Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, as 800,000 Federal employees think about what their fate is going to be in a very few hours from now, we are on the House floor as our Republican colleagues say, well, we'll pay for the government if you accede to these three or four demands. It seems like every day they come up with some new demands, but they don't ever arrive at funding the government. The American people know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Senate bill, a CR, a continuing resolution, which is ready that we can put on the floor now and fund the government and avert the shutdown. My question is, Will our Republican colleagues, will our Speaker do that? There are moments when leadership is at issue, and this is one of them. We need the leadership that will stand here and put the Senate's clean continuing resolution on the floor so that we can avert a government shutdown and make sure that Federal employees can pay their mortgage, can buy groceries, and can have a future.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this bill shuts down the government. The Senate passed a clean CR. We could take it up right now, we could pass it, and we could keep the government open. But if we do something to change this Senate bill and we amend it and send it back, the time that would be needed to avoid a shutdown would be gone. No matter what your views are on these amendments, a vote for them is a shutdown, make no mistake about it. The Republican majority knows this. They are well aware what they're doing is designed to shut down the government. They're shutting it down. The only question before the American people now is will they continue to tolerate this kind of behavior. We are here to govern; we are here to look after the American people. We are here to make sure that the full faith of this government maintains, and not just in the financial sense but in the mental sense. People have to believe in us. When they shut this government down, they do something fundamental. They shake the confidence of this Nation. It is wrong. We should oppose it. Vote ``no'' on all these amendments.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I remember being in this House not that long ago--August 2011--when we were told that we've got to threaten the breaking of the debt ceiling of the United States because of debt and deficit. The deficit has come down. So here we are again, threatening to harm the economic fortunes of Americans with a shutdown and even the debt ceiling, but we are not talking debt and deficit anymore--now we are talking ObamaCare. My advice to my Republican colleagues is to try to overturn the Affordable Care Act at the ballot box. Oh, that didn't work. Here is another piece of advice: go to court and try to have it found unconstitutional. Oh, boy, that didn't work out either. Okay. Try to go through the regular legislative process. Well, 43 times later, that didn't work. So now we are going to literally damage the economy of this Nation? The fact is that this is wrong. It is going to hurt veterans, seniors. It is going to hurt children, and it is going to hurt our parks. It is going to hurt our whole country. So I pray that my colleagues stop this.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts yielded to me, but I don't know what they've got cooking over there. What I do know is this, Mr. Speaker--and this is abundantly clear: unless we take up the Senate bill, unless we take up what the Senate has passed, we will be in a situation where whatever is put on the floor and passes will have to go back to the Senate. And Harry Reid has indicated we don't have time. So unless we take up the Senate bill, we are going to head for a shutdown. That means the Republican majority has just shut down the government. Now we still have time. Reasonable heads can still prevail. But if we do anything other than keep the government open until November 15 vis- a-vis the Senate bill, the Republicans will have done what they did 17 years ago: shut the government down. This is extremely irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. It's extremely irresponsible because people on Social Security who need to call and get their questions answered--and who might need to get some real responsive answers--won't get them because there won't be people there to man the phones. Veterans' services will be slowed down, as well as national parks, medical research, and all types of people working for the Federal Government will have a painful payday. They'll have time when they're in suspended animation. No matter what is going on, their lives will be turned upside down, as they don't know what is going to happen. So we're not taking up the Senate bill, apparently. We don't know what we are taking up, but we're not taking up that. And that is irresponsible and wrong. Why are we doing this? Is there some big reason? The reason was the deficit. You recall, Mr. Speaker, August 2011, the Republicans threatened to break the debt ceiling and default on America's full faith and credit because of debt and deficit. We're not even talking about that today. It's all now about ObamaCare.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Dorothy, a grandmother from a State very near Minnesota--South Dakota--and she represents the face of hunger. Here she is with her family.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this bill leads me to ask a question. Who are we here to protect? The American people, or big business? If we don't stand up to protect public health, who will? Are we going to trust big oil, gas, and coal companies to look out for the public's health? This bill is just another give-away to big polluters. As we just saw with the coal ash bill, this bill would further harm human health by tearing down the EPA. The EPA--not big business--is trying to protect Americans' health. Take the Clean Air Act, for example. In its first 20 years, it prevented 205,000 premature deaths and 18 million child respiratory illnesses. The result? Billions of dollars in economic savings from prevented diseases and greater worker productivity. This bill is yet another attempt to tear down the EPA. It's immoral. I urge my colleague to oppose this bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about important issues involving climate change going on all over America, all over this world. But specifically today, I want to talk about our urban communities. Global warming is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, like wildfires in the West and hurricanes like Sandy on the east coast, and record drought conditions that continue for another year across the Midwest. But in urban areas, cities like D.C., or my hometown of Minneapolis, we have something known as an urban heat island. Urban heat islands are a serious problem because urban areas tend to have temperatures 5-20 degrees warmer than rural areas, which is known as heat island effect. Heat islands are caused by a lack of natural vegetation, dark colored, impervious roads and concrete, and exhaust from vehicles and industry. As global temperatures increase, urban areas are warming at double the rate of the average global temperature, so this is a real serious issue. Heat islands drive people to increase their use of air conditioning, which of course has a vicious effect in terms of just increasing an already serious problem. In turn, increasing the air conditioning drives up energy costs and increases power plant emissions, which contributes to the heat island in the first place. These emissions not only contribute to global warming, they impact human health, increase emissions of carbon monoxide, mercury, and particulate matter, which leads to increased risks of heart attacks, strokes, and asthma. Particulate matter is very fine pieces that are emitted from coal plants. They go up into the air and come down, and we breathe that stuff in. The effect of extreme heat in urban areas disproportionately affects some Americans as opposed to others. It affects anyone who lives in an urban area. But given the populations of urban areas, it affects certain communities more, including communities of color, low-income communities, and the elderly. This housing segregation that we have in our country in which you have this disproportionate number of some populations in urban areas, concentrates racial ethnic minorities in dense environments, and that's why we see African Americans experiencing some of these heat-related hazards that have to do with everything from asthma and other sorts of issues like that. The low-income, minority, and elderly are less able to adapt and recover from these extreme climate events and are the communities most at risk from heat island effects and heat waves. These communities are already plagued by higher pollution than wealthy, white communities. Coal plants, bus depots, and trash incinerators are disproportionately located in these areas that I speak of, and the heat island effect makes it worse. The high cost of air conditioning, the inability to move into special heat wave shelters increases risk. Urban minorities often have more underlying health issues, such as higher rates of asthma, as I mentioned before, which also creates susceptibility to increased pollutants in these heat islands. In 1995, a Chicago heat wave killed more than 700 people over 5 days, mostly elderly people who couldn't escape. The European heat wave in 2003 killed 30,000 people, although some estimates put that number as high as 70,000. Socioeconomic disparities will worsen through the health and economic effects of climate change. As global temperatures continue to rise, heat waves in urban areas are increasing in frequency, duration, and intensity; and the effect on my community of Minneapolis, and urban areas all over this country, will be devastating. This is a serious issue that we need to focus on. We need to do something about it. The time is now. I want to thank the Safe Climate Caucus for organizing Members to discuss this issue for the public today so we can all come to a greater level of awareness about the true dangers of ignoring global climate change.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues come here today proposing this new, intensified legislation on the basis that they would like to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So do we. Everything that my colleague, Mr. Royce, detailed a moment ago is something that we are concerned about. But we have a changed circumstance, a changed circumstance that this legislation does not acknowledge, and that is that the Iranian people had a choice between candidates, and they selected the candidate who decided to reject extremism and actually campaign on the basis of moderation. Why not? At least until Mr. Rouhani has a chance to forestall legislation like this and engage in diplomacy to reach the goals that Mr. Royce has identified. Mr. Rouhani ran on a policy of promise to pursue a path of moderation. He promised to pursue a ``policy of reconciliation and peace.'' Obviously, we don't have rose-colored glasses. We don't know. But why don't we wait and see. Why aren't we at least curious to find out whether or not President Rouhani means that he wants to pursue this course of peace. It is what we want--negotiated settlement. Why are we slapping his hand down when apparently the Iranian people are willing to support a candidate who is willing to extend a hand? The New York Times agrees. It said: While sanctions are an important element of American strategy, piling on more at this time and this moment could harm, rather than advance, the chances for a negotiated deal with Iran. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that additional sanctions at this moment might undermine diplomatic efforts. The fact of the matter is, why do we want to strengthen the hand of extremists who will say to Rouhani, See, you thought you could work with them. We were right all along. I say they're wrong. I say let's accept the olive branch extended by the Iranian people who selected a more moderate candidate. In fact, I would like to submit this document into the Record. The headline reads: Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Nominee for Foreign Minister, Seen as Olive Branch to United States. Let me also acknowledge and put into the Record this letter, dated July 19, by 130 Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis to say President Obama pursued negotiations in this window of time when we have a President who won on the basis of extending a hand for negotiation. We don't have to do this now. We can do this when we come back after at least Mr. Rouhani is inaugurated into the presidency of Iran. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I do have a number of speakers, when we're ready for that. [From HuffPost World, July 31, 2013] Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Nominee for Foreign Minister, Seen as Olive Branch to United States (By Marcus George and Paul Taylor) Dubai/Paris, July 29, 2013 (Reuters).--If Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani wanted to signal his determination to rebuild relations with the United States and strike a ``grand bargain,'' he could hardly do better than pick Mohammad Javad Zarif as his foreign minister. Iranian news agencies reported on Monday that Zarif, a former ambassador to the United Nations and Tehran's leading connoisseur of the U.S. political elite, is set to be in the cabinet Rouhani will announce after taking office on Sunday. A source close to Rouhani confirmed Zarif will be nominated as foreign minister. A fluent English speaker who earned his doctorate at the University of Denver, Zarif has been at the centre of several secret negotiations to try to overcome 35 years of estrangement between Washington and Tehran, diplomats said. Those talks failed because of deep mistrust on a range of disputes from Iran's secretive nuclear programme and support for anti-Israeli militants to U.S. sanctions and hopes of engineering ``regime change'' in Tehran. Zarif's elevation, however, suggests the moderate new president is keen to make another try at breaking the deadlock. ``He was always trying to do what was possible to improve relations in a very intelligent, open and clear way,'' said a senior Western diplomat who had repeated dealings with Zarif. ``This is someone who knows the United States very well and with all the frustrations of the past is still someone they know in Washington,'' he said. The usual caveats about Iran apply: under the Islamic Republic's complex institutional set-up, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls the shots in foreign and security policy and controls the nuclear programme, which Western powers say is aimed at developing atomic weapons. The foreign minister ranks roughly fourth in the foreign policy pecking order, after Khamenei, the head of the National Security Council, who also serves as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and the president. Nevertheless, assuming he is confirmed by Iran's prickly, conservative-dominated parliament, Zarif's appointment would be a strong gesture of positive intent towards the United States. The two countries have had no official ties since 1980 after Iranian students occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 diplomats hostage in protest against Washington's admission of the former Shah after he was toppled by the Islamic revolution. contact book Zarif's Washington contact book includes Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel and a who's who of U.S. national security officials on both sides of the aisle. The soft-spoken career diplomat resigned from the nuclear negotiating team after hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005. In 2007, he returned from New York after five years as Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations and found himself out of favour as his country turned its back on the notion of seeking better ties with the West and Ahmadinejad sidelined English-speaking diplomats. Since then, Zarif has been in a holding pattern, nominally senior adviser to the foreign minister from 2007 to 2010, then from 2011 international director of Islamic Azad University, a network of educational institutions established by ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, his political patron. Rafsanjani, who is also Rouhani's mentor, has long favoured a pragmatic rapprochement with the United States, but Khamenei has stamped on all such efforts since he succeeded the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in 1989. Dennis Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat who served as President Barack Obama's top Middle East adviser until 2011, said Zarif had shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith and his appointment would be seen in Washington and Europe as an indication that Rouhani wants to ``do business'' with the West. But he cautioned that the question remained whether this would translate into an easing of Tehran's resistance to curbing its nuclear drive. ``Zarif is not someone who does favours for the United States,'' Ross said. ``He fits the category of a sign or signal until you see Iran actually doing something.'' Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, described Zarif as ``reasonable'' but said much would depend on how much leeway he is given. Western diplomats said Zarif was a central negotiator in the last major effort to negotiate a ``grand bargain'' between Tehran and Washington that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and foundered in mid-2003. U.S. newspapers published in 2007 the bare text of a draft agreement, put together in secret talks in Paris, Geneva and New York, that would have established negotiations between the two countries on all outstanding issues. While the draft fell short of an agreement on substance, it noted both sides' expectations on issues such as assurances that Iran's nuclear programme has no military capability, and assurances that the United States would act against anti- government People's Mujahideen activists based in Iraq. ``The texts are authentic,'' said a Western diplomat who was involved in the back-channel talks, confirming that Khamenei had given the green light for negotiations to go ahead. hostage negotiator Years earlier, as a junior diplomat Zarif was involved in negotiations to win the release of U.S. hostages held by pro- Iranian gunmen in Lebanon, according to the memoirs of former U.N. envoy Giandomenico Picco. Even though the United States did not make a promised reciprocal goodwill gesture at the time, Zarif remained committed to improving ties. In Washington, Trita Parsi, president of the pro-dialogue National Iranian American Council, said Zarif has been involved in multiple U.S.-Iranian negotiations, including talks on Afghanistan after the U.S.-led 2001 invasion, and Tehran's 2003 proposal for a ``grand bargain'' with the United States. ``Based on my interviews with him, (Zarif) was involved in the drafting of it,'' Parsi said of that offer of a comprehensive new start, which then President George W. Bush's administration spurned. Veteran U.S. diplomat James Dobbins, the U.S. point man at a 2001 Bonn conference that formed a new Afghan government after the overthrow of the Taliban, credited Zarif with a pivotal, positive role in the diplomacy--and with a sense of humour. Dobbins--now the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan--recalled in 2007 testimony to the U.S. Congress how Zarif, then a deputy foreign minister, persuaded the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance to drop its demand for control of an outsize proportion of Afghan ministries. The Northern Alliance delegate ``remained obdurate. Finally, Zarif took him aside and whispered to him for a few moments, following which the Northern Alliance envoy returned to the table and said: `Okay, I agree. The other factions can have two more ministries. And we can create three more, which they can also have.' We had a deal,'' Dobbins recalled. ``Zarif had achieved the final breakthrough without which the (Hamid) Karzai government might never have been formed.''

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. ELLISON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ELLISON. May I inquire as to the time we have remaining.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor, privilege, and pleasure to introduce Imam Talib Shareef today, who is the resident imam--which is simply a word that means ``leader''--of Masjid Muhammad, which is a Washington, D.C., mosque with a 75-year history. Imam Talib Shareef is a 30-year veteran of the United States Air Force, and he served our country nobly in uniform for many years. He also holds a master's in business administration from the American InterContinental University and a diploma in the area of Arabic studies and language from the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. I might also add that the imam is a leader in the interfaith movement and regularly works with faith leaders of all faiths, building understanding, cohesion, and unity amongst all people and all Americans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 367, 368, 369, I would have voted ``yes'' on 367; ``yes'' on 368; and ``no'' on 369. Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, young people often say, I'm interested in politics; I'm interested in public service. Who might I look at to model myself after? I can think of very few people who would be better than someone like Mr. William Gray, Congressman Gray, Reverend Gray. He held so many titles. I did have the pleasure of meeting him. Of course, I never served with him, but I did get to know him, and I got to know him in a strange way. He just called me up at my office. I said, Bill Gray is calling me? I was a brand new Member. I was just happy to be here. But Bill Gray thought, Hey, you're a Member of Congress. I'm welcoming you to this institution, and I want to have a relationship with you. I sat down with him, got to know him, and he actually spent his time and gave me the honor of his presence on many occasions. I thought to myself, Bill Gray is an excellent role model because: One, he has a spirit of optimism. He was always, whenever I was around him, happy, smiling, upbeat, and believing it can be done; Two, he was never too important--though he was very important--to give his time to people. No matter who those folks might be, even a freshman Congressman like I was when he called me; Three, he's a person who had a certain sense of self-possession. He was sure that a college education for kids was right. And because he was sure that he was right about it, his enthusiasm for the subject kind of infected people around him it. It doesn't surprise me that Bill Gates would write the check, because he's talking to Bill Gray. And so if you really want to be successful, look and study Bill Gray. None of us are going to be here forever. May we all leave the legacy of a great man like Bill Gray.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment. Mr. Chair, cuts to SNAP will devastate the most vulnerable in our communities. 550,000 Minnesotans rely on SNAP to put food on their tables. Cuts to SNAP take away benefits for 32,000 Minnesotans. While the FARRM Bill gives hundreds of billions of dollars to producers and processors at the very top, it balances these benefits on the backs of America's poorest citizens. These cuts are not just statistics. They are the stories of real people in my District. Jessica, a single mother whose SNAP benefits are essential in keeping her children clothed, fed, and in school while she takes online classes towards a degree, and works as a housekeeper. She would be living on $47 a month without the help of SNAP. Justina and her husband, a homeless couple in Minneapolis, are both unable to work due to disability and are expecting a child. Justina relies on SNAP to stay healthy and strong throughout her pregnancy, and could not afford adequate nutrition without the help. Justina's life and the life of her baby depend on this program. Lashonda, a mother of three who works hard at a minimum wage job and still lives below the poverty line. Without SNAP, she would have to choose between food, heat, and electricity. She depends on the SNAP program to keep the lights and heat on in her small apartment, and without it she could not provide for her family. SNAP is good policy. SNAP works. SNAP saves lives. Do not cut funding for this program.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would simply ask us to learn more. It would ask us to know more than we know now about an important subject affecting our society and, indeed, our whole world. In fact, my amendment would simply require a study to review climate impacts of the Price Loss Coverage program. I can't understand why we wouldn't want to know the effects of such a program. I think learning more so that we can do better is a good idea. Climate change is a defining issue of this century. It is negatively impacting our economy, our health, and security. There is an international consensus that climate change is real, is caused and influenced by mankind, and is affecting our world in a negative way. Decisions Congress makes on this day, Mr. Chairman, in this farm bill, in fact, will have a direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States; and, of course, this world doesn't know the borders that these nations do, so it will affect the entire globe. Agriculture does contribute to climate change. In fact, 8 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Agriculture also brings great gains to humanity as well. We need to understand what greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture mean so that we can formulate better policy and utilize better technology. The emissions from agriculture result from fertilizer application, livestock, land use, soil management, farm equipment, and rice production. The new Price Loss Coverage program provides farmers raising major crops with subsidies if the crop prices drop below current historic levels. Farmers are already plowing up marginal lands and native grasslands in response to record crop prices and crop insurance subsidies; 23 million acres of natural land were plowed up between 2008 and 2011. Almost 20 million of these were corn, soybeans, and wheat alone. The Price Loss Coverage program will further incentivize increased crop production. Converting land to cropland releases millions of tons of CO2 in the United States every year. Converting more land to agriculture will increase greenhouse gas emissions. But, Mr. Chairman, we don't know how much, we don't know the extent, we don't know the effects. It is important that we do know so that we can incentivize more green-friendly agriculture production methods so that we can know the impact in our world, and we can know why it is important to take action now in this farm bill today. A study shouldn't harm anybody, and I urge support for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.