Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentlelady shedding some light on this issue because the fact is that today we were looking at a bill that would restrict women's health care access. But you know that we have been trying to fend off assaults on the viability of women's economic situation. We still know that women earn about 80 cents for every dollar men make. This is unexplained, or it is explained. It's explained by gender discrimination. And I think it's important for even men to take account of this important fact, that if your wife or partner is being discriminated against in the workplace because she's a woman, then your total family income is being hurt because of sex discrimination in the workplace. It's important that men and women come together to fight these attacks on women's rights because, even though the direct victims of this kind of discrimination are women, this invariably hurts the entire family, and so this is everybody's business to stand up for the rights of all people. I tell you, one of the things that really concerns me is this gap in pay between men and women. The median weekly--women earn about 81.2 percent of what men earn. In addition to that, they have assaults on their access to health care. When you add these things up, what does this mean in terms of the majority's commitment to women's rights? What does it all add up to? I wonder if the gentlelady might offer her views on this subject. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Maloney, you just mentioned a moment ago this idea of reinvesting in our schools. Today, I had a visit from a number of superintendents in my State of Minnesota. They were not all from the Fifth Congressional District, which I'm honored to represent, but they were from a cross-section around the State. They told me that there were literally nearly 100 different school districts going to the voters for a referendum so that they could pay their basic expenses because the State government is backing off its commitment to education because the Federal Government is backing off its commitment. The fact of the matter is we have a disturbing trend here. They said, Look, if we could just get the part of the American Jobs Act passed that would help us with these old and outdated and rupturing boilers, these old, beat-up pipes, this poor ventilation, these windows that are not opening and closing properly--if we could get some help with our capital budget--that would free up money for us to hire teachers and to do some real instruction. What do you think of that part of the American Jobs Act which goes to this issue of investing in our schools and in keeping our teachers out there and preventing 280,000 teachers from being laid off? What do you think about this idea of, really, just making sure that the infrastructure of our schools is sound for our kids and for the people working in the schools?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, last night I was disappointed, although not surprised, to see the Senate fail to arrive at the number of votes needed to bring cloture so that the American Jobs Act could be debated. They not only don't want to pass the jobs bill, they don't even want to debate the jobs bill. I thought that was an embarrassing moment for the U.S. Congress because, with 9.1 percent unemployment, with people who have been chronically unemployed for so long, one would think that we'd want to get down here and talk about jobs, bring forth our ideas, offer amendments, and do everything we could to try to help spur the American economy on. And yet we saw that jobs bill go down. Mr. Speaker, the American people know that Congress can bring things up, and they can bring things up again. And as long as Americans are unemployed at the disgraceful rates that they are today, our Congress will never stop fighting to continue to bring jobs bills back to this Congress. The Republican majority in this House has yet to bring a jobs bill. We hope to see one one day soon.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. What it says is that if the EPA administrator finds that the regulation creates more than 1,000 jobs, then the administrator can shorten the 5-year delay which the bill would impose. So, very simply, the EPA administrator can come forward and say, look, 1,000 jobs have been created by this, and therefore this delay of 5 years will be shortened. That's all the amendment calls for. And in a time when we have such tremendous need for jobs in America, I would think that if the EPA can identify 1,000 jobs created in connection with this rule, then we should certainly be able to shorten the 5-year period of delay. So I ask for support for this amendment because I'm sure that everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees wholeheartedly with job creation. And there has been, I believe, a false choice offered to the American people. And this false choice is very simple to describe, and that is that we can either have rules that limit emissions from boilers or we can have jobs, but, according to some people in this body, we can't have both. We can't have both clean lungs, be free of mercury, be free of other neurotoxins and contaminants, and have jobs. I argue we can have both. And if the EPA administrator can demonstrate that there are jobs created here, then the 5-year period should in fact be shortened. I argue that what we need to do here is to stand for jobs. And according to EPA, what we have seen is that this underlying rule, which would be delayed by the bill, actually will create and has been estimated to create up to 2,200 jobs. So let's see if that's actually right. Let's see if the proposal, as set forth by the rule, would create jobs as the EPA administrator says it will. And if it does, we should say let's go forth. The economic impact of the boiler regulation is exceptionally positive. The EPA's data shows that by reducing the particulate matter pollution from industrial boilers we will generate net economic benefits of $22 billion to $56 billion every year. So why wouldn't we want to take full advantage of that economic activity, as all of us are concerned about jobs. The over 40 years of success of the Clean Air Act have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand. They are not one versus the other. They go together. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key pollutants by more than 70 percent while, at the same time, the economy has grown by over 200 percent. So much for the claim that regulation kills jobs. That's not true. It's not right. It's inaccurate. And I say, by supporting my amendment, we can see who's right. I see no reason why the Republican majority wouldn't support my amendment if they believe, as they claim, environmental regulations hurt jobs. We have a chance to see. And I want to see if people really believe what they claim, and they can demonstrate their commitment to what they argue by supporting my amendment. The benefits outweigh the projected costs of compliance by as much as 13 to 1 in this case. The misleading report from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners claims that over 300,000 jobs are at risk. This is wrong. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies found that the industry commission report is based on exaggerations and omissions. The report from the industry substantially overestimates the cost of compliance with regulation. And the boiler owners have ignored many benefits of the rule--thousands of new jobs to install and operate and maintain pollution control equipment. The public health benefit, that is nearly $40 billion a year. Creating green economy jobs to make our air cleaner would create jobs throughout the supply chain--for example, installing and operating scrubbers. So it's important that we make jobs the focus of our work here in Congress. The Republican majority has seen fit not to introduce any jobs bills during its time as the majority. Here's an opportunity to say, if you really believe that regulations kill jobs, vote for my amendment and we will be able to see, because the administrator, if 1,000 jobs can be generated, will be able to delay this rule. Now, if you really don't believe it and you just want to do what the boiler owners want, then of course you will vote ``no.'' But if you really believe what you say, you will vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a number of very passionate and well-informed speakers have come before this body today to urge a ``no'' vote based on facts and based on research. All this is extremely important, and I'm so glad they did it, but for the people watching this debate today, they need to know one thing, and that is that this legislation is bought and paid for by industry so that people could try to save money at the expense of people's health and their lives, and this is exactly what's going on here today. What's going on here today is that industry interests backed candidates who come here today to offer legislation that would allow the cement industry, the coal-fired power industry and the boiler industry users to just dump mercury and other junk into the air that makes you sick. And as we're talking about jobs, what about a jobs bill that could put Americans to work, as opposed to saying, we're just going to get rid of all the regulations in America? What if we just got rid of all the regulations in America? We would be sicker, we would die sooner, and we would be much less of a country. What if we just said that we're going to put the health of Americans up front, that we're going to actually introduce a jobs bill like the American Jobs Act? What if we did those things? America would be back on track. But maybe some of these big industrial polluters would be a little sadder. I say today, Mr. Chairman, that this Congress should reject the attack on Americans' health. In the last 3 weeks, we have seen industry polluters from the industry that uses these boilers, the cement industry and coal-fired power plant industry, be able to just run amok on the people's health, and we have yet to see a single jobs bill in the course of the 250-plus days that this majority has been in the hands of the Republicans. This is a national disgrace. The American people said they wanted jobs. They haven't gotten them. The American people say they want to be well and healthy. They are seeing assaults on that. This is something that the American people need to bring their attention to, Mr. Chairman; and I hope that people are paying attention to this debate today because it is crystal clear whose side the majority is so on: industry polluters, not the American people.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple. All it says is that if we're going to delay these important rules, these lifesaving rules, then the EPA would be required to publish in the Federal Register the public health impact of delaying this regulation. For example, one of the public health impacts of clean air standards for cement plants is the prevention of 17,000 cases of asthma. All we're saying is that transparency, information given to the public, so the public will know what the impact of these delayed regulations will be. I can see no reason why Republicans wouldn't adopt a commonsense amendment like this because, quite frankly, if they feel this is such an important measure that they clearly acknowledge based on their response to the last amendment offered, they acknowledged that there will be health impacts, they most certainly would have to agree that telling the public what the health impacts will be would be a fair and important thing to do. So my amendment is very simple. As we delay these important environmental regulations, they are proposing delaying these important environmental regulations to protect people from dirty air emitted from cement plants, let's just tell the public how many heart attacks, how many asthma attacks, how many deaths, how much mercury contamination, how much lead and arsenic will impact the health of our citizens. How much cancer. What will be the health impacts of delaying these important rules; let's print it in the Federal Register. I'm sure that people who favor this legislation would be happy to say, you know what, yes, we're giving you cancer; yes, we're giving you heart attacks; yes, we're giving you asthma attacks, but we have to do it because we believe it'll save jobs. You have to be sick so somebody might theoretically be able to get a job in a cement plant. The fact is, as I pointed out many times, it's a false choice between a job and a regulation. It's a false choice between economic activity and clean air and a healthy environment. But since my friends on the other end of the aisle want to make the case that we need to delay these important environmental regulations in order to promote jobs, at least let's talk about and be honest with the public about the health impacts. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. I just want to make a few points in rebuttal. First of all, Congresswoman Capps offered an amendment that contained the EPA findings on the health impact, and that was opposed pretty vigorously. We could have known for the public record; we would have had it there. That was opposed, though. So the response that we just heard from the other side of the aisle is interesting, to say the least. The other important point, the fact is, if you believe this is an important measure to pass, why not disclose this to the public, let the public know what we're getting into, and I would think this would be a commonsense measure and would get approval from all sides.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment because I'd like to make the point that Americans watching this debate, Mr. Chairman, should not be fooled into believing that there is some false choice between being able to breathe and having a job. This is just a false choice. It's a trick bag, and it's unfair to make this argument to the American people. The fact is we can breathe and we can avoid asthma and mercury poisoning and have a job. You don't have to have one or the other. And the fact is, Mr. Chairman, is that the folks who argue against regulations that protect our health and sometimes impose a reasonable cost on industry, these folks have never liked regulations that ask business to do their fair share. This is not a new thing. This is not unique to the cement industry. This is an ongoing ideological debate which has been going on for a long time. But thankfully, Americans recognized that we needed to breathe and work. So we passed regulations. We passed and enacted the EPA. And we brought laws and regulations into being that would protect our health. But now we're being asked to say, Your health or a job? And this is being done in the middle of one of the most dramatic recessions since the Great Depression. The fact is, this claim that if you get rid of all the regulations these corporations are just going to spring forward and start hiring people is untrue. There's no evidence of it. I'd love to see some proof of this claim. It's not the case. And you can't tell me that if some self-interested business person comes to a hearing and says, I would hire if we could get rid of regulations, I don't buy that. I want to see some real evidence. But there is none. That's why you don't see it. The fact is is that if you want to put people back to work today, we've got to pass the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be on the floor talking about the President's American Jobs Act. We ought to be talking about the infrastructure bank bill. We need to be getting Americans back to work because the real reason that our economy is dragging along and unemployment is so high is because our government is not putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure, by refurbishing our school system, by putting the necessary investments into the 21st century. That's what we need to be doing, not just relieving industry of the responsibility to respect our environment and our lungs. So I just want to say, and to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I hope the folks watching C-SPAN don't fall for the okeydoke, and be very, very careful in listening to this debate, and don't allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that they can either have a job or they can have lungs, but they can't have both. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood at the United Nations. Supporting a Palestinian state is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it. It is wholly consistent with American values. We have supported people's aspirations for freedom and democracy around the world, and we should not treat the Palestinian people differently. There is global support for a Palestinian state. More people around the world support a Palestinian state than oppose it, including Americans. Seventy percent of Israelis would accept a Palestinian state if the U.N. approved it. Last year, President Obama said he hoped to see a Palestinian state admitted to the United Nations. Previously, Palestinians sought statehood through violence and terrorism, which the world rightly rejected. Now that they are nonviolently following the internationally recognized process to gain statehood, why we are discouraging them? A Palestinian state is in the national interests of everyone. It would help stabilize the Middle East. It would help end Israel's diplomatic isolation. It would deal a devastating blow to al Qaeda and Hamas, which refuse to recognize Israel. Recognizing Palestine would reaffirm Israel's own status.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me thank all of us who are assembled here on the floor tonight to talk about the state of our lungs, the state of our health, and to talk about how the deprivation of protection will lead to harming our health. It's a sad day, and I'm just glad we're here to debate this issue so that the American people can see who's for them and who's not. What my friends on the other side of the aisle call ``regulation'' we call protecting our lungs. What they call ``red tape'' we call fighting asthma from mercury. What they call ``government interference'' we call staying out of the hospital and getting some asthma treatments and being able to eat the fish that we catch in our rivers and streams across this great Nation. What they call ``job-killing regulation'' we call child-killing pollution. It's just amazing how different the world would be if we could all just focus on what really matters. What we really should be doing is arguing about how we can get Americans back to work. That's not what we're doing. What we're doing is trying to say, if they got rid of all the regulations--all the health and safety regulations--and then if they even got rid of all the taxes, then the business community would have enough certainty to actually hire somebody. But I don't think anybody really believes that. We've got a nation in this world that has gotten rid of all the regulations and that doesn't really tax anybody. It's called Somalia. I don't think that's a good business environment for much of anybody unless you're a warlord. The fact is that, instead of focusing on creating jobs, Republicans are bringing up another assault on our public health--in the Clean Air Act. We should have the American Jobs Act here, and we should be debating that. We should be passing bills to create jobs and improve economic growth. We should not be telling American workers that the only thing between them and a job is a regulation to protect their lungs. They're trying to say, A paycheck or your lungs. You can have a paycheck or you can have asthma, but you can't have a paycheck and be well. That's what they're arguing today, and this is what we have to reject. Instead of bringing up bills to create jobs, the GOP is bringing up yet another assault on the Clean Air Act, blocking two of the most important lifesaving Clean Air Act rules in decades--the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Mercury and Air Toxics rule will prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year. I couldn't agree more with the gentleman from Virginia, Gerry Connolly, who reminded us that, if you've ever held the hand of a loved one who is suffering through an asthma attack, it would be hard to see how you could callously vote for a bill like this TRAIN Act, which I like to call the Train Wreck Act, because it's just that bad. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths per year.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman, and I'll wrap it up with this: We can have energy and jobs. The Clean Energy Group, a coalition of energy utilities and power companies, has said that the changes in industry practice that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule would produce are reasonable, can be accomplished, and are not a burden on industry. Not all industry agrees that we need to get rid of every regulation. A study released by the Environmental Defense Fund has estimated that the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would together create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years. So let me just say that it's time for the American people to say we want good health, that we want good jobs, that we want clean air, and that we want healthy lungs--and we don't want the train wreck bill offered by the Republicans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, there is a not-so-thin line between being frugal and fiscally responsible and then downright cheap and stingy, and this bill demonstrates the difference. To say to somebody who was in a disaster, to say to somebody who might lose everything, where the waters are rising, the fires are burning, the storms are knocking things down, to say, you know what, we can only help you if we cut somewhere else, is the most stingy, shortsighted, poorest form of representative government I have ever seen. It is outrageous to tell Americans facing disaster that you don't get any help unless you can find how to squeeze it out somewhere. Americans help Americans. Americans stand up for each other at time of crisis. This is a hallmark of who we are, and it doesn't matter whether you are Republican or Democrat, whether you are from the north, the south, the east or the west, whether you are black, white, Latino, wherever you come from, when Americans are in trouble, Americans respond. And we don't reach inside and say, well, if I can afford it, we will help you out. We just jump forward and we help out.

Mr. ELLISON. No, I will not yield, and I won't cede any of my time, so you don't need to ask again. I am also just absolutely appalled, appalled, that the Republican bill will cost at least 10,000 good-paying American manufacturing jobs and perhaps tens of thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which is putting Americans to work at producing cleaner American cars. This provision, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates the fraudulent nature, fraud, fraud, of claiming that the Republicans are trying to produce jobs. They are not trying to make jobs. They run around saying that rich people are job creators, they are profit creators. And you know who is absolutely not a job creator? Anyone who votes ``yes'' on this bill. Vote ``no,'' absolutely ``no'' on this bad piece of bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, today, members of the Progressive Caucus stood up and displayed a videotape in which the jobs tour that we went on this summer was revealed. We showed the cities where Americans of all description stood up and said, We need jobs, good jobs, now. Americans from Detroit to Oakland and Minneapolis, Miami, all over this country, we went to talk to them face-to-face, and they told us what they wanted. They did their part by coming to tell us what they wanted. Now it's time for us to do our part as Congress. Members of the Progressive Caucus will and are and already have introduced legislation dealing with good jobs--and good jobs now--in infrastructure, education, fair trade, and things like manufacturing. We're going to be forcing this agenda. It's what the American people expect, what they demand. And anyone who does not stand with us on this jobs agenda will be revealed to be not a friend of the American worker.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on July 13, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 564-573 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 564, 566, and 573. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 565, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, and 572. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 574-582 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 574, 575, 576, 579 and 581. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes on No. 577, 578, 580 and 582. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 583-600 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 584, 586, 590, and 599. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes on No. 583, 585, 587, 588, 589, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598 and 600. Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 601-602 for district business. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 601-602. Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 603-607 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 603, 604, 606, and 607. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 605. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 608-611 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 608, 609 and 611. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 610. Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 612-621 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 612, 613, 614, 619 and 621. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 615, 616, 617, 618, and 620. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 622-629 due to a medical injury. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes No. 622, 623, 624, 625, 626 and 629. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes No. 627 and 628. Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2011, I missed rollcall votes No. 630-631 and I would have voted ``no'' on both votes.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, many words will be spoken at podiums on the House floor today, some helpful and illuminating, some not. But there are a few facts that need to stand in very stark contrast to all the din. First, this has never happened in the history of the United States, not from the first Congress until this very moment, that a Congress, a caucus in this body, has tried to hold hostage the American economy in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Never before, never. We will distinguish ourselves as a body that has failed and has deliberately harmed the American economy because of obstinacy, stubbornness, and recklessness. First time. Second, in less than 3\1/2\ days, our Nation will default. This will, without a doubt, cause a dramatic amount of cost on the American people in almost every aspect of our lives, whether it's in the area of credit cards, mortgages, car notes, or many other areas. Our State and local governments' costs will go up. Investors, pensioners, 401(k) holders will suffer. This is in no way helpful and in dramatic contrast to everything we have ever done before. There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. The Republicans and the Democrats have a very different view of the role of government. Democrats believe that a government in partnership with a free market works well to guarantee a strong economy for the American people, and Republicans see almost no role for government at all and speak derisively and contemptuously about government all the time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, when did the idea of ``compromise'' get to be a dirty word? When did the idea that ``my way or the highway'' is the only way to go forward become the order of the day? We are at a stalemate because we cannot come to some basic ideas about how to move forward. Here's the fact, absolute fact, irrefutable: We do not need to link and tie deficit reduction to raising the debt ceiling. They are independent necessities. They are two different things, and one does not have to be tied to the other. And when you link the two together, you are holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to a set of budgetary cuts. This is a mistake. It is not statespersonship. It is not what we are elected to do. Yes, we have to do deficit reduction, but it doesn't need to be linked to raising the debt ceiling. We should raise the debt ceiling now and then work on debt reduction. How do we do that? We need more people paying taxes to reduce the deficit. That means jobs; that means infrastructure. Let's get it done now. Raise the debt ceiling and pass a good infrastructure bill at the same time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, let me draw your attention to this important chart drafted by the Congressional Budget Office. It shows what the drivers of our debt are. Now, there's something on here that you see and there's something on here that you won't see. You will see Bush-era tax cuts. This is the orange. You will see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the red. You will see the economic downturn. That's this blue. This tiny little line here, that's TARP and Fannie and Freddie. And these are the expenses that we paid to try to get our country back on track--the recovery. What don't you see? You don't see Social Security. Don't let anybody tell you, Madam Speaker, that Social Security is the problem. It's not. Social Security is the promise one generation makes to another so that every senior in America will live in dignity. That's what it's for. That's what it's about. We are not being unreasonable when we demand protection of Social Security. It's not driving the deficit, and it does honor our seniors. And that is what it's all about. That's what we are going to do, and we are not going to give on that.