Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank Congressman Raskin, and I thank Congresswoman Jayapal. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the House of Representatives has tremendously benefited by these two awesome freshmen who have come in here like gangbusters. I am sure that my classmate and friend of many years from New York, Ms. Yvette Clarke, will agree with me that we are always trying to welcome these folks who have come straight off the campaign trail, because you really know how people are feeling when they come straight off the campaign trail--fresh. I am sure the Congressman from Rhode Island, David Cicilline, agrees. The people of this country are fundamentally fair folks. Our countrymen and -women believe that everybody ought to be treated with dignity and respect. Yes, we believe that we have to have an economy that works for everybody. Absolutely true. We also believe that people should be treated based on their behavior, based on who they are, based on what they bring, not based on their race, their sex, their gender, their religion. In fact, this idea is enshrined in the Constitution. The first clause of the First Amendment reads: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Later on in the Constitution, it reads that Congress shall not impose any religious test for participating-- serving--in public office. In America, you don't have to have one religious belief or another. In America, you can be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or of no faith whatsoever. You can be Baptist; you can be Methodist; you can be whatever you want to be. That is up to you, and it is a private matter. Americans basically understand that this is right because the Framers of the Constitution, people like Thomas Jefferson and others, looked over at some of the Colonies and even looked at some of the conflicts in Europe and said that we don't need to be mixed up--fighting--with each other over religion. Now, the Framers got a lot of things wrong. They got women's rights wrong; they got race wrong; they got Native American rights wrong. There were many things that they needed to correct in this Nation. As the great Thurgood Marshall said, we were defective from the start, and we needed to have civil wars and civil rights movements and other movements to make this country the country that it is today. Yet one thing we did decently in the beginning is with regard to religious freedom--until now. Donald Trump is introducing a religious test for whether or not people can be a part of this American story. Donald Trump claims: Oh, I don't have a Muslim ban. Wait a minute, President Trump. Wasn't it you who, on December 7, 2015, said that you were calling for a ban on all Muslims who enter into the United States? Wasn't it you who said it multiple times throughout your campaign? Didn't you say you wanted to have a Muslim database for all of the Muslims who were in the country? Didn't you say you wanted to shutter mosques? You said these things, and now, all of a sudden, you are shy about saying that you are running a Muslim ban. These people who say, oh, it is not a Muslim ban surprise me because I am, like, I thought you all were proud of it. I thought you were bragging about it. I thought it was how you rode your way into office-- by appealing to people's fears and trying to whip up hostility among different Americans of different faiths and traditions. Yet now, all of a sudden, you are shy about saying what you are doing, which is a Muslim ban. Yes, it is a Muslim ban. Just because it doesn't ban every Muslim everywhere does not mean that the people who are banned are not banned because they are Muslim. That is exactly why they are banned. That is why they are banned. He was asked on a TV program: Would you give preferential treatment to people of another faith? He said: Yes, I would give preferential treatment to another faith. He said it. It is on the record. So don't come telling me how there is no Muslim ban. There is one, and these people who bragged so much about it--I mean Trump and Bannon and all of the rest of them--should not act like there is not a Muslim ban now. There is a Muslim ban. It is a religious test for entry into this country. It is unconstitutional; it is immoral; and it is wrong. I just want to say to all of my fellow Americans right now, if they can ban Muslims, they can ban Jews; if they can ban Jews, they can ban Seventh-day Adventists; if they can ban Seventh-day Adventists, they can ban Mormons; and if they can ban Mormons, they can ban Catholics. It is wrong, and we should stand up and say that it is wrong and immediately demand that it be repealed right away. I think this is absolutely critical that we do so. I want to share a story for a moment longer, if the gentleman doesn't mind, because I know we have some really excellent speakers coming right behind me, and I want to yield to them as quickly as I can. I want to share a story about one of the families that has been affected in my own home State of Minnesota. One person who was prevented from flying to United States this week is a little girl from Somalia whose mother came to Minneapolis as a refugee in 2013. This child was stuck in Uganda without her family because she hadn't been born by the time her mother was granted refugee status. When her mother, Samira, was given permission to come to the United States 4 years ago, she was told to leave her daughter behind with friends of the family in Uganda and apply for reunification in the United States. This little girl was supposed to fly to Minnesota and rejoin her family on Monday. Instead, her flight was canceled because of the Muslim ban. President Trump is not making our country safer. President Trump is reinforcing the narrative of people who don't like our country. What does ISIS ultimately say? That America is at war with Islam. I am here to tell everybody on the planet that America is absolutely not at war with Islam or with any other religion. The American people are of a peaceful nation. The people who live in the United States want to live in harmony with all of the other people of the world; but this particular person who happens to occupy the Presidency doesn't reflect the values that we represent. He doesn't reflect who we are. The thing that he is doing is actually reinforcing the narrative of the people who would mean to do all of us harm no matter what religion we may be. I just want to sit down now and say: For the sake of this young woman and for the sake of Samira's daughter, who is languishing in Uganda right now and who wants to be reunited with her family, may we please get rid of this ban and get rid of this unlawful executive order?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes: Roll call no. 66, I would have voted yes. Roll call no. 67, I would have voted yes.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a Budget Resolution later today that makes it possible to take away health coverage from tens of millions of people. But the Democrats know that this is just the beginning. Congressional Republicans have started their plans to not just repeal the Affordable Care Act, but to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Republican proposals would threaten nursing home coverage for millions of seniors, undermine comprehensive health care for children by cutting Medicaid, and slash benefits earned after years of hard work. The CPC and Congressional Democrats will not stand for this. That is why we introduced an amendment that would ensure the Budget Resolution we are voting on today or any future bill can't be used to cut benefits from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, increase the retirement age for these benefits, or privatize Social Security. But, the majority is not allowing debate or a vote on our amendment. This sends a clear message: Congressional Republicans are willing to put the lives and futures of millions of children, seniors and working families at risk. It also puts them on the wrong side of history. Cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is not what the American people want. President-elect Trump has promised several times that he will not support cuts to these important programs that help millions of Americans make ends meet. This leaves Congressional Republicans in a tough spot. Whose side are they on? Will they commit to protecting hard-working Americans? Will they protect America's children? Seniors? What about people with disabilities? Or, will they yet again cut the benefits of working people so they can give tax breaks to big corporations? The Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Democrats will not back down. We will oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the CPC amendment to block the House GOP from cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Will House Republicans stand with us? Today, 55 million older people and people with disabilities have health care because of Medicare. 82 percent of Americans--including 74 percent of Republicans, 88 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents--agree it is critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans. In 2015, 11 million Americans became newly eligible for Medicaid thanks to Medicaid expansion. If Republicans repeal the ACA, at least 11 million people's Medicaid coverage will be at risk. The House Republican budget plan far fiscal year 2017 would have cut federal Medicaid funding by $1 trillion--or nearly 25 percent--over ten years. That is in addition to ending Medicaid expansion. The Urban Institute estimated that the 2012 Ryan proposal would lead states to drop between 14.3 million and 20.5 million people from Medicaid by the tenth year, in addition to the effects of repealing health reform's Medicaid expansion.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Colonel Song Leng Xiong. Colonel Song Leng Xiong passed away peacefully in the presence of his loved ones on September 28, 2016 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. August 14, 2017 would have been his 78th birthday. Colonel Song Leng Xiong was born in 1939 in the village of Ban Xoun, Mouang Ped, in the Xieng Khouang Province in Laos. He began his distinguished military career at the age of just 14, when he enlisted in the French Army and was selected to attend training in South Vietnam, serving as a radio operator from 1953 to 1954. From 1956 to 1960, he was assigned a battalion to guard Route 7 in Muang Xoun, and later led the building of the Phou Vieng airfield in his home province. After being specially selected to further his training in Thailand, in June of 1960, Colonel Song Leng Xiong was tasked with selecting nearly 600 new recruits to receive special training as part of the United States Central Intelligence Agency's Special Guerilla Units. Through this program, the CIA recruited thousands of Hmong soldiers and military leaders like Colonel Song Leng Xiong to fight against the Communist Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese Army regulars in Laos, working as surrogate soldiers of the United States Armed Forces. As many as 100,000 Hmong were recruited and trained to serve as these secret warriors, bravely battling the North Vietnamese Army for our country's cause. Colonel Song Leng Xiong fought in many battles for our country. In addition to leading his own battalion, he personally rescued and retrieved over seven American pilots who were shot down over Laos. His is one of countless stories of Hmong service-members and military leaders who protected our country through conducting guerrilla actions, guarding key installations, gathering intelligence, and undertaking rescue missions--all in the name of freedom. While the Secret War in Laos ended in 1975, Colonel Song Leng Xiong's service to his people and our country did not. Many refugees of the Secret War sought a better life here in the United States. Colonel Song Leng Xiong, a refugee himself, chose to stay behind and continue helping his fellow refugees in the transition. He immigrated to Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1993 after the United Nations closed the Ban Vinai refugee camp. In Minneapolis, Colonel Song Leng Xiong became a leader in our community through his service as Chair of the Lao-Hmong American Coalition chapter of Minnesota. In this role, he and his wife, Manichan Xiong, worked to share the stories of their community so that all Americans never forget their sacrifice. I am honored to recognize my constituent Colonel Song Leng Xiong for his tremendous sacrifices on behalf of our country. We are all better off due to his life of service. His dedication to freedom and to this country will never be forgotten. Thank you, Colonel Song Leng Xiong, for protecting our country with such great distinction, and for the legacy you leave of continuing the fight for freedom.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes; had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll call no. 594. I would have voted no. Roll call no. 595. I would have voted no. Roll call no. 596. I would have voted no. Roll call no. 597. I would have vote no. Roll call no. 598. I would have voted yes. Roll call no. 599. I would have voted no. Roll call no. 600. I would have voted no.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Tree Trust, to recognize and commemorate the 40th anniversary of an organization devoted to ending joblessness and expanding the urban tree canopy. Founded in 1976, Tree Trust was inspired by a simple idea: Improve the environment while investing in people. Tree Trust does exactly that through reforestation drives, employment training, and environmental education programs. They have fought for countless reforms to public programs that now provide meaningful opportunities to serve the community and connect with the outdoors. For 40 years, Tree Trust has transformed lives and landscapes. They have planted and distributed nearly 90,000 trees and shrubs while investing in over 55,000 youth and adults since their inception. I know the quality of Tree Trust's work first hand. Since being elected to Congress, I have joined them for many tree plantings and community service days. Many summers, I have had the honor to present the Governor's awards at their Youth Employment Program Awards Picnic to outstanding young people who are improving our community. My driving force in Congress is making a more generous, inclusive, and sustainable society. I want young people to believe that they have the power to make a meaningful change. I want adults struggling with unemployment to know that they are valuable, important members of community. We as a society will shape our vision of tomorrow through action and service. Tree Trust is an organization that is leading the way, and I am proud to represent them in Congress. Once again, congratulations to Tree Trust for 40 years of service. I am looking forward to seeing what they accomplish in the next 40 years.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the ranking member for the time and for his advocacy for working people. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two articles which talk about how the overtime rule is likely to add 100,000 jobs to the economy; one from Goldman Sachs, and the other from the National Retail Federation. [From the National Retail Federation, Sept. 28, 2016] How Expanding Overtime Could Affect Retailers The Department of Labor has proposed a major change in federal regulations governing overtime pay that could have a significant impact on the retail industry. Under current rules, workers making up to $455 a week are automatically entitled to overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week. Managers and professionals who make more can be declared exempt, but only if they meet certain conditions such as having supervision of other workers as their primary duty. Under the proposed changes, the wage threshold would be increased to $970 a week, and the administration is asking whether additional restrictions should be placed on non- supervisory duties managers can perform and still be considered exempt. To better understand the effects of the proposal, NRF commissioned the research firm Oxford Economics to conduct a study. While raising the threshold would mandate overtime pay for many workers, the analysis found that most employees would not actually see a change in net pay. Instead, many employees would see their hours reduced so that overtime would not be worked, while others would see their base wages, benefits or bonus pay decreased in order to offset the added payroll expense. The study also found that updating payroll systems, establishing ways to track employee hours and other administrative expenses would cost the restaurant and retail industries alone an estimated $745 million even if workers saw no additional take-home pay. (The original study was prepared before the Labor Department proposal was released, and was conducted with projected wage thresholds that might have been proposed. An update has been prepared based on the actual proposal.)

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, one wonders if there could possibly ever have been any small businesses only a few years ago. At its peak, 62 percent of workers were eligible for overtime pay. Today, only 7 percent are eligible. What did they do then? They hired people. This idea that making it fair for working people who work overtime is somehow going to bring doom and gloom and destruction on small businesses is absolutely nonsense. It is typical. We hear it all the time. Anything we are going to do for working people just can't possibly be done, or little people themselves will be hurt. This is a constant refrain. If big, big, big agriculture wants something, they say, oh, we are here for the family farm. If big, big banks want something, they say, oh, we are here for the community banks. And if big, big, big businesses want something, and they don't want to pay their overtime, they say, oh, what about the small businesses. In fact, this bill named for small businesses, folks out there listening should know that the title of this legislation is misleading. The legislation delays the rule for all employers, including small businesses. But here's the fact. Walmart, are they--do they benefit from the fact that this overtime rule hasn't kept pace? McDonald's, Burger King, all types of huge businesses which absolutely have the capacity to pay people fairly simply haven't done so. It is interesting to me that our Republican friends have had the gavels in their hands since 2010 now. They haven't stepped up to improve and update this particular overtime rule. The administration has done what they have failed to do. And now what do they have to say about it? Oh, it can't possibly happen, can't possibly work, and it is going to make everything worse. How discouraging it must be to an American worker today. This Congress won't look at increasing the Federal minimum wage of $7.25. And the tip wage of $2.13, a national disgrace, they won't do that. They don't take that up. They are constantly attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has brought consumers over $12 billion. And they are constantly trying to cut taxes for the rich, and they don't want to invest in anything for the working people. Yet, they always justify everything they are doing by saying, oh, it would hurt the working people themselves. This is ridiculous. This argument has no merit. It has to be rejected. Over the past 35 years, we have failed to meaningfully update our overtime pay regulations. Now is the right time. As I said, at its peak, 62 percent of workers were eligible for overtime pay. Today, only 7 percent are eligible because we have let the working people down. We have delayed action to help working families long enough, and we can't ask them to wait any longer. I urge a very strong ``no.''

Mr. ELLISON. I want to say this. It is about real people. One of those real people is Jodi T. from Minneapolis. She said: I work more than 40 hours a week regularly, and this will make a great deal of difference for me and my family. Lately, I find that businesses will eliminate positions and put more work on existing staff regardless of whether they can handle it within the time and the workday. If they pay overtime, they will bear some of the real costs of these decisions. Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is a bad thing.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the City of Columbia Heights for its designation as a 2016 All-America City by the National Civic League. Since its incorporation in 1921, Columbia Heights has demonstrated sincere dedication to creating a safe, livable, and inclusive community. Columbia Heights' community vitality is a direct result of investing in youth and putting children first. The City has shown great leadership through collaborative efforts such as: Big Brothers and Big Sisters; recreation and education outreach programs; and a strong City, Police Department, and School District partnership. This year, to ensure no child goes hungry in the summer months, Columbia Heights entered into a partnership with Loaves and Fishes to serve a healthy, complete lunch free of charge to local children five days a week. In 2008 under the leadership of Police Chief Scott Nadeau, the Columbia Heights Police Department implemented a policing philosophy focused on community partnership. Through work with the Columbia Heights school district, the police force drastically reduced criminal activity over a seven-year period and has taken youth arrests from 230 per year to 90 per year. This work earned the city the International Association of Chiefs of Police Award for Community Policing in 2012, and the L. Anthony Sutlin Civic Imagination Award in 2015 from the Department of Justice for collaboration between law enforcement and community members. The City of Columbia Heights also recently completed construction on a beautiful 22,000 square foot library. In 2014, city residents passed a referendum to raise funds to build a library the city could call its own. Now, Columbia Heights has a tremendous community asset and gathering place that it can be proud of for years to come. Columbia Heights has actively engaged its new immigrant communities, from working to build a community park in the Circle Terrace neighborhood, to hosting Iftar dinners in the police building to bring the community together. Columbia Heights stands as a Minnesotan beacon of inclusion and progress. I wish the city of Columbia Heights all the best in its future endeavors of successful community engagement, and congratulate the city on this well-deserved honor.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Metro Transit on being named Transit System of the Year. This year, Metro Transit served nearly 86 million riders while offering excellent and reliable service. The American Public Transportation Association's Outstanding Public Transportation System Achievement Award reflects accomplishments made between 2013 and 2015. During this time, Metro Transit increased ridership, expanded access, improved sustainability practices, and increased overall success in system safety. Metro Transit was singled out among all North America agencies that provide more than 20 million annual passenger trips. Metro Transit plays a vital role in the Twin Cities by providing clean, safe, reliable, and affordable transportation service every day to thousands of commuters, residents, workers, and visitors. In 2015, Metro Transit had its highest ridership in 30 years, with total annual rides of over 85 million. Metro Transit's commitment to sustainability through its transition to lower emission vehicles benefits everyone in the region, whether they use transit or not. Metro Transit not only makes transportation more accessible to workers, it also employs over 3,100 people in the Twin Cities. I am pleased to say that Metro Transit contributes to the quality of life and preserves the livability of the Twin Cities by mitigating traffic impacts, providing easier access to local businesses, reducing air pollution, and improving circulation throughout the cities. On behalf of the residents of Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, I congratulate the entire Metro Transit System, its employees, and its Board of Directors, for their efforts and significant contributions to the Greater Minneapolis Area, and for their nationally recognized achievements in providing the highest quality transit service.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Mary Matzke and Birdell Beeks, victims of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the House floor.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I offered an amendment to rename it Another Wall Street Request to Avoid Accountability for Fraud. But, my amendment for a more accurate title was not accepted. Today, the majority wants to defund the organizations and attorneys that help people have a fighting chance against deep-pocketed multi- national corporations and banks. Mr. Speaker, Congress returns after a seven-week district work period. During that time, I held many constituent meetings. Not one person asked me to weaken regulations on hedge fund managers or Wall Street bankers. And yet, Wall Street requests are what the majority prioritized for our first week back. This bill would defund the network of housing counselors and legal aid attorneys who help homeowners facing foreclosure. Homeowners who were tricked into buying a home with teaser rates that exploded into unaffordable payments. Homeowners who deserved a chance to catch up after a missed payment or two but were unable to get a response from their lender. And homeowners like Alan Schroit. Alan, a retired cancer researcher, visited his rental house in Galveston, Texas. He found the locks had been changed, the electricity shut off and a notice on the door said Bank of America was foreclosing on his home. Alan did not have a mortgage with Bank of America. Alan didn't even have a mortgage. His home was paid off. It took him 30 days to get someone at Bank of America to call him back. Homeowners like Nilly Mauck who lost all her possessions when a company mistakenly evicted her instead of her neighbor. Or homeowners like Charlie and Maria Cardoso who bought their retirement home with cash in 2005. While they continued living in their primary home, they rented their retirement home out. Their tenants came home one day to find the house cleared of all the possessions--again by Bank of America. Nilly, Alan and Charlie and Maria's foreclosures were some of thirteen million between 2006-2010. Far too many of them were fraudulent, people foreclosed on by firms who did not have clear title to the property. A significant number of these foreclosures could have been prevented if the lenders involved had followed the law. The new book, Chain of Title, by David Dayen reports that across our nation, homeowners who should have received assistance with a loan modification, or allowed to cure a delinquency, instead were hit with outrageous late fines, sold over-priced forced-placed insurance, punished with monthly property inspection and other junk fees. Using robo-signing, their eviction papers were signed by people who had no ownership of the loan. Congress and the states demanded change. Legal settlements pursued by the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the banking regulators and the states made sure that people have a fighting chance against deep-pocketed multi-national corporations. And yes, to correct this massive wrongdoing required that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Ally Financial and others pay fines. Some of those fines supported nonprofit agencies who knew how to get banks to respond to homeowners and follow the law. The funds supported legal aid attorneys who knew how to ensure the banking doing the eviction actually had a right to the property. When lenders foreclose on the wrong people, or lie about their ownership of a mortgage, there should be consequences. When we require banks to fund housing counseling and legal aid agencies, we leveled the playing field. We realized it was unfair to require each individual person to figure out the unresponsive, complicated and too often predatory home mortgage market on their own. I oppose gutting initiatives to help homeowners, small business owners and families do battle with global corporations who have defrauded them out of their home or business, polluted their water or land or harmed their health. Therefore I will oppose H.R. 5063. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Speier for yielding. I appreciate the gentlewoman being the leader on this issue, looking after the public dollar and looking after our national security making sure that we don't waste any money but that we put our energy into making sure that we protect the American people at the most proper cost because a dollar that we waste is a dollar we cannot use to do anything else. So the gentlewoman's advocacy here, I think, is absolutely important. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for organizing this hour to highlight an area of incredible waste of funds, the littoral combat ship. The Operational Test and Evaluation office in the Pentagon said in January that the ship is not reliable. The Pentagon wants to pay for only two of these ships in 2017, enough to preserve competition and to make sure that taxpayers get the best deal for their money. Yet some in Congress want to force the Pentagon to buy three ships. Key Members of the Congress have expressed their concerns about the ship. Senators John McCain and Jack Reed do not believe that the littoral combat ship could defeat an enemy fleet ``unless the enemy fleet consists of a small number of lightly armed boats at extremely short range.'' The GAO thinks the problems with the littoral combat ship are severe enough to merit a complete production pause. The GAO recommends that Congress not fund these ships in 2017. The last of the Navy's survivability tests will not be completed until 2018, giving us the answers we need to guide future development. The events of this week only reinforce the GAO's recommendation. The Navy ordered all littoral combat ship crews to stand down and halt operations in order to review procedures and engineering standards. Every single sailor with an engineering role on the crew will need to be retrained. This is due to ongoing challenges. That ought to be enough for us to take notice. Yet Congress is not listening to the facts. The House appropriated an extra $348 million for this ship in 2017. $348 million goes a long way to buying other things that can promote national security, but also things that can help domestic security--things like housing, things like food, jobs, all these kinds of things that we have urgent needs to address. We haven't taken up the Zika. We haven't dealt with Flint. Many urgent needs. This is not a worthwhile meritorious expenditure. Somebody is getting paid, and it is not right. The American people's interest should be upheld first. That is $348 million above what the President requested for a ship that is not even working. There are better uses for the taxpayer's money. Like I said, Zika. Let's make sure that our veterans are stably housed and support mental health programs. How about universal child care for working families? There are so many urgent needs that the American people have. Or, if we stick to military needs, let's support our troops overseas for an entire year, not just a few months. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) for bringing to light this critical issue. She always is at the forefront when justice needs a champion. I want to urge Ms. Speier to keep up the fight. We are very proud of her and the work that she does. We will always be standing by her side.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it is our job here in Congress to support communities in crisis. It has been a year since we learned about the lead-contaminated water in Flint. It is way past time to act, Mr. Speaker. We are here to call on our Republican colleagues to do their job and to address the urgent needs of the people of Flint. We have to consider funding a bill that will take care of the needs of the people in Flint. This crisis happened when Governor Snyder ripped democratic rights away from the people of Flint and tried to run the government like it was a business. The State made decisions in the name of fiscal responsibility, but when it comes to people's health, the government should not be run on the cheap with people's health. Funding from Congress can help Flint replace corroded pipes, support health and education assistance for kids exposed to lead, and deliver economic development opportunities for the community. Earlier this year, I traveled to Flint with Representative Kildee and 25 other of my colleagues to hear directly from the people. Mr. Speaker, here are a few of the things that they said: One woman spoke about the loss of dignity she felt while waiting in line just for water, and many others gave us important stories which I will put into the Record at a later time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Financial Services Protection Act of 2016 (H.R. 4992). Unfortunately, I could not be in DC to vote against the bill as I was home in Minneapolis for the funeral of Philando Castile. This bill undercuts the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, by disrupting permissible financial transactions between Iran and the rest of the international community that occur completely outside the U.S. financial system. The Financial Services Protection Act of 2016 accomplishes this by reapplying secondary sanctions barring Iranian access to U.S. dollars in all situations, even in exchanges that do not involve a U.S. bank or pass through the U.S. financial system. This provision effectively subjects non-U.S. banks to the restrictions imposed on U.S. banks regarding dollar-denominated transactions with Iran. This particular sanction barring all Iranian access to the U.S. dollar was lifted on the JCPOA's Implementation Day in return for Iran taking significant steps to meet its nuclear-related commitments, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If this sanction were to be re-imposed, it would make Iran's reintegration into the global financial system incredibly difficult and likely negate much of the relief promised by the JCPOA. In the Financial Services Protection Act of 2016 becomes law, our partners and Iran would both have reason to question our commitment to the nuclear deal, and Iran would likely seriously question the continued benefits of compliance with the nuclear deal. Therefore, the provisions contained within this bill could open a path for Iran to restart its nuclear program. This would put the nuclear deal at risk, undermine our national security interests, and significantly damage U.S. credibility and leadership abroad. The JCPOA is a historic diplomatic achievement. It has not only constrained Iran's nuclear program and led to the dismantlement of key components of the program, but also subjected the program to unprecedented verification and monitoring requirements. Simply put, the JCPOA ensures that Iran's nuclear program is and continues to be peaceful. As long as Iran continues to meet its commitments, we too must keep our commitments. Thus I oppose this bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Iran Accountability Act of 2016 (H.R. 5631). Unfortunately, I could not be in DC to vote against the bill as I was home in Minneapolis for the funeral of Philando Castile. The Iran Accountability Act of 2016 undermines the ability of the United States to comply with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. The bill uses non-nuclear reasons to re-impose certain secondary economic and financial sanctions lifted on the JCPOA's implementation day and could require the President to impose new nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. Thus, if implemented, the bill would prevent the Administration from implementing a number of its commitments outlined in the JCPOA. If the Iran Accountability Act of 2016 were to become law, both our partners and Iran would question our commitment to the nuclear deal. The provisions contained within this bill could even open a path for Iran to restart its nuclear program. This would not only put the nuclear deal at risk, but also undermine our national security interests and significantly damage U.S. credibility and leadership abroad. The JCPOA is a historic diplomatic achievement worth protecting. So far, Iran has complied with the deal. Without resorting to violence, it has constrained Iran's nuclear program, led to the dismantlement of key components of the program, and subjected Iran's program to unprecedented verification and monitoring requirements. Simply put, the JCPOA ensures that Iran's nuclear program is and continues to be peaceful. We must not jeopardize this achievement by backtracking on our commitments. Therefore, I oppose this bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor General Mills for their 150th year of hard work, leadership and community service in the food and service sector. General Mills, then named the Minneapolis Milling Company, first began when Cadwallader Washburn opened his first flour mill in Minneapolis. John Crosby joined eleven years later and together they reorganized business practices that farmers deemed unfair. They soon won the Gold Medal at the international Miller's Exhibition, which inspired them to name their flour ``Gold Medal''. The company has since expanded to a highly successful multi-national food corporation that has also tried its hand in the restaurant, toy, and fashion industries. In 1928, the name changed to General Mills. The same year the company had 5,800 employees with annual sales of $123 million mostly due to their strongest products of Softasilk cake flour and Wheaties cereal. By 1928, General Mills was the largest flour milling company in the world. General Mills' diversification and technology allowed them to produce military equipment and dehydrated food for World War II mobilization efforts. By the 1990's, General Mills went international, competing in European and Mexican markets. General Mills shares its wealth of food expertise through philanthropic work to increase food security, advance sustainable agriculture and protect our natural resources. In 2015, its foundation donated 20 million meals. General Mills strives to ensure the world's watersheds are restored and protected, and to increase the world's pollinator populations. General Mills has partnered with many non- profit organizations in pursuing these goals. From Betty Crocker to the Pillsbury Dough Boy, General Mills is responsible for some of our most iconic food brands. Whether it is a box of Cheerios, a can of Crescent Rolls, or a bag of Gold Medal Flour, nearly every American household can claim to have a General Mills product. Without a doubt, General Mills will continue to innovate and develop offerings that meet our nation's palate preferences and nutritional needs. I am proud to represent the congressional district where General Mills was started and remains today. I congratulate General Mills and its hardworking employees for their accomplishments and lasting legacy.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters, Chairman Fitzpatrick and Ranking Member Lynch for the thoughtful and inclusive process that produced this set of bills. I would also like to thank Mr. Pittenger and Mr. Lynch for introducing this particular bill, Enhancing Treasury's Anti-Terror Tools Act (H.R. 5607). I am especially appreciative that the bill includes language to help address the remittances crisis facing Somalia. I am fortunate to represent the largest Somali diaspora in our nation. I have heard from my constituents that they are unable to send funds to their loved ones back home. They can't send money for school fees or for medicine. They can't send funds to help a loved one start a business. Banks have stopped providing bank accounts to money services businesses that send funds to Somalia. Very few banks still provide wire transfers to the people of Somalia. As remittances from abroad are critical to the economy of this fragile nation, we are creating a humanitarian crisis which is also a national security problem. We need to address this crisis. Money is going to flow: either in the system or outside of it. It is in everyone's best interest to provide Somali Americans the ability to safely and transparently send money to loved ones in their home nation. This pilot program idea grew out of my frustration with finding a solution. I would like to see financial institutions and their regulators act proactively to keep the remittances pipeline open and safe. That's why I so appreciate Mr. Pittenger and Mr. Lynch including language I suggested requiring the Treasury Department to study the potential impact of a pilot program for humanitarian funds to Somalia. Somalia is improving; it recently passed an Anti-Money Laundering Law and appointed an ambassador to the U.S. The U.S. has acknowledged the government of Somalia and for the first time in decades, has an ambassador to that nation. The need to address the remittances crisis is urgent. I appreciate the Chairman, Ranking Member and my colleagues' commitment to addressing the remittances crisis which hinders Somalia's ability to become a stronger more functional nation.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Best Buy's 50th anniversary. Through these 50 years, Best Buy has shown leadership, community service, and entrepreneurship in Minnesota and beyond. Best Buy was started in 1966 by Richard M. Schulze. Mr. Schulze is a Minnesota native and former member of the Minnesota Air National Guard in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Schulze started Best Buy with four employees, less than $11,000 in capital, and with the sole experience of selling electronics at his father's company. At that time the store offered albums, audio cassettes, stereo components, speakers and musical instruments. In just four years Best Buy, then called ``Sound of Music'', accumulated $1 million in annual revenue. Since then Best Buy has been growing its company by updating retail technology, expanding all over the country, expanding recycle efforts and providing teenagers with access to technology. Best Buy has also been generous in its philanthropic work and diligent in its efforts to protect the environment. In 1994 the Best Buy Children's Foundation was established and that same year they raised over $107,000. Since then they have had annual charities that raise millions of dollars in order to give under-served youth access to technology. Best Buy has collected and recycled over 1 billion pounds of e-waste and has decreased its carbon footprint by more than 25 percent since 2009. Overall Best Buy has given over $50 million and over 140,000 volunteer hours to Minnesota non-profits. Not only has Best Buy done extensive charity work but they also educate teens through their national Teen Tech Centers. These Teen Tech Centers are a space for teens to use new technologies like music and video productions, photography, design and programming. Through these Teen Tech Centers 1,800 teens have completed educational workshops and 94 percent of the attendees will continue their education post high school. Over the years, Best Buy has employed over 1 million people, including 10,000 Minnesotans, through its 1,600 North American stores and online sales. Best Buy is North America's number one retailer of consumer technology and other related services. I wish Best Buy all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ranking Member Betty McCollum. We can raise the living standards for working families all over the country right now if we use Federal dollars to create good jobs. The United States Government is the largest buyer of goods and services in the world, and the United States Government should use that power to create good jobs and to create a high-road economy for all Americans. My amendment would reprogram funds to create an Office of Good Jobs in the Interior Department that would do the following: it would help ensure the Department's procurement, grant-making, and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. Mr. Chairman, it is important for all Americans to know that more than 1 in 5 Americans are employed by companies with Federal contracts. Right now the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job creator. That is right. The United States Government, at this very hour, funds over 2 million low-paying jobs through contracts, loans, and grants with corporate America. That is why more than the total number--the total number of low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonalds combined do not equal the number of low-wage jobs funded by the United States Government. That is right. Wal-Mart and McDonald's combined have fewer low-wage jobs than are funded by the Federal Government right now. U.S. contract workers earn so little that nearly 40 percent of them use public assistance programs like food stamps and Section 8 to feed and shelter their families. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the gentleman confuses the debarment process, which says that we are going to look at the very worst actors and exclude them and the Office of Good Jobs, which would say that we will use education and we will use prioritization to make sure that the best employers are the ones that the American taxpayer is going to employ in order to award contracts. It is just a simple matter of understanding the difference between excluding the very worst and rewarding the best. I think that the American people would like to see the Federal Government say: You are a good employer, you pay good wages and good benefits, and we think that that kind of practice is the kind of thing we like to see, and, therefore, our Office of Good Jobs is going to prioritize such businesses. Time and time again, we hear Members of the party opposite confuse the debarment process with the Office of Good Jobs concept. It is a big difference, and I think that the American people would agree that where we find the best practices, we should reward them, not simply create a big, big bottle, a big, big vat of the best competing with the mediocre, and then exclude the very, very worst. I just want to make this point. This is good for good contractors in many ways, because if you are an excellent contractor and you go out of your way to reward good workers and help create a hybrid economy, you are still competing with the people who are doing the bare minimum they can just to avoid debarment. I think that is not fair to good contractors. I think good contractors ought to be rewarded. I think that if we establish this Office of Good Jobs, what we will see is a general wave throughout our economy as the private sector will look to the Federal Government as to what the best ways to create a fair economy could be, and we would see a greater measure of economic equality and opportunity throughout the land. I just want to say that if the system we had was adequate, why, then, would we have 40 percent of all people who work for Federal contractors eligible for Federal Government programs, like Section 8 and food stamps? Why would we see that? Well, because we are not prioritizing good jobs. We are just saying that if you are a lawbreaker, you will be excluded, but other than that, we don't really care. An Office of Good Jobs would change that. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote. It is intended that the appropriation for Departmental Operations in the Office of the Secretary at the United States Interior Department be used to establish an Office of Good Jobs in the Department aimed at ensuring that the Department's procurement, grant-making, and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. The office's structure shall be substantially similar to the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development. I yield back the balance of my time.

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