Keith Ellison

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.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point of order because I think it's important to discover whether or not the underlying rule for the Homeland Security appropriations bill also deems the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it. It's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we are being denied the ability to actually offer amendments that we would like to, to illuminate what's actually happening in the bill. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to address our deficit. But cutting the lifeline for our seniors is not an act of courage; it's actually cowardly. Claiming to reduce the budget deficit on the backs of Americans who have paid into their retirement their entire lives not only harms American seniors but goes against the basic values of fairness and security that Americans cherish. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who pay into it their whole lives. It represents the basic American values of fairness and respect for those seniors which Americans cherish. Siding with lobbyists to give insurance company bureaucrats control of Medicare does nothing to address the deficit, but it does a great deal to reduce health care for our seniors. Let's put America back to work, and let's reject the rule and underlying bill by voting ``no'' on this motion to consider. I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Cicilline of the great State of Rhode Island.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 287 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. ELLISON. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLISON. So voting ``yes'' on the rule is voting ``yes'' for H. Con. Res. 34, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare; is that right?

Mr. ELLISON. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I represent Minneapolis, Minnesota. Recently, my district was hit by a tornado. That tornado caused damage to well over 535 houses and took the lives of two of my constituents. I just want to commend all those people who stepped forward to do the right thing for the people who were victims. Whether you were serving meals for people who were put out of their homes; whether you were making games for the children of the dispossessed to be able to have some joy in their lives after such a difficult period; or whether you were an emergency responder, police, fire, emergency, medical; or whether you were a member of our local government, I want everyone in my district to know, everyone in the Fifth Congressional District to know, that I am so proud of the work that you did. I want folks to know that it is times of crisis like this tornado in which the best of us comes out, when we find our charitable spirit, when we find our courage, when we find all those things that sometimes are lacking in everyday life. I want to let you know that on the faces of the children who have had a warm place to stay after their own homes were knocked to the ground and trees went through people's roofs, that I want to thank all those first responders, all those public servants, all those volunteers who stepped up and made a very difficult situation just a little bit better for everyone who was involved. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we could never forget those two citizens who lost their lives when they were hit by this tornado. It was a tragedy for them and their families, and we will keep them in our thoughts and in our hearts and in our minds as we move forward.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I couldn't help but note my colleague from Minnesota's last comment. He seems to imply that because there have been wars since 1985 that somehow that is an indictment of the U.S. Institute of Peace. That's absurd and ridiculous. But it always seems that we can find more money for defense spending but not for peace. It's a question of priorities. Last night I was here trying to argue that when the GAO and the Subcommittee on Sea Power says that we don't need to spend $150 million on the LHA-7, friends on the other side of the aisle leaped to their feet and declared, ``We've got to have this.'' Well, the GAO doesn't think so. But yet we're trying to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace which can keep us out of conflict and is on the ground in Baghdad, Kosovo, Haiti, all kinds of places, trying to keep people safe and alive. So faulty logic, poor argumentation won't justify this bad amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. ELLISON. Would the gentleman yield now for a question?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield for a question, Madam Chair?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that will cut $150 million in unnecessary defense funding. Congress must reassess our budgetary priorities. We should not be in the business of needlessly increasing defense spending while simultaneously cutting spending for critical services that Americans depend upon. Without my amendment, Congress will needlessly approve $150 million for the LHA 7 amphibious warship program. Now, let me be clear. I'm not against such a program in its own right, but I am against authorizing this funding for FY12 because the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we shouldn't do it. And they have very good reasons for coming to that conclusion. First of all, according to the Government Accountability Office report, which I have in my hand and I intend to submit into the Record, these funds won't even be used in fiscal year 2012. The report states that contractor delays and labor shortages ``will likely have implications on the ability of the shipbuilder to start construction of LHA 7 as currently planned.'' If we do not authorize these funds, our national security will not be harmed. The GAO reports that FY11 funds already appropriated will be sufficient to cover the costs of the program and expenses for LHA 7 in FY12. As the report makes clear, and I quote again, Madam Chair, ``most of the construction costs for LHA 7 will not be incurred until fiscal year 2013.'' Given the GAO's recommendation, the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower did the right thing. They cut funding for the LHA 7. However, that funding was reinstated in the full committee. Given that the funds will not even be able to be used in FY12 due to contractor delays, why was $150 million reinstated in the full committee? Well, I can tell you that a Republican gentleman from Mississippi sits on the Armed Services Committee, and he represents a district on the coast with a very large shipbuilder in it. Let's review momentarily. At a time when Congress is cutting critical heating assistance programs, education, and health care, why should it authorize defense spending for work that military contractors aren't even prepared to do? Without my amendment, Congress is set to increase funding for the LHA 7 warship at a time when we are slashing critical domestic spending programs that Americans count on. This is a commonsense amendment, Madam Chair, and it follows that the GAO and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we should do. We should cut $150 million for the LHA 7 warship program. I'll leave it to you and your imagination as to why the funding was reinstated at the full committee. I urge my colleagues to reassess our budgetary priorities and authorize funds for when they can actually be used. Spending should not be authorized prematurely, especially when Congress is cutting other critical programs. LHA Replacement, Shipbuilding and Conversion (SCN), Fiscal Year 2012-- Line 3041 program overview The LHA program will provide the functional replacement for the LHA 1 Class ships which are reaching the end of their extended service lives. The program is to ensure that the amphibious fleet remains capable of Expeditionary Warfare well into the 21st century and provide for an affordable and sustainable amphibious ship development program. LHA 6, the lead ship, was authorized in fiscal year 2007. Fabrication of LHA 6 started in January 2008 and it is currently scheduled for delivery in October 2013. The Navy requested funding for the first follow-on ship, LHA 7, in its fiscal year 2011 budget request and requested an additional $2018.7 million in fiscal year 2012 to fully fund the ship. The Navy awarded an advance procurement contract for LHA 7 in June 2010, and planned to award the construction contract in November 2010. [Dollars in millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year

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

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this underlying bill. As the Senate votes this week on the Republican scheme to end Medicare, I am standing up to protect health care for our seniors. Our seniors, they blazed the trail for all of us. They fought the wars, they've earned the money, they've come and made America a great place; and we have inherited what they've done. We have inherited what our senior citizens have made for us. And now we see our Republican colleagues want to end Medicare for these same seniors. To spend nearly $1 trillion on handouts to millionaires not only harms American seniors, but threatens our economic future. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who pay into it their whole lives, Mr. Chairman. It represents the basic American values of fairness, decency and respect for our seniors that all Americans should cherish. Last month, our Republican colleagues voted to end Medicare as we know it. According to the Congressional Budget Office--and, Mr. Chairman, that's the office that is bipartisan and calls it straight as they see it--this plan, this Republican plan, would raise seniors' health care costs by more than $6,000 a year--that's a lot of money, Mr. Chairman--more than doubling their costs. Instead of fulfilling a promise to our seniors, a promise that the people who gave everything for us would have something in their golden years, the plan would bring about a corporate takeover of our health care. Insurance company bureaucrats would be able to deny seniors care that they had paid into for their entire lives. The GOP plan no longer guarantees seniors the same level of benefits and choice of a doctor that they have today under Medicare. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about the deficit. Only if it were. This debate is about something else, and it is about whether we are going to meet the promises of our seniors, of our children, of our students, of our public employees, or not. It's a choice of whether we're going to put America to work or not. It's a basic choice about how we're going to live together. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about a deficit. And as my fellow colleagues pound on this idea that we're broke, we're not broke. What we are is unwilling to do the basics for people who have given America so much. This debate is not about a deficit, because we can reduce the deficit by putting America back to work. Two-thirds of American corporations don't pay any taxes, including General Electric, Bank of America, and others. If we ask people to just do their fair share, America's not broke. By siding with insurance industry lobbyists to raise Medicare costs only increases the burden on our seniors while doing nothing to address the deficit. As I said, this is not about the deficit. Raising taxes for 95 percent of Americans to pay for a trillion- dollar tax cut for CEOs who ship American jobs overseas sides with the rich at the expense of the middle class. Spending billions on handouts for corporate special interests, including $40 billion on Big Oil, only drives up prices at the pump for families who are already hurting the most. The Progressive Caucus, Mr. Chair, has a plan that puts people's priorities first. Our budget, which we call ``The People's Budget,'' strengthens Medicare and Social Security. It lets Medicare negotiate cheaper drug prices so insurance company bureaucrats can't deny you the medication you need. And it creates jobs by eliminating the deficit by 2021. That's right. The Progressive Caucus eliminates the deficit. That is the fiscally responsible budget. That's a budget that Americans can get behind. Not some budget that rewards the rich at the expense of everybody else and doesn't do anything to end the deficit. I'll not stand for a vision of America that throws American seniors under the bus. We have a vision of honoring our seniors, honoring those people, the Greatest Generation, the generation that brought us civil rights, women's rights, human rights, the generation that brought us Medicare. We are in a generational fight, Mr. Chairman, and generations in the future will look back on us and ask us why did we let the Republican Caucus take away the basic promises of America, and we will be able to stand now and say, We didn't. We fought them back and we fought for America where everybody does better because everybody does better, including our seniors. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I urge all Members to join in supporting this very important motion to recommit. We have seen a great victory for our country, and yet we have suffered a tremendous loss, 3,000 of our countrymen lost because of al Qaeda and al Qaedaism and their belief system. But you know what? They have wreaked havoc all across this world. Whether it is Tanzania or whether it is Nairobi, they have brought murder and destruction across the globe. Even in Pakistan, 80 dead just recently. So we have got to make sure they are the priority, they are the focus, so we can rid the world of this pernicious, evil philosophy that has caused so much harm to so many.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 321 and 322. Had I been present I would voted ``nay.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2011, I inadvertently missed rollcall Nos. 310 and 311. Had I been present I would voted ``yes.''