Jobs-Teachers/First Responders Back to Work Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from New Jersey for this amendment. It is an amendment that is critically important to New Jersey, to Alaska, and to the State of Illinois because the Menendez-Casey amendment in my State means that 14,500 teachers, firefighters, and policemen will stay on the job.

If the Menendez amendment--which is part of President Obama's jobs package--does not pass, these people will be out of work. There will be more kids in the classroom, talented teachers will be laid off, there will be fewer cops on the beat in small towns and large, and firefighters will have to cut back in terms of their ranks and we need their protection. We can't let that happen. Senator Menendez has an amendment which deals with this responsibly. It pays for it. It doesn't add to the deficit, and that is where the objection comes in from the Republican side of the aisle because he pays for it by asking those making over $1 million a year to pay about one-half of 1 percent more in taxes, and the Republicans say: No way. We cannot ask the wealthiest people in America to pay one penny more.

To me, it is hard to explain why we would want to deny our children a quality education, lay off teachers, make our streets a little less safe with fewer police, and run the risk of fewer firefighters because we don't want to ask people making over $1 million a year to pay one-half of 1 percent more on their taxes. People who are making over $20,000 a week, we are asking them to pay one-half of 1 percent to save the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and police. It is interesting to me, because when President Bush offered his jobs bill years ago, with payroll tax cuts and cuts for businesses, these same Senators who are criticizing President Obama's version of the bill were voting for it and it wasn't paid for. It was added directly to the deficit. These deficit hawks were willing to vote for this with President Bush's name on it but now oppose it with President Obama's name on it. Is there a message there? I think there is a clear message.

There are two things which drive the Republican caucus when it comes to this debate. First, protect those making over $1 million a year at any cost. Let America languish in this recession, with 14 million people unemployed, rather than ask the wealthiest, most comfortable people in America, to pay just a little bit more in taxes.

Secondly, they consistently oppose proposals to deal with this jobs crisis if they are offered by the President of the United States. Senator McConnell said it earlier. It has been quoted over and over and over that his highest priority as the Republican leader in the Senate was to make sure President Obama was a one-term President.

If we are driven only by that kind of motive, I assume it will make for good political headlines, but it ties our hands in getting things done. You see, in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything significant and, unfortunately, 53 on this side of the aisle need the help of 7 on the other side and they haven't been forthcoming. Last week, we offered the President's jobs bill and said to the Republicans: At least let's proceed to the bill and offer amendments. We couldn't get a single Republican Senator to vote with us, not one. We had 51 votes for it--two Democrats did not vote for it--but we had no Republican support, none.

So what is the Republican jobs bill? What would they do to turn this economy around and move us forward? Sadly, they have nothing to offer, nothing. Protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in America and say no to everything President Obama suggests. That is not a recipe for moving America forward.

I like to listen to their arguments about cutting redtape to create jobs. I think to myself, do we have to eliminate the standards in this country for clean air and clean water in order to have a thriving economy? If we went the Republican way of eliminating these protections for America's families and children, would this be a better nation? I think not. Basic protections when it comes to air pollution, for example, mean an awful lot to a lot of Americans.

I make it a point of going to classrooms and asking the kids in the classroom a question: How many of you in this classroom know someone who has asthma? I just asked that question in Mount Sterling, IL, a rural community, one that you wouldn't believe would be dealing with air pollution problems or pulmonary issues. More than half the class raised their hand: Yes, they all knew someone--at least half of them knew someone who was dealing with asthma.

Every year, asthma is responsible for 9 million visits to health care professionals and more than 4,000 deaths in America. It is one of the leading causes of school absenteeism, accounts for 14 million missed school days annually. The average family spends between 5.5 percent and 14 percent of its total income on treating an asthmatic child.

So when the Republicans want to come forward and waive air pollution standards, eliminate the protections we are trying to put in place, they are endangering the health of people and children across America. That is the reality. To argue that the only way to build the American economy is by destroying public health standards to protect families and children is not the right answer. We have to find a balanced approach, one that takes into account the reality of science and the reality of business but certainly protects defenseless Americans from the kinds of changes which some Republicans are suggesting.

Is this what it comes down to? Is this the only way to move the American economy forward, to say we may have to compromise the purity of our drinking water when it comes to mercury and arsenic in order to have the economy create jobs? What a terrible choice that is, and it is a real choice. Take a look at the amendment offered by a Republican Senator on cement kilns. Cement kilns generate toxic chemicals that end up in air pollution and eventually are deposited on Earth, many times in bodies of water such as the Great Lakes. What do mercury and arsenic do to the aquatic life in the Great Lakes and to the people who live around those Great Lakes? They compromise the safety of those great bodies of water.

There are some who say: It goes into the air; It surely isn't going to hurt you. Yet the statistics show the opposite. Poor air quality in the most polluted U.S. cities can shorten the lives of residents up to 2 years, on average. The American Cancer Society found that the risk of early death is over 15 percent greater in areas with increased smog pollution. Nearly two-thirds of those suffering from asthma live in an area where at least one Federal air quality standard is not being met. We can't ignore this public health reality. We have an obligation to the families who live in these cities, whether it is Chicago or Springfield or any city across America, to make certain we don't compromise basic air quality standards. That, frankly, is the only proposal we hear from the Republicans to create jobs. They want to protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in America and lessen the standards we use to protect innocent families from air pollution and deterioration of water quality.

Before I got up to speak, the Chair showed me a headline from the Wall Street Journal. It is a headline we need to remind the Republicans of when they get into this debate about jobs. Do you remember how many times they mocked the President of the United States because he stepped up and said: I will not allow the American automobile industry to die. I am going to step in, he said, and help General Motors and Chrysler through a very difficult time. Do you recall what we heard from the other side of the aisle? It is the wrong thing to do. Let General Motors go bankrupt, the Republicans said. Even former Governor Romney said the automobile bailout was a bad decision. Here is Governor Romney, from a family who had a lot to do with the automobile industry and ought to have known a little better about it.

The President of the United States said: It wasn't my ambition to step in and intervene and help major automobile companies, but I am going to do it because hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. The reality is, the President's decision was the right decision. It was the right decision not just for Michigan--and Illinois, I might add--but for the Nation. General Motors and Chrysler have now restructured. They have a leaner workforce, a stronger inventory, and better products. The report from the Wall Street Journal, which you showed me, shows that the profitability of automobile companies when you look across the board is now tipping in favor of American companies for American workers.

There was also that story there that said, for the first time in a long time, we are importing jobs from Asia and Mexico in the automobile industry back to the United States of America.

Some Republican Senators can come to the floor and say President Obama got it all wrong. Come on down to the Ford works, south of Chicago, and take a look at those workers filing in every single day to go to work.

Then go over to Belvedere, IL, to the Chrysler facility, and see 1,200 people going to work with good-paying jobs. They are there because this President stepped up and said we are not going to let these jobs go away. Many on the Republican side argued this was heretical and wrong. Explain that to the families who have these good-paying jobs, right here in America, with good benefits.

When I hear my Republican colleagues and friends come to the floor and criticize what President Obama has done in this economy, they had better stop and explain their early position opposing the President's efforts to make sure the automobile industry in America survives and thrives.

Two hundred thousand workers today went to work for General Motors in America. If the Republicans had their way, GM would have gone bankrupt. Whether it would have survived bankruptcy no one knows. The President said we cannot run that risk. He kept the company in business, restructured, and now it is profitable again. That is a fact.

I will say this too. When I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and argue that the President should speak for all Americans, I ask the Republican leader to take a look at the response of the American people to the President's jobs package. When the President says we should cut the payroll tax for working families who are struggling paycheck to paycheck so they have money to get by, overwhelmingly the people support it. When the President says we should help small businesses hire the unemployed, particularly veterans, overwhelmingly the American people support it. When the President says we should make sure that teachers and policemen and firefighters do not lose their jobs in this tough economy, overwhelmingly the American people support it. When the President says millionaires should pay a little bit more in their taxes to make sure the American recovery is underway, overwhelmingly the American people support that, too.

In fact, 56 percent of Republicans, when asked, say that is a reasonable way to pay for a jobs program. Unfortunately, none of those 56 percent serve with the Republicans in the Senate who happen to believe their No. 1 task and goal is to protect the incomes of the wealthiest people in America.

We can do better. We need to make sure we move forward on a bipartisan basis to create jobs. This President inherited a very weak economy. Under President Bush we had more than doubled the national debt. When President Bush took office, our national debt was $5 trillion. When he left office, it was over $10 trillion, two wars he didn't pay for, programs he didn't pay for, and tax cuts for wealthy people in the midst of a war--something no President had ever done. President Obama inherited that, and it has been a tough road, he will tell you, to get this economy back on track. Now he has a plan and the Republicans offer nothing. They vote against the President--whatever he wants they are opposing--and they vote against common sense, which says helping working families, helping small businesses, helping our veterans find jobs, and paying for it so it doesn't add to our deficit is a sensible approach to getting America back on the right track.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, put the campaigning aside for a moment. Take a look at what it takes to create jobs and bring your best ideas to the table. Let's sit down and put together a bipartisan bill. We will have the President's proposals as a starting point. Bring your ideas too. Let's do something for this country on a bipartisan basis. I think that is why we were elected.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source