Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, yes, the June jobs report is not encouraging: 18,000 jobs added. But I cannot ever forget that it was January 2009 when we lost 741,000 jobs, the last month of the Bush Presidency. Under President Obama, we have added jobs, and, of course, we have not added enough; but they have been adding. But the American people should know that we need about 150,000 jobs a month in order to push the unemployment rate down. Because we added jobs but not enough, the unemployment rate has gone up. But the most important thing for the American people to know is that the Republican promise to make jobs the first agenda during the election has not been fulfilled. They have yet to introduce or pass through this House one single jobs bill, not one. All they have done is cut jobs, mostly by going after public employees. And this is what the American people need to bear in mind as they think about who is on their side.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we should not turn our backs on the Libyan people. I want to remind my colleagues that NATO's campaign in Libya has saved countless lives. Our actions and those of NATO were the only thing that stopped Qadhafi from committing unspeakable crimes against humanity. In fact, when the United States and NATO intervened, Qadhafi was on the footsteps of Misrata and threatening to kill without mercy. Qadhafi's forces were on the brink of Benghazi hours before NATO's operation began. Qadhafi literally said that he would kill people with ``no mercy, no pity.'' He said he would go ``house by house, room by room.'' Those are the words of a shameless, ruthless killer; and we had to do something, and I'm glad that we did. Constituents of my district whose roots come from Libya have made it clear to me that they want me to stand together with humanity, stand together with vulnerable people. But let me be clear, this is not Iraq, and this will not be the Iraq war. We did not unilaterally declare war on another country. On the contrary, our actions were with the international community, sanctioned by the United Nations, the Arab League and, most importantly, the Libyan people themselves. Our role is limited and constrained, no boots on the ground. We essentially are helping to supply and refuel and add surveillance. Do we want to signal to other murderous dictators while the people are standing up for democracy that they have a free hand to slaughter their public? I hope not. I say listen to regular Libyans on the street today. They want more NATO involvement, not less. They want the United States to remain involved. If we pull out now, the NATO coalition could fall apart and tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Qadhafi's wrath would jeopardize the fragile democratic transitions in both Egypt and Tunisia. This issue has regional implications. It's not limited to Libya alone. As my constituents know, and my legislative record reflects, I was adamantly against the Iraq war and I am adamantly in favor of a faster withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I'm almost always against the use of the military option. Seldom is it the right course, in my opinion. But ``seldom'' doesn't mean ``always.'' Srebrenica, Darfur and Rwanda all warranted our engagement as Libya does today. We made it to the Balkans, but we didn't make it to Darfur or Rwanda, and literally millions of people died because of that. But at the same time, I cannot turn a blind eye to the slaughter of innocent people. My hope is that the day may never come when I will ignore the cries of innocent people being murdered by a dictator or while we cozy up to a murderous dictator. I cannot turn my back on people demanding the same freedoms we enjoy in America. I understand my colleagues' aversion to military conflict. I share it. I understand their fear of mission creep. I share that. But I also understand that when people are being murdered wholesale, being ethnically cleansed, being the targets of genocide, the world, including the United States, cannot and must not stand back and watch. For the sake of the Libyan people and all demanding freedom in the Middle East, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing the use of limited force. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hastings resolution. I think it's important to remember that U.S. military force is a very awesome thing and should only be employed in very select circumstances. We misused that power when it came to Iraq, and we used that power in an improper way and too long in Afghanistan. But when people are being slaughtered by dictators around the world, where massive loss of lives and innocents are at stake, I think it is appropriate for the United States to step up and protect those people. Yes, we do have business in Libya. We have business in protecting mass murder from happening and stopping mass murder from happening around the world. We have business in stopping the destabilization of regions like north Africa. We have business in making sure that the peaceful resolutions in Egypt and in Tunisia are not undermined. We have business in making sure that dictators like Ali Saleh in Yemen and Bashar al-Assad in Syria are not emboldened and the signal does not go out to them that they can continue to wipe out their population and nobody cares. I believe that if I was in this Congress when Rwanda or Srebrenica or Darfur were happening, I pray that I would stand up and say that those people need to have some protection and that the most powerful Nation in the world shouldn't stand by while innocent women and children are being mowed down, and I hope today that my colleagues will join in that because it's the right thing to do. Thank you very much.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the American middle class wants Washington to create jobs and put unemployed people out of work back to work. But here we go again. The Republicans show that they aren't listening and that they don't really care about protecting the middle class. Today, Republicans are going to spend their time in Washington helping speculators, speculators inflate gas prices and food prices, making sure that oil companies keep getting unnecessary tax breaks. The Agriculture appropriations bill to be considered today by the House is just another part of the Republican agenda to reward millionaires while leaving everybody else behind. Tucked away in the end of the appropriations bill we'll consider today is a provision that would cut money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Now what is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission? It's a cop on the beat. It's a cop on the beat whose job it is to make sure that the speculators don't drive up the price of commodities like gasoline, like food, like wheat, things like that. And at a time when the middle class is being squeezed by high gas prices, this is the wrong time to side with the millionaires and billionaires and against the American people.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we're told that we're broke, we're broke, and because we're broke, we can't possibly pay for things like women, infants, and children. We can't have a jobs bill. We can't build our Nation's infrastructure. We can't, we can't, we can't. We have to cut because, according to some, we're broke. But when we think about how the bounty of this Nation is spread, we're not so broke that we can't give subsidies to oil companies. We're not so broke that we can't ask the richest Americans to do a little more. We're not so broke that we don't call upon people whom America has benefited and allowed them to become millionaires and say, You know what? Now your Nation needs you. We're told, No, those people don't have to sacrifice, but we're broke. So women and infants and children and seniors, they have to sacrifice. They have to go without. They have to tighten their belts. It's a shame. We're not asked to be one America, to bear the burden together. If there's a burden to be borne, surely oil companies can bear it with the American people. If there's a burden to be borne, surely the wealthiest among us can pitch in and help out. But not according to the Republican majority. According to them, we're broke, and the poor must suffer. The aged must do without. Those in need have to figure out how to make it one more day because we're broke, and we have to take food out of the mouths of infants and pregnant mothers. And because we're broke, we need to increase the risk of food-borne illness. And because we're broke, we cannot afford to pay cops on the beat who are going to regulate the speculators on Wall Street who drive up the price of gasoline and food. We can't pay for these important public servants because they say we're broke. But we're not too broke to ask our oil companies to help. We're not too broke to ask the top 2 percent to pitch in. The day must come, Mr. Chair, when the poor are not thought to have too much and the rich are not thought to have too little. The day must come when we have to be one America and come together to deal with the burdens of this Nation and not leave the wealthiest and the most privileged scott free while the other people have to bear the burden of ``we're broke.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to shed some light on an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) last night which the House will vote on later today. The gentleman from Iowa came to the floor at approximately 11:30 p.m. last night and under the open rule offered an amendment prohibiting any funds from the Homeland Security bill to be used for ACORN and ACORN- affiliated community organizations. Besides the fact is that it is clear that ACORN or ACORN-affiliated community organizations are not eligible for funds from the Homeland Security appropriations bill, because as far as I know, ACORN is not in the business of homeland security. In addition to going after ACORN, the gentleman from Iowa in his amendment goes after 300 organizations. Let me quote from Ranking Member Norm Dicks' eloquent words during debate last night: You're asking this House to vote on something that you haven't verified, and you don't know what these groups are all about. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), ranking member of Homeland Security appropriations, also asked a good question when he asked for specific information on what was the wrongdoing of these organizations. The gentleman from Iowa's response was that he didn't know. So, Mr. Chair, to highlight the ridiculous nature of this amendment, the gentleman from Iowa is asking this body to vote on an amendment to beat up on ACORN and ACORN-affiliated organizations and cannot produce a single item of evidence for the record of wrongdoing by these organizations in his amendment. Mr. Chair, one of the organizations listed, and the reason I take certain umbrage to this amendment is that it's an organization in my own district, is known as Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change. Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change are people who are known to me. They work hard every day. They work on foreclosure. They work on trying to get people to vote. They work with poor people in particular. Let me read from their Web site to describe to you what they actually do: Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change is a new nonprofit committed to building power in low-income and moderate-income neighborhoods through community organizing, civic engagement, political mobilization, and education. NOC is a member-funded and member-run organization that takes on the social and economic justice issues that impact our community the most. Whether it's huge issues like health care and bank reform or a small neighborhood concern like getting a stop sign installed at a dangerous intersection, NOC members work together to apply their collective strength and get things done. This is a good, decent civic service organization, Mr. Chair, and I resent them being slandered in the way they were last night. So how did Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change get on the gentleman from Iowa's hit list? Well, they used to be an affiliate of ACORN. Now they're an independent organization. So I guess there is guilt by association. Also, Mr. Chair, since the gentleman from Iowa wants this body to talk about ACORN, a community organizing group, on the Homeland Security bill, I think it's fair to talk about ACORN. The House, in 2009, voted to defund ACORN. I voted against that defunding amendment because it was unconstitutional and based on politics of fear and guilt by association. It was a good vote, and I'm proud I voted that way, because a Federal court, Mr. Chair, in December 2009, found the House ban on ACORN grants unconstitutional, and I'm proud I was not on the side of that unconstitutional vote. Finally, the GAO, in a study released in June 2010, found, quote, no evidence of ACORN mismanaging Federal funds. Again, we held this organization up for ridicule and destruction, and we, the Congress, were wrong.

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

Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ELLISON. Let me say quickly, I pulled some articles about this whole thing: ``House Ban on ACORN Grants is Ruled Unconstitutional.'' ``ACORN Workers Cleared of Illegality by Outside Probe.'' ``ACORN Did Nothing Wrong,'' is another headline. ``All You Need to Know About the ACORN Scandal and Who is Behind It.'' Who was behind it? A young man named James O'Keefe, who was found guilty of a Federal crime. [From NY Times.Com., Dec. 11, 2009] House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional (By Janie Lorber) Washington.--The federal government must continue to provide grant money to the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution barring the group from receiving federal dollars. A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision. The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a ``bill of attainder,'' a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group. That provision plays a crucial, but rarely necessary, role in maintaining the balance of powers, said Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School. ``It says that the Congress may not act as judge, jury and executioner. That is precisely what the Congress sought to do in this case, and the district court was entirely right to enjoin it.'' In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, ``They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.'' The Justice Department said it was still reviewing the ruling Friday night. Judge Gershon's opinion made a point of separating the court's ruling from the controversy surrounding Acorn, which is short for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The House acted after the organization came under fire for a series of embarrassing scandals, most notably the disclosure by conservative activists of videotape showing Acorn counselors giving mortgage advice to people posing as a pimp and a prostitute interested in setting up a brothel. Even before that, Republicans attacked the group, accusing it of voter registration fraud in 2008. Jules Lobel, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the suit on behalf of Acorn, said the resolution was the first time Congress had ever singled out one group for punishment. ``Whenever you challenge a statute of Congress, it's always a significant political battle,'' Mr. Lobel said. The chief executive of Acorn, Bertha Lewis, issued a statement calling the ruling a victory for the group and ``the citizens who work through Acorn to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership.'' In a lawsuit filed last month, Acorn that it was penalized by Congress ``without an investigation'' and had been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay off workers.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 397 I put my card in the slot, but didn't check whether my vote registered. It so happens that the vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chair

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand shoulder to shoulder with the legitimate aims of Syrian people in their quest for freedom and democracy. Ever since the Syrian people rose up to demand their rights and dignity from the Assad regime, they have faced brutal repression. Their nonviolent protest movement has been met with repressive force, and this has been a disgrace on the world scene. The human rights abuses of the Assad regime are unthinkable, and they are historic and generational. It is torturing its own people at this time, including even children. I was shocked and outraged by the story of Hamza al-Khatib. He was a 13-year-old boy who was killed and tortured and his body was returned to his family on May 25 with clear signs of torture and brutality. He had a broken hand; his genitals were cut off and severed. This young man, only 13 years old, will never see his family again because he has gone on. But what happened to him the Syrian people can't forget, and his example has inspired people to stand up for democracy. Over the past 3 months, a familiar pattern has emerged. People organize public demonstrations to demand their God-given rights. Inevitably, the government forces overreact and kill peaceful protesters. Funerals for the deceased garner even larger demonstrations, which are then repressed ever more brutally by the government. The emergency situation in Syria today reached a new level when tanks rolled into Daraa. Since that time, hundreds of peaceful demonstrators have been killed. Just this morning, this very morning, Syrian forces killed 15 people when they shelled the town of Rastan. Fifty-eight people have been killed there in the past 3 days alone. Over a thousand have been killed since democracy protests began. Mr. Speaker, it's truly unfortunate that the Assad regime missed the historic opportunity that it had right before it to set a new pattern in the Arab Spring, a pattern that above all respects human rights. Instead, it chose to become an enemy of its own people. By murdering its own people and violating their fundamental right to security and liberty, the Assad regime has lost any and all legitimacy to govern. Legitimacy is gained through the consent of the governed, not brutal repressive crackdowns, jailings, and torturing. While we don't know yet how events will ultimately unfold in Syria, I want to commend the activism of Syrian Americans. Syrian Americans are doing everything they can to support their friends and their families. For example, just last week the Syrian American Council organized a day of action to support freedom and democracy in Syria. Some 400-plus Syrian Americans came all across the country to come to Washington, D.C., to lobby their Representatives in Congress, to demonstrate at the Syrian Embassy, and to organize committees to plan future initiatives. That's how democracy works, Mr. Speaker; people coming together with their common concerns to peaceably petition their government. That's what makes America great, and that's what sets us apart from places like Syria under the Assad regime. Syria could be a great bastion of liberty, but not with this illegitimate regime. I stand with the patriotic Americans in steadfast opposition to the grotesque human rights abuses of the Assad regime and once and for all call upon it to respect the rights, dignity, and democratic aspirations of its people. The world will not forget Hamza al-Khatib, Mr. Speaker. We won't forget the legitimate yearnings for liberty and justice from the people of Syria or anywhere in the world.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. The rule states, ``House Concurrent Resolution 34, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution.'' Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed H. Con. Res. 34?

Mr. ELLISON. Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 2017, because the bill slashes funding for our State and local governments as they prepare against homeland security threats and respond to natural disasters. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, we should be creating jobs, not destroying Medicare. We should be preserving what has made America great, which is the basic sense that we are all in this thing together. Yes, it is absolutely true that people should go out into the private sector and try their luck in the free market--skill, ingenuity and all that--but America has always had a strong public sector, which has been essential to the survival and the success of that private sector: fair rules, good infrastructure, good jobs, times in America, like during the Depression, when Eisenhower led us to build and create that infrastructure. Then in 1968, when we created Medicare, this country has been at its best. Yes, a private sector but also a strong, vibrant public sector. We are at a point in American history today when at least the Republican caucus believes we don't need a public sector. We just don't need one. We may need one, maybe, for military stuff, but beyond that, they just don't see a purpose for it. I believe Americans think that things like Medicare, infrastructure development, Social Security, and things like the GI Bill are important parts of what make America ``America'' because they are how we recognize as Americans that we are all in this thing together, that our senior citizens will not be abandoned, that our GIs coming back will not be left behind, that communities which need police, fire and EMT services will not just be left to the ravages of others. We need an American commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and that's what we're going to be arguing for today. The American people can count on the Democratic Caucus to never abandon our seniors even as Republicans want to take Medicare apart as a program that has served so many people so well. You want to do something to change Medicare? Why don't we let Medicare negotiate drug prices. That could probably save us several billion dollars a year, as much as $53 billion a year. Republicans don't want to do that because they've got their interests to protect. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ELLISON. I yield the lady an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, which I am a proud cosponsor. This amendment will help protect our nation's most vulnerable cities and help effectively prevent and manage emergency situations in cities around the country. Funding for Urban Area Security Initiative helps cities prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from disasters, including terrorism. My district in Minnesota has benefitted greatly from the assistance of UASI. My district includes Minneapolis, a city that has been listed as one of the 31 most vulnerable cities by the UASI grant program and has received funding for projects to improve safety and response. UASI Grant program funding has been essential to the ability of the City of Minneapolis to manage events such as the 35W Bridge collapse, the 2008 Republican National Convention and the response to the 2009 and 2011 Minneapolis tornados. The UASI program has secured the metropolitan area's water supply, improved its emergency dispatch system, and provided protective gear for first responders. It also created special response teams for emergencies involving hazardous materials, the collapse of buildings and advanced bomb squads. UASI grant dollars have paid for much of the technology associated with the city's new combined Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and first responder training facility providing real time situational awareness and communication capabilities that did not exist before. Without these operations, the recent tornados in my district would have created confusion and chaos in the aftermath. The speedy and effective response by the city is directly related to the funding they have received through UASI grants. Without these important investments, public warnings and communications, disaster response, and first responder training will be compromised. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that all American cities with real security needs continue to have access. to UASI funding.