Mark Pocan

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.

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

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. 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?

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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. POCAN. 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. POCAN. 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.

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

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to a question?

Mr. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. 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. POCAN

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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. POCAN. 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?

Mr. POCAN. 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).

Mr. POCAN. 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).

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.

Mr. POCAN. 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.