they have ideological and political considerations. One of those ideological things is that they just don't think the government is any good. They don't think the government can do any good. They don't think the government can help. And so we see proposals and amendments to simply eliminate the Federal role out of transportation. And of course we've seen them eliminate the Federal role out of environmental protection. We've seen a whole host of things like this.

You would think that the reason we have high unemployment is because of ``job-killing regulations.'' They love this refrain. I'm sure Frank Luntz is very proud. He's a pollster who comes up with clever phrasing that they use a lot. But it's not job-killing regulations.

Any small business person will tell you the key to their success is customers. The key to customers is people who have jobs, who have some money to spend. If you've got no customers and your customers are broke, then they're not going to buy your cakes, your pies, and those folks are not going to be able to pay the taxes they need to keep our valued public employees working, teachers, firefighters, police officers, public health nurses, people who make the water and the meat safe to eat and drink.

They like to throw around terms like ``socialism,'' but what we argue for is a mixed economy, a balance between the private sector and government, which enhances the performance of both, all in service to the American people.

So today I am in favor of us getting a strong, long-term, 6-year transportation bill. I am absolutely in favor of helping our students who are fearing that education is getting out of their economic reach. Absolutely, we have to be there to reform currency, to level the playing field with China.

We should buy American. What's wrong with buying American? I think buying American's good. I rather prefer buying American. In fact, whenever I get a product and it says ``Made in America,'' I get a warm fuzzy all over.

Made in America.

If it was made in America, maybe we could make it in America.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I believe should enjoy bipartisan support on all sides. America being the land of the free, home of the brave, where liberty and justice for all is how we live. We recite those words every day when we come to the floor to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is simply an amendment which says in America, law enforcement will respect the individual dignity of each person and operate on the basis of what would indicate criminal behavior, not race, not national origin, not religion.

The leaders of four separate important caucuses in this Congress have come together and are in support. That includes the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, which have all come together to say this is an important thing for all of us to support.

Everyone here in this body appreciates the hard work of DHS employees and what they do on a daily basis to keep our country safe. We thank them and value the work that they do. And we appreciate all law enforcement, especially when they put their lives at risk for our safety. No one questions law enforcement in general. But you should know, and there is no doubt and there is ample evidence to demonstrate, that there have been occasions in which individual Americans have been singled out, and this is not what our Nation is about. It's not the policy that we should support; and, therefore, we should support an amendment which says that discrimination has no place in the administration of the law.

Occasionally, reports of racial, ethnic, and religious profiling do surface. We see them in the media and reports in the civil liberty unions. In fact, I have reports in my hand, Mr. Chairman, ``Immigration Enforcement: Minor Offenses With Major Consequences by the ACLU,'' and ``The Growing Human Rights Crisis,'' which details how people have been singled out based on impermissible criteria. And so it is important for us to affirm in America, after all we have gone through to create liberty and justice for all, that we've got to affirm this principle here today.

Too many Americans who were simply going about their business have been discriminated against based solely on race, ethnicity, and religion. It's wrong when it happens, all of us can agree. And it's not what our country is all about. This amendment I'm offering today simply says it's contrary to our values. Our amendment is straightforward. It simply cites the Constitution and existing anti-discrimination laws to affirm that no funds made available by this bill can be used to engage in racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.

This is not a controversial amendment. It affirms core American values hard fought for not only in the civil rights movement, but many others, even including the Civil War. Nor it is partisan. In fact, it was a former Bush administration official who said, ``Religious or ethnic or racial stereotyping is simply not good policing.'' So that's not coming from me. That's an official from the Bush administration, and I quite agree with what he said.

So I urge all my colleagues to stand with me and vote in favor of this important amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 2012, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 297 305 due to a family obligation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 297, 300, 302, 304, and 305. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 298, 299, 301, and 303.

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 2012, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 306 314 due to a family obligation. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 308, 312, 313, and 314. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 306, 307, 309, 310, and 311.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to what is a very serious problem for the families of at least 1,300 workers, 900 of whom live in my home State of Minnesota. They've been in a labor dispute with their company. On Friday, there is a chance to go back to the bargaining table to come up with a good settlement.

Now, these workers, they didn't go on strike. They've been locked out. They've been locked out for 10 months at the American Crystal Sugar Factory in Moorhead, Minnesota. Many of these people have worked at this factory their entire lives and are really good, solid members of their community. These workers have gone to work, and they've actually stood up and gone to bat for the company, particularly regarding the sugar program, and in countless other ways as well. These workers even vowed not to go on strike because they know how important their work is to the company and to the community. The only thing they've done wrong is they haven't been able to pay their higher health insurance costs, which is the real crux of the negotiation.

This Friday, the sides are going back to the bargaining table for the first time in 4 months. I commend both labor and management for getting back to the table. But, Madam Speaker, I urge management to listen carefully to the pleas of these workers and to come up with a fair settlement.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2012, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 197 on H. Con. Res. 117. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chair, during rollcall No. 270 on H.R. 4310, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 270, the Smith of Washington amendment, I voted incorrectly. I am recorded as a ``no.'' My intent and purpose was to vote ``yes,'' but I voted mistakenly.

I don't stand up here before you representing myself as some great expert on airplanes, but I am a Member of this body who is very concerned about the deficit and about spending. And we must save money, particularly where we need to.

Now, when the Simpson-Bowles Commission says that this particular airplane is not necessary and should be cut--and recommendation 47, cancel the Marine Corps version of the F 35--I have to stop and take notice. When other organizations, many of which are fairly conservative groups--Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Cato Institute--no bleeding heart liberals there--the Project for Government Oversight, the National Taxpayers Union, the Project on Defense Alternatives, and the Center for American Progress, all agree that this is a wasteful program which we can save money with, I think we've got to stop and we've got to take notice.

Now I notice my colleague on the other side of the aisle was making very good points, and they sound very similar to some points I read earlier today from a memo from somebody from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is a private contractor who is making the program.

The talking points that they sent out are essentially arguing so that they can ensure a commercial success of their particular project, which they have a financial interest in. But they make no claim of cost. They do not say that this is an exorbitant expense that people who have an eye toward budget are saying is not worth the money.

We're not asking for the F 35A or F 35C to be cut. But we are saying that this particular program, where there is a diverse and broad range of parties who say that this is not a necessary program, should be cut and can be replaced by other good alternatives, and I think we have need to pay attention to that. I'm sure my friends who repeat constantly that, We're broke, we're broke, we're broke, would agree.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I had submitted an amendment which I was going to move to withdraw. Instead of adding complication, I'll just discuss the amendment that I would have introduced and try to be right to the point.

My colleague Raul Grijalva and I and several Members of the Congress are concerned about the impact of the ``stop shoot first laws'' amendment. That's what we call it because we're concerned about the shoot first amendments.

This amendment would have encouraged States to repeal shoot first laws by imposing a 20 percent penalty on Byrne/JAG grants for States with these laws. The shoot first laws make our country less safe, undermine our criminal justice system, and encourage vigilantism. These laws allow armed individuals to confront unarmed people in public and, in some tragic cases, even shoot them in cases where such a confrontation could have been avoided.

Ten years ago, State shoot first laws were basically unknown. Then groups like the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) began promoting shoot first laws in States around the country. ALEC is an organization that ghost-writes bills for State legislators who hold a certain political perspective. And their efforts are paid for by and large by global corporations and are spread in States across the country.

In 2005, ALEC and the NRA convinced Florida to pass the first shoot first law. And since then, they have convinced 23 more States to enact similar laws. The shoot first laws are unnecessary. Americans already have the right to self-defense. Even more, as the Trayvon Martin has tragically highlighted, shoot first laws make it harder for law enforcement to do their job. Despite what was a clear case for trial, George Zimmerman's statement that he had shot in self-defense was enough to prevent prosecution.

Shoot first laws make prosecutions harder because they presume that the use of deadly force is reasonable and put the burden of proof on a prosecutor. With shoot first laws, individuals need only claim that they believed that they were threatened, and the only person who can dispute that is the person who was killed.

These laws also make our States less safe. After Florida enacted its law, the number of justifiable homicide cases in the State per year increased by three times.

While I urge States to repeal these laws, I understand that a point of order could have lied against the amendment, and, therefore, I won't offer it in order to have it withdrawn, but I would like to say, Madam Chair, that these shoot first laws are not good. I wish we could take an approach similar to the .08 law, where the Federal Government would actually withhold financial funds until States complied with .08; .08 actually made our country safer on the roads, and I think repeal of these shoot first laws would do the same.

I wish I could offer this amendment today, but we will do it some other time at a more appropriate place, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I will claim the time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. This is the Progressive Caucus' moment where we come together and talk about our ideals, our values, the things that are critically important, we believe, to all Americans.

This week, I'm joined by two outstanding leaders in the Progressive Caucus and in the Congress and in America, Hank Johnson of Georgia and Lynn Woolsey of California. I want to invite both of my colleagues to jump in as they feel inspired to do so, but let me just set the groundwork a little bit.

This week, we saw a number of things occur. One of the things that we saw this week is the Buffett rule that

was taken up in the Senate. The Senate voted on the Buffett rule on a policy that requires millionaires and billionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families and working people.

I want to make it clear: we don't begrudge anybody for doing well; but we do believe, in a country as great as America, if you have been privileged enough to do well, that maybe you should do something for America. This wildly popular measure was filibustered and therefore defeated in the Senate. According to the CNN international poll, nearly three-fourths of Americans support the Buffett rule and believe it should be law. Despite this, Republicans in the Senate blocked the bill from even getting a majority vote.

I mention this particular situation this way as I begin our dialogue that we'll have tonight over the course of this hour because I think that this is emblematic of the problem that we're facing today. We're going to talk tonight about Citizens United; we'll talk about a lot of things. But one of the things that I think is emblematic of the problem we're facing here in the U.S. Congress today is that what the overwhelming majority of Americans want the overwhelming majority of Americans don't get, something like the Buffett rule. The reason why is the pernicious and corrosive effect of money in politics today.

So, we are the Progressive Caucus. We're honored to be before the American people today, Mr. Speaker. We are the caucus that, yes, will stand up for civil and human rights for all people without regard to your color, your culture, your sex, your gender, your sexual preference, your religion, wherever you were born--national origin. We believe that all Americans are valued and believe in liberty and justice for all.

Yes, the Progressive Caucus is the caucus that's going to say that if you work hard every day, you ought to be able to make enough money to feed your family in America. And, yes, we believe that if you've been able to be in this great country of ours and do well in this environment, you ought to do something, you ought to pay enough taxes so that the needs and the costs of our society can be paid for. And, absolutely, we believe we have a duty and obligation, a responsibility to the environment and our natural world.

Now, we're not ashamed to stand up for these values: peace, working- class prosperity and fairness, environmental sustainability, and civil and human rights for all people. We care about these things and we're going to. But today, we're going to discuss a number of issues, including the Buffett rule, Citizens United, ALEC, the budget, the Ryan budget, and a whole range of issues.

At this point I'm going to hand it over to my colleague and friend, Lynn Woolsey of California.

Well, I would say this to the gentlelady. You know, much of it has to do with the fact that we have a disproportionate percentage of wealthy interests. The fact is you've got money coming in, lobbyists paid for, campaign donations, all this stuff, and now we've got the onset of the super PAC and we have the Citizens United decision.

And if you ask yourself why can't we pass the Buffett rule, why can't we pass the public option, which is wildly popular, why can't we get environmental regulations we need to protect our lungs and our health and our Earth, why can't we do these things, and the reason why is because of the disproportionate corrosive effect of money in our government.

This is why earlier this week we were able to pass something, a Declaration for Democracy, which reads:

I declare my support for amending the Constitution of the

United States to restore the rights of people undermined by

Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity

of our elections and limit the corrosive influence of money

on the democratic process.

We have a lot of people who signed this particular document. But not just Members of Congress signed it. Some people who signed it were city council members, were community citizen activists. There are people from a broad cross section of American life, because they asked the same question you ask, Congresswoman Woolsey: Why can't we pass the Buffett rule? Why can't we pass environmental protections? Why can't we pass the public option? Why can't things that Americans want get through?

The reason they can't get through is because you've got the lobbyist money being poured in. You've got campaign donations here. You're about to see a whole plethora of ugly, nasty, divisive, corrosive attack ads in this upcoming Presidential election.

The bottom line is, if we get this money out, what will happen is that citizens' voices will emerge past the money. Citizens' voices will come up, and citizens will have their will reflected in the Congress more so.

It was an awesome lift to pick up health care, and we didn't even get all the things we wanted in there, but we got a lot of things we wanted.

But why didn't we get all the things we wanted even though they were popular? The corrosive, divisive effect of money.

I think the health care industry was putting in, like, $14 million a day to lobby against the Affordable Care Act. And of course you know with all that kind of pushing and shoving and cajoling, it just gets incredibly difficult.

So I want to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia, who has some important information about a number of things.

The police officers.

Teachers, nurses.

Amazing.

So the people who have the kind of money you just described are actually a small part of the population, but I think they're punching above their weight because they have an inordinate influence in the political process.

So, if you're making 70k a year, paying 25 percent of your income in income taxes, that means, if there is an increase in your property taxes, you're really going to feel that. That's going to punch you right in the stomach. That's going to make a difference in whether the kids can get braces or not. That's going to make a difference as to whether or not you can put a roof on the house. It will make a huge difference. $70,000 is actually doing pretty well, but small variations can change your life.

If you're a two-income household and are making $70,000 and if one of the partners in the relationship gets sick or dies, that means catastrophic expenses on the family because, if you're spending at a $70,000-a-year level and you lose a household member, you've got all those bills with just the one person, and then you're going to be in bankruptcy. This is why we know 56 percent of all bankruptcy filings are driven by medical debt. This is how this happens even to middle class people. But the Buffett rule and putting Americans to work and doing a lot of things are really what the Progressive Caucus is all about. It's about addressing these systemic problems we're talking about today.

So I just want to let everybody know, if you want to check out what the Progressive Caucus says about the Buffett rule, you should know that we have the Buffett rule contained in our budget.

We put America back to work by front-loading jobs in our budget. We invest in America's future by investing in infrastructure, and we reduce the deficit, in part, by asking the wealthiest and most privileged Americans to do the patriotic thing and pony up a little bit more to help America.

Do you know what? I have to demur and say that I'm not that excited to respond. I've responded on Ed Schultz. I've responded on Wolf Blitzer. I've responded on Martin Brashir, and I've just said it's not true. It's a false statement. It's untrue. It's unfair. It's unkind. It raises the level of vitriol and insult in this body, and of course, it's tough enough around here already. We don't need to hurl false accusations against each other.

I would just urge the public to remind Members of Congress that we need to have a little bit more civility around here and that, if you do want to make an ugly comment or a negative comment about your colleagues, at least try to make it somewhere within 10,000 miles of being true. This is absolutely false.

One thing I don't want to do--and I'm just speaking for me. If he calls us names, I'm not going to call him names. If he calls us names, I'm not going to call them ugly names like that. There are a lot of ugly names that you could call someone who has a right-wing perspective on the extreme. We don't engage in tit for tat, because that's childlike. We're adults. We're here to discharge a responsibility on behalf of the American people. We swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, and that is what I'm going to do. I'm not going to be distracted by somebody who is not clear on what we're supposed to be doing here. I'm going to stay focused on what we're here to do.

Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of health care is one of the most difficult policy decisions and budget challenges that we face as a Nation. The problem will continue to grow unless we act.

Rather than cutting care for the most vulnerable, however, we must develop smart ways to contain costs. A great example of this type of innovative approach is something that I'm proud to describe for you, and it is happening in my district. The program is called Hennepin Health program, and it is in Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is run by Hennepin County, and it integrates care for individuals with the highest need. Low-income, poor individuals needing health care can be very expensive to treat because they end up going to the emergency room, as they don't have a regular care provider, and yet the Hennepin Health adjusts to this situation and treats them on a cost-effective basis.

These individuals often face many challenges such as chemical dependency, chronic illnesses like diabetes and others, and unstable housing. Hennepin Health tries to identify the holistic needs of the individual, whether those needs happen to be medical care, housing, mental health treatment, or finding a job.

Here are a couple of individuals who this innovative program has already helped. A 50-year-old Native American man from my district is chronically homeless and suffers from hepatitis C. He used the emergency room as his primary medical care, but this was only because he didn't have transportation to a clinic. He was entitled to a free bus pass, but didn't have an address to receive it. Hennepin Health connected him with a social worker to pick up his bus tickets, and now he is able to see a clinic for his health care, keeping him out of the emergency room, which is, of course, the most expensive type of care and which you can't be rejected from for good reason, because it would be inhumane to do so.

The program has also helped an African American man in my district who has had a history of heart disease, kidney disease, and homelessness. Hennepin Health was able to connect him to housing providers, which helped him to stay out of the emergency room as well. He is now able to get all of his medical and mental health needs addressed at a health care home.

These are great success stories, people who are low income, who have serious health challenges, who don't have any health care, and so they seek the health care of last resort, the emergency room, which happens to be very expensive to treat them at. This is not the most effective way nor the most compassionate way to treat them. Ongoing regular treatment from a provider is what is needed. Hennepin Health has saved money, and more importantly has helped people, members of our society, Americans, get their health care needs met.

As some cities have found, 1 percent of the individuals in a safety net program can often account for up to a third of the cost because of this problem of ending up at the emergency room. By coordinating care for high-need individuals, health care programs can greatly reduce costs while also providing better care.

While Hennepin Health program is new, it is extremely promising and has already demonstrated it can be a model for the Nation. I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is government, yes, government, delivering good service by being affordable, low cost, and smart. Chalk one up for the American taxpayer and people who are in chronic need of health care.

Mr. Speaker, Hennepin Health is a good idea. I'm proud of it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I'm cochair of the Progressive Caucus, and I say, God, please bless Walter Jones.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today with the Progressive Caucus message today. Our Web site is listed on the bottom, cpc.grijalva.house.gov. We come every week with the progressive message. The Progressive Caucus is a caucus in the Congress. There are several. Of course, the two big caucuses are the Democratic Caucus and the Republican caucus; but within both, there are different groups that have points of agreement that they come together around. On the Republican side, there's the Republican Study Group. On the Democratic side, there are several caucuses. There's the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and there is the Blue Dog caucus. There are different groups.

The Progressive Caucus is a caucus within the Democratic Caucus. We'd be happy to have Republican Members if they ever wanted to join, but all of our members are Democrats, and we believe that America should be a place where there's liberty and justice for all. That means whether you're Hispanic or Latino or African American, one America. We believe that the working men and women of America should get a fair, decent wage, and that the people who are most privileged in our society, God bless them, but they should pay adequate taxes so that we can afford the basic necessities of a society--schools, roads, take care of our environment and things like that. We believe we should stay out of these wars unless they're necessary to defend the American people, so we are promoting diplomacy, and we are very proud to say that we are the liberal caucus.

We're the Progressive Caucus. We're the ones who believe fairness, inclusion, and that, yes, the government has a responsibility, because it is our collective--the way we all come together as Americans to the poor, and we should stand by that and stick by that. That is who the Progressive Caucus is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've been dealing with the budget this week. It's been ``budget week,'' you could say. We started out the week, we were talking about the Republican budget drafted by Mr. Paul Ryan. We went from there, and we talked about the Democratic budget drafted by Mr. Chris Van Hollen. And then, of course, the Progressive Caucus budget came up, the Black Caucus budget came up. I think Mr. Mulvaney came up with a budget proposal. They put the President's--a very, very watered down and inaccurate version of the President's budget up there, and we've been talking budget.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the budget, what we're talking about is the values and priorities of America. It's important to keep this in mind. What shows up in your budget is what you care about. What does not show up in your budget is what you don't care about. Now, Mr. Speaker, I always caution people not to just take their family budget and the United States budget and assume they're basically the same thing, one just is bigger than the other. That's not exactly accurate. There are important differences, and we shouldn't mix up the two. But in this way they are similar in that they reflect what it is that people value.

If you have a family and their budget, you can look at their budget; they

spend a lot of money on entertainment, you can pretty much figure they value that. If they put a lot of money into food, you can figure they definitely think that is a priority for them. You can go through the family budget and see what people spend their money on, see what people don't have in their budget, and then you can pretty much figure, well, maybe that's not a priority for them. Of course, they may not be able to afford it at this time. But if you talk about reasonably middle class people, their budget reflects what they care about, what matters and what doesn't.

And for our Nation, that certainly is true. If our Nation puts more money into warfare than it does into social uplift, jobs and the economy and infrastructure, that says something about who we are. If our national budget puts more money into infrastructure and jobs and putting people back to work, then that says something about who we are. The various budgets that have come up, Mr. Speaker, reflect what the various caucuses think is important and project a vision for our country. I want to talk about that today.

I want to start by talking about Paul Ryan's budget. Paul Ryan is the Republican Budget Committee chair. He's a nice guy. I don't have anything bad to say about him personally because he is actually a nice person. But the fact is we disagree in a significant way about what the priorities of America should be. For example, the Republican budget, 20 children will lose access to Head Start to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. That's their budget. Just if you want to understand what their tax cuts represent, it means 20 kids don't get to go to Head Start so that a millionaire can get a tax cut--150,000 equals 20 times 7,500. So, if you look at this tax cut, a millionaire's tax cut, which will amount to about $150,000, these little guys don't get to go to Head Start.

Now, what is Head Start? Head Start is a great program for low-income kids to make sure that they have a chance at getting a quality education and don't fall behind in school. And so this is a great program. It has great results. These Head Start kids, 20 of them going to Head Start, versus what a millionaire's tax cut would be, which is $150,000. Now, this is the choice we're making.

Mr. Speaker, we should not act like we're not making choices. We are making choices. We are deciding. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle like to say, oh, we shouldn't pick winners and losers. We're always doing it. They just pick the rich people, and we--I--pick the kids in Head Start.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if you just want to get a sense of what the Republican budget, what it does and what the tax cuts that it's calling for mean, Republican budget, 150 college students will have their Pell Grants cut by $1,000 to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So one millionaire's tax cut, $150,000, but 150 times 1,000, all these kids, these college kids trying to make something of themselves, their Pell Grant is going to get whacked by 1,000 bucks.

So again, choices. Do we want to make sure the country club set is doing even better, or do we want to make sure that these aspiring engineers, these aspiring doctors and teachers, these aspiring police officers, these aspiring workers of tomorrow, will have a shot at an affordable college education?

This is what we're talking about. These are the choices that we're making, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's very important that Americans know it. It's critical that we know it.

Now, let's just not stop there. Let's talk about other critical choices being made, Mr. Speaker. Because I think it is so critical that as we're talking budget week and all the budget decisions that we are making, that we make it real clear to the American people what it is we're choosing.

Republican budget: 216 pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children would lose access to WIC--that's the Women, Infants and Children program, and it provides food for poor women and their kids-- to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So, $150,000 tax cut for a millionaire--again, this is the country club set--equals about 216 pregnant women or postpartum women and the amount of money that Americans give them so that they can have good nutrition for their kids. These are poor women. These are women who are struggling economically. But just because they're struggling economically, we don't want their kids to go without good, nutritious food. So as Americans, we have the WIC program. Well, they're going to get slashed out of the program because a millionaire needs a tax cut. That's the choice that we're making.

I want to talk about why we're making that choice in a minute, but I want to give one more example. Republican budget: 25 seniors paying $6,000 or more for Medicare to pay for one millionaire's tax cut. So, if you're a millionaire and you get a tax cut under what the Republicans want to give you--you're already doing good, but they want you to even do better--that will mean that you've got about 25 seniors who have to pay $6,000 a piece more for their Medicare. So, Mom, Dad-- if you're my age, Mom and Dad are senior citizens. If you're younger, they're not. But if your parents or grandparents are on Medicare and they're doing all they can on their fixed income to make it, they're going to need a little extra help because we've got to make sure that that millionaire gets his $150,000 tax cut. These are the choices that we're making.

Now, my friends in the Republican caucus--God bless them--it's not like they don't like poor people. Many of them are very charitable. They give in their different walks of life, maybe their faith community, or whatever, they just don't think government should do it. This is what they say. They think that government needs to get out of that and let churches, mosques, synagogues, and other folks do it. Of course, that would mean that it wouldn't get done, because even though churches, mosques, and synagogues do great work, they can never possibly come up to meet the need that's out there.

What they're really believing is--this is what they really believe: They believe in something called trickle-down economics. They believe that if you give this millionaire 150,000 more dollars than he already has, he will maybe, hopefully, perhaps invest it in plant and equipment and maybe somebody will get a job because of it. Or maybe not. Or maybe he will invest in China. He'll improve jobs, but just not in America.

Nobody knows what they will do with this tax cut, but this is what the Republicans believe. They think that if you give rich people more money, they will invest in plant and equipment, create more economic activity, and it will trickle down to the rest of us. The only problem is that it has never worked. It doesn't stop them from saying it, but it's never worked.

In fact, the GOP budget will destroy more than 4 million American jobs in the next 2 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that:

The shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts

would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013, and

2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through

2014.

So, a little bit more than 4 million jobs over the next 2 years.

Now, people might think, well, Keith, is that right? Well, yeah, it's right. And I'll tell you why it's right. It's right because when Republicans say we need to cut government waste, we need to cut government, cut government, cut government, they act as if there's just some Big Government thing over there, like it's a big giant piece of Styrofoam and they can just cut it and it doesn't change anything. What they're talking about cutting are Federal workers. They're talking about laying off Federal workers. And they're very derisive about government jobs and act like people who work for the government don't do anything of value--of course this is not true at all. But if you look on this chart right here, Mr. Speaker, it says:

I earn less than $45,000 a year. Explain to me, GOP, how

cutting my pay creates jobs.

This particular person is named Paul, and he is an Army depot worker. I think we need Army depot workers.

Teresa is a nurse--and this is her right here. She lives in my district. And she says:

Twelve percent of the salary I earn caring for veterans

goes to my retirement. Explain to me, GOP, how cutting my

retirement puts people to work.

Well, one of the things that they do in the Ryan budget is cut into Federal workers' retirement. They act like, oh, the government. No, the government is people. The government is nurses. The government is Army depot workers. And what about Federal prisons that keep dangerous criminals behind bars:

I pay more than $9,000 a year for my family's health

insurance. Explain to me, GOP, how cutting my take-home pay

lowers unemployment.

This guy is a corrections officer. And thank goodness for correction officers or the streets that we live on wouldn't be so nice.

The bottom line is, when Republicans say, oh, we're going to shrink the size of government, what they mean is they're going to lay off and cut the pay and cut the employment benefits of Federal workers, people who work in prisons at risk to themselves, nurses who care for our veterans, people who are Army depot workers, and people who work in our parks and people who fix our roads and a whole lot of other people.

Here's a chart for you, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the Ryan budget, if you look at the GOP proposal, if you look at it and it could do what they want it to do, it could cause a loss of up to 7 million jobs by 2016. Because it would cut Federal workers, and then they wouldn't be able to have the money to spend in the neighborhoods they live in anymore. That would then have a ripple effect in their neighborhoods because they're buying less. For example, if that young nurse at the VA in Minnesota, if she doesn't have the same pay as she had before, then she can't buy as much as she bought before, then the company she shops at doesn't sell her as much as they have before. You do that enough, multiply it times enough people, and that company then needs to start laying off people. So it's a ripple effect, what the Republicans are asking for.

But if you look at what they wanted--and I'm talking about going all the way back to H.R. 1, which is their proposal--you would see repealing health care reform, that would cut about $2 million; the GOP budget, that would cut about $3 million; cuts to the Federal workforce, that would cut about 285,000; the so-called JOBS Act, that would cut a lot; the Fair Tax, that would cut; and they would just cut on down the line. What they're basically proposing is by shrinking government and by doing all that stuff, they're getting rid of people.

Now, I just want to be on the record because your words do get twisted. If there is a Federal program that is not justifiable, and it's so poorly run that it's of no value to anyone, I'm okay with cutting it. I just want to say that on the record on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. I'm all right with cutting programs that don't work. But when you're talking about VA nurses and you're talking about corrections workers in Federal prisons, we need these people. They do good stuff. And I believe that we should stand by them as they stand by us.

The GOP budget--now going back to the budget we addressed today--will shift costs to seniors for the Medicare guarantee, according to the AARP. And what's AARP? That's the leading organization representing retired persons. And the CBO--what's the CBO? That is the Congressional Budget Office. And for folks who like to watch C SPAN, I'd just say, Mr. Speaker, you need to know what CBO is because this is very important, Congressional Budget Office. They're the nonpartisan group that says what's really going on with the numbers.

At the same time, it is raising the seniors' cost. This GOP budget gives those making more than a million a year an average tax cut of about $394,000. So I put 150 up there a moment ago. That was the generic millionaire. The actual number is about 394 for the average millionaire, per year, on the average tax cut.

And also, the tax breaks for Big Oil companies. You know, they get about $4 billion a year. I'm talking about if you look at Conoco, ExxonMobil, and all the Big Oil companies, they get about $4 billion a year.

Now how much did you pay for gasoline?

I'm not saying that they're not good people. I'm not saying that they don't run a good business and supply an important product. I'm just asking you this: Does ExxonMobil really need your money through a tax subsidy? Do they?

I think that they don't need your money. I think their $4 a gallon is taking care of them just fine. And I think it's outrageous that the Republican budget that we dealt with does not eliminate that tax break.

In short, the Big Oil companies who are gouging Americans at the pump and the wealthiest Americans win, while middle class and working class families get the short end of the stick.

Last year, oil profits--and this is an exact number or close to it. Last year, Big Oil profits totaled about $137 billion. But you don't need to remember $137 billion. All you need to remember is Big Oil profits were the biggest ever that the oil industry ever had. And yet we're forking it over to them through our tax money, not through the pumps.

Some people might think, well, of course we're paying them, Keith, through the pump. They give us gas. We've got to get to work, so we need to buy the gas.

I'm not talking about that. I'm saying they get--they can apply for grants and subsidies, and it all adds up to about $4 billion a year. With soaring gasoline prices, Big Oil's 2012 profits will even be bigger. Yet Republicans want to give Big Oil more money in our tax dollars, and it just doesn't make any sense.

Now, of course you shouldn't expect the Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil to say we don't want the money. Of course they want the money. Who doesn't want money? Everybody does, including them. But the people who have a public responsibility to look out for the American people should be willing to say ``no'' to public subsidies for the ExxonMobils of this world.

And again, if you work for ExxonMobil, I'm not running you down. I'm just saying that you're doing well enough and you don't need the help of the American people. You can do fine on your own.

Now, those kids on Head Start need help. They need help. Those college kids need help, but not ExxonMobil executives.

The major consequence for Medicare and Medicaid, the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, has big consequences for Medicaid and Medicare. Many seniors will be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in traditional Medicare and keep their current choice of doctors. New Medicare beneficiaries would pay more than $1,200 more by 2030 and more than 6,000 by 2050.

Before, more seniors would gradually shift to private health insurance plans over time, increasing privatization of Medicare. More than 47 million Americans would lose health care insurance over 10 years because they would get rid of ObamaCare.

Now, my friends in the Republican aisle, when they say ``ObamaCare,'' they don't mean it in a nice way. It's an insult. But you know what? Obama does care, so I don't mind them saying ``ObamaCare.'' I hope they keep saying it, because they're just reminding Americans that Obama cares about them and that the people the Republicans want to look out for apparently do not.

States, under the Republican plan, would be forced to slash Medicaid eligibility benefits and payments to health care providers. Their budget shreds the Medicaid safety net and shifts health care costs to States and beneficiaries, blocking Medicaid. This shifts all risks, including future recessions, health care cost increases, and disasters to States and beneficiaries.

So, here's the thing. This Ryan budget, this Republican Ryan budget, it helps and takes care of the rich. It ignores everyone else, and it hurts the middle class.

The Republican budget would weaken the middle class in important ways. First and foremost, their plan ends the Medicare guarantee of decent health insurance in retirement. It also slashes critical middle class investments such as education and infrastructure by 45 percent and 24 percent, respectively--education by 45 percent, infrastructure by 24 percent.

Now, look. The American Society of Civil Engineers, Mr. Speaker, has told us that we have crumbling infrastructure in this country to the tune of about $2.2 to $3 trillion, a lot of money. And if you are living in any city across this country, you can drive over 75-

year-old bridges. You can drive over potholes. Our sewage systems need upgrade.

I am from Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city I love so much; but back a few years ago, we had a bridge fall into the Mississippi River because the gusset plates, which are those plates that hold up the bridge, gave way because the adequate maintenance just wasn't maintained over time.

Now, it happened to us, but it could happen anywhere. There are many structurally deficient bridges across this Nation, literally thousands. We could put people back to work if we put the money into taking care of them. And not only would we have people working, we'd have to save bridges to go over. But the Republican majority, to use their phrase, kicks the can down the road and doesn't deal with this looming infrastructure crisis.

So let me just say this. I've talked a little bit about the so-called Ryan Republican budget. I don't want to spend all my time talking about it, but I do think it's important for Americans to know that this is a budget for the 1 percent. This is a budget for people who've got it well, who are doing fine.

Now, let me just tell you. I swear, I am a big fan of well-to-do people. I wish I were one of them. But my point is that you don't need to help people who already have a lot of help on their own, but you do need to help schoolkids, Head Start kids, pregnant moms, pregnant low- income moms, seniors. These people we should help. People who are doing fine, they don't need our help. They should do the helping, in my opinion. And yet the Ryan budget says we're just going to help the country club set, and I think that's not any way to have a budget.

I'm going to talk about the Progressive Caucus budget, but I just want you to know, first, that the Ryan Republican budget is no good budget for America. In fact, it's premised on the theory that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. Really. That's the animating, organizing feature of their budget, that if we gave rich people more money, then they might invest it in plant and equipment, and then it'll trickle down to the rest of us. And poor people have too much stuff; we can't afford it. We can't afford Head Start, can't afford WIC, can't afford home heating oil for seniors, can't afford Medicare, can't afford Medicaid. The poor folks are just, they're getting treated too well.

And that's basically what the theory is of the Republican budget, and so that's fine. And I respect them for being real honest about what they believe in, because a budget is a reflection of our values.

So now that we've talked about what they're talking about, let's talk about a real budget, not for the 1 percent, but a budget for all.

The Progressive Caucus budget has a name. The name of the Progressive Caucus budget is the Budget for All. That's the name of the Progressive Caucus budget because, unlike the Republicans' budget, which is a budget for the 1 percent, this is a budget for all.

Let me tell you what it does, Mr. Speaker. It creates 3.3 million jobs in the first 2 years. It cuts the deficit by nearly 7 trillion, $6.8 trillion; no benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again for the vast majority of Americans. By putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education.

Our budget protects Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, invests in America's future, and asks those who have benefited the most from our economy to pay their fair share.

Now, as I said, you can't have a budget--you can have a budget that cuts taxes for rich people if you then cut services for poor people. And you can have a budget that pays for infrastructure and education, but the money has to come from somewhere. And we ask people who already have lots of it to do a little more for their fellow Americans.

We're not hiding that fact. Yes, we would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Not to punish them, because we don't think taxes are punishment, but because it's necessary to meet the needs of the Nation and any self-respecting patriot would do so if they could.

In fact, there is a group out there--and I would urge you to check them out, Mr. Speaker--called Patriotic Millionaires who understand that they may need to pay higher taxes.

If you already are making a million dollars a year, would you pay a little extra just to make sure that low-income pregnant women got some food for their kids? If you are already making a million or more a year, would you pay a little extra to make sure that little kids had Head Start to go to? If you're already making a million dollars a year, Mr. Speaker, would you pay a little extra just to make sure that the Federal workers don't have their pensions cut to pay for your tax cut? That's just my thinking.

I don't want anybody to think the Republicans are mean. They do charitable work in their individual lives, and that's a fact and I think people ought to know that. But they don't think government has any role in helping people. I disagree with that and call on Americans, Mr. Speaker, to look carefully at the choices that they offer.

The Budget for All is not a budget for the 1 percent, it's not a budget for the 99 percent, but a budget for all because we care about the 1 percent too. We want even the 1 percent to live in a good Nation with fairness, with economic opportunity, with economic mobility, with good roads, good bridges, good education, clean water, clean air. We want this for everyone.

The Budget for All attacks America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion over 10 years in job-creating investment. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get our economy moving again, including direct-hire programs that create School Improvement Corps, Park Improvement Corps, Student Jobs Corps, and others; targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector; widespread domestic investment, including an infrastructure bank; a $556 billion surface transportation, unlike this thing that they tried to pass today, which is a 3-month extension.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, can you believe it, the Republican caucus is always going on and on about uncertainty. What did they do? They created uncertainty by passing some 3-month transportation bill. My goodness, it boggles the mind actually.

Back to the Budget for All. There is approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially reduces the deficit and does so in a way that does not devastate what Americans value. We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit: unsustainable tax policy, wars overseas, and the policies that helped cause the recent recession, rather than putting the middle class and the social safety net on the chopping block.

The budget creates a fairer America; it ends tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans on schedule at the year's end; extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of Americans; creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in line with the Buffett Rule principle; eliminates Tax Code preferential treatment for capital gains and dividends; abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability; creates a publicly funded Federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good.

It responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad. It also adapts our military to address 21st century threats through modernization. The Department of Defense will spend less and stop contributing to the deficit, but they will have what they need to keep America strong, which is very important to all of us.

It provides a making-work-pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food costs; extends an earned income tax credit and child dependent

care credit; invests in programs to stave off further foreclosure; invests in children's education by increasing education, training, and social services.

The Budget for All is a budget for all. I know that sounds repetitive, but it's important to note that the name of our budget reflects the reality of our budget; and the reality of our budget is that we want to see rich, poor, and everybody in the middle do well in America. That means a budget for all.

As I begin to wind down, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is an honor to come before you to talk about the Budget for All, but it's also an honor to talk about the Ryan Republican budget because the Ryan Republican budget offers a very different vision of America than the Budget for All. The Ryan vision says that if we just could get rich people more money, they might create some plants and equipment that will hire the rest of us.

The Budget for All says: No, we're in this together, and we're going to ask the wealthiest to pay more to invest in health, education, transportation, and infrastructure so that we can have a stronger, better, greater America.

Two visions of a Nation. One says austerity for the middle and working class and the poor, and one says investment. One says if you are out of luck, you're on your own; and one says as Americans, we're all in this together.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to be here and offer these contrasts, these choices for Americans as we close out what I call Budget Week.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 30, 2012, at 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, after 18 years of outstanding service Karen Kelley-Ariwoola is leaving her position as Vice President of Community Philanthropy for The Minneapolis Foundation.

During her tenure, Karen has made a deep and lasting mark on both the Foundation and the metropolitan Minneapolis community. Her leadership in education, early childhood, and racial equity issues is renowned nationwide and her persistent, collaborative, and compassionate efforts have contributed to many of Minnesota's recent gains in each of these areas.

In the aftermath of the May 22, 2011 tornado that struck Minneapolis, Karen has played a critical role in raising and distributing well over $1 million dollars in relief. She also has assisted many local agencies in creating a new model for collaboration and a new vision for North Minneapolis. She implemented the same collaborative leadership strategy after the I 35W Bridge collapsed and fell into the Mississippi River just over 4 years ago.

Karen's great work has helped The Minneapolis Foundation maintain its commitment to transforming education, promoting economic vitality, and building social capital. These efforts enable us to create a more equitable community and Minnesota's 5th Congressional District is grateful for her service.

As the U.S. Congressman representing Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, I honor Karen Kelley-Ariwoola for her accomplishments and wish her and her family health, happiness, and prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to go right to the heart of the matter. We're talking about budgets and how our Nation shall spend money over the course of years. What we're dealing with now is we're dealing with unemployment, and this budget is no decent budget at all unless it deals with jobs. Now, the Budget for All, which is the Progressive Caucus budget, is all about jobs. We make investments in people developing our workforce, developing education and putting Americans back to work.

America has work that needs to be done. We've got about $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure which Republicans don't invest in. America has jobs that need to be done. We've got people that need to do them, and we have privileged Americans in corporations who have the money that, if they were to give it in the way of taxes as the dues we pay to live in a civilized society, we could combine these three elements to put America back to work.

Now, I'm proud to stand with the Budget for All because it makes the priority of jobs the key thing, but it also invests in America's future and reduces the deficit. We're serious about that. I'd like to make sure that others are, too, and don't just say so.

We've got to put America back to work. The Budget for All does that. We urge support for the Budget for All.