Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congressman, you come from a State, ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette. We all know about his wonderful legacy. And we all love Tammy Baldwin. When she told us she was running for the Senate, we didn't know how anybody could fulfill her tremendous legacy, but you've walked into this building, and you have stepped up right away. So I just want to the say thank you for the work that you're doing. Just if I may take a few moments to talk about the Back to Work Budget. There will be all kinds of budgets being discussed. The Republican budget authored by Congressman Ryan has already been the subject of a lot of conversation. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the real criteria that we should use to evaluate a budget is how well it puts people back to work, and that's why we have the Back to Work Budget. The Back to Work Budget is about--guess what--putting people back to work. Our budget is not an austerity budget. In our budget, we don't try to compete with how many people we can lay off and how many programs we can shut down. We say to the American people, We don't have a debt crisis. We have a debt problem in the out-years, but we don't have a debt crisis. Do you know what kind of crisis we've got? A job crisis. You know what? We've got to fix it. In 1976 when we passed the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, Americans regarded it as a national outrage that we had 6.3 percent unemployment. We have 7.7 percent now. That's way better than at the height of the recession. I remember in January of 2009, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, and we're now adding them. But we are not adding them nearly fast enough. I think that a lot of credit goes around due to the fact that we've had 36 months of positive job growth, but we don't have enough yet. So I think we need a budget that reflects the national priority of putting people back to work. Mr. Speaker, as the people will stand back and say, well, is this budget good or is this budget bad? I'm hearing so much from the talking heads on television. I think, Mr. Speaker, the people need to ask themselves a very simple question: Does this budget put people back to work or not? Congressman Ryan's budget, the Republican budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is going to lay off a lot of people. According to the Economic Policy Institute, it would be 2 million people in 2014. That's a lot of people. We don't need to be laying people off. We need to be hiring them. So I want to turn back to you, Mr. Pocan, because I don't want to just talk the whole time. But I do want to say, the Back to Work Budget is a budget that puts Americans back to work, and I think that's a good thing. In a moment, we can talk about one of my constituents.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank you, Congressman Pocan. One of the great things about this 113th Congress is that you and a number of other awesome new Members have joined us to really lend your creativity or expertise to advocating for the American people, the American working man and woman. You hail from the great State of Wisconsin, which is where I think collective bargaining began. Am I right about that?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I'd like to talk to you about Lucy. Lucy is not the name of the person I'm referring to, although she is absolutely real. I can't use her name because Lucy still lives in fear of her abuser, a man she was married to. Lucy is from a nation in West Africa. The man who was abusing her, physically and sexually, and mistreating her would tell her and threaten her--based on her immigration status to the United States that she was hoping to obtain--he would threaten her and tell her, I'm going to hold this against you; I'm going to do this to you; don't you dare leave me. The Violence Against Women Act's self-petition process was a lifeline and a savior to her. She was able to explain the extreme violence that she lived through and suffered through all the time, and she was able to separate from her husband and seek a way to become a citizen and to stay in this country and get rid of her abuser. Sadly, the House version rolls this protection back. That's why you should support the Senate version.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. In that case, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. And further inquiry, are there 25 minutes left?

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my name is Congressman Keith Ellison, and I would like to open up by talking about the progressive message. The progressive message is the message articulated by the Progressive Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus is that organization within this body, within this Congress, that is here to unapologetically say that all Americans should have the right to go to the doctor and get basic health care in this richest country in the history of the world. All Americans should have civil and equal rights and be treated fairly based on whatever color, whatever their sexual preference might be, whatever nation they might be from. We're the ones who say let's have comprehensive immigration reform with a path towards citizenship, and let's absolutely pass the DREAM Act. The Progressive Caucus is that caucus that boldly and unapologetically says Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are great programs; and we need to protect them not only for today's seniors but for tomorrow's seniors, too. I would like to start out, Mr. Speaker, by talking a little bit, as I talk about the progressive message, starting out with just a few observations about the State of the Union speech. I personally thought the State of the Union speech was awesome. I thought President Obama was great, and I was really proud of President Obama as he delivered that State of the Union speech in this very Chamber. This Chamber was full of dignitaries from all over the world-- ambassadors, Senators, the United States Supreme Court. And in front of them, in front of the American people, President Obama specifically identified 24 Americans who joined Members of Congress as their guests. And these folks who President Obama identified were victims of gun violence. I was so proud to see President Obama specifically give these folks encouragement to keep on speaking out, continue to tell their story so that we can arrive at a place where the U.S. Congress will be on their side to bring forth sensible, sane gun violence prevention. You know, President Obama's wife, our First Lady, Michelle Obama, had seated next to her her own guest, parents of young Hadiya Pendleton whose life was taken away from her. She was shot down in Chicago. But only a few weeks before, she had been performing for her country at the President's inauguration. And so whether it was ordinary Members of Congress who just brought different people, or it was the President or the First Lady, the people who can speak most eloquently about the need for sane, sensible gun violence reform were here, Mr. Speaker. They were here and were present in this gallery so they could be a witness and a presence on the need. And what did President Obama say? He said give us a vote. He said give us a vote. Now, I say to the Republican House majority: Why are you afraid of a vote? Let's have a vote. Let's count who is for sane, sensible gun violence prevention and who is not; who is for closing loopholes that allow people to escape background checks; and who's for filling up background checks and making sure that anybody who gets a firearm, an instrument that is dangerous by any account, at least we know that this person is sane and legally qualified to have one. Let's see. Let's have a vote. I don't think that anyone should be afraid of the vote, because if you are proud to say, no, we don't want any background checks, then stand up and say that. Be on Mr. LaPierre's side of the NRA. But if you believe we need to make sure that guns stay out of the wrong hands, that's a vote that the American people should have, and I was so proud that the President made that clear. I personally think that the President was right in saying give us a vote when it comes to things like high-capacity magazines. You know, these high-capacity magazines, designed for the military, don't have any place on our streets. And the people who want to stand up and defend them, let them defend them. Let them defend them right here on the floor if they have the audacity to do so. And let us talk about millions of Americans, over the course of years, who have been tragically injured and hurt with bad gun policy. Let us talk about the victims in Aurora who were shot by somebody with a high-capacity clip. Let us talk about people who were victims in Milwaukee. Let us give the message about the folks who were shot down in Tucson by somebody with a high-capacity clip. The fact is that the President said give us a vote, and I agree 100 percent. We need a vote on these sane, sensible gun reforms. I'm going to leave this topic now, Mr. Speaker; but I do want to just make mention of my own guest. My own guest was a young man named Sami Rahamin. Sami, 17 years old, a brilliant young man, but really just a regular teenager, he happened to be on a bus going to Madison, Wisconsin, when he saw a message come across his phone which said there was a shooting in what he knew was his neighborhood. He texted back to his father and said: Dad, be careful because there's supposedly a shooting in the neighborhood. But the text never came back because one of the victims of that shooting was Sami's dad. Ruvin Rahamin was an immigrant to the United States. He came to the United States in search of the American Dream, but he died the American nightmare because a person who is mentally unsound, mentally unstable, easy access to the most dangerous weapons came to a work site and shot down five people, including Ruvin who was an awesome guy, a wonderful constituent of mine. He's missed. But because of his son carrying on the legacy, he will never be forgotten because Sami is telling the story about how much we need sane, sensible gun prevention measures. So enough about the gun issue. The State of the Union speech was awesome for another reason, which I definitely want to make note of, and that is the fact that he went right to the very heart of what I believe is the defining issue of our time, and that is income and wealth equality in our country. Our country, this is the land of opportunity. And we know that some people are rich and some people are middle class and some people are poor. We believe we're a country that can provide a ladder up for anybody who wants to work hard. And for those people who are too sick to work or too aged to work or too young to work, we believe in the social safety net to take care of them. We believe in income and economic mobility in America. And yet the President put his finger right on it when he talked about how we've seen people making $14,000 a year working full time; but because they are paid so little, they are still in poverty. I was so proud the President made this point. It's a point that needs to be made. There are people working in restaurants, people who are cleaning up, people in our hospitals, people who are doing the really tough jobs. I'm talking about the jobs where you've got to take a shower after you get off work, not take a shower going to work, you've got to take one when you're done with your day's work because you've been working hard, you've been building things, you've been maybe cleaning up things, you've been lifting people, you've been doing the hard work. And many of these folks are scraping by on really low wages. The President clearly has a heart for these folks and wants to see them come up. And I was glad the President was able to do that. Mr. Speaker, you should know that over the past 30 years income for the average American has stayed flat, while the richest 1 percent of Americans have seen their income more than triple. This has not happened by accident. It has been a set of policies put in place through the Tax Code, through trade policy, through the loss of manufacturing, and a number of things. There's been a number of policies that have gotten us to this place, but there's been one philosophy, and the philosophy is simply this: if we give a lot of money to the richest Americans, maybe they will take their excess wealth and put that into plant and equipment and hire people. This is known as supply-side economics. We don't want to have any regulations on them. They can do what they want with the water, they can do what they want with the meat, they can do what they want with the air. No regulations or against regulations. We don't want to tax them. They don't have to pay for our roads, our bridges, our schools; they don't have to do anything like that. They get to keep all this money. And it's all under the assumption that they will take this money that they amass and put it into plant and equipment and hire people. Well, this philosophy has proven to have failed; this philosophy has caused income inequality in America. And the President correctly said that we have got to do something to create more economic viability for the poor and middle class in America. I was so happy to see him do it. Mr. Speaker, you should know, the President didn't say this, but it's absolutely true, that the wealth of the richest 1 percent is over 225 times larger than the average household, higher than it has ever been, higher than it has ever been. Mr. Speaker, we look back at the Gilded Age and we think, oh, boy, wasn't income inequality bad way back then. Well, it's worse now. We've got to do something about it, and our President knows that. I am very pleased to see that. And the President, while he gave a message of economic hope and understanding to the working and middle classes of our country, the politician who gave the alternative, Mr. Marco Rubio, when he wasn't getting glasses of water in the middle of his speech, he just really articulated the same old thing: money for the rich, less for everybody else. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while cutting investments that the middle class relies on, while cutting programs that help local governments keep on police, keep on teachers, keep on people who fix our roads and firefighters. We cannot cut the Federal workforce, as is about to happen--I'll talk about sequester in a little while--and we cannot make these economic decisions and hope to have a strong economy. We've got to invest in our roads, our bridges, our grids, our electrical power grids in transit to move people around quickly. We've got to make these investments. We've got to invest in research; we've got to invest in our schools. This is what's going to make America a strong country. This is what's going to put more people to work. More people paying taxes means we're going to have more taxes, and that will help us lower the deficit. The Republicans have it all wrong. They think that by slashing the Federal Government, then that's going to make our economy better. All it's going to do is create a situation where you've got more people out of work, fewer people paying taxes, fewer people putting in tax revenue, and then the deficit will go up. I'm going talk about the sequester in a moment; but I just want to say, as I highlight a few things about the State of the Union speech, how important I thought the President's remarks were. Let me turn for a moment--another thing about the State of the Union speech--Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. First of all, I want to encourage people to not refer to these programs as entitlements. I don't even like doing it myself right now. What they really are is social insurance. You know how insurance works. You pay a premium and then when you need it, you can use it. Well, you get 6 percent taken out of your paycheck every week or two weeks or a month or however often you get paid. You're paying into Social Security, you're paying into Medicare, you're paying into Medicaid. The bottom line is these social insurance programs are not some giveaway; they're not welfare. They are important social insurance programs to provide income security for people when they are aged, when they are too ill to work and disabled, or when their parents die and they need support. That's what these programs are about. I'm glad that we are here to talk about how we preserve these programs. The President mentioned it. He said he wanted to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for generations to come. I quite agree with this. He said: But any reform should come through protecting these programs, not just cutting these programs to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. I believe that we should not have any benefit cuts to these programs. We don't need to. There's plenty of places to cut, plenty of loopholes to close, and we can get money elsewhere. But I'm glad the President made mention of the program. I also want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that one of the places we can find savings for social insurance programs is we need to allow Medicare part D to negotiate lower drug prices. Medicare part D is a prescription drug benefit that the Republicans negotiated and passed in 2003. This particular program put into law that there could be no negotiation of drug prices. This has made the program more expensive. About $158 billion would be attainable as savings if we were allowed negotiation. The President also said we're going to get out of Afghanistan. I think this is great. The President announced that we would bring 34,000 troops home from Afghanistan by this time next year. That's fantastic. My own son is a member of the U.S. Military. I'm very proud of that. I actually don't want to see him deployed to Afghanistan. I want to see him in a place where he can defend this Nation, as he wants to do. I think that it's time for us to go home. The President didn't say we're going to abandon Afghanistan. We will be there diplomatically, we will be there training their soldiers, but sovereignty means that you protect yourself. It's time for the Afghan people who want to be sovereign to take responsibility for their own security. I want to turn now to the subject of immigration. I think right now, and I think the President made clear, that we may be at a point, and I pray that we are, where comprehensive immigration reform is within the reach of Congress to pass. I'm proud to be joined by my good friend Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado. This is an important issue to you, Congressman, and I want to yield to you to share your thoughts on immigration.

Mr. ELLISON. My inquiry is, if I yield back, does the gentleman from Colorado get the balance of the time I have remaining?

Mr. ELLISON. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLISON. With the understanding that the gentleman will get the balance of the time remaining of my hour, then I will yield the floor back.

Mr. ELLISON. I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado. Congressman Polis, you have been on the mark on this thing ever since you stepped into this body, and there are literally I think millions of people who appreciate your advocacy. I just want to mention a few points and then, of course, invite you to dive back in. The President does have a proposal on immigration reform. It's reasonable. It's a commonsense starting point. Republicans and Democrats need to find a way, as Congressman Polis just said. But it is a clear path toward a legal status for thousands who are already in the U.S. working and paying taxes. It's a process for family reunification. It's a workable employment verification system with penalties for employers who knowingly hire people who are not in status. It is a reasonable enforcement. But I just want to say this, and I want to invite Congressman Polis to react. We've put about $18 billion into border issues so far. One of the real things about comprehensive immigration reform is, we hear people talk about the border, the border, the border. Well, President Obama has done tons on the border--for some of us, too much--but the border issue is not the problem. The real problem is the other part. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado to see if you have any thoughts about this matter.

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman. I'm going to wrap up in about 5 minutes or so. But I just want to hit a few things that need to be touched on. One is that the Progressive Caucus is very concerned about this looming sequestration. Now folks out there this evening, Mr. Speaker, might think, sequestration, what is that? Is that like when you go on jury duty or something? No. Sequestration is what we're calling some really dramatic cuts to Federal spending that are coming up in about 2 weeks. And now you're thinking, How did we end up here? Here is what happened. In August 2011, the Republicans had taken the majority in that session, the first session of the 112th Congress, in January, and they started out with an agenda to dramatically reduce the size of government. They started out with something called Cut, Cap and Balance, and they wanted to cut all kinds of programs. They never wanted to touch defense, but they wanted to cut the Federal Government. I'm talking about Head Start, Women Infants, and Children nutrition, programs that help support State and local governments, for police, fire, all kinds of stuff like that, they wanted to cut. And they wanted to cut big-time. They wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And so they came forward with this proposal. Now, they knew they couldn't get it past the Senate, but they said, Oh, the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling, we can use that as a lever to make the Democrats give us significant cuts to the Federal budget. So what they did, in August 2011, they said that we're going to allow--we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. We're going to allow the Federal Government to default on previously acquired obligations of the United States--so not pay our bills that we already acquired and risk our triple A credit rating--if you do not impose dramatic cuts. And so what the President did is said, Okay, we're going to give you some cuts up front and we'll set up something called the supercommittee. Three Democrats from the House, three Republicans from the House, three Republicans from the Senate, three Democrats from the Senate, we'll call that the supercommittee, and they are going to work out a compromise and give us an up-or-down vote on some more cuts. But if they don't, then we're going to have this thing called the sequester and there will be across-the-board cuts in a dramatic and really imposing way. The sequester is what we're facing now because the supercommittee failed. Now, the supercommittee didn't just fail. What we didn't know is that when the Republicans, both House and Senate, appointed their members of the supercommittee, all of them had signed a promise to a man named Grover Norquist never to raise any taxes. And so what happened is that they got on this supercommittee and refused to negotiate. Democrats said, We'll do some cuts, but we need some revenue. We need to raise some taxes and close some loopholes. Republicans said, No way, and Democrats said, Well, wait a minute. So you want it all cuts and no raising taxes. They said, That's right, we're not going to negotiate with you on this. And so the supercommittee failed in its work. When it failed in its work, that meant that we were going to deal with sequester, and that's where we are now. Sequester is going to impose automatic, arbitrary cuts that could lay off, according to the Congressional Budget Office, up to about 750,000 people. There are going to be cuts in domestic spending and cuts to military spending. Some of us think that military cuts are warranted. Others of us are absolutely concerned about the people who are going to be affected by these domestic cuts. Let me wrap up. I just want to say that I am concerned that several Republicans seem real cavalier about sequester, and you should look at the list. The Progressive Caucus' solution is to repeal sequester. What we would propose to do with our legislation is to say 50 percent cuts, 50 percent revenue. We already cut $1.7 trillion in revenue, and then last New Year's Eve we got some money in the door through raising taxes and now we need to balance to 50-50. This is what we call the Balancing Act. Our bill would bring it to balance by raising money through closing loopholes, carried interest, jets and yachts, stuff like that. Oh, yeah, you didn't know they could write off their jets and their yachts? Oh, yeah, they can. And then put about $300 billion into jobs. Let me wrap up by saying the Balancing Act, you can go online and look it up. It's a great program. We urge you to support it. In the last 1 second, if I may--I've promised my friend 20 minutes and I'm messing up right now. On February 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder case. This threatens to take away serious voting rights. I'm going to be talking about this, because democracy must prevail. We have not reached the point where everybody has a fair vote in this country. I don't have the time to elaborate on it now, but please be aware that this Shelby County v. Holder is a critical issue. The Supreme Court is going to take it up on the 27th of February. We need to be aware of that if we want to believe that you ought to be able to cast a fair vote in America. With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allotting the time. I appreciate it very much. My name is Keith Ellison. I'm here today to reflect on what I believe was a historic speech for the ages yesterday. President Obama met the historic challenge, met the historic moment; and I just want to talk about my feelings about how important that speech really, really was. President Obama, you should understand, was called upon to make his second inaugural address. And inaugural addresses, historically, are speeches that people don't always remember, but there are some that we will never forget because of how important they are. His first speech 4 years ago was a speech during which, over the course of 18 minutes, he talked about trying to reach out diplomatically. He talked about the importance of trying to come together to solve common problems. And I think the basic attitude of the first speech was conciliation in an effort to try to work out problems both foreign and domestic. In this speech, however, President Obama set forth what I believe was a clear, concise agenda based on values that he owns. I was so proud to hear President Obama talk about the need to address climate change. He reminded us that you can believe in climate change or you can disbelieve in climate change, but the fact is our storms are harder, the drier weather we are seeing is causing forest fires, and we are seeing climatic catastrophes associated with climate change. We're seeing the consequences of it. So if we ignore the cause, we cannot ignore the consequence. I was so proud to hear him say that. He also spoke out boldly for equality, human rights and civil rights for all Americans. I remember that he said, and you may recall, too, Mr. Speaker, he said, we will never forget Stonewall, Seneca Falls, and Selma. These are three iconic moments in civil rights history when he talked about the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the African American movement for civil rights; but they all added up to one thing, which is that an American is an American is an American. It doesn't matter what your color is, what your sex is, or who you love and want to be with. What matters is that you are an American and entitled to the full protection of the law in these United States. I think it was very important for him to do so. It represented an evolutionary moment in American history that a President being inaugurated into his second term would stand up for the first time and say ``civil and human rights for all people.'' I thought it was a great moment, and I found myself cheering even though I hadn't planned on doing so. But he didn't stop there. He specifically said we need to stand here and protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, three critical programs this Nation depends on, three critical programs that seniors depend upon. But not only do seniors depend on them. Also we know that seniors and people live on survivors benefits. When their loved one who gets Social Security dies, children are entitled to get survivors benefits. And these survivors benefits are literally putting food on the tables for millions of families all across this country. But not only that. People with disabilities get Medicare and Social Security. And he stood up for these programs, reminding us that this richest country in the history of the world--the richest country in the history of the world--does not need to throw its poor, its vulnerable, and its aged under the bus. We are not too broke to make sure that our senior citizens, our children who are on survivors benefits, and people who are vulnerable economically, we're not too poor to make sure that there's something for them and that they have a livelihood and a way to make it forward. Imagine the richest country in the history of the world saying, I'm sorry, Grandma, but we got to cut your benefits because we can't make it. The reality is that when he gave that speech and he specifically identified those three programs as central to the American Dream, the American promise, I was proud. And I said, that's right. And I tell you, I was so happy to hear him say that. But he didn't even stop there. He talked about the need for immigration reform and the fact that for so many people around the world, America is still the land of opportunity and that we cannot sit by as 12 million people live in our country in the shadows with no pathway toward citizenship. The President specifically called on us to do something about it. Now, the President knows that guns are a volatile issue. He didn't smack the issue of gun violence prevention right on the head, but he did mention the victims of Sandy Hook; and he did tell us that children have a right to be safe at school, thereby signaling that, you know, yeah, we are going to do some things about the proliferation of guns, high-capacity clips, and background checks, things that make sense, not taking away the right to own a gun, but to do commonsense gun violence prevention measures that I think will make everybody safer. In fact, if you're looking at the news right now, you know that there was another shooting today in Texas--today--today. So the bottom line is that the President laid out a vision, an inclusive vision, for America. The President got up in front of the world stage, all the Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Senators, the Supreme Court, and everybody assembled and said, This is the direction that we're going in. We're going to say Americans, whatever their background, are included within the promise of America. We're going to address income inequality. We're going to protect the social safety net. Now, some pundits--you can always count on the punditry to throw salt around--they said, well, it didn't reach out to the Republicans. Well, I think that Republicans are on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and they probably, or at least their parents, appreciate protection of that program. Republicans live on this planet in which we see the temperature rising and the consequences of global climate change hurting more and more people. Some Republicans are black, some Republicans are Latino, and some Republicans are gay. And when they heard that they are included in Obama's vision of America, they must have felt good about that. So I don't agree that this speech didn't reach out to the full range of the political spectrum, left and right. I think that if you're in the category that he mentioned, that no matter what your political ideology may be, that you would feel that, yes, this includes me. Now, I think the President's speech was also great because it was courageous. No President has ever mentioned before the gay community in the United States; and most people like myself and most people are what we call straight or heterosexual. But all of us know that there is prejudice against the gay community. There's no denying this. There's no sense in denying it. We all know that these folks are our neighbors, they're our coworkers, they're our friends, and we know that they have suffered because of prejudice against them. For a President to stand up and say this isn't right and that everybody is included in the American Dream, I thought was a great moment. It was a first. It was historic. I think that President Obama seized the historical mantle and said, I'm not going to sit up here and use a bunch of flowery, vague language. I'm going to get up here and talk about what I really believe in. I was so proud of Obama yesterday. I admired how he handled himself and what he said. I think over the past 4 years, President Obama has, in my opinion, bent over backwards to reach out to the Republican Conference. He has really accommodated them in a whole number of ways, and yet their conference--and the record is clear--has come forward and said that their goal over the course of the last 4 years was to make him a one- term President. Well, they failed. He's a two-term President. So the question is: Are we now going to come together? Is the caucus of ``no'' now going to say there are some things we're willing to work with? I hope so. Let me tell you. My dad was a Republican for many years. Of course, I love my dad and loved him when he was a Republican. He was what I would call a ``sensible Republican.'' He believed in watching the money. He believed in getting the most out of every dollar. He believed that the government had a limited role and shouldn't get in everyone's business. Today, we have folks who are not in the realm of even negotiation. They're willing to shut the government down, allow our country to go over the fiscal cliff and default on America's debt just to get their way. That's an extremist position. This is an extremist ideology. It's not a reasonable thing to say. Now, some of them will come up here and talk about how big the debt and the deficit is. Wait a minute. When we say that we want to cut oil subsidies to Big Oil companies, they don't want to do that. When we want to raise some taxes on the wealthy so we can use that money to lower the deficit, they don't want to do that. I doubt anyone who says they're outraged by the debt and the deficit, and we give credible solutions on how to lower it and they say ``no''--I begin to doubt that that's really what they're concerned about. The speech yesterday that the President gave, I believe, is a good starting point. The President is not negotiating with himself. He's declaring his position. The other side in the political divide can declare their position, and then we can come together and negotiate. I'm a huge supporter of the President, but I kind of believe that what he used to do, he used to state his values, then he used to anticipate what the other side would want, then he used to try to come together, bring both sides together, and then he would go to the table and negotiate. So we would end up not with a liberal position, but with sort of a centrist position, and we would start out right there, and then anywhere we would go from there would be further to the right. So if we're lucky, we end up with a center-right position. Now I think we start with, as we are proud to be the progressive liberals that we are, we start out with what we believe in, then they say what they believe in, and then we negotiate, and maybe we'll end up in the middle. But I don't want to end up in the center right anymore. I want to end up with some reasonable compromise that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; that protects civil rights for all Americans; that addresses this massive income inequality; that addresses climate change; that moves us toward a green economy; that allows people who are immigrants to have a pathway into the respectability of life in American society. The President did not disappoint last night. I believe in those things. Clearly he does, too. And I was so proud to see the President stand and deliver for these important values. Over the next several weeks, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be in a huge debate. We just finished the whole debate on the so-called fiscal cliff. It really wasn't a fiscal cliff. That was just the name the press loved to call it, but the reality is it was a set of budgetary deadlines and tax deadlines. We were able to come up with a deal, but the worst part of the deal is what wasn't in it. That's why I voted for it. I wasn't thrilled with the deal, but the thing I didn't like about it was the stuff mostly that was not included. Because even though I was happy to extend unemployment for a year, that was good. Even though I was happy to raise taxes on the richest Americans, because I believe it's their patriotic duty to help their country out, that was good too. I believe those were good things. I thought the fact that we did not deal with the debt ceiling, the sequester, and the continuing resolution really just put us in a position where a few months later our Republican friends would say: You're going to cut vital programs for Americans who need them, or we're going to shut down the government. You're going to cut Head Start, you're going to cut food stamps, you're going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or we're going to default on America's debt. This is the hardcore bargaining position they've been trying to ram down our throat. I'll never forget Speaker Boehner, who said, ``Look, if they don't take these cuts in one loaf, we'll feed it to them a slice at a time.'' That's a quote. And so I was concerned that this deal we just did, this so-called fiscal cliff deal, the New Year's Eve deal, even though there were things in it that I thought were good, I was concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of what wasn't in it. I believe the American people and our markets, our business people, deserve to have this budgetary issue resolved in a way so they can actually plan. My Republican friends correctly point out that there is uncertainty when Congress doesn't solve problems, but they're the ones causing the uncertainty. In fact, they are guilty of creating the problem that they criticize the most. They say that we shouldn't kick the can down the road. They say we should have some finality. But they're the ones who are not agreeing to some finality. They say that we need to make sure that we get some real job creation, but they're the ones cutting into the public sector, causing us layoffs from the Federal Government, and therefore State governments. And of course, people who have government jobs spend money too, which leads people who they do business with to have jobs. If you work for the EPA and you go to a local grocery store, you spend money there, which allows the cashiers and the stock people to have jobs. Everything they say they don't want it seems like that's what they're for. They don't want job cuts, they don't want job losses, but they create them. They don't want uncertainty, but they create it. They want finality, but they avoid it. It doesn't make any sense. They say they want to reduce the deficit, but they enlarge it. So my point is: What's really going on here? I think President Obama has just kind of had enough and has said rather than trying to figure out how to do a deal with these folks who keep moving the goalpost, I'm just going to say what I'm about, I'm going to declare what my values are, and they can come to the table and represent their own point of view, and we'll find a way, hopefully, to get to a point where we can agree and go forward. Even if we hate the deal, even if we don't like it, at least maybe we can move forward so Americans can at least be able to plan for their future. Mr. Speaker, I think that Presidential inauguration speeches are important. They do lay out an important path. I was reviewing, Mr. Speaker, the inaugural speeches of President Abraham Lincoln. I'm a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln. I wouldn't call myself an expert or scholar of Lincoln, but I'm sort of an amateur reader of everything about Lincoln. In Lincoln's first speech, he was conciliatory. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, when he was elected, as soon as he was elected, Southern States began to secede even before he was inaugurated. South Carolina, Mississippi, the other States, they started seceding each before he was inaugurated. As soon as he was elected, some of them said, We are out of here. So when he came to his inaugural speech, the first one, he was trying to keep the Southern States in and trying to keep the border States from leaving. So he said some things that were so conciliatory, that even the abolitionists of the time thought that he wasn't what they were hoping for. He wasn't really against slavery. He said he was, but they thought that he didn't prove it. They thought he was halting, they thought he was too cautious, and they criticized him for this. But after the Civil War broke out and so much blood was spilled and so much harm was done to our Nation--620,000 people died in the Civil War--President Lincoln came back 4 years later. On that speech, his second inaugural speech, it was a bold defense of the union cause and an argument that slavery must go. He didn't pull any punches on the second one. Now, he was not bodacious, and he was not offensive--he was trying to be as conciliatory as he could be--but he made very clear that America was going to be, one, whole and not divided and, two, that it would be slave free. He didn't water it down, as some pundits think that Obama should water his position down. The second time around, after we went through all the big fights, President Lincoln stood firm and spoke firmly and clearly but also in a conciliatory way about what he believed in. I don't know. Maybe there were some people back in 1865 who might have said, Well, Lincoln ought to be a little more sympathetic to the South, and he ought to try to work with them more. Look, I'm not trying to compare this budgetary fight to the horror of slavery. There is no comparison, not at all. I'm not trying to say that our Republican colleagues are in any way sympathetic to slavery. They're not. That's not true. I'm simply trying to make the point that when you start out trying to work with somebody and you can't get anywhere, and when you go through all the travails and difficulties of trying to get somewhere and you can't, then at the end of the fight, if you win, you're probably going to say, Look, I tried to work with you and you wouldn't work with me. I ended up coming out on top on this thing, so now I'm going to bargain for my position. This is not to say the President is not going to negotiate. This is not to say the Democrats aren't going to negotiate. We are going to negotiate. We believe that the democratic process requires an eye toward compromise, but I also believe that we went to our constituents in 435 districts around this country and that we told them what we believed in and we told them what we stood for, so they deserve for us to at least articulate that position. If we have to make a compromise on some things for the sake of the Union, for the sake of the Nation, we should do that, but we should never act like we don't believe in what we do, in fact, believe in, which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; which is confronting income inequality; which is equality for all Americans regardless of race, color, sexual preference; and all that kind of stuff. We should say what we believe in. We should say that we believe that a woman should earn every penny that a man makes. We should say these things. We should not be afraid to be who we are and articulate our vision of the world. Then when we go to the negotiating table, there might be some things we have to give up, and there might be some things we get, but we should never make any mistake about what we're all about. So I'm really proud of the President tonight. I feel the President did a fine job for America yesterday, and I wish the President well. I do know that the President, in being a man of reason, will listen to Republican arguments as to what they would like to see happen, but I also believe, based on what he said yesterday, that he is going to fight for what he believes in, too. He warned us against dogmatism, and he also said Look, don't confuse absolutism with principle. So that's sort of a warning to our side a little bit in his saying, look, I am going to have to negotiate some things. But when he sits around that table, we know where he's starting from, and that makes me feel good. I wish all the best for this Presidency and this Congress because I think that, if the Republicans are successful and if the Democrats are successful and if the President is successful, then America will be successful. So I'm here to say that I hope we do negotiate, but there are some things that, quite frankly, I'm not willing to cave in on-- Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiary cuts. They're asking for cuts from the people who have already been cut. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that 20 percent of widowed women on Social Security have nothing but Social Security to live on, and yet we want to reduce their benefits? Do you know that a full third of widowed women on Social Security depend upon Social Security to the degree of 90 percent of their incomes? We're talking about people who are making somewhere between $17,000 and $24,000 a year to begin with. You cannot go to people who already have so little and say give me back even more. This is at a time, because of our housing foreclosure crisis, when rents in nearly every city have gone up, and this is at a time when we have limited vitally important programs that help ease the pain of poverty for Americans. So there are some things that we are going to protect in this and that we are going to call upon the masses of Americans to protect. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that today I don't have the ability to be here for the whole hour--duty calls--but I did want to offer a few reflections on the speech that was given. I also want to say a few other things as it relates to the next period coming up. In the next few weeks, we're going to face a debt ceiling increase. In fact, we have a debt ceiling vote tomorrow. We're not voting to raise the debt ceiling; we're voting to suspend it. I think this is bad policy because markets, businesspeople, and everybody else need to know that the Congress is going to stand by the credit rating and the debts of the American people. We're not going to default, and we shouldn't threaten that we are. It's bad. It's not a good thing to do. It's important for the American people to know that, when we talk about raising the debt ceiling, Congress is not approving new spending. We're not borrowing. We're saying that we're going to pay the bills on debts we already acquired. It's kind of like this: If you have a family and if somehow you're already obligated to pay a mortgage, if you don't have the money for your mortgage, you may have to go to your cousin or your brother or your uncle and say, I need you to help me until next week so I can pay the mortgage. So you now have borrowed money to pay an obligation that you already owe, an obligation that, if you don't pay, you will default on. You can also have a situation in which somebody doesn't have enough money but goes into a local electronics store and says, I'm going to buy that big screen television right there on my credit card. Those are two different scenarios--borrowing to meet obligations you've already acquired and borrowing to buy stuff you really cannot afford. Raising the debt ceiling is the first one, Mr. Speaker. It's borrowing to meet obligations we already have. It's not borrowing for new expenditures. So, when we appropriate money and when we have had appropriated expenditures in the past, we might raise the debt ceiling to meet those obligations, which we should do, because to do otherwise is to say that America is going to default on its debts, which we cannot do, not just for our own sakes, but this would cause international harm to the world economy. People are confused about this whole debt ceiling debate, and I don't believe that it's right for Republicans to just suspend the debt ceiling and then to put a bunch of stuff in there about the Senate and all that kind of stuff, some provisions that are blatantly unconstitutional, too, by the way. So I'm disappointed in this thing that's coming up, but people need to know that this debt ceiling vote is coming up. They should also know that the sequester is coming up. With the New Year's Eve deal, we delayed the sequester 2 months. These are massive cuts to the tune of, I think, around $89 billion that are going to be put on the Pentagon and domestic spending. They're dumb cuts. We're not looking at specific programs and evaluating their worth and eliminating some and keeping others. We're just, like, ``chop.'' This is no way to budget for a Nation, and I hope we can delay the sequester, but it's coming up soon. Republicans have vowed that they want even more cuts, maybe even in addition to the sequester, to negotiate. I think we should remind everybody that we've already had $1.7 trillion in cuts and that we just did $600 billion in new revenue. That's about $2.3 trillion. How much more cutting do we need to do, particularly when we're talking about vital programs for Americans? So, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to make cuts, we should cut things that we really don't need. For example, Medicare part D, which passed in 2003, prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Now, the Veterans Administration does negotiate for drug prices all the time, but Medicare is prohibited from doing so. Basically, if the pharmaceutical company says this drug costs this, the government has to pay, and we can't use our large buying power to lower a price. We should change that. We should introduce competitive bidding. That would save us a quite a bit of money, Mr. Speaker. That's a way we could save money. Here's another thing we should do. We should eliminate oil subsidies, coal subsidies, and natural gas subsidies. The fossil fuel industry, a highly profitable industry, making a lot of money, a profitable industry, there's no reason in a free market economy we should be subsidizing a profitable company. It doesn't make sense. Even if you are a free market person, you have a hard case to make that we should be handing Exxon, Chevron, and Mobil money. We shouldn't do it. We should end it, and any real conservative would agree with me on that. Now, if somebody is just trying to get money to friends, that's another story. But if you're really about reducing the deficit, that's one way to do it. You know, there are a number of things we could cut. There's a lot of Cold War weapons systems that could be eliminated. Our nuclear arsenal could be reduced without threatening our national security, and we could save money in doing it. There are ways to reduce the budget. There are ways to do it, and we probably should. But let's do it in a way where we keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid for college students, money for investing in medical research, and groundbreaking research to give life to brand-new industries. You know, a lot of people don't know, Mr. Speaker, this thing we call the Internet was started with a government program--something called DARPA. A government grant helped fund the Internet. Yes, it did. I don't know about Al Gore, but I do know that the government, a government grant, put the money into the form that we now know as the Internet. The government did that. The government funded the project for mapping the human genome. The government. The government's not always bad. So we should keep some programs. We should lower others, but we've got to think about this thing in a different way than we are. All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as I begin to wrap up is that it is an honor and a privilege to be able to serve in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. And even though we have big fights with our Republican colleagues, it's an honor to serve with them, too. We're both here, sent here by the 435 districts that we represent to argue our positions and try to come to some kind of solution. I believe that we can have solutions if everyone has an eye toward compromise, but that depends upon everybody starting out carrying out the vision of the district they represent. My district wants me to stand up for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, stand up for civil and equal rights for everybody, including gay people. My district wants me to find a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are here. My district wants me to do something about climate change and move our economy toward a green economy. Now, I'm going to start there, and then we can negotiate with our colleagues on where we end up, but I'm proud that the President stood up for our values. I think his speech was groundbreaking, historic, and gave real energy to people who share his value system. With that, Mr. Speaker, I have to curtail my hour, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, many years ago our friends on the conservative side of the political aisle told us that if we cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, what would happen is that they would get more money which they would use to invest in plant and equipment, and then all the rest of us working class and middle class folks would benefit by rich people having more money because then they would hire us and we'd have a stronger economy. They put this plan into implementation in 2001 and into 2003, and what followed was the most anemic decade of job growth that we have seen in many, many, many decades. If you can contrast it with the 1990s when the tax rates were actually higher, we had a much more robust economy. In fact, when President Clinton handed President Bush the reins to the government, he handed him, also, a surplus. The fact is the conservative experiment based on the ideas of a guy named Arthur Laffer and others has failed. They don't work. They're wrong for this country. It's time for us to have some balance and to pay the bills of this country, and that means taxes.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Katrina Ann Kelley, a dedicated public servant whose service to the House of Representatives and the National School Boards Association spanned 28 years. Katrina Ann Kelley was born on September 29, 1960, to William and Joan Kelley, in Galesburg, Illinois where she was raised along with six beloved siblings. She graduated Galesburg Sr. High School in 1978 as member of the National Honor Society before heading to Marycrest College in Davenport, Iowa, for a Bachelor of Arts in social work. Katrina joined the staff of Congressman Lane Evans in 1984 as a District Caseworker in his Illinois office; then made the move to Washington, DC to become a Legislative Assistant. Later, Katrina served as a Legislative Assistant and a Legislative Director for Representative Charles A. Hayes of Chicago. Katrina loved her years ``on the Hill'' where she made many lifelong friends and brought her compassion for constituent service to every position. Katrina had immense respect for Congressman Evans and the late Representative Hayes and considered each of them personal mentors and lifelong friends. Katrina took her comprehensive legislative knowledge and understanding of urban issues to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, where she served as the Director of Urban School District Advocacy, and later as the Director of the Council of Urban Boards of Education, CUBE, until her departure in 2012. Katrina helped to shape the CUBE program as a critical component of the National School Boards Association, touching over one hundred urban districts and millions of children in the United States and the Virgin Islands. Katrina's work helped urban school leaders find solutions to challenges at the local level and to improve their policy-making effectiveness, leading to improved outcomes for children. Katrina deeply believed in increasing the opportunities for all students, particularly low income and minority students. Katrina passed away with her sisters at her side on October 9, 2012. I stand here today to honor Katrina Ann Kelley for her legacy of service to the citizens and students of the United States.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the conflict, reminding us of this tragic era in Minnesota's history, and how it has shaped the lives of the Dakota people to this day. It is easy to consider history as a list of dates--a discovery, a war, a proclamation, an election. We forget the complex human interactions that shape the past and continue to affect our communities today. What has come to be known as the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 has its roots in the rapid expansion of Minnesota's population by white settlers, and the subsequent treatment of indigenous peoples. From 1850-1860, the numbers of white settlers in Minnesota grew from 5,000 to more than 170,000; in that same decade, Native Americans went from the majority of people in Minnesota to being outnumbered by whites 5-1. Treaties made between the Dakota people and the U.S. government pushed native communities off their ancestral lands with promises of money, food, and commodities. Forced assimilation policies further marginalized tribes by requiring the adoption of European style dress, hair, and culture. Tensions escalated when the government failed to pay promised annuities, a drought decreased the supply of food leaving many Dakota families hungry, and the U.S. government took back land set aside for Indian reservations, reducing the remaining reservation size drastically. The first violent acts of the conflict occurred on August 17, 1862, when four young Dakota men killed five people at a farm near Acton, Minnesota. These murders divided the Dakota community; some argued it was time to go to war with the settlers who now claimed ancestral Dakota land, but much of the community wanted to maintain peace. Nevertheless, Dakota leader Little Crow led his Nation to War, understanding that the greater power of the U.S. government would most likely prevail. The weeks of violence that followed in Southern Minnesota led to over 1,000 deaths. The U.S.-Dakota War is one of the bloodiest conflicts between a Native tribe and the U.S. government, surpassing both the conflicts of Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee. The War's end was marked by the largest mass execution in U.S. history, when 38 Dakota men were convicted in kangaroo courts and hung on December 26, 1862. Originally 303 Dakota men were tried and sentenced to death, but President Lincoln personally reviewed the cases and stayed the execution of those whose conviction was based on questionable testimony. Two additional Dakota warriors were forcibly returned from Canada and hanged at Fort Snelling in 1865. Although the day of the execution stands out in history, the suffering of the Dakota people continued throughout the winter and into the coming years. Those Dakota who had surrendered to U.S. forces, many of whom opposed the war, were forced to march to an internment camp at Fort Snelling and suffer through a brutally cold winter filled with disease, food shortages, and assaults by soldiers and civilians alike. Hundreds perished over the winter, and those who survived were forcibly relocated to Western reservations where similar conditions led to more deaths. Some 6,000 displaced members of the Dakota community relocated to Canada and Western states and territories, and by the end of the decade a majority of the Dakota tribe had left its ancestral lands. The U.S.-Dakota War reminds us of how the events of the past continue to reverberate to this day. Dakota tribe members are still dispersed over several states and into Canada as a direct result of this conflict. Most unfortunate, the Dakota Expulsion Act of 1863, a federal law making it illegal for Dakota people to live in Minnesota, has yet to be repealed. In August of this year, members of the Dakota community took part in a walk through South Dakota to the Minnesota border, symbolizing the unjust forcible removal of all Dakota people from Minnesota in 1863. The healing from the War is ongoing; honoring those we lost and remembering our complicated past should not be limited to anniversaries of the conflict. We should use this year of reflection to inform a more inclusive view of history, an appreciation of how far we've come, and recognition of all we must do to continue to support our Native communities today.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Hard Times Cafe on the occasion of their 20th anniversary to recognize its contribution to the culture and economy of the great state of Minnesota. Founded in 1992 as a 24-hour restaurant, the Hard Times Cafe has become a staple of the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis. The Cafe was started by eight employees out of the vestiges of a failing restaurant in the same location, The Urban Peasant. They came together to form a new cooperatively owned business that has become known for its gritty ambiance, affordable prices, and large selection of vegan and vegetarian food. The Cafe is open 22 hours a day, only closing between the hours of 4 am and 6 am. After closing in August 2007 for required maintenance that was meant to last a few weeks, the Hard Times Cafe was forced to remain closed for a matter of months. With some assistance from a fellow Minneapolis worker cooperative, the Seward Community Cafe, they were able to reopen their doors at midnight on December 16, 2007 with many new improvements. The resilience of the workers at the Hard Times Cafe is a testament to the vitality of the American entrepreneurial spirit and the ingenuity of Minnesotans. I applaud them for taking the initiative and creating an atmosphere that is truly unique to Minneapolis. The Hard Times Cafe also contributes to the civic engagement of the city of Minneapolis; Cam Gordon, the Minneapolis Second Ward City Council Member, holds his open office hours in the Cafe on the first Tuesday morning of each month. I truly appreciate everything that the Hard Times Cafe has contributed to Minneapolis, and I thank them for their contributions.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me quote Mr. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. He says: You're going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower people's expectations of what they're going to get, the entitlements, and what people think they're going to get because you're not going to get it. That's what he said. Now, this gentleman is the CEO of a firm that received tens of billions of dollars----

Mr. ELLISON. Tens of billions of dollars from direct money and indirect money through access to the Fed at lower rates, and now has the audacity--is the only word you can use--to start talking about how somebody who is making $22,000 a year has to figure out what they're going to do. Here's the thing. I remember 2008 very well. I remember people's 401(k)s taking massive hits directly related to the behavior of large banks. So it used to be that you had money you saved, money you saved on the job and then Social Security. Two sources of your retirement income are now dwindling in part because of the behavior of these banks, and one of the leaders of one of the biggest ones is talking about other folks having to get by on less. My question is: What happened to the basic concept of civic virtue? I mean, what happened to the basic idea that, yes, I may be a CEO and, yes, I have an obligation to my shareholders, but I also have an obligation to the community that has fed my business and I've got an obligation to the United States that has made it possible for me to do well. What happened to the basic idea that we're sort of in this thing together?

Mr. ELLISON. I agree.