Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I strenuously urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this particular amendment. The fact is that residential segregation in this country has limited opportunities for people for so many years. And I don't mean segregation just in terms of race--people who are excluded because of race, because of gender, because of all types of reasons. If we say that disparate impact has no place, then we will be precluded from looking into how disparity just causes people to have different chances to live the American Dream. We will be consigned to having to find a smoking gun or intent before we can take action to try to make this country fairer and more open. This is a very bad amendment, and I urge all Members to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this amendment simply says that the United States Government should not give appropriations and pay contracts for people or companies who have been found to have willful or repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In other words, if you have repeatedly and willfully stolen the wages of workers and you have a Federal contract, then you are not the kind of contractor who the American people, through the U.S. Congress, want to do business with. 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. The practice is known as wage theft. Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. This amendment, which my colleagues from the Progressive Caucus join me in, will 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. The amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support and should not get the rewards that other good contractors receive. It is important to point out to Members contemplating this amendment that, if you are a contractor who pays your workers on time, who does what you are supposed to do, who has avoided willful violations and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, you should not, as a good contractor, have to compete with somebody who gets a competitive advantage by stealing the pay of their workers. We should have good contractors competing for contracts, not contractors who make willful, repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment relies upon violations reported to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System. That system looks back 5 years to review criminal, civil, or administrative agency actions which have a final disposition. This amendment differs from previous amendments that I have offered similar to it because it targets actors who willfully or repeatedly engage in wage theft. The amendment would ensure that a single inadvertent violation would not disqualify a contractor, but it would show clearly that someone who had made repeated and willful violations would not be able to benefit from the contract. I urge Members to vote in favor of this particular amendment because a penny worked for and a penny earned must be a penny paid; particularly when that penny is derived from a company with a Federal contract, we have a right to believe that we are going to be treated in an honest way. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for the support for this amendment. Let me just point out a few things for Members contemplating this amendment. An important think tank looked at this question and found that in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,600 a year in unpaid wages, representing about 15 percent of their earned income. One thing that I believe Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that, if you break your back on the job all day long trying to earn a living and you don't get paid what you are supposed to get paid and your check is light, we all have to agree that that is wrong. I expect to have an all green board up there because to do otherwise would say that you want to stand on the side of the wage thieves, the ones who are willfully and repeatedly making violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I think that, as the United States Congress, we should stand together and say a penny worked is a penny that is going to be paid, and we are going to insist upon it. Finally, I just want to say that breaking the law is a bipartisan problem. Nobody can stand with the contractors who do this. It is one thing to underpay your workers in a way that is consistent with the law by paying them the Federal minimum wage rate--I want to raise it; we may not agree on that--but for sure, we have got to agree that, for people who work for Federal contractors, we have got to insist that the contractors who pay these workers even less than they have earned should not benefit from a Federal contract. To help the workers, we have to do this, and to help the honest Federal contractors, we have to do this.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the time. Let's talk about what we are really actually talking about. We are trying to fight racial segregation. That is what this is all about. Our Nation, the Nation I love, held slaves for 246 years and did Jim Crow segregation for another 100 years, and that created racial segregation patterns which this Member is trying to stop us from correcting. This is deeply offensive. I just want to say that when I think about the progress that our Nation has made so that when we say ``all men are created equal'' and when we say ``liberty and justice for all,'' that it will be true. This amendment is saying no, we are not going to allow it to be true; we are going to keep residential segregation based on race; we are going to make communities balkanize. When I hear somebody say something like the Federal Government should stay out of local affairs, that sounds like some states' rights talk from 1955. That sounds like something really offensive to me. Look, we need HUD to help implement affirmatively furthering fair housing rules. We need that. We need HUD to expand its efforts to fight discrimination and promote equal opportunity in every community. Too often in this country, too many people's economic opportunities, their life chances, are limited by where they live. And yes, the Federal Government should promote equality and should promote fair housing. Affirmatively furthering a fair housing rule helps to do that. Why we would want to strip it out makes absolutely no sense to me. I urge Members to understand what is going on right here and to very fervently vote ``no'' on the Gosar amendment.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment which says that the moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress should go to contractors who deal fairly with workers and who do not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. This particular amendment is not an allegation; it only applies to contractors who have been found in violation, who have been forced to disclose those violations based on the requirements of law and their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using funds in this bill to hire contractors with wage theft violations. Madam Chair, we live in a time when it is so hard for workers all across this Nation to make a living. People go to bed at night calculating whether they are going to be able to meet their monthly expenses. If the work that they do can't even be fully paid because they are victims of wage theft by an unscrupulous employer, I think that the Federal Government should not be doing business with that employer. The fact of the matter is that in this appropriation, we should reserve Federal money for the millions of contractors who do an honest contract, who provide the Federal Government with good work. Evidence suggests that wage theft is widespread and costs workers billions of dollars every year--greater than the cost of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, and other sorts of problems. Wage theft among Federal contractors is also a problem. Federal contractors are among America's companies that we rely on to discharge good service. But that service should be within the law; that service should be honoring the work that workers do. And Federal contractors, some of them, certainly not all, but some have had a problem in this area. A national employment law project found that nearly one in three low- wage contractors in the D.C. area reported stolen wages. A report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee revealed that 35 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. Now, there are many excellent Federal contractors. These people should not have to compete with companies that circumvent the requirements of the law. In total, those Federal contractors who did had to repay employees $82.1 million in back wages for violations between 2007 and 2012. Despite these violations, many of these same companies received Federal contracts again in 2012. The fact of the matter is that wage theft is wrong, and the people who engage in it shouldn't receive Federal funds. I hope that all Members will agree that a dollar earned is a dollar that must be paid and that the United States of America only wants to do business with contractors that obey the law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with the support of the chairpersons of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus. This amendment would prevent funding from law enforcement agencies that engage in discriminatory profiling based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. It would also prevent the use of funds to repeal the December 14 revised profiling guidance issued by the Department of Justice. Discriminatory profiling is wrong. It doesn't help prevent crime. It creates a culture of fear and resentment within our community. It is contrary to the core constitutional principles, and the Federal dollars shouldn't be spent perpetuating this activity. I commend the work of Attorney General Holder to revise profiling guidance, and I believe that we must do more to close the remaining loopholes in profiling guidance. You shouldn't be able to profile at the border. You shouldn't be able to map people without cause. You shouldn't be able to use national security as an excuse to engage in prejudicial policing. And we need comprehensive antiprofiling legislation like the End Racial Profiling Act introduced by the dean of this Congress, John Conyers. In the absence of such comprehensive reform, we should at least prevent Federal funds from being used to discriminate against citizens. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I will close and just say that racial profiling has no place, and we urge a ``yes'' vote for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the companies that the gentleman has identified ought to obey the Fair Labor Standards Act. Every company that does business with the United States Government ought to pay its workers fairly. Federal contracts are lucrative, and Federal contracts make people rich. At the very least, those companies and those individuals who benefit from those contracts ought to make sure that their workers get paid properly. The fact of the matter is that this is an appropriation from this year. It doesn't bar them in the future from applying for Federal contracts again, and if they should prove to have really cleaned up their acts, we can have a conversation about that. I am afraid, Madam Chair, that if we do not pass this amendment, we will be telling all of the honest, hard-working contractors that you don't need to obey the law, that you can just do whatever. Companies that don't obey the Fair Labor Standards Act and steal workers' wages actually gain a competitive advantage on the companies that do obey the law. I don't think that is anything that any one of us would like to see happen, so I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this; say ``no'' to wage theft. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Andrea Jenkins, who has been chosen to serve as Grand Marshal for the 2015 Twin Cities Pride parade and festival because of her distinguished contributions to the citizens of Minnesota in the form of art and activism. Ms. Jenkins has been among the Twin Cities' leading advocates for transgender equity, especially at the intersections of race and class. During her 12-year career as a policy aide for the Minneapolis City Council, Ms. Jenkins was central in raising the profile of transgender issues among Minnesota's most influential policymakers. Under her leadership, the City of Minneapolis started the Transgender Issues Work Group, a roundtable dedicated to changing city ordinances to improve the lives of transgender citizens. Local and national media outlets have covered her efforts--raising the profile of an often-overlooked segment of the population. At a time when our nation is seeing an epidemic of violence against transgender individuals--specifically trans women of color--Ms. Jenkins's work is critical. In addition to her work in the political realm, Ms. Jenkins is an award-winning poet and performance artist. Her work has been honored by the Jerome Foundation, Intermedia Arts, The Playwrights' Center, the Walker Art Center, the Givens Foundation, the Loft Literary Center, and countless other arts organizations. In 2011, she was named a Bush Fellow. On top of crafting nuanced pieces that reflect her identity as a trans woman of color, Ms. Jenkins serves on numerous boards and panels, including serving as the board chair of Intermedia Arts. This leadership has allowed Ms. Jenkins to create some of the Twin Cities' most inclusive and boundary-pushing events, frequently centering the voices of those at ``the margins of the margins.'' One such event, the Queer Voices reading series, is the longest-running series of its kind in the country. Recently, Ms. Jenkins left her position with the City of Minneapolis to begin curating the Transgender Oral History Project, part of the University of Minnesota's Jean-Nickolaus Tretter Collection. In this role, she will travel throughout the upper Midwest to document the experiences of transgender people. This permanent record will serve as one of the nation's most comprehensive catalogs of contemporary transgender life. At a time when the T in LGBT is often overlooked, Andrea Jenkins has helped move the spotlight to the trans community. Her work has sparked conversation, propagated knowledge and forged a path for future trans leaders. Her work in our community is inestimable and I congratulate her on being selected Grand Marshal. I am proud to call her a friend and ally.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to claim the time in genuine opposition to H.R. 1191.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

Mr. ELLISON. I don't object to the gentleman taking the 2 minutes.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the time. Also, I just want to acknowledge to my colleagues that we are here to talk about the best way to make sure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. I am convinced that what we do here today is not the best way to do that. I am convinced that the best way to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon is to allow the Commander in Chief, Chief Executive of this country, to negotiate a deal, and then Congress will be asked to relieve any sanctions, if that is warranted, and we will be able to weigh in at that time, which is the proper time. We will be able to have oversight hearings without regard to this legislation or any other, at any time we choose. This piece of legislation, I believe, improperly, in an unhelpful manner, restrains the President by tying his hands, significantly delaying the implementation of a peace agreement, weakens our negotiating position by strengthening Iranian hard-liners--who will argue that the U.S. will not repeal sanctions even if Iran complies with the final deal--and sends a signal to the international community that the U.S. Congress is setting the stage to vote down a final agreement, compromising our relationships with NATO allies and international partners that have implemented the sanctions regime and that brought about Iran to the negotiating table. It is very important that we acknowledge it was not the U.S. sanctions alone that has brought Iran to the negotiating table. It has been the international community and the cooperation we have enjoyed with the international community that has brought them to the negotiating table. If we start operating as if we are going to change the deal, we signal to our partners that we are operating in less than good faith, which could collapse the whole sanctions regime internationally. This is not U.S.-Iran negotiating; this is the P5+1, and we must keep that in due regard. Congress has an important role to play in this agreement with Iran repealing statutory sanctions. The deal cannot be implemented without congressional action. There is no reason for us to act right now. The only thing that acting now will achieve is to undermine the chance of an agreement. Now, I believe Congress must have oversight, but I don't believe we should make this deal stillborn in the crib before it is even allowed to emerge. We don't want to abort the deal before it is born. The deal should be allowed to come forward and the President should be allowed to make peace with a hostile nation before we start talking about what is wrong with it. We are anticipating what is wrong with it, and I don't think that is a helpful thing. We are certainly not under any illusions about human rights, about exporting conflict from Iran. We know these things are the case. What do you do when you want to deescalate the prospect of war? You negotiate. That is what the President is doing. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).