Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield. I actually see this as another wedge. We talk about the wedges. We talk about some folks often are associated with the right-wing conservative philosophy who make arguments that would divide people who were born here versus immigrants, gays versus straights, all these kind of wedges, the ``Willie Horton'' thing, all this kind of wedge stuff. This is a new wedge, Federal workers versus private sector workers. It seems like they're trying to engender a certain amount of resentment among private sector workers for public sector workers. When are we going to talk about the people at the very tip-top who have been compensated beyond imagination in the oil and gas sector, in the drug sector, in the health care sector, those in private equity, all these folks who have been making so much money on Wall Street? When do we ask them to do more?

Mr. ELLISON. Now, you know, it's beyond my ability to comprehend that any American, any American, would do anything other than try to make sure that everybody had enough. We had enough jobs for everybody who wanted to work, and those jobs were well-paying. But I tell you, there has been polling out there on what Americans think. This is not what I think; this is what Americans have said. Half of Americans believe that Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election; 55 percent believe that, and 44 percent believe other than that. Now, when you hear that this transportation bill is going to cut over half a million jobs, it's difficult to go to Americans and explain that's not what they are doing. Now again, I'm not going to look into the inner recesses of anyone's heart. I don't know what people's motives are. But I do know any bill, when we have unemployment north of 8 percent, which is going to cut jobs, and has been a historic place where we have created jobs, I think Americans have reason to be suspicious, and I hope our Republican majority would come and clarify what they're actually doing because, like I just pointed out, half of Americans believe that the Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election.

Mr. ELLISON. Absolutely. The gentlelady should note, I had this one chart up, and I would like to let folks know, because what the question was--Washington Post-ABC asked the following statement: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs. Or: President Obama has not provided leadership on the economy, and he's just blaming the Republicans in Congress as an excuse for not doing his job. Fifty percent of the people responded to statement A, the first one. And that is: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs. Now, I hope that Republicans are reading these, because they're not looking good. The best thing for them to do is to stop making proposals like this transportation bill, H.R. 7, which literally cuts jobs, because the American people are watching this. And quite frankly, I want us all to succeed. I don't think that it's good for the American population to think that one party that is elected to promote the public interest is doing something other than that in order to win an election. Again, this board here clearly shows that when President Bush was in, this was kind of red. It's kind of bleeding, and then the blue is going up, up, up, and now above the line, and we have been adding 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth, but that public sector job loss, as you pointed out, is literally a drag on the economy, and it's hurting us. We need people to get to work. I just want to ask the gentlelady a question. Again, I mean, does a public sector paycheck offer less at the local grocery store when the person goes to buy some groceries with that public sector paycheck?

Mr. ELLISON. I just want to point you, you and I were just talking about this chart which shows that under the Bush administration, the unemployment rate going up, us losing jobs, and then the steady march back the other way. This chart shows that GOP proposals would eliminate up to 7.4 million jobs by 2016. So if you look at the proposals that the GOP has been making while they have been in the majority, the transportation bill, H.R. 7, is just one example of job killing. They like to call stuff ``job killing.'' That's their little Frank Luntz talking point. But they have in actuality proposed job-killing legislation. Starting with H.R. 1, The Economist, The Center for American Progress, showed that it would cut a million jobs. Repealing health care reform would cut about 2 million. GOP budget cuts, that's the Ryan budget, cuts to the Federal workforce, their so-called JOBS Act, all the way down the line. This red is, if they could have their way, this is the bleed of American jobs that would happen. Now, this is a projection. But the fact is this transportation bill is a typical example of their idea of how the economy should operate. And it is very disturbing--17.4 million jobs. Of course, this would simply renew a trend that we were on during the Bush administration. So I think it's time for Republicans to stop offering these bad jobs bills and start offering some things that are going to put Americans back to work. They can begin that process by yanking this H.R. 7.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady. I just want to make a few points before we begin to wrap it up. I just want to point out that economist Mark Zandi, who has advised Senator McCain, said by 2014 real GDP is almost $200 billion lower, and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under the Ryan approach than is under the case of the President's. That's just one honest economist's estimate. The Economic Policy Institute's conservative estimate of the Republican budget is 2 billion to 3 billion jobs lost over 5 years. Again, H.R. 1 would cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So, I really think, Mr. Speaker, that the American people need to know what kind of a ``jobs program'' the Republicans are talking about. They're not talking adding jobs; they're talking about cutting them. And H.R. 7 is but a typical example of the kind of damage these Republican majority Members would do to the American economy. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Continuing to quote Mr. LaHood: And it also is the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen. It hollows out our No. 1 priority, which is safety, and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that we've been about for the last three years. It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen in 35 years of public service. Now, that's saying a lot.

Mr. ELLISON. I am glad that you raised this point about the people's budget, because that really is the point of the Progressive message, to talk to the Speaker and the American people about there being an alternative in our Congress. Not everybody is carried away with this philosophy that Federal workers need to pay more and get less. Actually, there are a body of folks in the Democratic Caucus, and particularly the Progressive Caucus, who really want to see a more shared way of paying for the needs of our country. We recently had a hearing in which we talked about jobs, and we had a group called the Patriotic Millionaires who was there. And this is the interesting thing about your particular tax proposal. A lot of people who are making a lot of money agree that they should pay more. I find this to be very interesting, because patriotic Americans do come from various income strata. I think it's commendable for people at the top end, the people who might pay a higher rate under your bill, who say, Yeah, tax us more because we believe there should be a good public school system; we believe the water should be clean; we believe that Federal workers should be fairly compensated; we have enough. What drives us is not the acquisition of more, but the idea of creating good products and services for Americans, which we charge for, of course, but at the end of the day, everybody has to do their fair share. I thank you for offering the Buffett Rule before there was a Buffett Rule. Before we were talking about a Buffett Rule, you were out in front of the pack.

Mr. ELLISON. As my hero Paul Wellstone famously said, ``We all do better when we all do better.'' But those people you're talking about, those rugged individuals crossing the prairie, when they had to put a barn up, they didn't do it alone, did they? They'd have a barn raising, which was a community event. This idea that we do what we do--what we do, we should do best together, we do those things together. Whatever we can do individually, we certainly have the freedom to do that. I am concerned about shifting political winds, which sort of ignore the idea that we are in this together, that the road in the transportation system is part of our commonwealth, something that is a benefit to us all, and so we all should pay for it, which is why I was particularly concerned about this transportation bill, H.R. 7. For the first time in about 50 years, the House is going to consider a partisan transportation package. Republicans are breaking the historical tradition of bipartisan action to rebuild infrastructure, create jobs, and strengthen our economy. This proposal, H.R. 7, would cut about 550,000 American jobs, cuts highway investments in 45 States and D.C.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to end combat operations in Afghanistan next year is welcome news. I commend President Obama for making this decision. But we should bring our troops home even sooner than that. The American people are tired of this war in Afghanistan. Large majorities of them want a safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible. A decade of war has ravaged military families, our Nation's treasury, and our standing in the world. I commend President Obama for ending the war in Iraq as well. I commend him for trying to end the war in Afghanistan. The courageous truth telling of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis should give us pause. His report and the failure to establish peace in Afghanistan after 10 years of war should remind us that we need a political solution, not a military one. We have ended the war in Iraq. This is a good thing. We are slowly ending the war in Afghanistan. This is also welcome news. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unwise for the United States to enter into a new war just as we're ending two others. But if you listen to the rhetoric around Washington and the Nation, Mr. Speaker, it is literally impossible to not hear the drumbeat of war with Iran. The rhetoric in Washington about the military strike against Iran leads me to think that we may be sliding into a new war yet. I would like to be perfectly clear, because whenever you speak against a war, your patriotism is challenged and your courage is challenged until they find out that you were right. So let me be clear: I strongly oppose nuclear proliferation, and that includes Iran. I have supported sanctions against Iran to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran's repression of human rights and support for terrorist groups is appalling. But the heated rhetoric we hear around our city and the events on the world stage are deeply troubling, Mr. Speaker. News headlines read, ``The Coming Attack on Iran.'' Pundits discuss the possibility with shocking casualness, and I am alarmed by this. America, we have seen this movie before, and, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end well. Two months after leaving Iraq, we have already forgotten the consequences of war it appears. If you need a reminder, talk to a veteran or a veteran's widow. Our military leaders are cautioning against a strike on Iran. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the United States ``could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases.'' He said, ``That would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.'' Let me repeat, ``a conflict that we would regret.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish the United States had never entered Iraq. And before we entered it, the world--not just Americans, but the world-- said, ``Don't do it.'' Some people led us to war anyway; and haven't we all regretted--after no weapons of mass destruction, no linkage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--that none of these things that were recommended have come to pass, yet we've lost, literally, thousands of American lives and perhaps $1 trillion. Israeli intelligence officials have equally dire predictions about a military strike against Iran. Former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said that attacking Iran ``would mean regional war, and in that case, you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.'' There is serious concern that a military strike on Iran would hasten Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, not slow it down. A strike would only delay--not end--development. Speaking about what would happen after a military strike, retired General Anthony Zinni said, ``If you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere.'' America cannot afford another war. We've just gotten out of Iraq. We're getting out of Afghanistan. And diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy is what is called for to avoid a new war with Iran.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me wrap up. All I would like to say, Madam Speaker, is that the Progressive Caucus looks at an America where the American Dream was of liberty and justice for all. And when those words were written, we had a society where only part of our society was legally allowed to fully participate. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote. But people who believed in the dream of America wanted to make progress and fought to make sure that women and people of color could vote in this country. And people looked at that American Dream and said, You know what, we have a dream of a big middle class, broadly shared prosperity. And even though the society may not have quite been that way at that time, they worked to fulfill that promise, that dream, the American Dream, an idea that good Americans pursued and helped to bring into fruition. We are trying to make progress on the dream, the progress of full inclusion, full employment, respecting our environment, believing in science. This is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. We're not trying to conserve the old way where only some people had privilege and opportunity. We're trying to make progress. So this is what the Progressive Caucus is all about. The Progressive Caucus believes, of course, there should be a free market in America; but there also needs to be a public sector that will watch out for the health, safety, and fairness of our country. Yet some people in Congress are hostile to the idea of any government role, but we're not. We believe that government is how we come together in ways that we can't do it alone, for the best benefit of everybody. And we urge the Republican majority--they've got the power; this is a winner-take-all-type system--to go out across American and do something and hear people about the issue of foreclosure, to get some jobs going. Pass the American Jobs Act. Pass the infrastructure bank bill. Do something to get this country together. Address the foreclosure crisis. Stop whipping up Americans versus Americans, using loaded terms like ``food stamp President,'' which is racial code. Stop blaming the gay community for failures in people's marriages. It's not their fault. Stop heaping hate and scorn on new Americans, and stop trying to relegate women to second-class citizenship. Let's embrace the fullness of what it means to be an American. Let's make progress on the American Dream. Let's embrace the progressive message. And I just want to say, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Right.

Mr. ELLISON. Yes.

Mr. ELLISON. Our Republican friends, who are in the majority, they tell us: Let laissez-faire capitalism take over. Let the housing market bottom out. Government shouldn't do anything. Just let all home value go down to nothing, and eventually somebody will buy those houses that are just sitting there, idle, after people have been unemployed and can't afford them and have to be foreclosed on. They tell us we should just be laissez-faire with that. They also tell us that we should not put any regulations in place and that we should cut taxes so that the government doesn't have enough revenue to protect the people. To me, this crisis seems like the product of a philosophy--that the rich people don't have enough money and that the poor have too much. This seems like a culmination of a philosophy that for the people, through their democratic institutions to hold business accountable, to play fairly and by the rules, has seen its full manifestation. The full manifestation of this Ayn Rand-type philosophy has brought us to financial ruin, and they won't even admit that. We haven't seen any hearings on how to address the foreclosure crisis, because they believe in just letting the market bottom out. I mean, even though there have been 23 months of private sector job growth, you never hear them say anything good about that; and while we're adding private sector jobs, they're trying to cut public sector jobs. What is really going on here? Why isn't our majority addressing the jobs crisis? Their jobs program seems to be to attack the EPA. They're basically making the case that Americans who want to breathe and drink clean water are the problem of our economy. What is this laissez-faire get the government out? no taxes for the rich? What has this philosophy brought us to?

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. ELLISON. Many, many people suffered in this foreclosure crisis. It's also that cities suffered as cities were required--they used to have a taxpaying citizen in the home. Now, after the foreclosure with all of this stated income and the dishonesty and everything, they have no one living there, they have weeds growing, dead dogs there, they have an attractive nuisance where, you know, sometimes awful things happen in those abandoned houses. So cities have seen their coffers drained. They went from a plus-property taxpaying person to now an expense on the tax rolls. We've seen a reduction in the overall property tax revenue of cities which they need to put on vital services for residents of cities, streets, cops, fire, all of that stuff.

Mr. ELLISON. What happens is they profit from this mortgage fraud. They make exorbitant monies as they securitize these bad mortgages. They make exorbitant money as they collected on these credit default swaps as these mortgage-backed securities went bad. Various people made gobs of money, bonuses that just boggle the mind how big they are. But then, see, your point is interesting because they don't see the damage that they caused because they have--some of them even helicopter from their homes to their offices. Others of them are in limousines just flying down the highway back to their country villa from their downtown Manhattan skyscraper, so they don't see the damage. They don't drive through Cleveland and Detroit and Minneapolis and other places where whole neighborhoods have been sucked out because of the damaging behavior that they engaged in. I think that it would be important after they served their jail time to come and be with the people who they harmed and have to explain the reason that we have created and exacerbated homelessness is because we just love money that much. Having two or three yachts and a couple of boats wasn't good enough. We needed more and more and more; and that's why we wrecked your city, damaged your neighborhood, and put you out of your home.

Mr. ELLISON. I'll tell you, it's all sort of an interlocking mess. I mean, we've been told since the days that Milton Friedman first hit the scene that regulations were a problem in our economy and that having rules to protect health and safety and fairness simply were disrupting the market and that we needed to get rid of these job-killing regulations--what our Republican friends called them all the time-- rather than commonsense protections to protect people. So we got rid of those things. We didn't enforce the laws that we already did have. We shrank government to the point where, because we didn't want to pay any taxes, government couldn't even afford itself, so we didn't have the people to make sure that consumers were being treated fairly, that mortgages were fair and that rules were being abided by. Then, as the technology and everything changed, we weren't able to change regulation so that it would keep up to date with the necessity of the market. What I have in mind now is an heroic figure named Brooksley Born, who tried to tell them that this OPEC ``insurance'' market--I put ``insurance'' in quotes--this credit default swap market, needed to be regulated. Instead of regulating it, we actually passed a bill in 1999 that it would not be regulated. Then as a result, when the music stopped in 2008, we were at the mercy of--what?--$54 trillion.

Mr. ELLISON. So far they're right.

Mr. ELLISON. Liar loans?

Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, I want to ask you a question about that. So over the course of the last several months, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle--I'm just being honest, and I don't think even they would disagree with this--have been trumpeting this idea, the government's too big. We've got to cut. We've got to cut. We just have to cut. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, just cut. Scale it back, shrink it down, make it smaller. Get rid of government. One iconic conservative figure said we've got to shrink government to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub. Now, if we were to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub, where are we going to get these lawyers and investigators to investigate mortgage fraud?

Mr. ELLISON. The robo-signing. That's right. And then another kind of amazing thing that happened was that people would underwrite mortgages, not based on the ability of the borrower to pay, but based on their ability to sell that mortgage into the secondary market. And then it would get repackaged into a mortgage- backed security which, somehow miraculously, you know, these things that were stated income, no income, no job loans, falsified income for these things, made it into a mortgage-backed security which then was rated as triple A in many cases. There's got to be some fraud and misrepresentation there. And so it just seems like the system was full of misrepresentation, fraud and all that. Have we investigated this thing to the point where there are people to hold accountable before we're settling this case?

Mr. ELLISON. Have we really investigated the extent of the wrongdoing before we settled the case? I mean, I'm glad there has been a settlement. I hope that it brings justice to everyone. I suspect it will bring justice to some people. I hope so. But my question is, Do we know the extent of the harm of the bad actors? Here's the thing. The originators might not be part of this, but these secondary-market actors, in my view, are culpable, too, because they had to know if they read the mortgages, if they read the documentation, they had to say, Wait a minute, something's funny here. We've got a 72-year-old retired widow with a stated income of $160,000 a year or $500,000 a year. It just doesn't make sense that there would be that many widows earning that kind of income. Now, there might be some who have that kind of wealth, but that kind of income when they're in their retirement years? There's got to be something fishy here.

Mr. ELLISON. You mentioned the S&L crisis. In the S&L crisis, we had a thousand Justice Department lawyers going after this thing. We've got 50,000 Justice Department lawyers going after this recent housing foreclosure crisis. Can we even compete with some of these titans who the Justice Department has to deal with with that small number?

Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, now here's the other thing. So we know that there may be 10 million people who lost their homes in foreclosure. Maybe a million will get help. That's good. I hope they get it. But has anybody gone to prison for mortgage fraud schemes? I mean, here's why, I want you to address this question, but let me lay it out just a tad for you. So what we have here, we know, is that people were drawn in with high pressure tactics to get in a mortgage that they didn't understand, and sometimes were even misstating the income. There are people who would say, look, I didn't borrow that much money. I have no idea where that amount came from. And then was a bunch of signing stuff that happened that people were not aware of. And that sort of skirted the reality.

Mr. ELLISON. I would like to ask the gentlelady from Ohio, we've talked about who lost. Homeowners lost, even homeowners who never lost their home in foreclosure and never missed a payment, their home value dropped; a lot of people lost. But did some people really make a lot of money off of this crisis?