Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we always knew that Kevin McCarthy and the Republican Caucus had gotten together to set up this Benghazi task force in order to do a political stunt, but I never thought they would admit it. I was shocked. I mean, could you imagine me or any Member of this House setting up a $4.5 million task force for the sole purpose of electioneering? Everyone in that task force, every staffer, was essentially a campaign staffer and, yet, paid for with government money to impact a Presidential election. This is a scandal, people. I cannot believe what I heard. We all knew it was going on, but we couldn't prove it. Now it is documentary proof in front of literally millions of Americans, bragged about and set out as: Yeah. We did it, and it is an achievement we are proud of. Now, if one Member were to use their Congressional office to campaign, that would be an ethics complaint. What if a whole caucus does it?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this particular bill. You know, once we were able to secure this negotiation and once the deal was put in place, the focus of our attention should shift to making sure that Iran lives up to its commitments, and we should use this prior negotiation as a template for negotiating other issues, including the captives, including the interests of these victims talked about here today. What this bill does is it handcuffs the President and says that the President doesn't have any discretion to do his end of this bargain, to exercise his discretion to forward and help America and the P5+1 live up to our end of the bargain. That is the wrong way to go. So I can credit the authors of this bill with having good intentions, but I think that the method that they are going about it is just wrong. Let's use the template that has been developed through the negotiation process to go back and say, ``Okay, now we got other things we want to talk to you about,'' rather than pass legislation on this floor that will do nothing other than hamstring the President. It is the wrong way to do it. It is a mistake, and it should be voted down.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, today, I would like to talk about the Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood and restrict access to health care services. Planned Parenthood is an invaluable resource for working Americans across the country. In my home state of Minnesota, Planned Parenthood operates 18 clinics, an online health center, and serves over 54,000 people every year. If funding for Planned Parenthood is eliminated--as my Republican colleagues are demanding--the consequences would be devastating. The elimination of Planned Parenthood's services would mean that millions of women and men would lose access to primary care services, contraceptive services, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. These families--especially those in rural and high poverty areas--would have nowhere else to go. My colleagues who support defunding Planned Parenthood say that working families could go elsewhere to receive care. This claim is false. Community Health Centers and other clinics that serve low-income Americans would not be able to provide care for all of the patients that would flood their offices should Planned Parenthood lose their federal funding. Not only would defunding Planned Parenthood create barriers to accessing care, but it would limit the ability of women to achieve economic security. A recent Guttmacher Institute study showed that access to contraception helped women complete their education, keep or get a job, and take better care of their families. For example, the children of mothers who had access to contraception have higher family incomes and college completion rates. Moreover, research also shows that access to birth control contributed in a 30 percent rise in the number of women in skilled careers between 1970 and 1990. The positive effects of widespread access to reproductive and primary care services for women, families and Americans is immeasurable. Unfortunately, the recent attacks on Planned Parenthood are nothing new. This is just another attack on working families and low-income women. In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. This policy directly harms the wellbeing and safety of low-income women, and limits their personal autonomy. It is a policy I strongly oppose. Three decades later, Republican talking points about Planned Parenthood ignore the very real impact defunding the organization will have on every day Americans-- both on a large economic scale, and on the personal health and autonomy of Americans. It is a reminder that my Republican colleagues in Congress do not trust women to make decisions that are best for them. That must change. We must trust women to do what is best for their bodies and their families. Republican tactics also ignore the consequences of shutting down the government simply to make an ideological point. Putting the wellbeing of millions working Americans on the line is unacceptable. Supporting policies that restrict women's--specifically low-income women's--personal autonomy is unacceptable. That is why I support the Planned Parenthood and the working families it serves.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu went to the U.N. with a graph, much like the one right beside me. It was a picture of a bomb with a red line. The Prime Minister said: ``The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program.'' This deal does that. Today, we can say that Iran cannot produce or stockpile highly enriched uranium, and it has to get rid of 98 percent of its low enriched uranium. To make sure that they don't achieve a nuclear weapon, we have the strictest inspection regimen in the history of nuclear agreements. The impetus for 2 years of negotiation has been achieved. So what is the problem? The gears of war are halted when we prove that negotiation and diplomacy are the best methods of achieving peace. This deal is a triumph of diplomacy over military conflict. It is a win for those who reject the misconception that diplomacy is weakness. In 2003, Vice President Cheney said: ``I have been charged by the President with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with.'' The ensuing decades of war brought 6,840 U.S. soldiers home in coffins and squandered trillions of hard-earned, American tax dollars. Yet, we have learned from that. We have learned our lesson that we must negotiate, that we must talk it out before we begin to shoot it out. The fact that a majority of Americans supports this deal means that people are tired of sacrificing so much for the bankrupt idea that a conversation is capitulation. This agreement keeps nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands for decades. In 2003, Iran had 164 centrifuges. In 2005, they had 3,000. In 2009, they had 8,000. By 2013, they had 22,000. While we were rattling sabers and making bravado-type comments about what we were going to do to them, they were making centrifuges. When the President got down to the business of negotiation, we had brought that process to a stop. We will continue to sanction human rights violators wherever they are, including in Iran, and we will also continue to confront people who export terrorism; but the best way to empower reformers within Iran is to engage. Diplomatic victories require playing the long game. You need patience, and you need unshakable courage in your convictions. Let me say that I remember the moment in 2007 when then-Senator Obama said he would engage in personal diplomacy with leaders in the Middle East in order to stop bloodshed in the region. That is the moment that I knew I would vote for him, and I am proud to stand here nearly a decade later to congratulate the President for this diplomatic victory.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Shar Knutson, who on October 15th, 2015 will retire from her post as the first woman to serve as president of Minnesota AFL-CIO. Ms. Knutson has led the 300,000-member state branch of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) since 2009. The Labor movement runs deep for Ms. Knutson, who was raised in a union family and worked a union job as a single parent, experiencing firsthand the benefits of organizing for improving lives. Prior to her election in August 2009, Ms. Knutson served as president of the St. Paul Regional Labor Federation for a decade. One of her signature victories occurred in 1999, when she led a coalition of labor and community leaders to successfully oppose then-St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman's effort to outsource the city's public water works to a non-union firm. Before her union work, she was a policy analyst to former St. Paul Mayor Jim Scheibel, specializing in labor, health and immigration issues. She served on the Greater Twin Cities United Way board as well as the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Advisory Council. As head of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, Ms. Knutson helped lead the coalition that successfully raised Minnesota's minimum wage, coordinated efforts that kept a ``Right to Work'' constitutional amendment off the ballot, and increased political participation among union members. Also under her leadership, the Minnesota AFL-CIO successfully passed legislation extending unemployment benefits for locked out workers, opened up new avenues for women and young workers to be involved in the labor movement, and built an infrastructure to support affiliate unions in their organizing efforts. I am privileged to recognize the decades of tireless advocacy of Ms. Shar Knutson, whose contributions to Minnesota's workers will be felt for years to come.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder on its 80th Anniversary. The Spokesman- Recorder is the oldest African-American business in Minnesota and one of the oldest African-American newspapers in the United States. A longstanding pillar and voice of the Minnesota African-American community since its inception in 1934, the Spokesman-Recorder remains a journalistic force to this day. Started as two separate papers, the Minneapolis Spokesman and the St. Paul Recorder were founded on August 10, 1934 by Cecil E. Newman. Mr. Newman was truly invested in the lives and communities his papers reached. He designed both papers as communication vehicles to unite, educate, inspire and empower the Twin Cities African-American community. When founding his publications, Mr. Newman was quoted as saying, ``I didn't have enough money to begin one newspaper, so I began publishing two.'' Mr. Newman was an important voice in the civil rights era, advising Senators Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN) and Clifford P. Case (R-NJ) throughout the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Senator Walter F. Mondale (D-MN) on the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Mr. Newman's commitment to civil and human rights and his bipartisan advocacy gained the papers respect and influence. Now one publication, the Spokesman-Recorder, has been a springboard for African-American talent and continues to nurture and support talented writers, photographers and journalists. The Spokesman-Recorder helped launch the careers of internationally-renowned photographer and writer Gordon Parks and honored U.S. journalist and former Ambassador to Finland, Carl Rowan. After Mr. Newman's passing in 1976, his wife Launa took the helm as publisher. Mrs. Newman remained in that role for 32 years until she handed the reins to their granddaughter, Tracey Williams-Dillard, in 2008. Ms. Williams-Dillard has worked to continue Cecil Newman's legacy and the Spokesman-Recorder now connects the entire state of Minnesota through print and digital content. I am proud to represent the congressional district that the Spokesman-Recorder and the Newman family call home. Today, I congratulate the Spokesman-Recorder for its accomplishments, its lasting legacy, and the decades of hard work required to publish one of the top African-American owned newspapers in the United States.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Roy Lee Seay, who has been honored for his services in the Vietnam War. Through his service in the United States Army, Mr. Seay earned several medals and awards such as the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Marksman Badge with Auto Rifle Bar, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with ``60'' device. Mr. Seay was also recently surprised to find out he has been recognized with the following awards: the Silver Star, the Vietnam Service Medal with three Bronze Service Stars, the Sharpshooter Badge with Rifle and Machinegun Bars, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unity Citation with Palm Device. Mr. Seay was born July 12, 1947 in Mer Rogue, Louisiana to the late Robert Seay and Elizabeth Seay. In October 1970, roughly eight months after returning from the war, Mr. Seay and his wife, Maggie Seay, moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he worked for Food Machinery Corporation/United Defense Industries for twenty-nine years until his retirement in 1999. Mr. Seay is a dedicated member of his church, New Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis, where he also works as a Sunday School Teacher. Mr. Seay's family is of utmost importance to him. He is the proud father of three daughters: Debra Brinkley, Sandra Moore, and Lawanda Moore; and one son: Lonnie LaValias. I wish to congratulate Mr. Seay and his entire family, on a lifetime of service--to his county, to his family, and to his community. Thank you, Roy, for your service.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt in the mind of any person as to what this Confederate battle flag stands for, I urge people not to listen to me. I urge you to listen to the secessionists themselves. Here is a quote from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. It reads: This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens, and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy hostile to the South and the destruction of its beliefs and safety. Those persons were Black people. That new policy that was hostile to the South was ending the enslavement of the millions of people based on their race. Here is a quote from the Vice President of the Confederacy. I think he can speak authoritatively as to what other Confederate flags mean. Vice President Alexander Stephens said: Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite of the American idea. Its foundations are laid--its cornerstone rests--upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. That is what the Vice President of the Confederate States said under banners like this one as they were fighting and offering the lives of their own children to maintain slavery. This is what the flag represents. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, before I discuss my amendment, which is to prevent wage theft from violators who commit acts that are repeated and willful and to stop such actors from partaking of Federal procurement in this bill, I would like to set the table just a little bit. In 1980, Mr. Chair, CEO-to-worker pay ratio for Fortune 500 companies was 20 to 1. Today it is 204 to 1, according to Bloomberg. At the same time, the buying power of the minimum wage is now less than it was in the 1960s. The Economic Policy Institute found that, in total, the average low- wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing about 15 percent of their earned income. It is particularly egregious in the fast-food sector. A recent study by Hart Research of fast-food workers found that about 89 percent reported some form of wage theft. Lastly, in this case, I would like to point out, Mr. Chair, that the recent report by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the U.S. Senate revealed that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. As I bring this amendment before the body today, Mr. Chairman, it is simply to recognize that the hard work and the work that workers do who work for Federal contractors must be recognized. We are not debating today over increasing or decreasing the minimum wage. We are just saying the people who work hard ought to get the money that they earned. I would hope that everyone in this body would be willing to say wage theft is not okay. No hard-working American should ever have to worry that her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or take money out of her paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal contractor. This practice, as I mentioned already, is called wage theft. Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. This amendment seeks to ensure that funds may not be used to enter into a contract with a government contractor that willfully or repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act--willfully or repeatedly. It is important, Mr. Chairman, to point out that it is not easy to get a violation. You have got to work at it. There is a database called the FAPISS database, to begin with, in which contractors have to report all their violations. Just because a wage and hour complaint comes to your door, it doesn't necessarily mean you get a violation. In order to get a violation in the database, you have to have a criminal conviction, a civil proceeding with a finding of fault, or an administrative proceeding with a finding of fault or a penalty of $5,000 or more or damages of $100,000 or more. You have got to really work at it. In other words, if you are found to owe back wages and you agree to pay them, there is not going to be a case for you to have to report. This amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. And we should reward good actors. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. ELLISON. Members, this has nothing to do with debarment. Debarment is a quasi-judicial process in which evidence is gathered and findings are made. This is saying that, after somebody has been found to engage in repeated and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, such persons are not the kind of people we want to reward through our procurement system. This is totally different from debarment. What it is really saying is it reflects our values as a body and reflects our value of the dignity of work and that a dollar earned is a dollar that must be paid. And we should never be the kind of body that says: ``Commit willful violations all you want; take workers' money away; you can still get another contract if you please.'' That is not the kind of body that we are, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, I will submit for the Record a letter from the President of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Richard Trumka. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, June 24, 2015. Dear Representative: We are in the final stretch of a long and contentious battle over the congressional grant of trade negotiating authority to the President. Congress has now approved fast track authority, which will give the executive branch the opportunity to negotiate--in secret--as many trade agreements as it can through at least June 30, 2018 (and likely through 2021). Fast track 2015 fails to hold the executive branch accountable for achieving negotiating objectives, addressing the U.S. trade imbalance, or ensuring that trade deals adequately protect good jobs, workers rights, environmental protections, access to affordable medicines, food safety, and other vital protections for working families. This week, Trade Adjustment Assistance (H.R. 1295 or TAA) will come before the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, and against the advice of many members of Congress, TAA has been packaged with an important and necessary bill to provide trade preferences to sub-Saharan African countries--the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The AFL-CIO has long supported renewal of AGOA, and we will continue to work closely with our African trade union brothers and sisters to ensure that AGOA supports workers' rights and sustainable development. The AFL-CIO has been clear that this TAA bill is inadequately funded and fails to take into account job disruptions from massive pending trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and others that may be negotiated over the course of the next six years. TAA ought to include a minimum funding level of $575 million and ensure that public sector workers are eligible. Moreover, the funding mechanism for TAA remains highly problematic: despite a fix to one ``pay-for,'' partial funding for TAA is achieved in this bill by cutting $250 million from Medicare payments to hospital kidney dialysis centers. These unrelated program cuts are unwarranted and compromise the integrity of the program. Furthermore, this violates the principle that Medicare savings should be plowed back into Medicare. The sequencing and cynical packaging of votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), TAA, and the Customs Enforcement bill have been designed to obfuscate clear policy issues and force members of Congress to make awkward and conflicting votes with inadequate information. Scheduling a fast track vote without assurance that an adequately funded TAA would ever be enacted or that important trade enforcement measures would be included compounds the existing failures of U.S. trade policy to promote the interests of working families. There is significant uncertainty about what version of the Customs bill might eventually emerge from the conference process, or whether any TAA or Customs bill will eventually reach the President's desk at all. The changes made to the Customs bill in the House of Representatives eviscerated key enforcement, currency and human rights provisions, while inserting ideologically motivated and counter-productive negotiating objectives with respect to climate change and immigrant rights. Every member of Congress who voted for TPA essentially endorsed this process and signaled a willingness to accept these problematic changes to the fast track objectives, as well as a willingness to enact new job-killing trade agreements without any guarantee that displaced workers will receive adequate training and support. We deplore the procedural machinations used by the Republican congressional leadership and endorsed by the White House to advance a flawed package of trade bills, absent any clarity or certainty about the final outcomes. We cannot endorse the current TAA legislation, given its shortcomings. We would oppose TAA in a heartbeat if by doing so we could be assured that we could slow or stop a flawed trade agenda from moving forward, and we are confident that we would have the votes to defeat it. However, in light of the unfortunate passage of TPA by the House and the Senate, we recognize that many members will be reluctant to imperil the passage of AGOA and may reasonably lack confidence that the Republican leadership will give them a chance to vote for an improved TAA bill. Despite President Obama's repeated assurances that he would not sign TPA without TAA, this no longer seems to be the case. The President has made clear that his only priority in the trade agenda is passage of TPA--regardless of what happens with respect to currency, trade enforcement, trafficking in persons, immigration policy or climate change--let alone assistance to dislocated workers. We do not have confidence that the White House would hold out for a stronger TAA bill if this one were to fail. We therefore urge you to vote your conscience, and we will respect your decision, whatever it may be. We will redouble our efforts to shape and improve U.S. trade policy. We will vigorously oppose TPP if it continues on its current course--with problematic provisions on investor-state-dispute settlement, procurement and intellectual property rights; without any protections against currency manipulation; with weak rules of origin; and with inadequate protections for workers' and human rights and the environment. We will continue to work closely with Congress and with our allies in the environmental, consumer, human rights, family farm, faith, development, domestic business, immigrants', women's and Internet privacy rights organizations--among many others--to educate and mobilize our members and the American public about what a good trade policy ought to be and why this one falls short. Sincerely, Richard L. Trumka, President.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter from Mr. Trumka because I think, perhaps more than anybody else in this whole country, he is in touch with workers and what they need; and labor has been a solid wall of opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trade Promotion Authority. The fact is, when people said we don't know what it is and it is an unknown, that is not true. We have, as Members, been able to go and read some of it. Pieces of it have been leaked. And everything I have seen so far has been incredibly disappointing and represents a real threat to the interests of working people, which Mr. Trumka is an expert on. I mean, I think it is really odd that we think the person who is expert at representing American workers knows so little and workers in general know so little about what is good for them. Maybe we should listen to the people who have borne the brunt of these trade bills in this country, from NAFTA all the way down.

Mr. ELLISON. The fact is, yeah, we do need Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Mr. ELLISON. If this Trans-Pacific Partnership is anything like the trade bills we have seen so far, we are going to need a way bigger Trade Adjustment Assistance than this represents. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a good thing, but it is an admission that we are going to have displaced workers. We are saying people will be hurt by this trade bill, and so we are going to try to mitigate some of the harm. The billions and billions of dollars that will be made by transnational corporations from the Trans-Pacific Partnership--well, let me tell you, we ought to be doing a whole lot more than the meager amount of Trade Adjustment Assistance that is captured in this bill. I will tell you this, the interests of the American people are what we should be thinking about. I have not heard a word about how this is going to help raise workers' wages. In fact, there is every reason to believe that this will put downward pressure on American workers at a time when we have seen historic income inequality and stagnation of worker pay. America needs to be the land of opportunity, not the land of economic stagnation caused by trade bills like the one I am afraid we are about to talk about. I am moving on the TPP, and we will fight that.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for the time. Members, what I really dislike about this whole debate is that there is so much invective thrown around, claims of untruth. Now, here is the truth. The reality is that, if we pass trade promotion authority, we will have nothing more than an up-or-down vote at the end of the process. They don't have to take our amendments. They don't have to listen to what we say. Very likely, what will happen is that whatever has been negotiated already will be what the deal is. For some Members to try to claim that others don't get it or they are not being honest is, quite frankly, insulting and does not add one thing to the quality of the debate. The American people deserve to know that if trade promotion authority passes, there is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote that will happen at the end of the process, and nobody here will be able to impact it through the normal course of events. We can go to some meetings; we can write some letters; but can we actually legislate? No. Now, the reason that this is a very bad outcome is because the United States Constitution delegates Congress, this body, with the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It says: ``Congress shall have power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' What we are doing here is taking that constitutional authority and we are handing it to the Executive and hoping for the best. Now, the people who have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership all along are a body of about 600 multinational lawyers and businesspeople. The voice of the workers haven't been there. The voice of the environment has not been there. The voice of ordinary citizens who have every reason to want a better world and impact this process have been muted in favor of big multinational corporate types. We must vote ``no'' on TPA today.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, Members, trade adjustment assistance should not be a sweetener, a trade-in coin. Trade adjustment assistance should be what we do no matter what. It shouldn't pave the way for trade promotion authority. It is important and good to stand with dislocated workers who basically are pushed off their jobs because of bad trade deals, which we have been pursuing for 40 years. Yet here we are today, told that we have got to vote for this trade adjustment authority, which does not include public sector workers, which is smaller than it should be. We have got to support it because--and the only reason we are here to support it, the only reason we have been lobbied by no less than the President and three top Cabinet officials, is because they know it paves the way to trade promotion authority, which is what they really want so that, literally, Members give up our constitutional duty. Where are my constitutional conservatives when you need them?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there really is quite a lot on the line here, despite what some speakers would submit, which is, oh, you know, this is just the TPA; it is not a big thing. No, this is a huge thing. As a matter of fact, this particular rule we are voting on right now does three important things. One is that it has the pay-for for the trade adjustment assistance that includes cuts to Medicare. No matter how you slice it, if you vote for this rule, you are voting to cut Medicare. Then what it does, it sets up a vote for the trade adjustment assistance and trade promotion authority. The fact is, if you go home and you try to explain to Americans, ``Oh, I didn't vote to cut Medicare,'' the fact is you will not be able to honestly say that. You might be able to say, ``Well, I did, but then they fixed it.'' You might be able to say, ``Well, yeah, I cut Medicare, but then later on we passed a thing and maybe Mitch McConnell won't try to change it later.'' You can say anything you want, but the maneuverings on this floor and in this body to get us to where we are have not changed one solid fact, which is that we are voting to cut Medicare. Now, there are all kinds of cute procedural maneuverings and different kinds of rules we are invoking, but you cannot escape the essential fact: the cut to Medicare is not going to be cut and excised out of this. If you vote for the rule, you voted to cut Medicare. Our seniors have taken enough on the chin. Do not put their livelihood at risk. Now, let me also say that this TAA is not supported by the AFL-CIO. Trade adjustment assistance is to help workers who are displaced by bad trade deals. Wouldn't you think that the president of the AFL-CIO would say, ``Yeah, well, we definitely would want TAA''? And he usually almost always does, but not this time because he knows what all of us should know, which is this trade adjustment authority is cutting Medicare.

Mr. ELLISON. This trade adjustment authority is paid for by Medicare. It continues to be underfunded. Trade adjustment authority is underfunded. It is like if you kick somebody off their job because of a bad trade deal and then you tell them, ``We are going to help you adjust to it.'' Well, you know what? At least we should fund it properly. Given the billions of dollars that will be made by this trade deal by multinational corporations, doesn't it make sense that we should at least try to fully fund trade adjustment authority, trade adjustment assistance? But we don't. Then the fact is that it excludes public sector workers. Public sector workers are negatively impacted by bad trade deals, just like all other workers. Why wouldn't we include them in it? They are not included in it. So this TAA, this trade adjustment assistance, package is insufficient. We must vote it down. I urge a ``no'' vote. I just want to let Members know, when you walk into that senior center and Mrs. McGillicuddy asks you, ``Did you vote to cut Medicare?'' I hope you can answer truthfully you did not vote to cut Medicare. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, no hard-working American should ever have to worry that her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or takes money out of her paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal contractor. This practice is known as wage theft. Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are allowed to apply for Federal contracts. This amendment will ensure that funds may not be used to enter into a contract with a government contractor that willfully, and this is important, Mr. Chairman, willfully or repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Other iterations of this amendment have simply identified any violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This one identifies only those contracts wherein the violator has been found to have been willfully or repeatedly in violation. Now, I hope that both Republicans and Democrats can agree that willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act are unacceptable; that we can find other contractors who do not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act willfully and repeatedly. And this amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. It also ensures that honest, good contractors who do not willfully and repeatedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act can have contracts. Why shouldn't the Federal Government work with contractors who have some modicum of respect for their employees and who do not willfully and repeatedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act? This amendment relies upon the violations reported to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System. Again, when a contractor applies for a Federal contract, there is documentation they have to fill out, including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, and that system looks back to look at the prior 5 years worth of criminal, civil, or administrative agency actions which have a final disposition. None of these things are pending. None of these things are under appeal. They have been decided. And this amendment says that wherein violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act have been decided and determined conclusively, and only in the category of those that have been willful and/or repeated, then those particular contractors are contractors whom the U.S. Government shouldn't be doing business with, at least for 5 years, until they clean their act up. Now, I hope that no one in this body would want to stand on the side of the willful and repeated violators of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is impossible to me that any Member would want to do that, particularly when we are trying to promote and do business with honest, decent contractors, or at least average and mediocre contractors. This one has gone to the, again, willful and repeated violators. Very difficult to stand next to them, and I hope no Member of this body would do such a thing. The amendment would ensure that a single inadvertent violation would not disqualify a contractor. And that is important. I have had some people say, well, what if somebody just messes up one time? Well, no, that particular individual wouldn't be hit by this amendment. But the willful and repeated ones would. So I think taxpayer money should be spent wisely. I think that as the largest purchaser of goods and services, the Federal Government must find a way to make sure funds are going to companies that treat their workers fairly and give American families a chance to succeed. This is a serious problem, Mr. Chairman. The Economic Policy Institute found that ``In total, the average low-wage workers lose a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing as much as 15 percent of their earned income.'' A report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of the U.S. Senate revealed that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. This is a problem. This is a situation that must be remedied. Similarly, the National Employment Law Project study found that 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 percent have been forced to work ``off the clock.'' Upholding the rule of law is a bipartisan issue. I think that we may disagree on many things; taxes, spending, we disagree on that. There have even been people in this body who disagree that any violator of the Fair Labor Standards Act should get a contract, but I certainly hope that those people who are repeated--let me repeat--repeated and willful violators should be excluded at least for 5 years. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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