Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Yes.

Mr. ELLISON. It's funny you should make that particular point about your family tie, because, when I first heard about the case of Trayvon, I mean, my thought went immediately to my own 17-year-old son. We live in Minneapolis, and he could very well be running to go get some Skittles, and could be talking on his cell phone. It's horrifying to me, deeply disturbing and troubling, that somebody would think that, first of all, he was some sort of a problem because he was walking down the street, and then to follow him. Then even after 9/11, when people say don't follow, they still follow. You're right. Much has been said about the Florida law, the ``stand your ground'' law, but this gentleman did not stand his ground. There is no evidence to suggest that that is what happened. He went after this kid. Then you hear the tape of the boy as he was screaming. Somebody said to me earlier today, Well, don't call Trayvon a boy. Hey, he was 17. He was a boy.

Mr. ELLISON. By all means I yield time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison. I will claim the time over the next several minutes, and I want to talk about the issues before us today, namely, the budget. The budget is the issue today, Mr. Speaker. As you may know, the House majority has come out with their budget, and, of course, the Progressive Caucus has come out with its budget, and that's what I want to talk about tonight. The Congress, Mr. Speaker, is made up of a lot of diverse interests. We have people who span the spectrum of political thought. On the far right, those folks are present here and they allow themselves to be heard. But we have other folks who have different points of view and believe that the best of America is the idea of liberty and justice for all. That's the Progressive Caucus--the idea that all Americans, no matter what their color is, no matter what their religion is, no matter whether they are male or female, no matter who they may be, have a right to live in a safe, free country with an opportunity to make a good, decent living with a retirement and with good, solid services like public schools, like police, fire and all these things, and we should live in a nation where we can really promote the common welfare. What that means is that the public sector and the private sector together--we have a mixed economy--need to work together to elevate the best interests of all American people. To that end, the Progressive message, which I want to share tonight, is going to be about this budget, this Budget for All. The Progressive Caucus budget is called the Budget for All, and that's the Progressive Caucus message. Tune in at cpc.grijalva.house.gov to learn more about it, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is the hashtag for the Budget for All. It's #Budget4all. We want people to check it out and read about it. It's very different from the Ryan budget. It's very different because we have a different vision for our country. It's very different because the Progressive Caucus believes that responsibility and the benefits of being an American should be shared; whereas, I think it's fair to say that the Ryan budget believes that if you give rich people a lot of money, maybe they'll start some businesses and maybe they'll hire someone and maybe people who are working class and middle class might benefit. It's called trickle-down economics, and I'll talk about that in a minute. But this is a very sharp contrast to the Progressive Caucus budget, which is the Budget for All. Let me tell you a little bit about it, Mr. Speaker, because I think you're going to like it. The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again. By putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education. Our budget, the Progressive Caucus budget, Budget for All, protects the basic social safety net, which is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Now, it's very important to protect these programs, Mr. Speaker, because these programs go to help the people who basically made America for those of us living now. Let America never be a nation where our senior citizens who literally forged a way for younger people like me and those younger will have to eat dog food, have to choose between their medication and their meal, won't have enough to make their basic ends meet. We need to support Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what the Budget for All does. The Ryan budget, which is really the Republican budget, does something very, very different, and we're going to talk about that in a minute. Now, it's important, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that when you talk about the budget of a nation, what you're really talking about are the priorities of that nation, the values of that nation. If you show me a family budget and that family spends a lot of money on potato chips and soda pop and none on the gym, I'll tell you what they value. If you show me a family that puts money into their kids' education and spends on making sure that they live in a neighborhood that's safe, then I'll tell you what their values are. If you show me a family that buys nutritious foods, I'll tell you what their values are. Our budget is a reflection of what we believe, and our budget as a nation is also a reflection of what we believe. Our Budget for All, here's what it reflects: First of all, it puts Americans back to work. That is the number one thing the Budget for All of the Progressive Caucus does. Our budget attacks America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion over 10 years in job-creating investment. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get the economy working again, including--and Mr. Speaker, this is important--direct- hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps; also a Park Improvement Corps, a Student Job Corps, and others. So, right now, when we have literally 14 million people out of work looking for jobs, why don't we send them to our schools and make these schools top-quality institutions and make the facility well painted, well cared for, well taken care of so that when the boiler breaks, the principal doesn't have to say, oh, my goodness, do I take it out of the maintenance budget to fix the boiler? What do I do? We've got aging infrastructure in this country, and our schools are part of that. They're crumbling, and we've got to do something about it. Under the Progressive Caucus Budget for All, we spend money to hire people to help rejuvenate and improve our schools, School Improvement Corps. Also, in many districts where State and local governments have been cutting back, you have teachers who are trying to service 50 kids, 40 kids. This program can help teach kids and give the teacher some real help in the classroom so that they will not be overburdened. Also, we invest in a Park Improvement Corps. Now, in my great city of Minneapolis--and I'm going back there today, I hope--you can walk around our beautiful lakes. One of the lakes we have is called Cedar Lake, and everybody loves Cedar Lake. You can walk through the paths there. And recently, Mr. Speaker, I stopped at a picnic table along the paths of Cedar Lake and stamped on this--Mr. Speaker, you'd be surprised to see--it said ``WPA 1934.'' Now, that's the Works Progress Administration, a great American institution that put people back to work at a time when Americans were, in high numbers, out of work. I think that if that generation at that time could respond to the needs of Americans who weren't working back then in the Depression, given the high rate of unemployment, our generation should not do less. A Park Improvement Corps to help take care of the paths, take care of the parks, make sure that these great national monuments dedicated to the enjoyment of all Americans are cared for and we hire people in the process, this is a good idea. Also, the Student Job Corps. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that our unemployment numbers reflect is that a lot of young people are out of work. A lot of people who just got out of college are still looking for their first job. A lot of young people who decided that they didn't want to go to college but wanted to just jump right into the workforce are having a very tough time. So the Student Job Corps would be a program to put students to work. You know, Mr. Speaker, there's lots of work to be done around America. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there's $2 trillion worth of maintenance that needs to be done all across America. I'm talking about the roads, the bridges, the transit, all kinds of stuff. There's young people who need intervention. There's tutoring that needs to happen. There's all kinds of things that need to happen. And between the School Improvement Corps, the Park Improvement Corps, and the Student Job Corps, we will be able to literally hire millions of people. This would be great. It would spur our economy; it would increase aggregate demand; and it would give a lifeline to some people who've been out of work for a long time. People would really rather work, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I'm a very firm believer in our social safety net for the non-elderly. I believe in it. I think Medicaid is very important. I believe that food stamps is a critical program. I believe in all these programs. But I do know-- and everyone knows--that folks would rather work. So let's set up a work program so that people can do their job in jobs that need doing. Also, Mr. Speaker, I talked about some of our direct-hire programs. But what about the other aspect of the Budget for All, which focuses on the targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector? Now, Republicans, if the economy is doing great, they want a tax cut. If the economy is doing bad, they say, Tax cut. If the economy is kind of up and down, they say, Tax cut. These guys think that we should always cut taxes all the time, except when working people want a tax cut. They really fought us tooth and nail over the payroll tax cut. But if ever some really rich people want a tax cut, they're all for that. And it's not that they're bad people. It's because they mistakenly assume that trickle-down economics works. They think that if you give rich people money, then rich people will maybe hire somebody, or at least that's what they're hoping for. The tax cuts we're talking about are targeted so that we can spur clean energy, manufacturing and cutting-edge technological investment in the private sector. Of course, President Obama has presided over America now with 23 straight months with private sector job growth-- long way to go, but definitely the right direction. The third aspect that we need to spend on for jobs is in a surface transportation bill. We propose a $556 billion surface transportation bill spread out over a number of years. But when we think about the potholes, the roads, the bridges that are old--I mean, I was at a bridge recently in St. Louis Park in my district. This was a 73-year- old bridge. This bridge needed some care and needed to be refurbished to make sure that it stays safe. There are bridges like that all over my district, all over America. So this $556 billion surface transportation bill and the approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment. The Budget for All, Mr. Speaker, is all about putting Americans back to work first. But here's something about the Budget for All that people need to know, and it's that our budget is more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget. Now, if you ask Republicans, they think, oh, well, liberals, you know, they may not be bad people, but they're not realistic. They just want to give all the money away; they don't want to hold people responsible. Well, you know what? Our budget is more fiscally disciplined than the Republican Ryan budget. Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially reduces the deficit and does so in a way that does not devastate or set back our recovery. We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit-- unsustainable tax policies, overseas war, and policies that help the recent recession--rather than putting America's middle class social safety net on the chopping block. Our budget creates a fairer America. We end tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans on schedule at the year's end, which are set to expire; and we let them expire for the top 2 percent. Extends tax relief for the middle class households and the vast majority of Americans. Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in line with the Buffett Rule. Eliminates the Tax Code's preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies. Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge true tax liability. Creates a publicly funded Federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good. Now, it has always bothered me, Mr. Speaker, that two-thirds of American corporations don't pay any taxes, because there's one-third that do. Because we have this system of loopholes everywhere, some corporations have to pay full freight and others don't have to. GE, for example, was said to have paid no or very low taxes, but there's a lot of big ones that didn't pay. Bank of America didn't pay. There's a lot of them that didn't pay. I don't think Boeing paid. I'm saying that for the one-third of American corporations that do pay, we've got to make sure that everybody ponies up something. If more people pay, the burden on the ones that do pay will be lower. The Budget for All recognizes this important truth, unlike the Ryan budget, which protects coal, oil and those dirty polluting industries--oil, gas, and coal companies. Now, another aspect of the budget driver, another big budget driver are these overseas wars. Let's face it, in Iraq they told us that we were supposed to be getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any. They told us that Saddam Hussein was connected to al Qaeda. He wasn't. They said that we had to go there to make sure that there would be peace. We're leaving now, and the Iraqis--it's their country, and they are managing the best they can. Still, it's not that peaceful, but the fact is 10 years couldn't solve that problem. It was right to get out of Iraq, but it's also right to get out of Afghanistan. We need to responsibly and expeditiously end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad. Our budget adapts our military to 21st century threats because we definitely believe that America should be strong, but we should be adapting ourselves to the reality that we're in. One of the attributes of our bill, one of the very important components is a piece of legislation called the SANE Act. This excellent piece of legislation reduces our nuclear weapons arsenal because this is all Cold War stuff designed to fight the Soviet Union, and there is no more Soviet Union. What are we doing with these 20th century weapons systems in the 21st century? We need to bring some sanity to that. We reduce the budget so that it reflects the modern reality. The Budget for All protects American families by providing a make work pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food costs. This make work pay tax credit for families that are struggling with high gas and food costs is the kind of thing that incentivizes work, which is what we want to do. We extend the earned income tax credit and child dependent care credit. I'm very happy to say I've just been joined, Mr. Speaker, by a good friend of mine from the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. Whenever she is ready, she can just stand on up and hold forth. But I'm looking forward to sharing some mike time with her, because her insights are always very important. Moving forward on this issue of protecting American families, the Budget for All invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep Americans in their homes. This is very important. A lot of the economists who look at the problems with our economy have concluded that until we get our hands around this foreclosure crisis, we're going to continue, Mr. Speaker, to have very slow growth. The Budget for All addresses this problem. We deal with investing in programs that stave off further foreclosures. We also invest in children's education by increasing in education, training, and social services. The Budget for All is a good budget. It's a budget that makes sense. It's a budget for America. It's a budget designed to help the middle class and to put Americans to work. It's a budget that really reflects what Americans want, which is to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And we're already out of Iraq, but we're still kind of there. But we don't have a military presence there; we've got contractors there. This is a good budget that I hope that people will take a very strong look at. It is more fiscally responsible than the Ryan budget. We spend more upfront to get the economy moving, but then we save money on the back end, and we end up getting to primary surplus in the year 2016. This is an important thing that we need to do. Let me just pass the microphone and yield to Congresswoman Jackson Lee, who has distinguished herself in many areas, not the least of which is fighting for a fair budget for our Nation.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding time. I have no doubt that these issues are important to the people involved. I have no doubt that the people who support and oppose this bill care deeply about it. It's a local issue, and I come from a locality and therefore understand. But the fact of the matter is that our country is in some seriously grievous harm because, yes, we do have an exorbitant unemployment rate. It's been going down. We've been adding private sector jobs. But there's still too many people unemployed. And yet the majority has not taken the time on the floor today to deal with how we're going to get all Americans back to work. They're taking time to figure out how they're going to do an earmark after they've said there's no earmarks. This is remarkable. I'm actually not against earmarks, Mr. Chairman. I'm for them--I think they're a good thing--but the majority has said no earmarks. Yet this is about the second time in the last couple of weeks we see them floating their earmarks right on through. H.R. 2087 would allow a county in a particular Representative's district to acquire full ownership of a little less than 32 acres of Federal land worth more than $800,000 for free. That's an earmark. Yet the rest of us can't get them. But if you are among the favorite few, you can. That's wrong. That's unfair. That's unjust. And it's particularly unjust, given the grievous problems that we're facing as a Nation. We should be voting on a real jobs bill to create good jobs all across America, but apparently that's not what we're going to be doing with our time today. We're going to be talking about a narrow provincial interest and trying to give away Federal land for free for a particular interest in a particular locality. We should be talking about how we're going to save and protect Medicare guaranteed for all Americans, which is a threat, given the Ryan budget. But, no, we're talking about a narrow, small-town interest, which I think is important but that the majority in their infinite wisdom has said we can't do because that's an earmark. The GOP has wasted the last 441 days that they've been in charge, and has failed to produce a single jobs bill. In fact, they're trying to cut jobs. The transportation bill would lead to losses of over 500,000 jobs. Now, I definitely sympathize with the folks who are out of work in the Member's district, I mean in the county where this earmark is going to be taking place. I do. I'm very concerned about the unemployed. That's why I wish we had a real jobs bill as opposed to these giveaways of Federal land, and we really don't know who it's going to be benefiting at the end of the day. The bottom line is we have real problems in America. We've got transportation needs, we've got environmental needs, and we've got health care needs. We've got real debate to take care of. But if we're going to be debating those things, we've got to be on the floor, taking the time up to do those things, not dealing with disguised earmarks for certain people because they happen to--I don't know. I don't know why they get privileged treatment over people like me who don't get to offer earmarks anymore. I'll say this, Mr. Chairman: at the end of the day, America is a country that needs the attention of this Congress so that everybody can get a job that pays well across this country. And we're not doing that. We're failing. What we're doing is we're allowing one county in one Member's district to acquire the full ownership of a valuable piece of land for free. And that's wrong.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. ELLISON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, this amendment is very simple. We brought this up in committee. I would like the whole body to be able to get a chance to have their say on Say on Pay. Say on Pay is a good, commonsense thing that empowers investors. It allows shareholders and companies to be able to say, Do I believe that the CEO pay in this company is too high? Companies are not exercising the right to approve or to have a nonbinding vote on pay. As a matter of fact, Nabors Industries announced that its former CEO agreed to waive a $100 million termination payment, and that was regarded as a rare win for shareholders. In light of this, I would like to submit for the Record and for the purpose of this debate, an article entitled, ``A Rare Win for Say on Pay.'' Now, this is a bill that I would like to support. I think it's a good idea. The fact of the matter is--Mr. Chair, you would be shocked to know--that we actually, I think, passed this bill out of our committee without any dissenting votes. The issue remains that there are a lot of advantages to this bill. It relieves the emerging growth companies of the pretty hefty burden of complying with 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley. It allows them to escape the obligation of providing 3 years of audited financial statements. Although I think they're good for our system with regard to controls, these things are costly and do take a toll. Do you know what, Mr. Chair? Say on Pay is not costly, and it's not burdensome. It empowers investors and makes them more engaged and gives them greater reason to be plugged into what the company is doing. I have a letter from the Council of Institutional Investors that I would also like to submit for the Record. They are concerned about this section that would waive Say on Pay because it would effectively limit the shareholders' ability to voice their concerns about executive compensation packages. [From Real-Time Advice, Feb. 6, 2012] A Rare Win for Say on Pay (By Sarah Morgan) NABORS INDUSTRIES' (NBR) announcement that its former CEO agreed to waive a $100 million termination payment was a rare win for shareholders, who experts say often gripe about excessive compensation but rarely act. Under pressure from shareholders, who voted against Nabors' pay packages and directors in a recent proxy voting, the oil drilling company said this morning that former CEO Eugene Isenberg will waive the huge payout. Instead, his estate will receive a payment of $6.6 million plus interest upon his death. ``Isenberg has more than enough money. So having him defer this $100 million is a good thing for shareholders,'' says Stephen Ellis, a Morningstar equity analyst. In recent years, compensation has become a lightning rod for criticism from investor advocates, who say poorly designed pay policies often give executives the wrong incentives. Instead, shareholders want to see management paid for performance, says Jesse Fried, a professor of law at Harvard University. Nabors' $100 million payment was a perfect example of ``pay for failure,'' he says. ``There's a lot of things that are wrong with pay practices in the United States, but this was particularly egregious, so it's not surprising it drew shareholder anger,'' he says. This case also proves that shareholder outrage has an impact: Boards pay attention, and companies do change their policies, Fried says. ``Pressure matters, and investors shouldn't feel shy about applying it,'' he says. Thanks to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and to the recession, investors are now paying more attention than ever to compensation issues, says Michael Littenberg, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP who focuses on corporate governance issues. The Dodd-Frank bill required annual (though non- binding) say on pay votes, and companies do take those votes very seriously, because a few companies whose pay policies haven't passed muster have been sued by shareholders, Littenberg says. But investors aren't taking as much advantage of this new power as some had hoped (or feared). Last year (the first with the new say on pay rule in place), shareholders voted down pay policies at only 36 companies in the Russell 3000, or 1.6%, although roughly another 350 companies saw their policies pass with low enough votes that they'd be considered at risk for a ``no'' vote in the future, Littenberg says. Nabors is one of the few companies that has suffered a ``no'' vote on its pay practices, according to Governance Metrics International, an independent research firm. ``We have long rated Nabors poorly, because of concerns over poor compensation practices,'' including ``a bonus formula rarely seen in modern practice with no measure against a peer group,'' says Greg Ruel, a research associate with GMI. Many companies that see ``no'' votes or worryingly low ``yes'' votes do make some changes, but they don't always change the actual pay policy, Littenberg says. Some companies might try to better explain how pay is determined, or simply sit down with institutional shareholders to figure out what's most important to investors, he says. Of course, individual shareholders aren't privy to those conversations. All observers agree that Isenberg had long enjoyed an unusually lavish compensation package. He was ``extraordinarily well paid,'' in part because of an unusual compensation plan that was put in place back in 1987, when he took on the CEO role to lead the company out of bankruptcy, Ellis says. His contract with the company entitled him to a cash bonus of 10% of any amount of the company's cash flow that exceeded 10% of average shareholder equity. This arrangement made his pay work more like a hedge fund manager's than like a typical CEO's, Morningstar's Ellis says. Since the current CEO, Tony Petrello, took over, the company has taken some other steps that show it's responding to widespread shareholder anger over pay practices, Ellis says. They're now going to allow their board of directors to be elected by a majority instead of a plurality, making it easier for shareholders to vote out directors they're not happy with, and hold annual ``say-on-pay'' votes. However, Petrello is still being paid in a similar hedge-fund-like fashion, getting a percentage of cash flow above a certain benchmark, and while the recent shareholder-friendly moves are good signs, it would certainly be better for investors if the company got rid of this unusual pay policy, Ellis says. A spokesman for the company said that Isenberg, who holds more than 8 million shares of Nabors, decided that waiving the payment was best for his fellow shareholders, and that the company views the decision as ``positive,'' but declined to comment on whether any other changes would be made to pay policies in the future.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a vote once a year, probably at the annual meeting, probably take a sum total of a few seconds; and my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to at least agree to this small thing that empowers investors and shareholders and puts them in the position to be good stewards of the company that they own. Now, you would think that we could come together on something like this; but when you want to stand up for the highest, most grotesque and egregious executive pay imaginable, then, of course, you're going to say no. In 2010, median pay for CEOs and large corporations was $11 million. It's time to get some say on pay. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Stephen Lynch.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, Donald Payne played a very special role in my service as a Member of Congress. I didn't know him nearly as long as many other Members, and I guess I probably didn't know him as well; but there is no doubt that as a Member coming into Congress trying to figure out how to be the best Member I could be, Donald Payne was one of the people who I admired and looked to, and no more so than when he was fighting for the human rights of all people. Donald Payne gave me a new and unique perspective on suffering in Darfur, explaining the complexities as it related to making sure that Darfurians not only got relief, but also eventually one day would get justice. But he didn't stop there. I have a large percentage of my constituents who hail from Somalia, and Donald Payne gave me historic perspective on Somalia on a regular basis, which I didn't have, and also, again, helped me understand how difficult it was and how important it also was that we stand for stability for the people of Somalia. In fact, his level of commitment to the people of Somalia was so great, he got into an airplane and flew there and, on his way out, was actually shot at when al-Shabab tried to take his life for showing concern for the people. Yet he traveled many places and really went all around the world; but he also went into my district, as he went to many districts, and I'll never forget the day when we organized a community forum on east Africa. We had Somalis in the room, people from the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, people from Eritrea, all over, immigrants who made America their home either by choice or because they were refugees. For 3 straight hours, Donald Payne answered their questions, gave them comfort and assurance and information. He is a towering figure in my world, and I don't think we'll ever forget Donald Payne. I just say, may he rest in peace, and God bless him and his family.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, our transportation program expires at the end of March, and we are still facing high unemployment. Why aren't we working on a real jobs bill that will create good infrastructure jobs? The GOP has wasted about 427 days since they've been in charge by not producing a real jobs agenda, but it's around transportation and infrastructure where we have real opportunity. Unfortunately, certain people have used creative titles--deceiving titles in some cases--to try to distract the public. Their transportation bill is called the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, but it wouldn't promote jobs in energy or infrastructure. It would actually cut highway investment by $16 billion in 5 years. This would mean a loss of half a million jobs nationwide. That's right, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act would cut 500,000 jobs. The bill would cost about 11,000 jobs in my home State of Minnesota. Today, we're debating the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. Why are we talking about small conduit hydropower when we need investment in highways, bridges, transit and airports? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not here to run down small conduit hydropower. I just think it's too small. Also on the floor this week is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, JOBS. This is a rehash of access-to-capital bills that may be useful--in fact, I may support them--but will barely make a dent in our unemployment numbers. The GOP may have creative titles, may have some titles that catch attention and sound good; but if you scratch the surface just a little bit, there's no jobs agenda even on bills that say ``jobs.'' The American Society of Civil Engineers is a group that knows a little bit about infrastructure. This is a group, a collection of professionals, who know the issue; and they give our infrastructure grade a D--and D don't stand for ``dandy.'' It stands for ``downright bad and unfortunate.'' We have nearly 70,000 bridges across this country--or 11.5 percent of all highway bridges--classified as ``structurally deficient,'' meaning they require significant maintenance or replacement. There are about 1,400 structurally deficient bridges in my State of Minnesota, several within walking distance of my home. In 2007, my district tragically felt the impact of deficient bridges with the collapse of I 35W. We lost 13 lives, and 100 people ended up with serious injury in the hospital. We need a real transportation bill and a real jobs agenda to rebuild our infrastructure and to put Americans back to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, tonight we come together, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, to stand for a very simple idea, and that idea is that it ought to be the case that a person can freely profess their faith. It ought to be the case that no matter what your religion is, it's dear to you, and you should not be punished for professing it publicly wherever you are. You know, I have not really sought out a lot of attention for my own faith, but I got some of it anyway, and the fact is that I feel so privileged to be an American where I can, for the first time ever, when I was sworn in, use a book of my faith. As I heard about the story of Pastor Youcef, I thought to myself, wow, you know, here I am a Muslim in a Christian majority country free to swear in on a Koran when I came to Congress, and there he is a Christian facing the death penalty simply for professing his faith. Pastor Youcef, he's a husband, he's a father. He has two young children. They're not even teenagers. They're 7 and 9 years old. I know they must be incredibly proud of their father, who would stand up against forces of repression that would kill him simply because he professed his faith in Christianity. It's wrong. I don't say it as an American only, I say it as a citizen of this small planet we live on, that every human being should be able to worship and seek the divine as they see fit. Pastor Youcef deserves to be free. Pastor Youcef must be released. Pastor Youcef needs to walk out of that prison, grab his cross, go to his church, and lead his congregation in prayer, freely. He should be able to do it in his hometown in a local church. All of us, no matter who you may be on this planet, you must stand for that idea, because if it can't be for one, it can't really be for any. We have to stand together, people of all faiths, all cultures, and all backgrounds and ethnicities and say that the right to seek the divine as you see fit must be an essential component of the human experience. I also say a word of caution, and that is that the regime in Iran uses opportunities to deprive the people of human rights whenever they claim that there's a threat of war looming. I urge diplomacy because I think that whenever they can claim that they are under military threat, this allows them to crack down on any dissenter and try to use people like Pastor Youcef as an example so that other people will not freely express themselves and claim their God-given right not only to freedom of faith but to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial. You know, we come together in this place, this Congress that we're all in, and sometimes we debate taxes, and sometimes we debate where bridges should go, and we debate all kinds of stuff. But I pray that there will never be a debate about the simple right of every individual to worship and see God as they see fit or not to. I just am particularly saddened when I think about how the early Muslim community, and Iran professes Islam, but early Muslims, the first Muslims were persecuted in their home of Mecca 1,400 years ago, and they fled their country, and they sought out their freedom of their faith in a distant land ruled by a Christian king in Ethiopia, and there they found sanctuary under that Christian king. When their prosecutors and tormentors crossed the Red Sea and came into Africa and went to that king with bribes and said, Give us these people back, they're renegades, that Christian king listened to those early Muslims and said, You know what? These people are under my protection. You can go home. I only wish tonight Pastor Youcef could get a return of that sanctuary in his own land.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I stood on a highway called highway 7 on Friday at a bridge that was rated a 23 out of 100 scale. That bridge, 73 years old, in desperate need of repair, is designated structurally deficient. But I could go to another bridge within walking distance of my home over the Mississippi River only a few blocks from where the bridge fell down only a few years ago, but that would be on Plymouth Avenue. And people who know the area know Plymouth Avenue. That bridge, Mr. Speaker was and is shut down. You cannot drive a car over it. Now, that would only be one of about 1,398 other bridges that are structurally deficient in Minnesota that need repair right now. I'm sensitive to bridges that need repair because it wasn't in somebody else's district that the I 35 bridge fell--it was in my own. Thirteen Minnesotans went to their reward, 100 had severe back and other injuries. I am incredibly sensitive to the need to fix our State's bridges, our Nation's bridges, which is why I am against this project, a $700 million bridge when we have structurally deficient bridges all over the State of Minnesota and all over the United States. This is not a good use of taxpayer money. I find it absolutely shocking that all these fiscal conservatives are lining up to throw money at this enormously overly expensive, over- height mega-bridge. Where are the anti-earmark advocates around here? Where are the people who call for smaller government? Where are the conservative, small ``c,'' who say, let's build a right-sized bridge that makes sense so that other bridges may be fixed around our State? Well, I guess all of that only matters, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to your own little project or earmark project. Then all of a sudden it gains a whole lot of other kind of credibility undiscovered before. Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be pointed out that this proposed bridge, which would carry about 18,000 vehicles a day--that's important. I feel for those folks, and I want them to have their bridge, and I would support a sane and sensible bridge. But the I 35 bridge much talked about tonight carries 140,000 people every day. Eighteen thousand at $700 million versus the I 35 bridge, which cost us about $260 million, was built in 1 year--less than a year, and carries 140,000? This is not a good use of taxpayer money. It soaks up resources that other people need. It violates our Scenic and Wild Rivers Act. This is a bad idea. Mr. Speaker, I would far prefer if this bill were to go back to committee, go through the regular order, be defeated here on suspension, but go back through the committee process so some sensible amendments might be offered so this could be a good, decent project perhaps. But that's not what's happening. Suspension is for things that are supposed to be uncontroversial. We're supposed to be here passing post offices, but here we are dealing with what is absolutely a controversial piece of legislation on a suspension calendar with no chance to amend. I wish we had that chance, because if we did, I would say we need to come together as a State, as a Nation, and fix all the bridges of this country, all the bridges of this State, and not just one big, fat megabridge.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during final consideration of H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 73 when I intended to vote ``aye''. I would like the record to reflect that I support the bill, which creates sensible penalties for knowingly breaching the security of locations such as the White House and its grounds.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's decision to end combat operations in Afghanistan next year is welcome news. I commend President Obama for making this decision. But we should bring our troops home even sooner than that. The American people are tired of this war in Afghanistan. Large majorities of them want a safe and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible. A decade of war has ravaged military families, our Nation's treasury, and our standing in the world. I commend President Obama for ending the war in Iraq as well. I commend him for trying to end the war in Afghanistan. The courageous truth telling of Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis should give us pause. His report and the failure to establish peace in Afghanistan after 10 years of war should remind us that we need a political solution, not a military one. We have ended the war in Iraq. This is a good thing. We are slowly ending the war in Afghanistan. This is also welcome news. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unwise for the United States to enter into a new war just as we're ending two others. But if you listen to the rhetoric around Washington and the Nation, Mr. Speaker, it is literally impossible to not hear the drumbeat of war with Iran. The rhetoric in Washington about the military strike against Iran leads me to think that we may be sliding into a new war yet. I would like to be perfectly clear, because whenever you speak against a war, your patriotism is challenged and your courage is challenged until they find out that you were right. So let me be clear: I strongly oppose nuclear proliferation, and that includes Iran. I have supported sanctions against Iran to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran's repression of human rights and support for terrorist groups is appalling. But the heated rhetoric we hear around our city and the events on the world stage are deeply troubling, Mr. Speaker. News headlines read, ``The Coming Attack on Iran.'' Pundits discuss the possibility with shocking casualness, and I am alarmed by this. America, we have seen this movie before, and, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end well. Two months after leaving Iraq, we have already forgotten the consequences of war it appears. If you need a reminder, talk to a veteran or a veteran's widow. Our military leaders are cautioning against a strike on Iran. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the United States ``could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases.'' He said, ``That would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.'' Let me repeat, ``a conflict that we would regret.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish the United States had never entered Iraq. And before we entered it, the world--not just Americans, but the world-- said, ``Don't do it.'' Some people led us to war anyway; and haven't we all regretted--after no weapons of mass destruction, no linkage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--that none of these things that were recommended have come to pass, yet we've lost, literally, thousands of American lives and perhaps $1 trillion. Israeli intelligence officials have equally dire predictions about a military strike against Iran. Former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said that attacking Iran ``would mean regional war, and in that case, you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.'' There is serious concern that a military strike on Iran would hasten Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, not slow it down. A strike would only delay--not end--development. Speaking about what would happen after a military strike, retired General Anthony Zinni said, ``If you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere.'' America cannot afford another war. We've just gotten out of Iraq. We're getting out of Afghanistan. And diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy is what is called for to avoid a new war with Iran.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady. I just want to make a few points before we begin to wrap it up. I just want to point out that economist Mark Zandi, who has advised Senator McCain, said by 2014 real GDP is almost $200 billion lower, and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under the Ryan approach than is under the case of the President's. That's just one honest economist's estimate. The Economic Policy Institute's conservative estimate of the Republican budget is 2 billion to 3 billion jobs lost over 5 years. Again, H.R. 1 would cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs. So, I really think, Mr. Speaker, that the American people need to know what kind of a ``jobs program'' the Republicans are talking about. They're not talking adding jobs; they're talking about cutting them. And H.R. 7 is but a typical example of the kind of damage these Republican majority Members would do to the American economy. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. I just want to point you, you and I were just talking about this chart which shows that under the Bush administration, the unemployment rate going up, us losing jobs, and then the steady march back the other way. This chart shows that GOP proposals would eliminate up to 7.4 million jobs by 2016. So if you look at the proposals that the GOP has been making while they have been in the majority, the transportation bill, H.R. 7, is just one example of job killing. They like to call stuff ``job killing.'' That's their little Frank Luntz talking point. But they have in actuality proposed job-killing legislation. Starting with H.R. 1, The Economist, The Center for American Progress, showed that it would cut a million jobs. Repealing health care reform would cut about 2 million. GOP budget cuts, that's the Ryan budget, cuts to the Federal workforce, their so-called JOBS Act, all the way down the line. This red is, if they could have their way, this is the bleed of American jobs that would happen. Now, this is a projection. But the fact is this transportation bill is a typical example of their idea of how the economy should operate. And it is very disturbing--17.4 million jobs. Of course, this would simply renew a trend that we were on during the Bush administration. So I think it's time for Republicans to stop offering these bad jobs bills and start offering some things that are going to put Americans back to work. They can begin that process by yanking this H.R. 7.

Mr. ELLISON. Now, you know, it's beyond my ability to comprehend that any American, any American, would do anything other than try to make sure that everybody had enough. We had enough jobs for everybody who wanted to work, and those jobs were well-paying. But I tell you, there has been polling out there on what Americans think. This is not what I think; this is what Americans have said. Half of Americans believe that Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election; 55 percent believe that, and 44 percent believe other than that. Now, when you hear that this transportation bill is going to cut over half a million jobs, it's difficult to go to Americans and explain that's not what they are doing. Now again, I'm not going to look into the inner recesses of anyone's heart. I don't know what people's motives are. But I do know any bill, when we have unemployment north of 8 percent, which is going to cut jobs, and has been a historic place where we have created jobs, I think Americans have reason to be suspicious, and I hope our Republican majority would come and clarify what they're actually doing because, like I just pointed out, half of Americans believe that the Republicans are sabotaging our recovery to win an election.

Mr. ELLISON. Absolutely. The gentlelady should note, I had this one chart up, and I would like to let folks know, because what the question was--Washington Post-ABC asked the following statement: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but the Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs. Or: President Obama has not provided leadership on the economy, and he's just blaming the Republicans in Congress as an excuse for not doing his job. Fifty percent of the people responded to statement A, the first one. And that is: President Obama is making a good-faith effort to deal with the country's economic problems, but Republicans in Congress are playing politics by blocking his proposals and programs. Now, I hope that Republicans are reading these, because they're not looking good. The best thing for them to do is to stop making proposals like this transportation bill, H.R. 7, which literally cuts jobs, because the American people are watching this. And quite frankly, I want us all to succeed. I don't think that it's good for the American population to think that one party that is elected to promote the public interest is doing something other than that in order to win an election. Again, this board here clearly shows that when President Bush was in, this was kind of red. It's kind of bleeding, and then the blue is going up, up, up, and now above the line, and we have been adding 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth, but that public sector job loss, as you pointed out, is literally a drag on the economy, and it's hurting us. We need people to get to work. I just want to ask the gentlelady a question. Again, I mean, does a public sector paycheck offer less at the local grocery store when the person goes to buy some groceries with that public sector paycheck?

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentlelady will yield. I actually see this as another wedge. We talk about the wedges. We talk about some folks often are associated with the right-wing conservative philosophy who make arguments that would divide people who were born here versus immigrants, gays versus straights, all these kind of wedges, the ``Willie Horton'' thing, all this kind of wedge stuff. This is a new wedge, Federal workers versus private sector workers. It seems like they're trying to engender a certain amount of resentment among private sector workers for public sector workers. When are we going to talk about the people at the very tip-top who have been compensated beyond imagination in the oil and gas sector, in the drug sector, in the health care sector, those in private equity, all these folks who have been making so much money on Wall Street? When do we ask them to do more?

Mr. ELLISON. What I hear them say is, oh, well, the Federal workers earn more money than the people who pay their salaries in the form of taxes. They say this divisively and in a very smug way. And I think to myself, aren't we a country that should value public service, people working in the public interest for the public good? Does bread cost less for them? Is gasoline cheaper for them? No, it's not. Thank heavens that the Federal Government can pay people fairly and that we don't have these vast disparities in pay between men and women for Federal workers. Basically, the protections that the people have in working for the Federal Government don't always prevail in the private sector, and that accounts for some of the disparity. Then, of course, as you just pointed out, people at the higher income levels, they could do just as well and be paid much more handsomely if they were to work elsewhere.