Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous work of the Latino Children and Families Council and their programs for the Latino community in Wisconsin's Second District.

The Latino Children and Families Council hosts El Diia de los Ninnos, an annual event in Madison, Wisconsin for Latino children and their families. This event includes music, food and plenty of games and educational activities for youth to enjoy. Also featured are opportunities for parents to receive information about childcare, parenting and the resources available to them in our community. The day culminates with a parade of Latin American Nations which allows the children to showcase their talents and celebrate their heritage.

Through education and advocacy, the Council continually promotes the success and wellbeing of Latino children and families. The Council promotes strong partnerships between community organizations and works to ensure our schools provide quality education that is inclusive of all students and the unique backgrounds from which they come and the diverse languages that they speak. The Council also provides leadership, giving a strong voice to the concerns of the Latino community.

I am proud to celebrate Saturday, May 3, 2014 as ``El Diia de los Ninnos.'' I thank the Latino Children and Families Council for their efforts to engage with and support the Latino community in Madison. This recognition is a most fitting honor of the important work that they do, not just today but throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous work of the Latino Children and Families Council and their programs for the Latino community in Wisconsin's Second District.

The Latino Children and Families Council hosts El Diia de los Ninnos, an annual event in Madison, Wisconsin for Latino children and their families. This event includes music, food and plenty of games and educational activities for youth to enjoy. Also featured are opportunities for parents to receive information about childcare, parenting and the resources available to them in our community. The day culminates with a parade of Latin American Nations which allows the children to showcase their talents and celebrate their heritage.

Through education and advocacy, the Council continually promotes the success and well-being of Latino children and families. The Council promotes strong partnerships between community organizations and works to ensure our schools provide quality education that is inclusive of all students and the unique backgrounds from which they come and the diverse languages that they speak. The Council also provides leadership, giving a strong voice to the concerns of the Latino community.

I am proud to celebrate Saturday, May 3, 2014 as ``El Diia de los Ninnos.'' I thank the Latino Children and Families Council for their efforts to engage with and support the Latino community in Madison. This recognition is a most fitting honor of the important work that they do, not just today but throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Wanda Fullmore, who, after 39 years of dedicated service to the people of Madison, Wisconsin, is retiring from the Mayor's Office.

Her welcoming voice, warm smile and engaging personality greeted the visitors of five Madison mayors since 1975. Regardless of who sat in the mayor's chair, her unofficial title was ``The Real Mayor.'' You knew you had become a local community leader when Wanda knew you well enough to call you ``Honey!''

Mayors would come and go, but Wanda was the consistent presence and institutional memory that guided residents through the complications of local government for nearly four decades. Her knowledge of Madison city government was unparalleled. Better than any directory, organizational chart, or 211 referral system, Wanda could find the one person in city government who could solve even the most esoteric of problems. And chances are, she not only knew their phone number by heart, but also the names and ages of their children.

As anyone who answers phones for a living knows, her job was not always pleasant or easy. She incurred the wrath of many constituents upset about everything from parks to potholes and taxes to traffic. She handled them all with patience and grace.

Wanda Fullmore: greeter, listener, caseworker, gatekeeper, public servant, sounding board, advocate, friend. She will be missed by all who had the pleasure of working with her and the thousands of people whose lives she touched.

I ask the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in wishing her an enjoyable and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth year in a row that the Republicans have introduced their roadmap for the future.

If they took over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, what would they do? Who would be the winners and losers?

The chairman of the Budget Committee said this is a win-win budget. It is a win if you are in the top percentile, and it is a win if you are in the second percentile, but the rest of us--the 98 percent-- certainly aren't winning.

We lose 1.1 million jobs in 2015 and 3 million jobs in 2016 in the Republican budget. That is like firing every single person in the State of Wisconsin. We lose by slashing investments in infrastructure and science, in transportation and education, and for our seniors. The middle class taxpayers pay for it.

We also lose on the fact that this has fuzzy math. The logic is terrible. To say this actually balances in 10 years is to say that Cheez Whiz is like real Wisconsin cheese. They cut the Affordable Care Act's benefits, but they keep the revenues, and they keep the savings, which is simply impossible.

I hope the American public realizes that, if the Republicans take over, this is their roadmap. These are the cuts you are going to see, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the budget.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from northwest Wisconsin is right: let's put the budgets side by side.

The Better Off Budget will create 8.8 million jobs. The Republican Paul Ryan budget will cut 3 million jobs. That is equivalent to the entire workforce of the State of Wisconsin.

If you have family with kids going to school, the Better Off Budget invests into hiring more teachers, invests in our schools and pre-K, invests in our college students. The Paul Ryan Republican budget, it cuts $18 billion in early education, $89 billion in K-12 education, and $205 billion in higher education. Oh, and if you get Pell grants, another $145 billion cut.

Senior citizens, we invest in Medicare and Medicaid and we make sure you can negotiate for your drug prices. Seniors under the Republican budget, you voucherize Medicare and you will lose $732 billion in Medicaid. And, oh, yeah, we are going to open up the doughnut hole and you will pay more for prescription drugs.

Finally, on taxes, we close corporate loopholes for gas and oil companies. We make sure that companies sending jobs overseas don't get tax breaks. The Republican budget, it cuts taxes on millionaires on average $200,000 each. And you know how it gets paid for? On the backs of the middle class, $2,000 per family.

The head of the Budget Committee said it is a win/win budget. It is a win for the top 1 percent. It is a win for the second percentile, and the other 98 percent of us pay the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour. We are going to be talking about the budget. Everyone is talking about the budget, the Paul Ryan Republican budget, the Democratic budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, and other budgets that we have had before us.

We have our own version of a budget. The Progressive Caucus has the Better Off Budget. It is a budget that invests in the economy, creates 8.8 million jobs, and does a tremendous job of dealing with issues that are at the forefront of what America needs to deal with.

But we have a huge contrast in the budget that we have in this body before us that the Republicans have introduced that we will be voting on this week, tomorrow, in this very body. Tonight we would like to have a little talk about that.

As you look at the Better Off Budget in blue versus the GOP budget, the Better Off Budget creates 8.8 million jobs by investing in infrastructure, investing in our schools, and investing in energy, and a number of programs across the country.

On the contrast, the Republican budget actually costs the economy 3.1 million jobs. That is as many people as the entire workforce of the State of Wisconsin getting fired in a simple budget.

One of the biggest issues about the budget is what we are doing about jobs and the economy. We have been told by the Congressional Budget Office that the number one issue this year, the number one thing that causes our deficit, three-quarters of the deficit in 2014, is caused by economic weakness, in other words, unemployment and underemployment. Our budget directly addresses that, and the GOP budget does just the opposite. It is an austerity budget.

I would like to yield some time to one of my colleagues, a strong member of the Progressive Caucus, an outstanding Member of our California delegation. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Alan Lowenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for those wise comments about the word ``discretionary.'' I think, all too often, people don't understand what we mean when we talk about discretionary. Those are hardly discretionary programs.

Again, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for your service, for your hard work on this budget, and for all you do for the people of California.

When we talk about those discretionary funds, it is interesting because, when we had the sequester that made a huge cut to these programs and that affected people in all of our States, the Paul Ryan Republican budget doubles down on these sequester cuts, and it makes even deeper cuts in a number of areas.

I just want to go through a little bit of a chart. Unfortunately, I found out

that I can't use a marker on the House floor because that is against the rules, so we are going to use this in a little bit of a different way, to try to have you take a look at this and decide where the difference is and who winds up winning on the side of the GOP Paul Ryan budget and the Congressional Progressive Caucus Better Off Budget. I just want to go through a few examples of programs that would matter.

Let's start with unemployed workers. Let's take a look at the two budgets. When you look at the Better Off Budget, as I showed before, 8.8 million jobs are created by the Better Off Budget. In the Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, it would cut 3 million jobs by the year 2016.

If you are someone who is unemployed, the Better Off Budget would make sure we extend emergency unemployment benefits. The GOP budget is silent--crickets. There is absolutely nothing to help people who--in a tough economy and who have worked hard all of their lives and who have played by the rules--have lost their benefits.

SNAP, for people who are getting help on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, by and large, two-thirds of those people are children, seniors, and people with severe disabilities.

If you add the working poor, you are at 92 percent of the people who receive these benefits. The Democrats restore the cuts that happened this year in the farm bill and previous cuts to the program. $31.50 a week is what someone was making on the SNAP program to help him in getting by with food. We know this program is one of the best programs to help lift people out of poverty, and we restore that funding.

What does the Paul Ryan budget do? You may remember the debate that we had on the farm bill. Originally, the Republicans wanted to cut the SNAP program by about $20 billion, and they couldn't get enough votes because Republicans wanted to cut it even more, so they finally cut it by $39 billion.

Now, when we got to the conference committee with the Senate, we were able to get that down to $8 billion of cuts, but these are cuts to, as I mentioned, children, seniors, people with severe disabilities, and the working poor--two-thirds of whom are seniors, children, and people with severe disabilities.

What does the Paul Ryan budget do? Does it cut the $20 billion that they couldn't pass originally? No. Does it cut the $39 billion like the Republicans ultimately passed? Oh, no, as it was not nearly enough.

There is a $125 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the Paul Ryan Republican budget.

Let's take a look at that for jobs. It costs 3 million jobs. It does nothing for the long-term unemployment extension, and it cuts assistance to the needy by $125 billion. I would say that the Progressive Caucus Democratic budget, by far, would win out in that category.

Let's next look at education. We have got pre-K, K-12, and college students. Let's look at each of these areas. The Better Off Budget invests $100 million into a stimulus for teachers and schools, so that we can help do what we need to in order to be competitive globally.

We need to be investing in our students through our teachers and our schools. We provide funding to rehire teachers who have lost their jobs through the bad economy in the last several years. We invest in early childhood development, which is crucial for someone to get a fair start in life, and we invest in job training. That is what the Congressional Progressive Caucus Better Off Budget includes.

What does the Republican budget include? Let's start with pre-K. In pre-K, there is an $18 billion cut to early education programs. Right off the bat, are they investing more? There is an $18 billion cut. Once again, the Progressive Caucus budget leads us.

Next, on K-12, in which we invest in the hiring of teachers and invest in our schools, what does the Republican budget do? In the Republican budget, if you have a child in K-12 public education in this country, there is an $89 billion cut.

Again, $89 billion in cuts or investing in our teachers and schools? Once again, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget outdoes the Republican budget.

How about college students? This is where you are going to see some really big differences. We invest in the very financial aid programs that people need. We invest in higher education because, in order to be competitive in a global economy, we have to have the most talented, the smartest, the most innovative people we can possibly have in the economy to create the jobs we need to for the future.

What does the Republican budget do? It cuts $205 billion in higher education services--$205 billion--and I am not even counting Pell grants. Pell grants, which help some of our neediest students get access to higher education, get a $145 billion cut. We are talking, overall, just in higher education, almost $350 billion.

We invest more in those educational opportunities, and the Republican budget cuts over $350 billion. Overall, in those three areas in education alone, the Republicans cut $871 billion to education. That is what we do for middle class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class in the budget that this House will very likely pass tomorrow.

Let's look at the next category, seniors. Seniors, you have put your entire lives into this country, and you have worked all of your lives. You expect to have a retirement that you have invested in, and you have put your hours in.

What is the difference in the budgets? The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget does a number of things. One, we protect Social Security and Medicare. We make future investments in those programs. We protect funding in the Medicaid program.

We allow Medicare to negotiate for better prescription drug prices, so that seniors can pay less on drugs that they have to pay a larger percent of their income on, so that they can get by in those years, and we help, overall, in putting America on a path towards offering a single-payer option.

What does the Republican budget do when it comes to seniors? First of all, they end Medicare as we know it. Under the Republican budget, you now have a voucher program. You don't get Medicare. You get a voucher, something you can trade in, hopefully, for something in the future, which will very likely be a cut in the very health care that you have now and that you receive.

They increase the costs for seniors on prescription drugs by reopening the doughnut hole, which is going to cost seniors $4.1 billion extra on prescription drugs. Seniors are going to pay more for the prescription drugs they need.

They raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and they put seniors who rely on Medicaid at risk because they are making big cuts to the Medicaid program, $732 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program.

Once again, for seniors, it is cuts, it is paying more for prescription drugs, and it is putting you at risk through the Medicaid and Medicare program. The Democrats and the Progressive Caucus protect all of those programs that the seniors rely on so very much.

Our next group, the vets; they have served our country with distinction. If it weren't for the veterans we have, we wouldn't be able to protect the very liberties and freedoms that we have as a citizenry.

What does the Progressive Caucus budget do? We adopt a cost-of-living adjustment that takes into account realistic retiree expenses, and we fully fund veterans programs in advance.

We are protecting the programs, so that they have the guarantee to the veterans, the guarantee that they have promised to them, as they have put their time in for this country. We protect those very programs to ensure that they will have those programs in the future.

With the Republicans, we hear a lot of lip service about veterans and about protecting veterans, especially around Memorial Day and Veterans' Day, but the proof is in the budget.

What do the Republicans do? By 2016, the Republicans actually cut funding for veterans by $1.7 billion. Now, we saw what they did back in the budget in December when they cut the pensions for families who are in the military, but now, in their budget in 2016, there is an additional $1.7 billion cut to veterans.

This is the sort of lip service that you get when a holiday comes up and when we show up. The reality is when we vote on it on this floor.

Once again, for veterans, they lose money under the Republican budget, and in our budget, we protect programs that veterans deserve.

The middle class, what does our budget have for the middle class, and what does the Republican budget have for the middle class?

There are a couple of things around taxes. One of the things that we have been very careful to do is to get rid of some of the tax loopholes that benefit special interests.

There are tax breaks for Big Oil and Big Gas and tax breaks that go to companies that send jobs overseas, which doesn't even make any sense, yet we incentivize those very companies that send those jobs overseas rather than create jobs in America.

We protect middle class taxpayers by going back to the Clinton-era tax rates for households who make more than $250,000, and we add new brackets at $1 million. That allows us to bring in revenues from those who can most afford to, but protecting the very middle class that are the backbone of this economy.

By doing that--and protecting health care, seniors, education, investing in infrastructure for the very roads and services that people count on--we are doing everything we can to protect the middle class. This is one area where the distinction could not be more clear.

The Republicans have given a lot of lip service about trying to protect the middle class. Once again, the proof is in their budget. The budget shows their real values.

What does it do? It lowers the top tax rate down to 25 percent. Do you know what percent of taxpayers are in that top bracket? Less than one-half of 1 percent.

So when Chairman Ryan described the budget in the Budget Committee, which I serve on--we spent 10\1/2\ hours last Wednesday debating the budget--he said the budget was a win-win.

Well, if he meant it was a win for the top 1 percent and a win for the second percentile, I will agree. The other 98 percent of us pay for those two wins that are out there.

By lowering that rate to 25 percent, that gives the average millionaire a $200,000 tax break. Millionaires get big, big tax breaks.

How do you pay for that? Well, there is only one way: you are going to have to put the taxes onto the backs of the middle class. It is estimated it would be about $2,000 per middle class family to pay for those wealthiest few in the Nation.

So when it comes to the middle class, there is no question our budget does more for the middle class, and the Republican budget is a direct attack on the middle class by what we are able to do by making them pay for the very tax breaks that the wealthiest have put out there.

When you look at all this, there is one group that wins at the very bottom. I mentioned millionaires and billionaires. I have to give that edge to the Republican budget. You are going to get a great tax break-- a great big check from Uncle Sam--at the courtesy of the middle class taxpayers in this country.

That is the only winner under the Republican budget. Clearly, in every other category, the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic budgets are superior to that budget introduced by the Republicans.

You are going to hear how it balances the budget in 10 years. That is the only talking point the Republicans have. They don't want to talk about the specifics because they lose in every single category, but the one thing that they claim they have is that they balance the budget in 10 years.

They don't mention it is on the backs of the middle class, but they say they are going to balance the budget in 10 years. Well, I wish their math were only as accurate as their rhetoric because the math simply doesn't add up. Let me tell you why. Let me give you one big glaring example of why the budget doesn't add up.

The Republican budget repeals the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, so it repeals all the positive things like the fact that, when you go to get insurance, if you have a preexisting condition, you now can get access.

You have got preventive care provided, so we can save long-term health costs. You don't have a lifetime cap on your insurance. Your children can stay on your policy until they are 26.

All these benefits were incorporated in the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw the success from the enrollment numbers. Millions of more people have access to health care.

It repeals those benefits, but get this: it keeps the revenues and the savings of the Affordable Care Act in order to make the numbers balance out for that allegedly 10-year balancing of the budget.

It doesn't take much more than a fourth-grader to understand that doesn't work out. You can't repeal a program, but still keep the revenue and the savings from that program, but the Republicans are trying to pass that off. They are trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Do you know how much that bill of goods is, that fuzzy math? Two trillion dollars is the amount that they are using in fuzzy math to try to claim their budget balances in 10 years. It doesn't take a lot to poke the holes in the fact that their budget doesn't balance out.

If their budget doesn't balance out, it doesn't benefit the middle class, and it only benefits the wealthiest, we have a really bad budget that this House will be voting on tomorrow. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that that budget doesn't pass.

I think one really important note that people have to realize from all that we describe that is in that budget is, even if it doesn't become the law of the land--thankfully, we have the Senate and the President still--it is the roadmap that the Republicans have if they were to take control.

If they were to keep the House of Representatives, if they were to take the U.S. Senate, if they were to take the Presidency, this is the fourth year in a row they have laid out this essential roadmap--this roadmap that benefits the top 1 or 2 percent and that every other person--every other American has to pay to subsidize those people.

We lose those important programs in health care and education, for veterans and for the unemployed and those struggling to get by in our society.

There is a very clear distinction between what the Democrats and the Progressive Caucus have put out as our budget that we have put forth to the American people and what the Republicans are actually offering.

They have warmed over austerity. Again, cuts, cuts, cuts will somehow make the economy work, and that is simply impossible to happen.

What I would like to do, at this time, is introduce another Member of the Progressive Caucus who has been a very hard worker on behalf of the middle class, not just in his district in the State of Pennsylvania, but across the country.

I yield to Representative Matt Cartwright from the great State of Pennsylvania.

Thank you, again, Mr. Cartwright. The work you have done on behalf of the people not just of Scranton--I have heard you mention Scranton many times on the floor--but for all of Pennsylvania and the entire country, thank you for all your efforts. I really appreciate that.

In closing, for this part of the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour, I just want to hit the main point again when it comes to the budget.

We all know that the top three issues facing this country are jobs, jobs, jobs. There is such a difference between what the Democrats and the Progressives have proposed and what the Republicans have proposed.

Again, the Better Off Budget for the Progressive Caucus shows an 8.8 million increase in the number of jobs in this country. We invest in our infrastructure. We invest in our schools. We invest in job training. We create 8.8 million jobs.

The Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, would cost this country 3.1 million jobs. Those 3.1 million jobs are as many people as we have working in the entire State of Wisconsin. Think about firing every single person in the State of Wisconsin. That is the job loss that would come out of the Republican budget.

So it is an honor tonight to talk on behalf of the Progressive Caucus and our budget and to highlight the many problems that we are going to have tomorrow when this body votes on the Republican budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and we are here today to talk about the issue of fracturing, also known as fracking, and the need to have more regulation on fracking to protect our environment, our groundwater, our air, and the families who live around the over half-million wells that are across the country, and also talk a little bit about global warming.

The Progressive Caucus has been at the forefront of talking about issues that are important to our environment. We have so much to do to stop the effects of global warming that are happening. Climate change is real. It is one of the greatest threats that we have to our country and to our planet. There are increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere, and if we continue to leave that unchecked, they carry very dire consequences for the future of the planet.

Rising sea levels, unpredictable and dangerous weather patterns, and drought are all examples of the consequences of failing to take action to address this threat. For generations, those who have come before us have held the ideal that they should leave their descendants with a better life. This is an integral part of our American story.

I joined the Safe Climate Caucus because I believe in leaving a safer environment for future generations of Americans. Stewardship of our environment, of the air we breathe and the water we drink, is essential to this commitment.

That is why I am here today to voice my support for commonsense legislation that will end unnecessary exemptions that protect the oil and gas industry from basic regulations and instead extend protections for our families and communities in all areas that effect global warming. But specifically tonight, we want to talk a little bit about fracturing.

I would like to first yield to a colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a great poet. I think we are going to be entertained and informed through that entertainment.

I thank Representative Moore for that. Your poetry is always much appreciated not only on this floor, but also in our State of Wisconsin. Thank you for sharing today.

Before I get to fracking, I want to talk about one part of global warming that recently got a little attention back home but serves as a debate when we talk on the floor of Congress. When I spoke before on the floor of Congress about the need to address global warming, one of the things I said, and this is about 6 weeks ago, was that in Wisconsin, ice fishermen are already noticing fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes.

Now, the conservative right in Wisconsin, they decided to have a field day. There was a shock jock in Milwaukee who decided to play up on this. He said, can you imagine in Wisconsin, where this winter we had days that were minus 22 degrees, real temperature, minus 40 and 50 degrees with wind chill, how can we possibly be talking about fewer days of ice coverage. Based on that cold experience, clearly there is no global warming. Now I know that is not a scientist's statement, that is a shock jock, but they went with it and let it roll.

Here is the reality. We are a planet that is warming. And that statement, despite the polar vortex that we experienced in Wisconsin and other parts of the country that gave us some really cold weather, that is exactly what we are talking about, these intense swings in the weather that can produce that.

What was so interesting was when the conservative movement went so hard to say clearly there is no global warming--they are all climate change deniers that were out doing this attack--they decided to approach a group called PolitiFact. Now PolitiFact often takes things that politicians say and decides where the truth is. Sometimes it is in a TV commercial, sometimes it is in a speech. Specifically, they were asked to address that statement that I made, which was, ice fishermen are already noticing fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes.

Here is what they said. First of all, they rated that statement as true, and here is why. They said it is not just about this winter; it is about what has happened over all in winters in Wisconsin. There is a site called climatewisconsin.org that is done by a number of professors and other professionals in the field in Wisconsin. They have been tracking ice coverage on the lakes in Madison, Lake Mendota, and Lake Monona, going back 150 years. And you know what they found?

Overall, the average number of days of ice cover on the

Madison lakes has decreased by around 29 to 35 days over the

past 150 years.

Not my words; these are scientists with knowledge, people who work specifically in the field who are measuring our lakes. So when people talk about climate change and they want to deny the facts, the science, that over 95 percent of scientists who work in this field clearly have said we have a climate that is changing because we have global warming because of human activity, well, this is just one example where a simple 1-minute speech on the floor talking about climate change became a shock jock's material for weeks to talk about why doesn't Congressman Pocan come home and see the weather.

Well, I get home every chance I can. Every single weekend, I am home in Wisconsin. When we are not here, I am in Wisconsin. Trust me, I would prefer to spend my time in the district talking to the people of the district that I represent. I get back there.

Yes, we had cold days. But to determine everything based on a few cold days, that is not science, that is just rhetoric. And that is exactly what PolitiFact found. That their charges were rhetoric, and we are seeing a serious climate change. And when you actually test 150 years of ice coverage in the State of Wisconsin, we now have 29 to 35 fewer days because of global warming.

So before we start talking about fracturing, I wanted to put that out there because it is all a part of why we are talking about this subject today.

At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the cochair of the Progressive Caucus.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ellison. I share your concern. I came to Congress as a new Member, thinking that we are going to get some important work done for the country.

I remember, in history class, I believe it was the Congress of 1948 that got so little done that they were dubbed the do-nothing Congress-- well, because they did nothing, right? So they get the label. That do- nothing Congress passed 350 bills. That is it.

Our Congress last year passed 62 bills.

Absolutely.

Whether it be the fact that we have discharge petitions now on rasing the minimum wage, so that people can be lifted out of poverty who are working hard every single day, playing by the rules, and just trying to get by; by extending unemployment benefits to the millions of people in the country who have lost those extended benefits--including a gentleman from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, who was my guest right here in this Chamber for the State of the Union.

He was my guest. He had lost his benefits at the end of December. He was a steamfitter, worked hard all of his life, played by the rules, and because of not extending the emergency benefits, they are in dire financial straits.

His wife wrote me an email. This is how we found out about them. Their daughter wanted to bring a friend over for dinner, and they said: I don't know if we can afford another plate at the table.

They have their home up for sale because they don't want to be foreclosed on. This is the reality of Congress not acting.

Today, we now have a discharge petition on immigration reform, something that will effect millions and millions of people across this country. This Congress is not acting.

What we are going to talk about in just a little bit are 5 bills that effect fracking--fracturing--to make sure that everyone can have cleaner air, cleaner water and that people can actually know what toxins are going in the ground when so many people live so close to these wells across the country.

There is more of an agenda that the Progressive Caucus is working on and that we are trying to put out there. Again, I think, gentlemen, we would be remiss if we didn't talk about, just very briefly, the Progressive Caucus' budget, the better-off budget, to make sure people are better actually investing in infrastructure, to actually invest in research and development, to actually invest in education, and to get people back to work now.

Thank you, Mr. Ellison, for all your leadership and your cochairing the Progressive Caucus.

One other thing that is in that budget, in addition to growing us out of the economic problems we have had in this country that we have slowly been rebounding out of, we also take away the subsidies to oil and gas companies, which save this country money that we can invest in creating jobs, but also deals directly with the issue at hand, which is the issue of fracking.

What is fracking? It is hydraulic fracturing, or it is called fracking. Is a process of drilling by injecting a fluid, which is a chemical water-sand mix, into the ground, at a very high pressure, in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. That is the basic concept behind fracking. There are about a half a million active natural gas wells in the United States right now.

Here is what is involved in the process that I think people don't really realize: Every single gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to the site. It takes 1 to 8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job.

To run all the active wells in the U.S., that would be 72 trillion-- trillion with a t-r--trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of chemicals that are used in this process. The water is brought in, it is mixed with sand in a chemical mix to create a fracturing fluid.

Now, one of the things I think that people don't realize is we don't know what is in that fracturing fluid because the companies say that it is proprietary. If they gave up that information, it is a secret sauce that they put together that allows them to do this; and if they disclose that, somehow, a competitor could find out what it is.

The problem is that also means you and I don't know what those toxic chemicals are. We have an idea, in some cases, what is used, but the exact mix, you don't know in any specific well.

So you have 40,000 gallons of chemicals used per fracturing, with up to 600 chemicals in any fracking fluid, which has known carcinogens and toxins. This fracking fluid has been pressure injected into the ground through a drilled pipeline about 10,000 feet deep.

The mixture reaches the end of the well, where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where the natural gas can flow into the wells. Only about 30 or 50 percent of the fracturing fluid is ever recovered. The rest of the toxic mix is left in the ground, and it is not biodegradable.

Also, during this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out of the system and contaminate our nearby groundwater. Methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than normal wells.

You may remember--I believe Time magazine had it, and I have seen it on TV--where people in Pennsylvania, in some cases, near wells, have turned on their drinking water and a match and lit the drinking water on fire from what has been released into the groundwater from fracking wells.

This contaminated well water is then used for drinking water, like I explained, in these nearby communities, and there have been over a thousand documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling, as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

In the end, the hydraulic fracking produces about 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but the price is numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards that we have to deal with.

I yield time to Mr. Ellison.

Thank you, Mr. Ellison.

It is not just members of the Progressive Caucus, Democrats, or concerned citizens who live near these wells who are talking about this. There actually was a recent investigation that was done by The Weather Channel, the Center for Public Integrity, and InsideClimate News that found numerous violations on current sites.

At one, they found, for example, that the State of Texas, that they know ``almost nothing'' about the pollution that one of these shale drilling wells causes. They said that thousands of Texas oil and gas facilities are allowed to self-audit their emissions, meaning they don't have to report them to the State. They go on to talk about pollution complaints. They also said in another study in the U.K. and Pennsylvania that they looked at multiple data sets of wells in Pennsylvania to determine the rate of well failures, and they found that one-third of a data set of 3,500 wells were reported for environmental violations between 2008 and 2011.

So, while we have special exemptions in clean water and in clean air laws for this process, we are finding severe violations by groups like The Weather Channel--hardly someone who is biased--who actually look at these facilities. Then when you actually look at the list of chemicals, at some of the known 600 chemicals that go into these mixes, and when you look at the actual effects--the colors--that are on here, you have got chemicals that lead to skin, eye, and sensory organ problems, problems with respiratory, in gastrointestinal, in the brain and nervous systems, the immune systems, with the kidney, cardiovascular and blood, with carcinogens, mutagens, developmental,

reproductive, and endocrine disrupters. These are the types of effects that can happen from the chemicals that we are not even allowed to know that are happening.

I think one of the most telling parts of this is that 15.3 million people in this country live within a mile of one of these wells that have been drilled since the year 2000. That is more than the entire State of Michigan. These are people who live near a well who don't have the public information that they need to know for their families' safety.

Members of this caucus, the Progressive Caucus, have worked on five bills that have been kind of called the ``frac pack,'' which address specific concerns that we have on the regulation of this. We are not saying that you are going to stop this completely, but we should know what we are doing, not proceed until you know what you are doing and make sure we provide the clean air, the clean water and the notification requirements so that we actually know what we are doing before we proceed. I would like to go over those bills if I could. I would like to just give you a little idea of some of the bills that are out there.

One bill by Representative Diana DeGette, from the State of Colorado, is called the FRAC Act. That bill would close the so-called ``Halliburton loophole.'' That loophole protects the special sauce recipe of chemicals that they use for this fracturing process. It also protects the companies that drill for natural gas from disclosing those chemicals involved in the fracking operations, which would normally be required by our clean water laws that we have at the Federal level. It has three major provisions:

One, it repeals the exemptions granted to oil, gas, and geothermal fracking operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Let's make sure our water is safe as the Safe Drinking Water Act says;

Second, it would make sure that all fracking operations would be required to disclose to the State as well as the public the fracking chemical cocktail intended for use prior to the commencement of any operations--not after your water is set on fire, not after your cows are sick, not after your family has problems, but prior to the use of those chemicals;

Finally, if a medical emergency should arise, any fracking operation would be required to disclose the exact chemical formula of any compounds utilized.

It is a pretty basic set of ideas that would make sure that you have at least information to know.

There are four other bills.

Another bill that is part of the frac pack is the BREATHE Act, introduced by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania and Representative Polis from Colorado. It would close the loopholes of the Clean Air Act that currently exempt the oil and gas industry from essential protections from toxic air pollution, as those studies have been proven from the wells they tested in Pennsylvania. The bill would also require that toxic emissions of multiple related smelt sources be aggregated to determine total emissions, just like other industries have to, so they are not exempted in other ways, and it makes sure, with all fracking operations that release pollutants, including benzene, that we have protections in these areas.

Another bill is the CLEANER Act, which has been introduced, again, by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania and Representative Jared Huffman from California. This bill would specifically protect the environment and the public health by closing a loophole in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which currently prevents adequate, consistent regulation of harmful waste associated with oil and natural gas production and, particularly, with fracking, and it has a few other compounds specifically related to that.

The next bill is the FRESHER Act, introduced, again, by Representative Cartwright from Pennsylvania. This would close the loophole in the Clean Water Act, and it would require oil and gas producers to obtain the standard permits necessary for activities that increase storm water runoff and risk water pollution. Treat them like everybody else so that we know what is going on in the process. It also makes oil and gas companies play by the exact same rules that apply to other industries, and it conducts a basic study to further make sure that we understand what they are using.

The final bill that is part of the frac pack is a bill called the SHARED Act, introduced by Jan Schakowsky from the State of Illinois. This bill would provide further protection for public health by requiring water testing before fracking begins, and it would help document any drinking water contamination within a mile's radius of a site operation.

Now, none of these are crazy ideas, saying we are absolutely closing down every operation because we don't like it. It is saying let's make sure they follow the law like any other industry would follow the law when it comes to our clean water and our clean air and that we know what toxic compounds are being put into the groundwater since we know so much of it is left there, especially when you live nearby, like 15.3 million Americans do. Those are simple bills that we have put out there that we are hoping this body will take up, because it is important that we provide those safeguards for the people across the country.

Again, thank you, Representative Ellison, for all of the work you do with the Progressive Caucus.

This was a Special Order hour tonight to talk about why we need to have safer practices around hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in this country. For the 15.3 million people who live within a mile of the wells, for everyone who has to eventually suffer the effects of the environment and the health pollutants that are put out by this, there are bills that are introduced in this body that can make sure that we regulate this better, that can make sure they are not exempt from clean air and clean water protections, and that disclose the toxins that are used so that we can make sure that this process is safer, healthier, and better for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add as a reminder to everyone, which is also important, that March 31 is the deadline for signing up for the Affordable Care Act. There are extensions. If you have tried to do it and if you can't get it done, there is a little bit of an extension at this time, but you need to do it by March 31. I think we have got some of my colleagues who are going to be talking about that in just a little bit, but I would like to encourage everyone to take advantage of that while they have time in the remaining week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus today for the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour. We want to talk about the need to extend unemployment benefits in this country.

Since the end of December, millions of Americans have lost their extended unemployment benefits and are struggling just to get by in this economy.

We have had two really positive developments this week. One, the House Democrats have an initiative, led by Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, to do a discharge petition, which is a procedural motion to force the leadership of this body to let us vote on extending unemployment benefits, which it refuses to do.

We have to get 218 signatures--a majority of the House--to sign the discharge petition. If that happens, we can force a vote and make sure that people who have lost their benefits since the end of December get their benefits.

That is the first important thing that has happened.

The second important thing is, today, just this afternoon, it was announced there is a bipartisan agreement in the Senate by several senators to make sure that we can extend benefits through the month of May of this year.

We need to do everything possible not only to make sure that the Senate passes that, but to make sure that this House takes up that action. Because if we don't, millions of people--and many more every single week--will not get access to unemployment benefits.

So the Progressive Caucus is here today to highlight this issue and to raise awareness and explain why it is so important that we pass these benefits--and we pass them now--on behalf of the millions of people in this country that need those.

I am joined by several of my colleagues here today. I would like to make sure that they have a chance to talk about the unique situations in their area and why this is so important.

I would first like to yield to my colleague from the great State of Oregon, Representative Suzanne Bonamici.

Thank you, Representative Bonamici. I am sorry to hear about your constituent losing housing.

For the State of the Union in this very Chamber, I brought a constituent of mine who had lost their benefits. Rather than be foreclosed on, they put their home up for sale. They are still looking for work.

It is a situation happening all too often. There is an article in today's Huffington Post talking about the

number of people who are being evicted because they can no longer pay their rent or mortgage simply because of the loss of benefits.

Thank you for sharing that story, and thank you for your work on behalf of Oregon.

I would also like to yield to my colleague from California, Representative Jared Huffman, who would like to talk a little bit about the problem of extending unemployment benefits.

Representative Huffman.

Thank you, Representative Huffman, for all the work on behalf of your constituents in northern California. I appreciate your words and sharing the story of your constituent.

Again, 72,000 people every single week will lose benefits until this Congress acts, real people in California, Oregon, and real people in the State of Illinois.

Next it is my privilege to yield time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), the person who led the initiative on behalf of the House Democrats, led the initiative to discharge the bill so that we could force a vote in this House to ensure that everyone across the country and in the State of Illinois can get the benefits they need so they can continue to get by to find work.

Thank you, Representative Schneider. Your efforts for this body, leading the House Democrats on that discharge position--we didn't know today the Senate was going to come up with something that may pass and may be able to get through this House. But your leadership made sure that those over 110,000 people in Illinois, and each and every week more people adding to that, can get those benefits.

So thank you for your efforts. We hope that we can force this House to have us vote to extend unemployment benefits.

I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), one of the newest Members of the House.

Thank you so much. You deserve a lot of credit for hitting the ground running in Congress. Thank you so much for representing the people of Massachusetts so very ably and defending the unemployment benefits that we need to extend.

This is something that--the Progressive Caucus, earlier this week, released our budget, and our budget is the Better Off Budget, to make sure that people are better off, their families, they have access to opportunity for their families.

That budget offered extending the benefits to the full 99 weeks. So the Progressive Caucus was there from the very beginning to make sure that we can get these benefits extended for every single American, the 2 million Americans, including 40,000 people in the State of Wisconsin, that they can get these benefits.

We are very proud that the Progressive Caucus looked at this as a priority, and that is why so many Members tonight were here to discuss it.

It is interesting, I am going to read a couple of quotes from people that you wouldn't expect to hear coming out of the Progressive Caucus.

One is a quote from someone back in 1983, someone that often gets quoted in this Chamber, but usually by people on the other side of the aisle, former President Ronald Reagan. His quote was: ``Unemployment insurance is a lifeline that extends to millions of Americans.'' A lifeline. That is Ronald Reagan saying that unemployment insurance is a lifeline to the Americans who need it. He got it, in 1983.

Now, let me read another quote. In the year 2002, another person that people on this side of the aisle don't quote too often, former President George W. Bush, this is what he said: ``These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down.''

We cannot let them down. That is from President George W. Bush. These are two Republican leaders who understood that unemployment compensation is not a political toy.

It is not something about brinksmanship. It is the demand that we need to make sure that people who pay into the system, who have worked hard and played by the rules all their lives, have that lifeline when they need it because they have put in their dues. They have worked hard, and now, through no fault of their own, they are out of work and looking for work. We should be able to extend those benefits. So that is exactly what we are here to talk about tonight.

Forty thousand people in my home State of Wisconsin, and more every week, are losing their benefits because this Congress has refused to act up to now.

Now, they still can either act through the discharge petition the Democrats have put forth, they can sign the discharge petition to make sure we can get a vote in this body, or we can hope that the Senate does pass this bipartisan deal just from this afternoon, come to this House, and see that we do the right thing here and extend the benefits so that 72,000 people each and every week don't continue to lose their benefits.

This costs the economy. It was mentioned earlier, but it has been estimated, just in January and February alone, we have cost the economy $3 billion by not extending these benefits, and that is more than $51 million in my home State of Wisconsin, just during the months of January and February.

Folks, we need to make sure these benefits are passed, not just for the families struggling, but for our economy that is also struggling. We are coming back, but we can't keep putting roadblocks in front of our economy, things like this, that stop unemployment benefits for all too many Americans.

Now, it also is estimated that this will cost the economy 240,000 jobs this year alone by not extending the benefits, 240,000 jobs.

So here we are trying to bring the economy back, and by not doing the right thing, by not extending the unemployment benefits, we are going to cost 240,000 jobs in this country, on top of the people now who don't have benefits.

Now, you heard some stories tonight from people who talked about constituents, telling their very real stories about what this means to them.

Well, let me tell you about a constituent I had who came in this very body, and I quickly referenced it before: Brian Krueger of Mount Horeb, a hardworking person, a steamfitter.

As we know, the construction industry, when the economy gets a cold, the construction industry gets pneumonia. That is just the way it happens. It dries up even more. So people aren't back to work yet in this industry.

This is a hardworking person who was working as a steamfitter, trying to find work. His benefits were cut off at the end of December, and he is struggling to get by, looking for work each and every single day.

He even put his home up for sale so that it wouldn't be foreclosed on, just as he is trying get by, someone who has played by the rules and worked hard each and every single day.

Today there is an article in the Huffington Post, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to read a little bit from that. The headline was: ``Some Jobless Facing Eviction After Loss of Benefits.''

These are the very real stories that you were just hearing a little bit earlier tonight. Let me tell some more of these stories, and I am going to read directly from The Huffington Post article:

Craig Bruce, 45, told The Huffington Post that he and his

wife were evicted Tuesday from their apartment in California.

He said they're fighting the eviction in court, but they

spent Tuesday night in a motel room and bunked with family

Wednesday.

``I can't get a job. Either I'm over-qualified or somebody

else is closer and they don't have to pay them any moving

fees to take the job,'' he told the Huffington Post.

Bruce, a gulf war veteran, lost his quality assurance

analyst job at an engineering company in the fall of 2012. He

said his unemployment's been hard on him and his wife, who is

still looking for work in quality assurance.

``There's been a lot of depression on my end,'' he said.

``She's scared. She's terrified right now.''

That is a real story of a real person who has worked hard and had a job for many years who, because of the economy, is out of work and can't get the benefits. And the result of this body not acting, the result has been he has been evicted from his home as of Tuesday.

That is wrong. That is not America. That is not the way we should be acting.

Now, I want to yield some time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), another colleague of mine, someone who has been a fighter for

working families throughout New York and across the country.

Thank you so much, Representative Jeffries, for your always eloquent fight on behalf of the working people across the State of New York and the need for the benefits.

I am glad you debunked some of the myths that are out there because I remember, during the debate we had on food stamps, there was discussion of a surfer dude from California who talked about gaming the system.

We were basically cutting $39 billion from food stamps because there was a surfer who abused the system from the State of California. Rather than governing by analysis, they govern by anecdote, and it is something that we need to get done and this body needs to get done.

Let me just share one final story, if I can, of someone from the State of California, again, from The Huffington Post article. This is Ricki Ward of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and I will read from the article.

Ward, who told The Huff Post Tuesday that she expects to be

evicted next month, said she has worked all her life from

paycheck to paycheck and raised two kids as a single

mother. For the past 5 years, Ward worked in offices, retail

stores, and fast food before being laid off from a customer

service job for a cable provider in March 2013.

Ward said she suspects she is having difficulty finding

work because of her age.

``I took the year that I graduated from high school off of

my resume, and I started getting calls,'' Ward said. ``Yet

once they saw me, I wasn't what they wanted for their front

counter. I'm 59 years old, but I'm a very young 59 years old.

I keep myself in good shape. I'm nowhere near ready to stop

working.''

She said her landlord has been fair with her and that she

has received some help from family and friends, but she keeps

falling further behind.

``It's so humiliating to have to have everybody else try to

take care of you,'' Ward said. ``It's just not what I'm used

to. I've worked all my life.''

These are the stories that we have talked about during this past hour from people across the country who, again, have played by the rules, worked hard and, because of a turn in the economy a few years ago, have lost work.

The commitment that we have to those people is that if they are working hard. We need to do everything we can to make sure that they have the help that they have paid into: unemployment benefits. We need to, in a time like this, pass those emergency benefits.

I would like to yield my final time to a Representative from Ohio who has done an absolutely amazing job for a number of years representing her constituents and is a great University of Wisconsin alumni.

I have to say that, being from Wisconsin, but she is a great colleague, Representative Marcy Kaptur from the great State of Ohio.

Thank you so much, Representative Kaptur, again for your history of support not only for working families across Ohio. I know we are

going to talk more about trade in this body. Thank you for sharing that information.

With that, I am going to close the Special Order hour for the Progressive Caucus. It is imperative that this body pass the extension of the emergency unemployment benefits. The House Democrats have filed a discharge petition. We will do everything we can to force a vote off that; but we are hoping that the Senate, now that they have a bipartisan agreement, can get that passed as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus wants to discuss with the American public issues that are important, that are timely, and that should be happening in this current Congress.

Tonight we are here to talk about a number of issues, one being the very important need to raise the minimum wage in this country.

Before we start that dialogue, we also want to talk about another issue that has happened just recently in this country and that has a little bit to do with my background growing up.

I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Kenosha, Wisconsin, was a company town. We had one very large employer, American Motors Company. We made Pacers and Gremlins and a bunch of cars that maybe were unique for their time and may be collectable now, but certainly stood out in history. But American Motors did something really amazing for the community I grew up in. We were able to grow up in a strong, middle class community. People had family-supporting wages. And the reason they had family-supporting wages is not only because of American Motors Company and later Renault and Chrysler, but also because of the United Autoworkers Union, a union that worked very collaboratively with the companies that were there in Kenosha and made sure that not only did people get a good, fair wage to support their families, but also they worked hard and they made sure those companies were profitable and delivered a very good quality product for the American people.

So, that was my experience growing up. My neighbors, my family, my friends all wound up having someone in their family working with American Motors Company or a company that fed into that, and we had good wages and people had a good chance to grow up in a middle class environment.

Unfortunately, all too often we see these attacks across the country on unions making it harder and harder for people who work for a company to have a voice in their company. What happened just 2 weeks ago was there was a union election at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They had an election that was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board where workers were deciding whether or not they were going to have a voice, collective voice in their workplace. They were deciding whether or not they were going to unionize and join the United Auto Workers.

There were two extraordinary things about this election: First, the company was neutral. The company had made the decision to stay out of the choice because, after all, this was a decision to be made by the workers. We have seen time and time again how employers can easily interfere with this choice by workers. After all, they write your paycheck; they can decide whether or not you get that promotion; they can fire you. So an employer can wield an immense and powerful influence over the workers who are trying to make a decision whether or not they want to unionize, and they can wield that power lawfully and sometimes they wield it unlawfully. In this case, the employer of Volkswagen said: You know what? This is the workers' decision. Let's leave it up to them.

That doesn't happen very often in this country. For that reason, the employer chose to embrace the notion that its employees had the freedom to choose. That happened in Chattanooga.

There is a second extraordinary thing that happened in this election, and that is, despite the fact that the employer was neutral, a free and fair election was still rendered impossible because of interference and threats from outside parties. What we saw here was unprecedented, and the shameful actions by outside parties interfered in a private decision by some 1,300 workers on whether or not they would organize for a better life.

I yield, yes, absolutely, to Mr. Miller from California.

I thank my friend from California.

What you said is worth repeating. Volkswagen put out a formal denial of the claim, making clear that there was absolutely no link between the vote and the placement of the SUV facility in Chattanooga, yet this elected official went out and did it again. He moved to discredit the company, astonishingly suggesting that the company was using old talking points, suggesting that he had the company's new secret talking points.

What happened here wasn't someone just expressing their view. What happened here was someone communicating a promise of benefits if workers voted one way, backed up by some mystery assurance. What happened here was someone communicating a thinly veiled threat that jobs would be lost if the workers voted another way, again backed up by some mysterious assurance.

The National Labor Relations Act is our Nation's premiere worker rights law. Like many of our civil rights laws, many heroic Americans in the last couple of generations gave their lives to secure the right to freely associate, to take considerate action to improve their lot collectively, to bargain collectively for better wages and better job security, for health care, for fair wages, and for a safe workplace.

These workers were all brave, and they did not give in to thugs and battles. This National Labor Relations Act outlaws bribes and threats in the midst of union elections. It does so for a reason. Those acts are not speech; they are more than speech. They render a free and fair election impossible.

In the case of UAW and Volkswagen in Chattanooga, since voting was already underway when the acts were committed, there was no opportunity to cure them. The votes were cast, and after 3 days the election was over. After an election, there are now three nonunionized Volkswagen plants in the world: one in Russia, one in China, and one in Chattanooga.

Thank you.

While we definitely want to make sure we are talking about all the issues that are important to this country, and minimum wage is one that we want to also talk about tonight, we wanted to take this time just to highlight what happened, this travesty two weeks ago, and we hope that this will be cured.

Outside officials, regardless of their perspective, shouldn't be involved in the election, but we want to make sure we are highlighting what happened, because that election was not fair.

Thank you very much, gentleman from California, for all your many years of service on this.

At this point, we would like to also discuss tonight something that is very important. The Democrats, this week, took on what sometimes is considered a very unique measure in this House, it is called a discharge petition, because we have been fighting for over a year to try to raise the minimum wage in this country.

There is a bill introduced by the gentleman from California and Senator Harkin from Iowa that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 within 3 years.

If we had kept up with inflation since 1968, the minimum wage right now would be something like $10.60.

Instead, we are at $7.25, and people can't get by. You certainly can't be in the middle class on that wage, and certainly it makes it hard to aspire to be in the middle class on that minimum wage.

We need to do everything we can to help lift that rising tide for everyone who gets that minimum wage because 16.5 million people will immediately get a pay increase, and another 8 million people will very likely get an increase because they are at that margin already and their wage will be lifted already.

These aren't numbers coming from the Democrats. These are numbers coming from the Congressional Budget Office, our nonpartisan entity that provides us facts and figures.

By giving the Nation a boost in the minimum wage, we help the economy, we help those who are in the middle class and aspiring to be in the middle class, and we can make this country a lot better for everyone trying to get by.

At this point I would like to yield to one of my colleagues from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), one of my freshman colleagues who has also been the president of our freshman class.

Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to a question?

So what you just said, talking about the buying power, putting that much money back into the economy, you know, I look at it this way. If you are someone who is making minimum wage and you get your wage increased to about $10.10, that extra money is not going to go into a savings account for something in the future. You are probably going to be buying things right now. You are going to buy a sofa maybe.

The average CEO now makes 354 times what the average worker makes. Back in the late eighties it was about a 40-1 ratio. Now it is 354 times.

When we put money into an average low-wage worker, that money goes immediately into the economy. They can buy a sofa.

But when the gains that we have had in this country have gone, largely, to the top executives, the top 1 percent, the top 1 and 2 percent, how many sofas can you buy at that rate? How does that affect the economy?

Do you have any idea how many sofas you think you could buy if you are a CEO to try to keep up with and help stimulate the economy?

Thank you very much again, gentleman. I appreciate it.

I would also like to yield some time to another one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan). He is a freshman, but a returning freshman from the State of Minnesota, my neighboring State, from the great iron ranges of Minnesota.

Mr. Nolan, I think what you are referring to is exactly what the Democrats are doing this week. We are initiating a discharge petition. We need to get 218 Members of this House to sign that to force a vote.

The House leadership has refused to let us have a vote on giving America a pay raise; and because of that, we are taking what is generally a pretty unusual motion--in other words, to discharge--to actually get enough people to sign and say: we want to vote on this, so we can pass it.

And I completely agree with you, Mr. Nolan. If we put this on the floor, it will pass, unless the Republican leadership doesn't allow us to get this up here.

So I thank you for all of your efforts, not only just to get people to sign the discharge petition, but for all of the middle class families of Iron Range, Minnesota.

One of the things that we have talked about tonight is the value of why we want to increase the minimum wage, why it is going to put money into the economy right now. Again, this isn't the Democrats saying that. These are economic experts. These are some of the economists of the country.

The Economic Policy Institute has said that, if we raise the minimum wage, we would actually create 85,000 new jobs, in their calculation, within 3 years and put a $22 billion boost to the economy; and that means $500 million alone to the State of Wisconsin--$500 million to my State and $22 billion to the overall economy.

And what is more, you would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So we would lift people out of poverty, give people the ability to support their families and the ability to actually have a chance at living in the middle class.

Right now, on the minimum wage, your monthly gross salary is about $1,250. Now, how many of you think you could live paying your rent or mortgage, paying for groceries, paying for your utilities, paying for gas or a bus or however it is you get around?

Think about the bills you have. Could you live on $1,250 a month? And that is what the minimum wage is right now, less than the real value in current dollars that it was in 1968. It should be up to $10.74, I believe, if we kept up with inflation.

There are a lot of myths out there. You are going to hear people on the other side of the aisle say: well, this is all for teenagers. Why are we going to lift the wage?

The average person who receives minimum wage is 35 years old. What percentage of the people earning minimum wage are teenagers? Twelve percent. Again, that is not the Democrats saying that. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency we go to for numbers, says that.

So if we raise the minimum wage, we will lift 900,000 people out of poverty, directly support 24.5 million workers, about two-thirds of those people directly with an increase in wage at the minimum wage level and another third who are at the $10 level, who will also see a ripple effect of a boost in wages.

We will help the economy right now by putting that money into the economy in all the ways that were talked about tonight, and we know that this will not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Now, some will say that it is going to cost jobs. I will tell you, in my State of Wisconsin, I spent 14 years in the legislature before I came to Congress; and every time we raised the minimum wage, there was an increase in jobs available. More people went into the workforce because we were actually offering a greater wage and people are given an incentive to get into the workforce.

There are studies that compare State by State, county by county, where one

had a minimum wage increase and one didn't; and there has been no ill effect in the county that did versus didn't, based on raising the minimum wage.

There are 600 economists, including seven Nobel economics prize winners, who agree that it will have no or negligible effect to the increase of jobs; but everyone agrees, it will help those people who are currently either living in poverty, working for minimum wage--two, three jobs to get by--or those who are just making above it and will see that ripple effect.

So there is no question, we need to give the workers of this country a pay raise. For all too long, we haven't done it. For all too long, we haven't kept up with inflation. You simply can't get by on roughly $15,000 a year. That $1,250 a month is impossible.

We are not talking about teenagers. We are talking about the average person being 35 years old, heads of households who are working one, two, maybe three part-time jobs just to get by.

So the Progressive Caucus is here tonight. And this is why we are talking not only about what happened at the union election in Chattanooga, but about raising the minimum wage.

The Democrats in this House have initiated a discharge petition to force a vote. Let us vote, Mr. Speaker. Let us vote on raising the minimum wage because if you let us vote, I know there are enough fair- minded Republicans that will join with the Democrats in this Chamber; and we will raise the minimum wage, but only if we are allowed to.

We are making every effort, and the Progressive Caucus will continue to do this. We were the ones who went and asked the President to raise it for people who get Federal contracts, and the President made that order. We are very happy the President did that.

But we are going to continue to push this in every way possible, so that people can live comfortably in the middle class and those who aspire to can get into the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you for allowing the Progressive Caucus to have this time this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a part of the Safe Climate Caucus and to speak on the urgent need to take action on climate change.

The effects of climate change are undeniable, and their consequences are unavoidable without action, which means action by Congress.

In my home State of Wisconsin, farmers could face more pests and widespread disease from higher humidity and warmer winter temperatures. Ice fishermen are already noticing fewer days they can be out on our ice-covered lakes. By 2055, winters in Wisconsin are expected to be 7 to 9 degrees warmer, and by the middle of the century, extreme heat in Wisconsin, which is responsible for more deaths in my State than any other natural disaster combined, will be more prevalent, with up to a month more of 90-degree-plus days.

These types of dramatic shifts must be met with equally big changes in our behaviors. We must continue to push for alternatives to fossil fuels like oil and coal. We must reduce our emissions and accurately assess their true costs, and we must boost our energy efficiency by investing in clean energy manufacturing for our environment and for our jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus and lead this Special Order hour.

Last week, we were here as a Progressive Caucus with a number of our members talking about the need to extend unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million Americans that lost them at the end of December. We filled the entire hour with people talking about the need to extend the benefits and real personal stories of people who have been affected by us in this House not extending those benefits.

It looked for a while last week like the Senate might do the right thing in a bipartisan way and extend those benefits. Unfortunately, this week, we saw the Republicans in the Senate refuse to go along and extend benefits to needy Americans, people who are without work, simply trying to pay their rent, pay for their groceries, and pay for things like gas so they can go and get a job. It has been a very unfortunate week.

Yet in this House, we have tried time after time this week to get a vote so that we could get unemployment benefits extended for those 1.3 million Americans and the 72,000 Americans each and every week who are going to lose those benefits. Unfortunately, we have had no success. The leadership in this House has not allowed us to have that vote.

So we are here again today to talk about not only the need to extend unemployment benefits but also to talk about a fast track deal that is going through this House, a fast track deal on trade that many of us see as a fast track to losing even more jobs and having an even more detrimental effect on the very same people we are talking about right now who are becoming more and more long-term unemployed.

I am joined by a number of my colleagues today. I would like to right off the bat yield to a colleague of mine who has served in the California Legislature and now proudly serves the Long Beach area here in Congress, my good friend and colleague from California, Representative Alan Lowenthal.

Thank you, Representative Lowenthal, not only for helping share those stories but for putting personal faces on the people who are affected when we don't extend these benefits and do our jobs.

I am glad to be joining you and others who will bring someone to the state of the Union, someone who will be that personal face here in Washington, D.C., in order to tell his story. When the President talks about things like income inequality and the need to pass a minimum wage increase and the need to extend unemployment benefits, I will be glad to have someone from Wisconsin as you will have someone from California, and, hopefully, we will have a lot of other people who can share their stories. So thank you so much for that.

I now would like to yield to a colleague of mine who has done an outstanding job in representing people across not just her State of California but this country. She is the chair of our Democratic whip's Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity and has done a tremendous job in speaking out about what we need to do to make sure that those who are living in poverty have equal access to opportunity like every American should.

It is my honor to yield some time to Representative Barbara Lee from California.

Absolutely, Representative Lee. Thank you so much, not only for talking about the Fast Track and the wage erosion that is going to come out of that for the American people, but for all of the words as we talk about Fast Track and the need to stop it because, if that goes forward, we are going to lose our voice, which means the people lose their voice in trade agreements that are going to have such widespread ramifications. So thank you so much.

I would now love to yield some time to my colleague, someone who has been an outstanding Member of this body on so many issues. This is my 1 year here; and every time there has been a major issue, there has been someone at the forefront of it, and so often it has been Representative Rosa DeLauro. She is leading our efforts to make sure that we expose what Fast Track is really about. I would love to yield some time to Representative Rosa DeLauro from the State of Connecticut.

Thank you so much, Representative DeLauro, for your absolutely tireless advocacy on behalf of the middle class and people aspiring to be in the middle class. Thank you so much for being here tonight.

I now yield to another colleague of mine who is tireless in her efforts. She is the seniormost woman in the House and the longest- serving woman in the Ohio delegation in history. To me, the most important thing is she is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Coming from Wisconsin, you can't go wrong with that. It is a real honor to have Representative Marcy Kaptur joining us tonight.

Thank you, Representative Kaptur, for all the work that you have done, and I know you are going to continue to do in the months ahead to make sure that we stand up for the middle class in this country. I really appreciate your efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield some time to another colleague of mine whose background really is as a manager. He was a mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. He is an expert when it comes to budgets and knows how to make sure that we properly finance government. He serves on the Budget Committee here in Congress.

I would love to yield some time to my colleague from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Thank you, Representative Cicilline. You talked about the 72,000 people every single week. If you think about it, as we tried to talk to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to get this vote this week, when you think, in Speaker Boehner's district, the largest two communities in his district, Hamilton, Ohio, and Springfield, Ohio, 60,000 and 62,000 people, that is like that entire town losing their unemployment benefits in a single week.

In my State, that is like Lambeau Field, almost the entire Lambeau Field, every week losing unemployment benefits. That is why we need to act. Thank you so much for your efforts in that behalf.

It is now my pleasure to yield some time to my colleague from the great State of Minnesota. Although those of us from Wisconsin aren't always Gopher fans, we certainly appreciate our neighboring State.

Representative Rick Nolan has not only been an outstanding Representative in this Congress, but he also was elected, I believe, first in 1974, and served three terms when he was first here representing the State of Minnesota. He came back to serve the public again because he wanted to make sure that he fought for the middle class and the State of Minnesota.

It is my honor to yield some time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Thank you so much, Representative Nolan. Again, you have been a tireless effort for the entire country but especially for the people of northern Minnesota. They should be very proud of you for what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell me much how much time remains?

I thank the Chair.

I would like to try to split that time a little bit, a little bit on the unemployment extension, as we have been just talking about with the last several speakers, and a little bit about the fast track bill as well because both of those go hand-in-hand in what is going to happen to the American economy.

I just want to share a few stories, some from my district and some from across the country, again, of real people. I am not talking about the numbers, the 72,000 people a week, but just real people and their stories about what this means when we don't extend those benefits.

I am going to bring someone to the State of the Union speech from my district to talk about this personally, but let me share some stories that I have received. One is a woman from Baraboo, Wisconsin. She is a surgical nurse, and she lost her job more than 6 months ago. Since that time, she has done everything she can to look for work and apply for jobs, and unfortunately, up to this point, she hasn't been successful. Now, due to this Congress' inaction, Mr. Speaker, she has lost her unemployment benefits. Without this insurance, she is unable to afford her rent, and she is in danger of being kicked out of her house in just 2 weeks, meaning that she may have to move into a homeless shelter. She doesn't know where else to go or what else to do. That is a real person from south central Wisconsin who is affected by this Congress not acting and extending those benefits.

Let me read another letter that we got from a woman from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin. She says:

My husband has been out of work since mid-June. He is a

union steamfitter who makes a decent wage when working. There

is not enough work right now. He applies for non-union jobs

every day and most times doesn't even get a call back. He has

now lost his unemployment benefits. We are a middle class

family. I work for a community bank but can't support our

family on just my wage. We are now having to apply for free

and reduced lunches for our two high school students. We are

applying for FoodShare.

This is going to start creating a real crisis for the

programs designed to help those in need. They will not be

able to keep up. It's not that people don't want to work.

It's that there aren't enough jobs. We will soon lose our

house, as we are not able to make our payments. Grown people

should be able to work together toward a common goal. My

husband and I have worked hard all our lives to make ends

meet. Now, when we need help, there is none.

Those are just two of the many letters I have gotten from my district, from people who are directly impacted by this Congress not acting on extending unemployment benefits, as we have so many times in the past. Under President Bush, five times we extended benefits without strings attached when the unemployment rate was even lower than it is now. We have acted so many times in this Nation's history to extend those benefits to the people who need it most, and right now, instead, we are going to somehow play politics and not be able to get that vote.

I agree with Representative Nolan that if we had that vote, it would pass. There are enough good people in this body, Democrat and Republican, who will pass it, but it has to come to the floor for a vote. It can't continue to be blocked by the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the need for an unemployment extension, there is an issue that really works hand-in-hand, and that is the issue that we can see in this body in the coming months.

Just introduced last week is a fast track bill to fast-track a trade agreement right now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that is being finalized and negotiated by this country and other countries around the Pacific Rim.

This is something that we have seen such failure from in past efforts, like NAFTA and the Korea agreement and others, that we would hate to see this happen. At a time this country is still bleeding jobs, we need to do something to help people get back to work, and while we have slowly seen the economy improve, we have also noticed that there are people being left behind. There is a dual track going on, and that is why we need to help every single person.

There are a couple of charts I want to show people, and I want to thank the Communication Workers of America, the union that, like other unions in this country, do so much on behalf of the middle class, fighting for their workers, making sure they have a say in their workplace. It is one of the reasons why I have had a union specialty printing business for 26 years. Unions do so much for the middle class. We need to do everything we can to support the average family working in America.

These are some charts that they put together, statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This shows where wages were along a continuum. If you look at the red, that is where the real average weekly earnings are. Right now, it is at about $637. Back in 1971, it was $731. It was more in 1971 than it is right now where we are at.

If we had wages tied to the same percent that we have had to productivity in this country, the wage would be at $1,183 a week, in the yellow zone. That is what we are not getting. We are still producing that in output in this country, but it hasn't gone to the average worker. Unfortunately, what we have seen in this country is something just the opposite, which is the money going to just the top in businesses and not to the average worker.

In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times what the average blue collar worker made, 42 times. Around the world, in countries like Japan and Germany, it has always been around in that 25 to 40 range. That is where a successful economy is at.

In 2012, CEO pay had grown to 354 times what the median pay is in this country, 354 times. It is this gap where workers haven't gotten that money. Instead, it has gone to that top 1 percent. So we have wage inequality. We have wage erosion happening.

Finally, let me show you something that ties directly to what we are talking about on fast track. When you look at net exports as a percentage of the gross domestic product, you will notice we have had a surplus for many years, from about 1950 to about 1974, and what happened in 1974 was this country's first use of fast track, and that is when we noticed our first dip, going into a net importing country rather than an exporting country.

Then when you look at this, the graph how it goes, there is another big dip right here. What happened around the mid-nineties? Well, in the mid-nineties, we passed NAFTA. We passed the WTO, and sure enough, we watched our exports dwindle even more.

Then in 2012, when we passed the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, we were promised 70,000 new jobs in this country. Instead, we lost 40,000 American jobs after we passed that. So what members of the Progressive Caucus and

what Members of this Congress are trying to get across--Democrats and Republicans--is that when we do a fast track authority, as explained by Representative DeLauro and others today, we are essentially giving up our congressional oversight to the President, who has negotiated this.

We haven't even had a chance to really see the documents yet. They are not even finalized, and they want us to give a rubberstamp authority that takes away our ability to have debate, to be able to amend these agreements.

If this agreement looks anything like we think it is going to, like NAFTA and other agreements we have had in the past, you are going to see this graph go farther and farther down, and we will be a net importer, not a net exporter, and it will cost more American jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus today was here for this Special Order hour to talk about two issues. One, the real need to extend Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits to people who need it so much in this country, the 1.3 million people and 17,000 more each and every single day, every week that we don't act, but also to talk about the fast track legislation that is coming down the pike because I think the average American isn't aware of what is happening.

We need to talk about this more because when this vote happens in this House, we could be rubber-stamping an agreement that will continue to not only cost us jobs but will continue to have other impacts on everything from food safety to the financial industry and other things across the board.

So I am honored to have been joined by so many colleagues from the Progressive Caucus tonight. We are going to continue to fight for the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank you for these minutes that we have had tonight to talk about these issues with the American people, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. During our Special Order hour, we want to talk specifically about the need for unemployment insurance but, more broadly, about what we need to do to make sure that everyone in this country has access to opportunity.

Just yesterday, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. President Johnson said, during his State of the Union in 1964:

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. It will not be a

short or easy struggle. No single weapon or strategy will

suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The

richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot

afford to lose it.

Those are the words of President Johnson 50 years ago when we started the war on poverty in this country. We created Medicare and Medicaid, the food stamp program and programs like Head Start. And we have great results from those programs.

In fact, according to a new study, these initial programs, coupled with expansion of pro-work and pro-family programs, like the earned income tax credit, have helped reduce poverty by nearly 40 percent since the 1960s. The poverty line fell from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012, when the safety net is taken into account.

Now, while there has been a lot of progress, we still have far too many people in this country who are still living in poverty or on the brink of living in poverty. Fifteen percent of Americans today are living below the poverty line, and that is just $11,490 for an individual. 46.5 million people in our country are living in poverty, and one in three Americans teeters on the brink of living in poverty. That includes 16 million children in this country. That is more than 700,000 people in my home State of Wisconsin.

According to the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in Rock County, in my district, a county that I share with Congressman Paul Ryan, 22 percent of the children in that county are living in poverty.

We still have vast inequality, income inequality. We have unlivable wages. And we still have Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, who want to chip away at that very economic security. It almost seems like today it is not a war on poverty, but sometimes it seems like there is a war on the war on poverty, that we are actually stepping backwards from the very improvements we made over the years from 1960.

In fact, what we noticed that just happened was the not extending of the benefits, emergency unemployment benefits back in December, on December 28. It has affected 1.3 million Americans. Not only do we have issues like that, but we also have an attack on food stamps, where this very body has voted to cut $39 billion from the SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--$39 billion--affecting millions and millions of Americans.

We have seen attempts to not allow us to raise the minimum wage, a minimum wage that is entirely behind where it should be. If you took into consideration where it should be, just for inflation from 1968, that minimum wage in 2013 dollars would be at $10.60--not $7.25, at $10.60. We are way behind keeping up with inflation.

Income inequality is at an all-time high. We are finding that incomes for the top 1 percent have grown more than 31 percent since 2009, and the bottom 99 percent of people, their income has moved less than 1 percent. So we are in a challenging time.

We know that there was an economic downfall across the globe, and especially hard hit, we feel it in this country. And while we are having dual activities happen, jobs are creeping back up, we are having progress, but still, 7 percent of people are unemployed.

And while we have got those jobs creeping up, we still also notice that

people are being left behind with this economy, and that is exactly why we have tried to do things like extending the unemployment insurance benefits for people.

But unfortunately, in this body, in this very body, Mr. Speaker, austerity has ruled the day. Austerity has taken place, instead of prosperity. Instead of doing measures that would lift people out of poverty and help people get a job and help people be able to support their families, we are trying to take government down and down and down, like they did in Europe, and they have had disastrous results from doing that.

That is not a path out of our current economic condition. We need to be investing in our people so that they have those opportunities. They can grab a ring at that ladder and get a good job and be able to get by. So there are so many things we need to do.

Unfortunately, these attacks aren't just in this body, in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, these attacks are even happening in the States.

In my home State of Wisconsin, our Governor, Scott Walker, was recently on a CNN program. And when he was asked about extending unemployment benefits, his response was, the reason why the White House is so actively pursuing this, unemployment insurance, is they want to desperately talk about anything but ObamaCare.

Can you believe the Governor of a State who is 37th in job creation, who promised when he was elected to create 250,000 jobs, and he has done a portion of that, is somehow trying to say that helping people to get out of poverty, helping people to be able to support their family with groceries and to be able to pay their rent or mortgage, at a time of still having record people who are out of work, while we are trying to start getting jobs to come back, at 7 percent, at that time, Mr. Speaker, that Governor can still only talk about ObamaCare, as all too often this body has done.

We need to act now. The time to act on this, for this body, is now. 1.3 million people are currently out of work and trying to get those benefits they need so desperately during that period that have been cut off. And every week, across the country, 72,000 new Americans will lose their benefits if we don't do something--72,000 thousand people across the country.

Mr. Speaker, in our Speaker of the House's district alone, you look at the largest cities in that district in Ohio: Springfield, Ohio, 60,000 people, that would be like having your entire city of Springfield go unemployed in a single week; in the city of Hamilton, 62,000 people, 1 week, all out of work; Middleton, 48,000 people, you can take that and the surrounding communities, all in 1 week, out of work if we don't do something.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this body do something. 1.3 million Americans have lost these benefits at the end of December, including 20,000 military veterans who aren't getting the benefits they need. These are hardworking people who are still trying to find jobs in this economy, but there are just not enough jobs yet available. And in many fields it is even tougher.

Right now, 24,000 Wisconsinites have lost these important, vital lifelines, and the number just keeps going up every single week by 72,000 people. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans adjourned Congress on December 12, more than 2 weeks before these benefits were set to expire. We could have done something, we could have stayed and worked, and instead we didn't. Now, because of that, we have 1.3 million and counting people who don't have access to these vital benefits.

Now, let's just think about this. Under President Bush, five times we extended these benefits without any strings attached like this Congress is trying to do to this President, five times, and the unemployment was less than the 7 percent we are at right now. It is hypocritical for us not to do what we all did together five times under President Bush while people are still looking for work.

The bottom line is you still need this money, not just to pay for groceries and to pay for rent or your mortgage, but you need things to be able to get a job. If you don't have the ability to pay for gas in your car, how are you going to be able to find a job? You need to be able to have that car to go to interviews to find a job.

You need to be able to pay for your phone so you can receive a phone call for these jobs. These are all reasons why we need to make sure those benefits are available for all too many people in this country.

There is also what happens to the economy when you don't have these benefits in place. Just in the first week since Congress cut off long- term unemployment, our local economies across America lost $400 million of potential economic activity, and that is going to grow every single week. So it is a double-whammy: not only the people who are desperately looking for work, trying to find that job, not able to find that job, but we are also going to have even more people be unemployed because of the overall impact that has on the economy.

It has been said that 200,000 jobs would be lost in 2014, and we are going to decrease the gross domestic product simply by not doing these benefits. The bottom line is, there are so many reasons why we need to do this. Later, I am going to talk more about my State of Wisconsin and why it is important.

I am joined by one of my colleagues here today who is actually the cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representative Raul Grijalva. Representative Grijalva has served in Congress for six terms. He is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and he also serves on the Committee on Natural Resources, where he is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.

He is a tremendous Member of Congress. He has been a mentor to many of us who are freshmen, who recently have joined, and is a very strong member of our Progressive Caucus, speaking on behalf of each and every American who needs opportunity. It is my pleasure to yield now to the gentleman from Arizona, Representative Grijalva.

Thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for so articulately outlining the austerity policy of the House Republican leadership and their stunning lack of ability to get anything done to help the 1.3 million people who are out of work and the 72,000 Americans each and every week that are going to lose their benefits if this House doesn't act.

It is now my pleasure to introduce a stalwart progressive in the U.S. Congress, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, as well as a member of the House Steering and Policy Committee. She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and was past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is my honor to now yield to Representative Maxine Waters.

Thank you so much, Representative Waters. Your efforts over the years have been so appreciated by so many, and I hope the House Republican leadership will listen to your pleas and bring this to a vote.

It is now my honor to introduce one of my fellow freshmen who has rapidly been recognized not only for his hard work and effort, but for his skills, and his work on behalf so many across this country. I would like to yield some time to my colleague Representative Jeffries.

Thank you, Representative Jeffries, and thank you for articulating, I guess, what I have been feeling also for the last year, my lack of hostage-taking skills. I certainly learned some in the last 12 months serving in this body.

It is now my pleasure to yield some time to my colleague from California, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, who is the first Mexican American woman to be elected to Congress. She cofounded the bipartisan Congressional Study Committee on Public Health. She became the first woman to chair the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and serves as the chairwoman of their health care task force.

Thank you so much.

It is so important to note that 37 percent of the people who receive these benefits have been searching for a job over 6 months, the very people who are going to be affected, 72,000 a week if this House doesn't act.

I now yield to another colleague, someone who has been a stalwart member of the Progressive Caucus, is the senior whip for the Democratic Caucus, and she is currently a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee and a strong advocate for people who are trying to lift themselves out of poverty and find opportunity in America.

It is my pleasure to yield to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Thank you so much, Representative Jackson Lee. I think you clearly explained the dilemma we have.

While the economy is slowly bouncing back--and this President has brought us from a 9.8 percent unemployment rate he inherited down to 7 percent--and jobs are slowly being created, we still are noticing that there are still people being left behind. We have to recognize that as well.

I believe Secretary Robert Reich wrote a piece that appeared today that explained that so well. Unfortunately, due to income inequality, the gap of the percentage of people who are poor, are working but still are not earning enough, we need to talk about that as well.

I now yield to another one of my colleagues, one of my freshman colleagues who in fact has been elected by our Democratic class as the freshman class president. He serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform where he is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs, and is also on the Committee on Natural Resources. It is my honor to yield to Representative Matt Cartwright from Pennsylvania.

Thank you so much, Representative Cartwright, for not only your long-time advocacy on behalf of so many people, but for sharing the personal stories, because I think that is what matters the most.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I have all sorts of stories that I would read but I don't have time to from construction workers who are out of work and need these benefits, from machinists who are out of work, a surgical nurse in Baraboo, Wisconsin. There are so many people who need these benefits, and the very stories that Representative Cartwright shared, I just have pages of these stories of people across the country who need these benefits to continue to get by while they are looking for work. They are not lazy. They are not sitting back. They want to work. And in this economy, they are doing everything they can to try to, but the economy is not ready for some of these people and we have to do everything we can.

I do want to read one story. I had an opportunity this afternoon to meet with a constituent from Reedsburg, Wisconsin. She was recently the winner of Half in Ten's Our American Story: 50th Anniversary of the War on Poverty Storytelling Contest. Her name is Amy Treptow. She was here with her daughter, Anna. She has benefited from programs that we have put together for people who are lower income. I will read her words:

I have always worked hard and played by the rules, but I

was still living on the brink of poverty. My story is the

story of millions in today's economy in which there aren't

enough jobs and/or adequate training for the ones that are

available. The basic need for more good jobs and training

programs seems to be overlooked in today's conversation about

poverty.

I am a veteran and a divorced mother with two children. I

went to school to become an elementary schoolteacher but

wasn't able to find full-time employment, so I enrolled in a

skills enhancement program at my local community action

agency in Wisconsin. The program assists low-income adults

that are working a minimum of 20 hours per week to gain job

skills in order to be able to have a job that pays a living

wage with health benefits.

I was working as a contract teacher making $15,184 a year,

which is far below the poverty line for a family of three.

Once I enrolled in the program, I started to take coursework

to get certified as a reading specialist. The program helped

me with the tuition and other school expenses and provided me

with case management services. I was also living in section 8

housing and received housing counseling, as well as

participating in the agency's Family Self-Sufficiency

Program. I am now a full-time employee with benefits as a

reading specialist instructor

helping low-income children, along with two other jobs, and I

now own my own home.

And she goes on.

By providing these safety nets, the very safety nets that we celebrated yesterday on the 50-year anniversary of the war on poverty, we have helped someone like Amy and her family lift themselves out of poverty, but we have to do that right now in helping others.

I would like to, at this point, yield some time to my colleague from Illinois, someone who has been a mentor to me my entire career in the legislature, and so glad to serve with her now in Congress, a very staunch Progressive, Representative Jan Schakowsky from the State of Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional

Progressive Caucus to talk about the engine of our economy--the American worker. The American worker is known for their ingenuity, their work ethic, their drive, and their ability to get things done faster, better, and more efficiently than our competition. But also, unfortunately, the American worker is working harder than ever and they still aren't getting ahead.

The obstacles facing our workforce have never been greater. Too many people are still unemployed or underemployed, too few possess 21st century skills needed by employers, and the workforce protections fought for by generations are under attack like never before.

But tonight, the Congressional Progressive Caucus would like to focus on two issues promoting worker fairness: First, we want to ensure that we value and respect work through a fair wage; and second, we want to ensure that our country pursues fair--not free, but fair--trade deals that ensure American workers can compete on a level playing field.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the biggest sales season of the year. Having already passed Black Friday and Cyber Monday, businesses are relying on the sales of the next month for their yearly profits. But a major problem faces our retailers this season. Too many people, many of them employed by retailers themselves, do not make enough money to purchase the consumer goods that drive our economy.

It has been 4 years since minimum wage workers have received a pay raise. Since that point, incomes of the top 1 percent have grown more than 31 percent, while CEO pay is 354 times that of the average employee. Meanwhile, the minimum wage, in its real value, is at historic lows. Adjusted for inflation, the 1968 minimum wage was at $10.60 an hour in 2013 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. The minimum wage today is only $7.25. That comes out to approximately $15,000 a year for an individual and $30,000 a year for a family with two parents. The typical big business CEO, who got a 16 percent raise in 2012, got paid $15.1 million. That person will make more in a couple of hours than a full-time minimum wage worker will make in an entire year.

Making $15,000 a year working full time is simply not enough to get by in the United States. Think about the cost of rent, food, transportation. These costs keep going up, but the minimum wage does not. Is there any wonder why tomorrow Americans across the country will strike at food stores for a livable wage.

I joined one of these food strikes earlier this year in Madison, and I was inspired by the encourage of workers when they spoke out and took the risk of losing their job in order to talk about the low wages they were receiving. Something is wrong when in the richest country in the world, full-time workers have to strike because they can't afford their basic living expenses. When millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules can't support themselves or their families, when they live in poverty, we face an economic crisis. Consumer spending goes down, deficits go up, and the gap between the small group of the very rich and the large group of the very poor grows even wider.

Mark Zandi, a chief economist for Moody's Analytics, recently said for the economy to thrive, we need everyone participating. Mr. Speaker, corporate profits are thriving. The stock market is thriving. The top 10 percent of the country are thriving.

According to tax expert David Cay Johnston, the top 10 percent earners took in 150 percent of the increased income in this country between 2009 and 2011. In fact, 40 percent of the increased income since 2009 went to the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, those making at least $8 million in 2011.

But do you know who is not thriving? Well, pretty much everyone else. During that same time period, incomes fell for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, and the minimum wage continued to lose its value. This is not a sustainable future for our economy.

As the President said today in a speech, the combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe.

Democrats proposed a solution, and we are honored to have the President's backing. Congressman George Miller of California and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa have introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. This bill, which already has 150 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, would gradually increase the minimum wage over 3 years from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, and it would be indexed in the future to increases in inflation thereafter.

I have already detailed the negative effects of today's unlivable minimum wage; but if we pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act, 30 million Americans would receive a pay raise. Thirty million Americans would have more money in their wallets to support their families and therefore support our still-recovering economy. And who are these 30 million Americans, Mr. Speaker? Critics charge that these are all a bunch of high school students trying to make a little extra cash, get some work experience, and if you raise the minimum wage, you will take away opportunities from young people.

Well, let me put that claim to rest. It is a myth. Nearly 90 percent of the workers who make the minimum wage are 20 years or older. More than half are over 25 years old, and 55 percent work full time. In other words, they rely on minimum wage for their full-time work; and 44 percent have some type of a college education, an associate degree or a bachelor's degree or higher. And 56 percent of those low-wage workers are women. And yet the critics still persist with these myths that somehow raising the minimum wage will slow down hiring, especially for small businesses.

Just last month, Speaker Boehner was asked about the minimum wage and he said:

When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens,

you get less of it.

He continued:

At a time when the American people are still asking the

question, Where are the jobs? why would we want to make it

harder for small employers to hire people?

Well, Speaker Boehner has a very different experience than we have heard from experts across the country and my experience as a legislator in the State of Wisconsin. Every single time we raised the minimum wage in recent history in Wisconsin, more people entered the workforce. It actually created more jobs by offering that increased wage. More people decided they were willing to go out and work. The same has been shown to be true at the national level.

I support raising the minimum wage, as do Businesses For a Fair Minimum Wage. So does the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce and the American Sustainable Business Council. A number of business organizations see the very key to helping fix the economy is to help raise that minimum wage. In fact, two-thirds of small business owners across the country, according to a poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research on behalf of Small Business Majority, two-thirds of small business owners across the country support raising the minimum wage because small business owners, like myself--I have owned a small business for 25 years--understand two things. First, when you pay your workers with a decent wage and treat them with respect, you earn their loyalty. You get their hard work, and your business does better. That's why 85 percent of small business owners already pay their workers more than the minimum wage. Second, small business owners know that we need customers and we need people making enough money to afford the very products and services that we sell.

When you give a pay increase to the people who need it the most, that money goes directly back into the economy and helps support a rising tide, lifting all boats in the economy. Sixty-five percent of small business owners agree that ``increasing the minimum wage will help the economy because the people with the lowest incomes are the most likely to spend any pay increases buying necessities they could not afford before, which will boost sales at businesses. This will increase the customer demand that businesses need to retain or hire more employees.''

This is backed up by research, contrary to what Speaker Boehner and

other critics will say. Extensive research refutes the claim that increasing the minimum wage causes increased unemployment and business closures. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, raising the minimum wage would actually have a positive impact on our economy by investing those dollars right now in the economy when we need it the most. When we increase the minimum wage, we raise wages for 30 million Americans, increasing salaries by $51.5 billion over the next 3 years.

And that is not just helping the wages of people who make minimum wage, but for millions of Americans whose salaries are pegged to the minimum wage. That is extra earnings that could be put in our economy right now when we need it the most. We could increase consumer spending at a time when weak consumer demand is one of the biggest obstacles facing our economy. These extra earnings would increase the gross domestic product by $33 billion over the bill's 3-year period, generating 140,000 jobs.

So when we increase wages, we increase consumers' ability to buy, which increases the gross domestic product and therefore increases jobs. At the very worst, raising minimum wage has no effect on employment, but it does provide a greater standard of living for millions of American workers. That is why 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage, including 57 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of self-identified conservatives. It is a commonsense economic policy; and as a small business owner, I know it is a good business policy.

The Senate will hopefully consider an increase by the end of the year, and I encourage the people's House to do the very same.

That is one issue that is really important, but I want to just read a couple of quotes from business people specifically about raising the minimum wage. Let me read a quote from Business For a Fairer Minimum Wage director Holly Sklar who said:

The biggest problem Main Street businesses face is a lack

of customer demand. With the Federal minimum wage stuck at

$7.25 an hour, just $15,080 a year, workers now have less

buying power than they did a half century ago in 1956, and

far less than they had when the minimum wage was $10.55, a

high point in 1968, adjusted for inflation. We can't build a

strong economy on downwardly mobile wages. It is time to

raise America by raising the minimum wage.

There are small business owners who have said the exact same thing, who realize what we need to do with the economy. Camille Moran, owner of Caramor Industries and 4 Seasons Christmas Tree Farm in Louisiana said:

A minimum wage increase is long overdue. It is not right or

smart for any business to pay a wage that impoverishes not

only their working men and women and their families, but also

impoverishes our communities and our Nation. Boosting the

wages of low-paid workers who could then purchase goods and

services they need is the best medicine for our ailing

economy.

Let me read from another business owner specifically about raising the minimum wage. This is David Bolotsky, founder and CEO of Uncommon Goods in Brooklyn, New York:

Businesses don't expect the cost of energy, rent,

transportation, and other expenses to remain constant; yet

some want to keep the minimum wage the same year after year

despite increases in the cost of living. That kind of

business model traps workers in poverty and undermines our

economy. The minimum wage should require that all businesses

pay employees a wage that people can live on.

I have more and more stories from small business owners who get that the best thing we can do right now is provide the minimum-wage worker an increase in pay, put that money into the economy, create those jobs, and let's give a boost to what we need to most in America.

But the second issue that we want to address with the Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order hour on the American worker is a trade deal that is coming down the pike possibly as early as the end of year, and that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

We have spoken a lot today about the need to ensure workers receive a fair wage for a hard day's work, but we are also concerned about another way our workers can get the short end of the stick, and that is with unfair trade deals that decimate American industries and ship jobs overseas. Unfortunately, we appear to have a massive, secret, and likely very harmful unfair trade deal on our hands.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP for short, is a NAFTA-style agreement between the U.S. and 11 other nations that have been largely negotiated in secret, and seems to not just repeat but perhaps worsen the mistakes made in the past.

In fact, this coming week, TPP negotiators are going to meet again in Singapore, and they plan to have a deal by the end of the year, in less than a month. That means we may be less than 30 days away from having a final TPP deal, a deal that we have no idea what it may contain. While we may not know what is in the bill, we do know what we have been promised, and it is similar to promises that people across the country and in my State of Wisconsin have been told before about these massive trade deals, from NAFTA to CAFTA to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

We have been told that free trade would lead to increased U.S. jobs; it would reduce our trade deficits; it would boost our exports; and it would lead to improved human rights and labor standards around the globe. Unfortunately, almost every single one of those promises has gone unfulfilled.

In Wisconsin, we have seen the devastating effects of free trade agreements such as NAFTA to our local manufacturing industries and our jobs. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5 million Americans have lost manufacturing jobs since the passage of NAFTA. A recent report found that the U.S. actually experienced a net loss of 700,000 jobs to Mexico from NAFTA. As a small business owner myself, I have seen the number of American-made products dwindle that used to be available and made here in the United States.

The record on trade surpluses is equally as damaging. The year before NAFTA went into effect, we had $1.66 billion trade surplus in goods with Mexico. Last year, we tallied a $62 billion deficit. And just 1 year after the U.S.-Korea FTA took effect in March 2012, our trade deficit in goods with South Korea has increased by $5.5 billion, a 46 percent increase.

Meanwhile, in countries from Mexico to Colombia to Bahrain, promises of improved labor rights have instead been replaced with reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the U.S. Department of State of continued, and oftentimes worsening, abuses.

So with all of these examples behind us, and with our economy continuing to recover slowly from the financial crisis, it should be our Nation's priority to pursue transparent trade policies that promote American industry, protect American workers, and improve the economic interests of middle class families across our country.

But as I have mentioned before, the TPP is no better than the deals of the past, and it could even be worse.

At this time, I yield to my colleague from the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). She is the cochair of the Steering and Policy Committee and the ranking member on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee. She is also a long-time legislator and a hero of mine in Congress.

Thank you, Representative DeLauro, not only for your long history of standing up for the American worker and trying to get fair trade and not just free trade, but also for really giving a strong explanation about the problem with food coming into our country.

And medicine. Much less labor standards. We know in Vietnam the wage is 28 cents an hour. That is 4 percent of our currently already low minimum wage. To think that somehow we can have fair trade with a country that has 28 cents as minimum wage, that the factories have violated safety requirements eight out of 10 times they have been inspected, that workers routinely fail to get the minimum 4 days a month of rest.

This is not a trade partner that you can have in a trade agreement that is going to at least raise the level for American workers. It can only lower the level.

And another concern I know you and I have had, Representative DeLauro, has been on procurement and what exactly is in this agreement on procurement. I was an author, when I was in the State Legislature in Wisconsin, of Buy America laws, to make sure that our tax dollars went to goods that supported American workers.

The very language that has been in these trade agreements could take away our ability to have Buy Local and Buy American laws, and we need to change that.

So, again, thank you so much for your efforts on this. We are going to work with many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what we can to defeat this fast track.

Thank you again, Representative DeLauro, for your many years of advocacy for the American worker and your continued strong passionate advocacy on behalf of the American worker. Thank you.

One of the things that, as we talked about the various provisions, there are literally over 20 chapters that involve everything from labor conditions, the environment, procurement, food safety, intellectual property, on and on. This is a wide, wide variety of topics that are covered in the trade deal.

And the fact that Congress could maybe lose its say through a fast track agreement would be completely egregious because we are elected by the people. We have to represent our constituents and make sure we defend that worker in our district.

If you take away Congress' voice, that is wrong. Whether it is done by a Democrat or a Republican, we must have our say.

People will say that somehow we are anti-trade. We are, in fact, very much pro-trade. We just want it to be fair trade. We want it to be drafted carefully and correctly, and I believe you can do that.

But when you have an agreement like we have seen with past agreements and what we expect so far to see in the TPP from some of the leaked text, it looks again that the interest of global corporations will be ahead of the good of the American worker.

There are situations where a foreign-owned business could have more power than our own sovereign courts on issues, and where Buy American policies can be undermined, where corporations can be incentivized to move their production offshore, and it can engage us in a race to the bottom on worker protections, wages and rights. And the American worker gets left behind.

We simply can't do that. We need to make sure that Congress has every possible say in a trade agreement, especially something as wide as the Trans Pacific Partnership can include.

We need to know what is in these laws; and if you think about it, we don't know that. You just heard Representative DeLauro and me, who have been following this issue, we don't even know exactly what is being negotiated in this agreement.

So we have a lot of questions, and we have very few answers.

Does the agreement do anything to tackle currency manipulation? We don't know.

Does it include enforceable environmental and labor standards? We don't know.

And how much does it deal with the blatantly non-trade items from, food safety to financial regulations to Internet freedom?

Once again, the answer is we don't know.

Yet, despite all these unanswered questions, despite the fact that most Members of Congress have barely gotten a chance to see leaked portions of the agreement, and despite the fact that this deal will have lasting repercussions on our economy and our workers, once again, there is word that we are hearing they are going to try to fast track this through Congress. And that simply is not acceptable.

Given all the lingering questions that we have out there on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I firmly believe that rushing this bill through Congress is both dangerous and irresponsible.

Just earlier this year, I led a letter, with 35 other freshman Democrats, expressing similar concerns about transparency and making sure that we have a bill, a trade deal that is in the best interest of our constituents, our workers.

Madam Speaker, our job in Congress is to represent the people who sent us here. It is not our job to represent the interests of foreign corporations or CEOs who want to find the cheapest labor they can to increase their profit margins, and it is not our job to sit on the sidelines while more bad trade deals get passed through this body.

We have a responsibility to the American worker to ensure that they can compete on an even playing field with workers across the world. If we compete on an even playing field, we will always win. We have the work ethic. We have the ability to do that.

But unless we are given that equal opportunity, the American workforce cannot be treated in a fair and sustainable way. They can't compete when their jobs are shipped overseas, or their wages get driven down so low that they face almost unlivable conditions.

We can and must do better for our workforce. We can raise the minimum wage. We can pass job-first trade deals. We can invest in our workforce through education and job-training programs that prepare the American people for the challenges of the 21st century.

That is what the Congressional Progressive Caucus is committed to doing, and that is what I am committed to doing. That is why I encourage the entire body to help us move forward.

Madam Speaker, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has done the best we could tonight to try to raise----

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Thank you, Representative Polis from Colorado. Again, you have been an outstanding advocate on behalf of the American worker.

And I too did the exact same thing. I looked at sections of this, and my staff weren't allowed; but even more troubling, I wasn't allowed to take notes about the language of these agreements.

But from what I saw in the agreements was definitely no better than past agreements and very likely could be worse when it comes to labor standards and when it comes to our procurement policies allowing us to have Buy American laws.

So the Congressional Progressive Caucus today really wanted to highlight the American worker. And the two issues that we wanted to highlight tonight, one was the need to raise the minimum wage, something we expect the Senate may be taking up yet this year, and that we hope this body will take up. And let's raise that minimum wage to $10.10, just like the proposal that we have before Congress.

Secondly, let's make sure we have fair trade deals, not just free trade, but fair trade deals that protect the American worker, protect the environment, protect our businesses around intellectual property and other concerns. We can do that. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open up the government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican government shutdown that is costing the U.S. economy $160 million a day.

Mr. Speaker, last night, I spoke with a woman in Madison, a Federal employee who works as an air traffic controller and helps ensure the safety of thousands every day, and she asked me why should she be working when she doesn't even know if or when she will get paid--and I didn't have a reasonable answer for her.

I received a letter from a woman in Baraboo who relies on Federal contracts to run her small business. She asked me how she is going to be able to make payroll this month if the government doesn't pay its bills--and I didn't have a reasonable answer for her.

I don't have a reasonable answer for why the Wisconsin National Guard can't conduct its training, why local small businesses can't grow their business and have loans through the Small Business Administration, and why 113,000 infants, children, and pregnant women can't receive nutrition assistance from the WIC program.

Mr. Speaker, it is time the GOP House leadership starts acting like responsible Representatives. Let's reopen government; let's prevent our country from defaulting; and then let's sit down and negotiate our budget, as Democrats have been requesting for the last 6 months. It is time to do our jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in our Special Order hour to talk specifically about what is happening this week, or better yet what is not happening this week, in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost exactly 48 hours since the GOP government shutdown in this country; 48 hours since 800,000 Federal employees have been furloughed; 48 hours since our national parks have been closed; 48 hours since the Small Business Administration is no longer issuing new loans; 48 hours since the Centers for Disease Control won't be able to monitor the influenza season coming up; 48 hours since the National Institutes of Health has essentially shut down; and 48 hours since we are costing the U.S. economy $300 million a day.

This isn't a number that the congressional Democrats or the Progressive Caucus has come up with. This is coming right from an article from Bloomberg News.

According to Bloomberg News:

A partial shutdown of the Federal Government will cost the

U.S. at least $300 million a day in lost economic output at

the start.

They go on further:

Government spending touches every aspect of the economy and

disruption of spending more than the direct loss of income

threatens to damage investor and business confidence in ways

that can seriously harm economic growth.

It goes on to explain two major reasons why we are going to have this impact of $300 million a day. The first is the fact that we have the furloughed workers:

Each day the shutdown drags on, the more Federal employees

will discount the possibility that they will go back to work

soon and they will pull back on their spending.

Specifically, one Federal employee is quoted saying:

The shutdown affects me greatly. I have a mortgage, and I'm

the sole provider for my two daughters, one of whom is in

college.

That is what we are doing right now to the U.S. economy by strangling our Federal employees who serve this Nation so well. But also, consumer confidence is directly impacted by this GOP shutdown of the government.

Again, from the article:

If a shutdown drags on, it would start to shake consumer

and business confidence more broadly, economists said.

Household spending accounts for 70 percent of the economy.

Further it says:

A shutdown will probably add to the budget deficit because

it is costly to stop and start programs.

Adding to our deficit, costing us $300 million a day, shutting down essential services that people expect from our Federal Government.

We are 48 hours since we have entered this manufactured crisis over the GOP having a tantrum over the Affordable Care Act and taking us all hostage. But right now at this very moment we could stop this with one single vote in the House of Representatives. One single vote can stop the damage to our economy and the shutdown of the Federal Government.

There is a clean continuing resolution that has passed the Senate. Does it have everything that I or the Congressional Progressive Caucus wants? Absolutely not. In fact, they are still keeping in the number that is being proposed by the Senate, the indiscriminate sequester cuts between now and November 15.

But we are willing to compromise and accept something that many of us have voted against in the past in order to bring our economy back in this country. In fact, I think one thing hasn't been told very much. When you look at the various budgets, once again, this Congress has not passed a budget. This House has passed a budget, the Senate has passed a budget, the President has introduced a budget, but this House leadership has refused to appoint conferees for over 6 months to have a national budget.

But what was the budget line that the House Republicans passed in this House last spring--$967 billion? What did the President have in his proposal--$1.2 billion? What did the Senate Democrats have--about $1.06 billion?

What does this continuing resolution propose for a figure--$986 billion? That is over 90 percent of the way from the President's budget to what the House Republicans wanted--only 2 percent from the number they were looking at. Yet the House Republicans refused to budge and pass a resolution that can end the government shutdown and fix this economy.

So why do we have these reckless, irresponsible demands from the tantrum-throwing, breath-holding, hostage-taking, Tea Partying wing of the Republican Party? Well, they think it is a bad idea that millions and millions more Americans should now have access to health care through the Affordable Care Act.

We have voted not just once or twice to try to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, but we have voted 46 times in this body--46 times that they have held their breath and tried to remove the Affordable Care Act. But the bottom line is this Congress voted for the law, the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court has upheld the law.

It is the law of the land no matter how much some people may not like it, no matter how many times they have held their breath over this and brought this Congress to a vote. It is the law of the land. But because of that, they are willing and have shut down the U.S. Government--a completely unacceptable answer to their issue.

There is the compromise solution I have talked about. A clean continuing resolution has already passed the Senate. With a simple vote of this body, Mr. Speaker, a simple vote of this body, it would go directly to the President and be signed into law. No other delays. Not the delay tactics we have seen for the last 2 days with a bunch of votes that meant nothing in this body. With one vote we end the government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, take ``yes'' for an answer. We are willing to compromise and do this. We demand a vote. We demand a vote and an opportunity in this House to end the government shutdown. But for some reason Speaker Boehner will not bring this bill to a vote. We tried today, and through parliamentary procedures they blocked us from having the ability to take that vote.

Well, do you know why they won't schedule this for a vote? Because they know if they brought it to the body it would pass, and the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, as small as sometimes it is, would lose.

Here is the bottom line. I know that people as they watch this whole debate--and you hear from everyone--are confused. Who is saying what and what is the real truth on this? The bottom line is the facts don't change. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Despite 46 times to repeal it, it is still the law of the land. With a government shutdown, it is still being continued today as the law of the land.

All we are doing in this hostage-taking is hurting our economy and hurting the people of this country through a government shutdown.

So, when people are confused, I have to admit that I'm confused. I'm one of the new people around here. When I look at this, as I've told people recently, I feel like I serve in the Nation's largest kindergarten, only this kindergarten has control of the checkbook and our nuclear arsenal.

It's scary to think that this body refuses to end the government shutdown through a simple vote on a clean continuing resolution; but what's even more confusing, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it's not just the Democrats who are willing to compromise, but there are now 18 Republicans who have said they are willing to vote for a clean continuing resolution, that they are willing to end the government shutdown. There is a 17-vote margin on the Republican side, and more than enough people have said they will vote for a continuing resolution should they be able to. Let me just go through each and every one of these.

Representative Scott Rigell tweeted out from the State of Virginia twice on this subject. First, he tweeted out:

We fought the good fight. Time for a clean continuing

resolution.

That was on October 1. On October 2:

Pain to our military and economy is real. A shutdown

doesn't advance our goals.

This is from a Republican Member who serves on the Budget Committee, which I serve on, who knows the real impact that we are having on the economy. So that is one Republican saying, Mr. Speaker, we demand a vote.

Then there is Florida Representative Bill Young, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, a very important committee that understands government funding. He told the Tampa Bay Times that he is ready to vote for a clean funding bill:

The politics should be over. It's time to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, that's two Republicans willing to pass a clean continuing resolution.

Then there is Representative Charlie Dent from the State of Pennsylvania, who also serves on that all important Appropriations Committee. Back on September 29, in the Huffington Post, he said:

I am prepared to vote for a clean continuing resolution.

The hourglass is nearly empty, and it's time to get on with

the business of funding the government and come back to fight

another day.

Mr. Speaker, that is three Republicans who disagree with being held hostage by the Tea Party wing of your party.

Then, from California, there is Representative Nunes, who serves on the Ways and Means Committee, another committee that deals directly with our country's finances. This is coming from a Twitter from a reporter from the Huffington Post:

Representative Devin Nunes says he'll vote for the latest

GOP plan, but will support a clean continuing resolution if

it comes down to it.

This is four Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, who disagree with the GOP's hostage-taking by the Tea Party wing of your party.

Then, from the State of Minnesota, there is Representative Erik Paulsen, who also serves on the Ways and Means Committee, who had told a local TV reporter in Minnesota, FROM KARE-TV, channel 11, and they tweeted out, saying:

Representative Erik Paulsen tells me he's willing to break

with GOP leadership and vote for a clean resolution if given

the chance.

That's five Republicans, Mr. Speaker, who are going back home and telling people that they would vote for a clean resolution if you would give them a chance.

Then, from the State of Virginia, there is Representative Frank Wolf, who serves on the Appropriations Committee. His aide told the Hill newspaper that he would support a clean continuing resolution. In a statement

on the House floor on Tuesday, Wolf said:

This is bad for America. It is bad for America. Enough is

enough. It's time to be leaders. It's time to govern. Open up

the government.

Six people. Those aren't the words of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. These are Members of the Republican Party. If you give them a chance and demand a vote, we will be able to pass that. That's six Members.

What about Representative Jim Gerlach from Pennsylvania? Again, he serves on the Ways and Means Committee. He put out a press release, and this is directly from the press release:

Jim Gerlach said Wednesday that he would vote in favor of a

so-called ``clean budget bill'' that funds the Federal

Government at current spending levels.

That's seven, Mr. Speaker.

Then Representative Lou Barletta, from the State of Pennsylvania, according to the Bethlehem Morning Call, said he would:

. . . absolutely vote for a clean bill to avert a

government shutdown.

I think that's eight Members, Mr. Speaker, on your side who are willing to join the Democrats and be adults and get our job done.

The ninth adult is Representative Leonard Lance from New Jersey. His chief of staff told the Huffington Post:

. . . that he had told a constituent on Wednesday that

Lance has voted for clean government funding bills in the

past ``and would not oppose doing so again should one be

brought to the floor.''

Eight. Let me make sure I'm right. Let me count through these, Mr. Speaker. That's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. I'm sorry. That's nine Members.

Here is No. 10. He is Representative John Runyan from New Jersey. He joined with other moderate Republicans in calling for the House to vote on a clean, short-term funding bill that would reopen the government, which is according to the Burlington County Times.

Ten of your Members are telling reporters in their districts that they want the opportunity. Don't make them not be able to tell the truth in their districts if they want to vote for a clean resolution. We can end this government shutdown. That's 10.

Here is No. 11, Representative Frank LoBiondo from New Jersey. He called the situation ``unacceptable''--his word. He told The Press of Atlantic City:

. . . that he was in favor of ``whatever gets a successful

conclusion to this'' and a ``clean'' continuing resolution,

which does not include the postponement of the Affordable

Care Act ``as one of those options.''

That was No. 11. Let's get you a 12th vote, Mr. Speaker. It's a 12th vote from Representative Mike Fitzpatrick from Bucks County in the State of Pennsylvania. He issued a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer, saying:

He supports a spending bill at current funding levels, and

aides said that he would back that approach if it were

presented for a vote.

No. 12, Mr. Speaker. I believe that's No. 12.

No. 13. We'll call it ``lucky 13'' in this case. Representative Mike Simpson from Idaho--again, serving on the Appropriations Committee-- told a Roll Call reporter Tuesday night:

I'd vote for a clean continuing resolution because I don't

think this is a strategy that works.

Mr. Speaker, 13 Members of the Republican Party disagree with the Republican Party on the strategy to hold our country hostage and ruin our economy.

No. 14, Representative Pat Meehan from Pennsylvania, according to a press release he put out, said:

At this point, I believe it's time for the House to vote

for a clean, short-term funding bill to bring the Senate to

the table and negotiate a responsible compromise.

No. 14, Mr. Speaker. This is No. 14, who wants to cooperate and give us 6 weeks to work out a compromise between the two Houses so that we can have what should be a budget in this country.

No. 15 is Representative Michael Grimm of New York. In a statement released by his office on Monday, the New York Republican argued that demanding ideological purity is ``not looking at the big picture.'' An aide of his told the Huffington Post that he supports a clean continuing resolution.

I am sorry to do this again, but I'm going to have to make sure I've got the count right, Mr. Speaker. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Members of your party.

No. 16 is Representative Peter King. I think he was one of the first Members to do this. He said he thinks that House Republicans would prefer to avoid a shutdown, and he said he will only vote for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, according to the National Review Online. He is No. 16.

No. 17 is Representative Randy Forbes out of the State of Virginia, who told the Virginian-Pilot that he supports the 6-week clean funding bill that passed in the Senate:

Unfortunately, for us, this is not a game. This is real

lives of people.

That's No. 17.

Finally, No. 18 that is officially out there, Mr. Speaker, is Representative Rob Wittman of Virginia:

I voted to avoid a government shutdown at every

opportunity, to continue government funding, and although I

have not had an opportunity to do so to this point, I would

support a clean continuing resolution to get our government

back up and running.

He put that in an email that he shared with Post Politics.

That's 18. You have a 17-seat margin on the Republican side, Mr. Speaker, and 18 people on your side of the aisle will join the responsible adults on this side of the aisle. Call us back tonight, and tomorrow we will end this crisis and not cost our economy $300 million.

Mr. Speaker, I have a bonus for you. I think there is a 19th person who is on the cusp of saying the same thing--from my own State, Representative Reid Ribble. He is someone I am working with. He and I have a bill together right now to try to get a budget process every 2 years because we think it might be a better way to actually get this country back on track.

According to the Pierce Herald County paper in Wisconsin, here is what he said:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Then this is a quote from WHBY radio 1150 AM in Wisconsin:

A Republican from northeast Wisconsin says it's harmful and

embarrassing that lawmakers couldn't reach a deal to avoid a

government shutdown. Congressman Reid Ribble of Sherwood says

he is encouraging his colleagues to send short-term spending

proposals to a conference committee so Members of the House

and Senate can work out a compromise. Ribble says he is

meeting with the House Speaker today to discuss their

strategy and what they're going to offer. He says he is

optimistic that the shutdown won't last long and that they

can at least agree to a short-term solution.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming hours, more of your Members are going to stand up and get the keys back from the Tea Party wing of your party. Before you have to call a tow truck to pull this country out of a ditch, get the keys back. Demand a vote. Give us a vote on a clean continuing resolution, and we can end this right now.

I am joined by another member of our Progressive Caucus, another freshman member who brings good common sense and a good educational sense as a former teacher to this body. It is my opportunity to yield some time to my colleague, Representative Mark Takano from the great State of California.

If I could ask a question of the gentleman. You mentioned that the Senate 18 times has tried to find a resolution to having a budget in this country. There are a number of us who serve on the Budget Committee, including Representative Jeffries from New York State, who is going to speak in a little bit, who for 6 months have been asking for the Republican leadership to appoint conferees so that we could actually do exactly that. Do you remember when the Republicans finally proposed a conference committee?

I believe it was between 11:40 and 15 minutes to midnight on the deadline before we had to shut down government.

March 23.

In the last 48 hours, how many votes have we had on the Affordable Care Act?

Thank you so much, Representative Takano. You did a great job pointing out every time a press release came out and they realized one of the impacts of shutting down the government, they tried to put a little chewing gum in the crack in the dam rather than actually addressing the problem. They've done that multiple times. They have done it through what we call around here ``gotcha votes'' to try to make a point, but they have not provide the solution we need, which is what we're demanding and 18 Members on the other side are demanding, which is a vote on a clean continuing resolution so that government can continue.

Absolutely. Thank you again for your leadership, Representative Takano. I appreciate it.

Completely from the other coast, we have another freshman Member who is a strong member of our Progressive Caucus and a former legislator from the State of New York and now a Representative in Congress in the State of New York. It's my pleasure to yield some time to Representative Hakeem Jeffries.

Thank you so much, Representative Jeffries, for very clearly explaining to the country the situation and what's unfolded in these final days and final hours before the government shut down.

You know, there is no question that people on this side of the aisle are willing to compromise. We're compromising to a number that is nearly identical to what the Republicans have proposed so that we can, for the next 6 weeks, figure out our finances.

You and I both serve on the Budget Committee. You know we've been trying for--how long was it, Representative, again? How long were we fighting for this?

Well, again, thank you, Representative Jeffries, so much for explaining to the American people exactly what has happened and transpired in the last few days and why it's so important that we demand a vote and get a vote on a clean continuing resolution.

I would like to close with a letter that I received from a constituent in my district, and I just want to read the parts of the letter I think that are especially relevant. This is from a woman who has a business in the Baraboo, Wisconsin, area. This is a quote from what she wrote:

I'm the owner of a small business environmental laboratory

which provides jobs to 29 people in the Baraboo area.

Approximately 60 percent of our work is under direct contract

or is a subcontract on EPA--Environmental Protection Agency--

Department of Defense, and USGS, Forest Service, and NOAA

projects.

This shutdown means that, one, many of our upcoming

projects may be canceled or delayed in a month that was going

to finally make a financial success of my business, and two,

we don't know when we will receive payment on approximately

$300,000 of outstanding invoices, meaning, I don't know how

we'll make our payroll or pay our vendors.

We may be small, but my company brings in close to $2

million a year into Wisconsin from across the country and

have just added three new employees. If an agreement on the

budget isn't reached right away, my little contribution to

the economic recovery will be reversed, or even worse. Please

help find a way out of this mess.

Mr. Speaker, please, for the sake of this small business owner in Baraboo, Wisconsin, for the sake of the pregnant low-income woman in Madison, Wisconsin, for the sake of the Federal employees and the civilian employees on our military bases, for the sake of all the people who are affected by this government shutdown that the Republicans have forced upon this country, listen to your own Members. You don't have to listen to the Democrats. Listen to the 18 Members and growing on your side who have said this strategy is a failure. It's time to pass a clean continuing resolution.

If you listen to your Members, a majority of this House--you are not the speaker of the Tea Party. You are not the speaker from the Office of Senator Ted Cruz. You are the Speaker of the entire House of Representatives. And now a majority of this House is demanding a vote, that we pass a clean continuing resolution at your numbers. You won. Let's get this country opened, and let's help the economy bounce back to where it needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, with that, from the Progressive Caucus of Congress, I yield back the balance of my time.