Tonight the House considered the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (HR 847) under suspension of the rules to provide medical monitoring and treatment to responders and survivors of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. It also reopens the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide monetary compensation for those physically injured by the 9/11 terrorist attacks or by response activities and debris removal. Speaker Pelosi in support:

The American people are looking to us to do the right thing for the people, the men and women who answered the call of duty and continue to suffer from ill health effects on their service. It is my understanding that the people affected by this live in 433 of the 435 Congressional districts. Because people not only rushed in from New York and surrounding areas, they came and brought their expertise and their health from all over the country. And therefore, the consequences of their bravery are felt all over the country, and the impact on their health is an important part of the challenge that they face and that we owe them for.

This legislation fulfills our obligation to those Americans. Helping those who jeopardized their health to rescue others, secure necessary medical treatment, especially for the unique exposures suffered at Ground Zero, ensuring survivors and victims' families can attain compensation for their tragic losses through a reopened 9/11 victim compensation fund. My colleagues, you all remember that following 9/11, there was a compensation fund established for those families of those who lost their lives. Well, many of these people are losing their lives. They certainly have lost their health. And we owe them.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) took to the floor to respond to Members on the other side of the aisle offering excuses for opposing the bill explaining, “if you believe this is a bad idea, to provide health care, then vote no—but don’t give me the cowardly view that ‘if only it was a different procedure’”:

The final vote was 255-159 in support of the bill, short of the 2/3 majority needed for passage under suspension of the rules. 155 Republicans voted against the legislation.

Learn more about the bill»

The Speaker’s full remarks: (more…)

Congressional Republicans – eager to return to the "exact same agenda" of failed Bush economic policies that put us into this mess – continue to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest few despite the staggering $678 billion cost to the deficit (after voting against tax cuts for small businesses and 98% of working families). Congressional Republicans have also made many false claims in their defense of the tax cuts for the wealthiest, saying everything from they ‘didn’t lead to the deficit‘ to ‘tax cuts increased revenue.’ This week, House Republican Leader John Boehner even claimed he didn't know they were intentionally designed to kick their enormous cost down the road.

But, as Think Progress notes, yesterday morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) admitted that extending the deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts for the rich will increase the debt—countering the many false claims his fellow Congressional Republicans have made:

C-SPAN Host Steve Scully: "Tax cuts, do they increase the debt or do they spur economic growth?"

Congressman Devin Nunes: "Well, I think that they increase the debt."

The impact of the Bush tax cuts, much of which go to the wealthiest few, that Congressional Republicans want to extend is shown in the chart below, with the Bush tax plan dwarfing other deficit-busters (followed by the costs of the Bush Recession):

President Obama and Democrats in Congress are committed to fiscally responsible tax policies, including ensuring middle-class American families and small businesses continue to see tax relief, and have passed major legislation that actually reduces the deficit:

As Speaker Pelosi explained at her weekly press conference last week, "if we want to lower taxes for the middle class and reduce the deficit and create jobs, extending the tax cuts at the high end are not in furtherance of reaching those goals." Others agree»

This August, Social Security—a bedrock promise Americans have earned with a lifetime of hard work—turns 75. In 2005, President George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans pushed cuts and a risky Social Security privatization scheme. Democrats and the American people said ‘no.’ If Republicans had succeeded, seniors would have lost trillions more in the stock market meltdown of the Bush recession. Instead, no one lost a penny in Social Security. Despite this history, Republicans are once again promising to privatize and cut Social Security—turning it over to Wall Street.

At her weekly press conference today, Speaker Pelosi was asked about recent reports on the Fiscal Commission looking at Social Security in relation to deficit. She explained that we should not be balancing the budget by raising the retirement age of Social Security:

Question: Madam Speaker, on Social Security, you guys marked the 75th anniversary — or the upcoming 75th anniversary yesterday. The Fiscal Commission is likely to look very seriously at Social Security, and I’m wondering on what extent do you think Democrats are undermining the ability of that Commission to do its work by making a point of preserving Social Security and using it as a campaign tool?

Speaker Pelosi: I do not think — first of all, let me say that I don’t think that the Fiscal Commission was established to undermine Social Security, and so that our support for Social Security undermines their work. This isn’t political. This is who we are. For 75 years or longer, in preparation for the passage of Social Security, this has been a value system for us, for our country, and certainly a priority for the Democratic Party.

We stood proudly together on the steps of the Capitol yesterday to declare that, as we observe the 75th anniversary of the establishment of Social Security, that we are here to preserve Social Security and make the clear differentiation.

Republicans in their budget have the privatization of Social Security. Democrats want to preserve Social Security; Republicans want to privatize it. We are for ensuring Social Security. They will enable “social insecurity.” So that’s where we are.

In terms of the Commission, certainly we all agree that we need to reduce the deficit and that is a responsibility that we have. You all know how much pride I take in being a mom and a grandmother, and I have no intention of leaving my children or grandchildren any debts, and I think that we all as public policy makers share that view.

The fact is, though, that I don’t think, and I have said this over and over, that we should be balancing the budget by raising the retirement age of Social Security. I oppose that. There should be two separate conversations. What are we doing to keep Social Security solvent? Let’s discuss that. What are we doing to balance the budget? But let’s not say that we should balance the budget by making the Social Security age — raising the Social Security age. What is that for? To pay for tax cuts for the wealthy that went before, now we have to raise the retirement age? Is that for wars, endless wars, unpaid for wars; now we have to raise the retirement age? These are two separate subjects. The solvency of Social Security, that is one subject. Let’s discuss that. Reducing the deficit, that is a different subject.

Question: Are you hamstringing the Commission by saying that they can’t even consider an increase in retirement age.

Speaker Pelosi: Well, I would certainly hope so, but I don’t think I will have that impact. That would be my goal, but I don’t think I have that much influence in what they do. They are an independent commission appointed by the President. They have to do what they have to do. And if they want to put everything on the table, I think that our seniors will fare very well.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about how we create growth to increase the revenues that come into the federal Treasury. Growth. That’s one way to reduce the deficit. As we have done, the President has his Commission. We have done the President one better. In the freeze that he had on spending in appropriations, we took it $7 billion less than the President. We have pay-as-you-go as the law of the land. When I became Speaker, we made it the rule of the House, and now it is the law of the land under President Obama. We have cuts — I’ve asked for all of the cuts from the appropriators and their bills are coming through much lower than before.

So there are many ways, whether it is increasing revenue, reducing spending, establishing priorities, eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, duplication, obsolescence, harshly subjecting every federal dollar to the harshest scrutiny. But let’s not start by raising retirement age, balancing the budget. A deficit was created by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. A deficit that was created by having these unpaid wars. A deficit that was created by having a laissez faire recklessness on Wall Street that [de]creased the revenue stream to the Treasury enormously, which reduced the wealth in America by $17 trillion. Think of what that means in terms of consumer capacity and confidence to spend or to invest or to save.

So how did we get here in the first place? Let’s unravel that and let’s understand what Social Security means to us and not say because we gave tax cuts to the rich we have to raise the retirement age. They are two unrelated subjects.

Social Security is not the cause of our budget deficits, and benefit cuts should not be part of the solution. Social Security is not running out of money or adding to the deficit—quick facts:

The Trust Fund has significant reserves and can pay full benefits until 2037.

Social Security doesn't add to the deficit. It pays its own way through workers' contributions.

Social Security has remained strong through 13 recessions.

We're saying ‘no’ again.

The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this morning finds that public support for the Affordable Care Act has held strong and unfavorable views have decreased:

By a 15-point margin, Americans express a favorable view of the new health reform law – 50% to 35% (down from 41% unfavorable in June).

By an 8-point margin, 43% of Americans believe that the country as a whole will be better off under the new law, while 35% believe that the country will be worse off.

Support among seniors is also growing:

The percentage of seniors who held an unfavorable view of the bill has decreased – from 56% to 46% (from April to July).

The gap between seniors who have a favorable vs. an unfavorable view of the bill has narrowed to 8%.

The poll also found only 27% of Americans support repeal. Despite this lack of support, House Republicans continue their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In an interview published last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner repeated the GOP's intention of repealing the Affordable Care Act:

I guarantee there will be a bill on the floor that will repeal the healthcare bill…

And if the Republicans fail in their efforts to repeal the bill, Leader Boehner pledges they will simply refuse to fund it:

…and if they can't do away with healthcare reforms, they can cut the funding to hire people to run it.

"They're not going to get one dime from us to hire these new federal employees to run this," he said.

The Affordable Care Act that Leader Boehner and Congressional Republicans want so badly to repeal puts Americans—not insurance companies—in control of their health care. Millions of Americans are already benefiting from the new law:

Insurance companies have stopped rescinding coverage of policyholders when they need it most»

Seniors hitting the prescription drug "donut hole" have started receiving their $250 check»

Small businesses are already taking advantage of tax credits that make it more affordable to provide insurance»

Employers already have new resources to help them maintain retirees' health coverage»

Many under 26 years of age have been able to stay on their parents' health plans»

And in September, even more reforms are implemented—like the new right to appeal decisions made by your health plan, free preventive care benefits, and the new Patient's Bill of Rights that:

Protects your choice of doctors

Removes insurance company barriers to emergency department services

Prohibits insurance plans from denying coverage or limiting benefits for children with pre-existing conditions

Bans arbitrary rescissions of insurance coverage

Prohibits insurance plans from placing lifetime limits on coverage and restricts the annual dollar limits on coverage by insurance plans

Congressional Republicans would repeal these protections and return consumers to a broken, unsustainable health care system. Today’s Kaiser poll once again shows the American people support the benefits Republicans want to take away from Americans.

Read the full poll»

House Democrats are working on a “Make in America” manufacturing strategy to create the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future—promoting American competitiveness, innovation, and exports. As Speaker Pelosi explained last week, “our strategy will create new American jobs building wind turbines and solar panels to power our homes and businesses. We will force China and other countries to honor fair trade principles; put returning veterans to work in clean energy jobs; and strengthen partnerships with businesses to retrain our workforce.”

Last week, the House passed the first legislative piece, the U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act, to increase the competitiveness of U.S firms and support tens of thousands of jobs here at home. The Senate passed the bill yesterday, and the bill is on the way to the President’s desk.

Today, the House passed three more components of the "Make It In America" strategy:

The National Manufacturing Strategy Act, which will develop a clear plan to strengthen our manufacturing sector

The Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act, which promotes American clean technology exports and clean energy jobs

The End the Trade Deficit Act, which establishes a commission to tackle the U.S. trade deficit

Speaker Pelosi on today’s bills:

Today, the House took steps to strengthen the competitiveness of America's workers and businesses and help grow our economy. By passing this legislation, we upheld our pledge to restore "made in America' to the center of our prosperity – knowing that when we make it in America, we create good-paying jobs here at home and lead the global economy.

These bills reflect our commitment to creating the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future, and promoting American innovation and exports. With these measures, we are calling for a strategy to strengthen our manufacturing base and create jobs. We will help U.S. clean energy technology firms market and sell their products here and around the world – ensuring that American energy and know how power the 21st century. And we will take steps to reduce our trade deficit, strengthening our economy and our national security.

Our "Make It In America' agenda moves our nation forward for Main Street and the middle class. Yet Congressional Republicans continue to side with Wall Street and special interests, vowing to bring back the "exact same' failed Bush policies that cost us 4.6 million manufacturing jobs and doubled our trade deficit. Democrats will not let this happen. We are not going back.

Today, Alan Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, released a new study the New York Times calls “a first stab at comprehensively estimating the effects of the economic policy responses of the last few years.”

The study finds “the government's total policy response” to the Bush Recession “probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.”

Most Congressional Republicans fought this rescue and recovery—and criticizing it has become a Republican mantra. This report paints a grim picture of what America would look like now if Republicans had been in charge:

America would have lost "16.6 million jobs … about twice as many as actually were lost."

The "unemployment rate would have peaked at 16.5%."

"The peak-to-trough decline in GDP is … close to 12%, compared to an actual decline of about 4%."

America's top three automakers and their suppliers "might have had to liquidate many operations with devastating effects on the American economy, and especially on the Midwest."

The federal budget deficit would have surged to over $2 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012.

The report concludes:

Remember, this is with no policy response … this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.

… it is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government's fiscal situation in far graver condition.

Even with the rescue and recovery efforts, the report estimates the Bush Recession cost the American economy $2.35 trillion, about seven times the cost (adjusted for inflation) of the S&L bailout in the 1990s.

Read the full report»

In a meeting at the White House with President Obama and Congressional leaders from both parties yesterday, House Republican Leader John Boehner reportedly claimed he didn't know the deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were intentionally designed to kick their enormous cost down the road to the next Administration:

Mr. Obama, who did not join the Senate until 2005, reminded Mr. Boehner and the Senate Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that the tax cuts' architects purposely left the deficit problem to a future administration, according to aides from both parties.

"I wasn't there," Mr. Boehner quickly countered. "I didn't structure that deal."

The room briefly went quiet as participants seemed to ponder that statement from a legislator first elected in 1990…

It’s difficult to understand how Mr. Boehner “wasn’t there” as the tax package was crafted with a 10-year sunset to disguise the true cost when he, as Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, was instrumental in designing the education provisions included in the tax cut package, voted in favor of it and witnessed George W. Bush sign the bill into law at the signing ceremony:

From the House Education and Workforce Committee, June 7, 2001:

… President George W. Bush today signed into law legislation allowing parents to save money in tax-free Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) for their children’s K-12 education expenses, including private school tuition. The ESA expansion…was signed into law as part of the most significant tax relief package in 20 years.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer, June 8, 2001:

“This was a very big success for President Bush and the Congress,” said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, one of several Tristate lawmakers who attended the signing ceremony at the White House.

From the New York Times, June 8, 2001:

In Congress today, a few Republicans talked about making the current bill permanent. An odd feature is that it expires on Dec. 31, 2010 — a sunset provision put in because of Congressional rules governing spending more than a decade in the future. But the real effect is to disguise the true cost of the tax cut if Congress extends the bill, which it will be under great pressure to do.

From Time magazine, June 3, 2001:

Topping the list of odd features is the “sunset” provision that repeals the entire bill at the end of 2010…By repealing the legislation in the 10th year, Congress saved billions of dollars. Without the repeal and a few other tricks, the cost of the full 11-year plan would balloon to more than $1.8 trillion by the end of 2011, far exceeding anything the Democrats would vote for. And the cost in the second decade would reach as much as $4 trillion. Even some conservatives on Capitol Hill are dismayed by the apparent dishonesty of the early sunset…The Big Lie is that it costs only $1.35 trillion. Since the real cost is much greater, future Administrations–and Congresses–will have to deal with a political nightmare: the real possibility of deficit spending a decade from now as baby boomers begin to retire en masse and sap the Social Security and Medicare systems.

Three other current members of the House Republican leadership were serving in the House and voted for the Bush tax cuts with the sunset provision to hide the true cost – Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Chairman of Republican Conference Mike Pence (R-IN), and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX).