Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 14: Page 5, after line 8, insert the

following subsection:

(c) Notice in Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator

shall publish a notice in the Federal Register estimating the

public health impact of delaying regulation for the Portland

cement manufacturing industry and Portland cement plants

until the compliance date of the rules required by subsection

(a) instead of the compliance date of the rules made

ineffective by subsection (b).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood at the United Nations. Supporting a Palestinian state is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it. It is wholly consistent with American values. We have supported people's aspirations for freedom and democracy around the world, and we should not treat the Palestinian people differently.

There is global support for a Palestinian state. More people around the world support a Palestinian state than oppose it, including Americans. Seventy percent of Israelis would accept a Palestinian state if the U.N. approved it. Last year, President Obama said he hoped to see a Palestinian state admitted to the United Nations.

Previously, Palestinians sought statehood through violence and terrorism, which the world rightly rejected. Now that they are nonviolently following the internationally recognized process to gain statehood, why we are discouraging them?

A Palestinian state is in the national interests of everyone. It would help stabilize the Middle East. It would help end Israel's diplomatic isolation. It would deal a devastating blow to al Qaeda and Hamas, which refuse to recognize Israel. Recognizing Palestine would reaffirm Israel's own status.

Let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me thank all of us who are assembled here on the floor tonight to talk about the state of our lungs, the state of our health, and to talk about how the deprivation of protection will lead to harming our health. It's a sad day, and I'm just glad we're here to debate this issue so that the American people can see who's for them and who's not.

What my friends on the other side of the aisle call ``regulation'' we call protecting our lungs. What they call ``red tape'' we call fighting asthma from mercury. What they call ``government interference'' we call staying out of the hospital and getting some asthma treatments and being able to eat the fish that we catch in our rivers and streams across this great Nation. What they call ``job-killing regulation'' we call child-killing pollution.

It's just amazing how different the world would be if we could all just focus on what really matters.

What we really should be doing is arguing about how we can get Americans back to work. That's not what we're doing. What we're doing is trying to say, if they got rid of all the regulations--all the health and safety regulations--and then if they even got rid of all the taxes, then the business community would have enough certainty to actually hire somebody.

But I don't think anybody really believes that.

We've got a nation in this world that has gotten rid of all the regulations and that doesn't really tax anybody. It's called Somalia. I don't think that's a good business environment for much of anybody unless you're a warlord.

The fact is that, instead of focusing on creating jobs, Republicans are bringing up another assault on our public health--in the Clean Air Act. We should have the American Jobs Act here, and we should be debating that. We should be passing bills to create

jobs and improve economic growth. We should not be telling American workers that the only thing between them and a job is a regulation to protect their lungs. They're trying to say, A paycheck or your lungs. You can have a paycheck or you can have asthma, but you can't have a paycheck and be well. That's what they're arguing today, and this is what we have to reject.

Instead of bringing up bills to create jobs, the GOP is bringing up yet another assault on the Clean Air Act, blocking two of the most important lifesaving Clean Air Act rules in decades--the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

The Mercury and Air Toxics rule will prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Virginia, Gerry Connolly, who reminded us that, if you've ever held the hand of a loved one who is suffering through an asthma attack, it would be hard to see how you could callously vote for a bill like this TRAIN Act, which I like to call the Train Wreck Act, because it's just that bad. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths per year.

I thank the gentleman, and I'll wrap it up with this:

We can have energy and jobs. The Clean Energy Group, a coalition of energy utilities and power companies, has said that the changes in industry practice that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule would produce are reasonable, can be accomplished, and are not a burden on industry. Not all industry agrees that we need to get rid of every regulation. A study released by the Environmental Defense Fund has estimated that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would together create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years.

So let me just say that it's time for the American people to say we want good health, that we want good jobs, that we want clean air, and that we want healthy lungs--and we don't want the train wreck bill offered by the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, there is a not-so-thin line between being frugal and fiscally responsible and then downright cheap and stingy, and this bill demonstrates the difference.

To say to somebody who was in a disaster, to say to somebody who might lose everything, where the waters are rising, the fires are burning, the storms are knocking things down, to say, you know what, we can only help you if we cut somewhere else, is the most stingy, shortsighted, poorest form of representative government I have ever seen. It is outrageous to tell Americans facing disaster that you don't get any help unless you can find how to squeeze it out somewhere.

Americans help Americans. Americans stand up for each other at time of crisis. This is a hallmark of who we are, and it doesn't matter whether you are Republican or Democrat, whether you are from the north, the south, the east or the west, whether you are black, white, Latino, wherever you come from, when Americans are in trouble, Americans respond. And we don't reach inside and say, well, if I can afford it, we will help you out. We just jump forward and we help out.

No, I will not yield, and I won't cede any of my time, so you don't need to ask again.

I am also just absolutely appalled, appalled, that the Republican bill will cost at least 10,000 good-paying American manufacturing jobs and perhaps tens of thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which is putting Americans to work at producing cleaner American cars.

This provision, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates the fraudulent nature, fraud, fraud, of claiming that the Republicans are trying to produce jobs. They are not trying to make jobs.

They run around saying that rich people are job creators, they are profit creators. And you know who is absolutely not a job creator? Anyone who votes ``yes'' on this bill.

Vote ``no,'' absolutely ``no'' on this bad piece of bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, members of the Progressive Caucus stood up and displayed a videotape in

which the jobs tour that we went on this summer was revealed. We showed the cities where Americans of all description stood up and said, We need jobs, good jobs, now. Americans from Detroit to Oakland and Minneapolis, Miami, all over this country, we went to talk to them face-to-face, and they told us what they wanted. They did their part by coming to tell us what they wanted.

Now it's time for us to do our part as Congress. Members of the Progressive Caucus will and are and already have introduced legislation dealing with good jobs--and good jobs now--in infrastructure, education, fair trade, and things like manufacturing. We're going to be forcing this agenda. It's what the American people expect, what they demand. And anyone who does not stand with us on this jobs agenda will be revealed to be not a friend of the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote No. 692. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on July 13, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 564-573 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 564, 566, and 573. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 565, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, and 572.

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 574-582 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 574, 575, 576, 579 and 581. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes on No. 577, 578, 580 and 582.

Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 583-600 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 584, 586, 590, and 599. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes on No. 583, 585, 587, 588, 589, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598 and 600.

Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 601-602 for district business. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 601-602.

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 603-607 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 603, 604, 606, and 607. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 605.

Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 608-611 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 608, 609 and 611. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 610.

Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 612-621 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 612, 613, 614, 619 and 621. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 615, 616, 617, 618, and 620.

Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 622-629 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 622, 623, 624, 625, 626 and 629. I would

have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 627 and 628.

Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 630-631 and I would have voted ``no'' on both votes.

Madam Speaker, many words will be spoken at podiums on the House floor today, some helpful and illuminating, some not. But there are a few facts that need to stand in very stark contrast to all the din.

First, this has never happened in the history of the United States, not from the first Congress until this very moment, that a Congress, a caucus in this body, has tried to hold hostage the American economy in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Never before, never. We will distinguish ourselves as a body that has failed and has deliberately harmed the American economy because of obstinacy, stubbornness, and recklessness. First time.

Second, in less than 3\1/2\ days, our Nation will default. This will, without a doubt, cause a dramatic amount of cost on the American people in almost every aspect of our lives, whether it's in the area of credit cards, mortgages, car notes, or many other areas. Our State and local governments' costs will go up. Investors, pensioners, 401(k) holders will suffer. This is in no way helpful and in dramatic contrast to everything we have ever done before.

There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. The Republicans and the Democrats have a very different view of the role of government. Democrats believe that a government in partnership with a free market works well to guarantee a strong economy for the American people, and Republicans see almost no role for government at all and speak derisively and contemptuously about government all the time.

The American people, I believe, will agree with the Democrats and history will bear us out as being on the right side.

Mr. Speaker, when did the idea of ``compromise'' get to be a dirty word? When did the idea that ``my way or the highway'' is the only way to go forward become the order of the day? We are at a stalemate because we cannot come to some basic ideas about how to move forward.

Here's the fact, absolute fact, irrefutable: We do not need to link and tie deficit reduction to raising the debt ceiling. They are independent necessities. They are two different things, and one does not have to be tied to the other. And when you link the two together, you are holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to a set of budgetary cuts.

This is a mistake. It is not statespersonship. It is not what we are elected to do.

Yes, we have to do deficit reduction, but it doesn't need to be linked to raising the debt ceiling. We should raise the debt ceiling now and then work on debt reduction.

How do we do that? We need more people paying taxes to reduce the deficit. That means jobs; that means infrastructure.

Let's get it done now. Raise the debt ceiling and pass a good infrastructure bill at the same time.

Madam Speaker, let me draw your attention to this important chart drafted by the Congressional Budget Office. It shows what the drivers of our debt are.

Now, there's something on here that you see and there's something on here that you won't see. You will see Bush-era tax cuts. This is the orange. You will see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the red. You will see the economic downturn. That's this blue. This tiny little line here, that's TARP and Fannie and Freddie. And these are the expenses that we paid to try to get our country back on track--the recovery.

What don't you see? You don't see Social Security. Don't let anybody tell you, Madam Speaker, that Social Security is the problem. It's not. Social Security is the promise one generation makes to another so that every senior in America will live in dignity. That's what it's for. That's what it's about. We are not being unreasonable when we demand protection of Social Security. It's not driving the deficit, and it does honor our seniors. And that is what it's all about. That's what we are going to do, and we are not going to give on that.

Mr. Speaker, yes, the June jobs report is not encouraging: 18,000 jobs added. But I cannot ever forget that it was January 2009 when we lost 741,000 jobs, the last month of the Bush Presidency.

Under President Obama, we have added jobs, and, of course, we have not added enough; but they have been adding. But the American people should know that we need about 150,000 jobs a month in order to push the unemployment rate down. Because we added jobs but not enough, the unemployment rate has gone up.

But the most important thing for the American people to know is that the Republican promise to make jobs the first agenda during the election has not been fulfilled. They have yet to introduce or pass through this House one single jobs bill, not one. All they have done is cut jobs, mostly by going after public employees. And this is what the American people need to bear in mind as they think about who is on their side.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we should not turn our backs on the Libyan people. I want to remind my colleagues that NATO's campaign in Libya has saved countless lives. Our actions and those of NATO were the only thing that stopped Qadhafi from committing unspeakable crimes against humanity. In fact, when the United States and NATO intervened, Qadhafi was on the footsteps of Misrata and threatening to kill without mercy. Qadhafi's forces were on the brink of Benghazi hours before NATO's operation began. Qadhafi literally said that he would kill people with ``no mercy, no pity.'' He said he would go ``house by house, room by room.'' Those are the words of a shameless, ruthless killer; and we had to do something, and I'm glad that we did.

Constituents of my district whose roots come from Libya have made it clear to me that they want me to stand together with humanity, stand together with vulnerable people. But let me be clear, this is not Iraq, and this will not be the Iraq war. We did not unilaterally declare war on another country. On the contrary, our actions were with the international community, sanctioned by the United Nations, the Arab League and, most importantly, the Libyan people themselves.

Our role is limited and constrained, no boots on the ground. We essentially are helping to supply and refuel and add surveillance. Do we want to signal to other murderous dictators while the people are standing up for democracy that they have a free hand to slaughter their public? I hope not.

I say listen to regular Libyans on the street today. They want more NATO involvement, not less. They want the United States to remain involved. If we pull out now, the NATO coalition could fall apart and tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Qadhafi's wrath would jeopardize the fragile democratic transitions in both Egypt and Tunisia. This issue has regional implications. It's not limited to Libya alone.

As my constituents know, and my legislative record reflects, I was adamantly against the Iraq war and I am adamantly in favor of a faster withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I'm almost always against the use of the military option. Seldom is it the right course, in my opinion. But ``seldom'' doesn't mean ``always.'' Srebrenica, Darfur and Rwanda all warranted our engagement as Libya does today. We made it to the Balkans, but we didn't make it to Darfur or Rwanda, and literally millions of people died because of that.

But at the same time, I cannot turn a blind eye to the slaughter of innocent people. My hope is that the day may never come when I will ignore the cries of innocent people being murdered by a dictator or while we cozy up to a murderous dictator. I cannot turn my back on people demanding the same freedoms we enjoy in America.

I understand my colleagues' aversion to military conflict. I share it. I understand their fear of mission creep. I share that. But I also understand that when people are being murdered wholesale, being ethnically cleansed, being the targets of genocide, the world, including the United States, cannot and must not stand back and watch. For the sake of the Libyan people and all demanding freedom in the Middle East, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing the use of limited force.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hastings resolution.

I think it's important to remember that U.S. military force is a very awesome thing and should only be employed in very select circumstances. We misused that power when it came to Iraq, and we used that power in an improper way and too long in Afghanistan. But when people are being slaughtered by dictators around the world, where massive loss of lives and innocents are at stake, I think it is appropriate for the United States to step up and protect those people.

Yes, we do have business in Libya. We have business in protecting mass murder from happening and stopping mass murder from happening around the world. We have business in stopping the destabilization of regions like north Africa. We have business in making sure that the peaceful resolutions in Egypt and in Tunisia are not undermined. We have business in making sure that dictators like Ali Saleh in Yemen and Bashar al-Assad in Syria are not emboldened and the signal does not go out to them that they can continue to wipe out their population and nobody cares.

I believe that if I was in this Congress when Rwanda or Srebrenica or Darfur were happening, I pray that I would stand up and say that those people need to have some protection and that the most powerful Nation in the world shouldn't stand by while innocent women and children are being mowed down, and I hope today that my colleagues will join in that because it's the right thing to do.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 424 and 425 and would have voted ``no'' on both rollcall votes.

Mr. Chair, on June 16, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall No. 445, and would have voted ``no'' on that rollcall vote.

personal explanation