Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I don't know if it was the last time, but one of the many times that we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we passed the Dodd- Frank Act, which protected consumers to the tune of 29 million of them to return $11.5 billion to $12 billion back to their families. I think that Nancy Pelosi has a pretty good record of helping out consumers. I think consumers of America would appreciate $11.5 billion returned to their family budgets. The last time we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we saw a Dodd-Frank which has stabilized markets, which gave us 85 consecutive months of private sector job growth. But the last time we heard from these free-market, Ayn Randian conservatives, oh, boy, these guys ran the economy straight into the ditch with their deregulatory schemes and their hostility to any kind of regulation on Big Business. We saw unemployment rates well north of 10 percent in many parts of this country; we saw home values plummet; and we saw mass foreclosures, all because of the failed Ayn Randian, free-market fundamentalist attitudes that we see so often on the other side of the aisle. I will just note to my freshman friend that the minority leader can talk as long as she wants. You might want to check the rules on that one. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, let me recognize that the problem that Representative McSally is trying to address here is a legitimate problem that we think needs to be focused on. I must oppose it because it is inadequate and simply not enough. It would be good if we could get together and try to come up with a bipartisan solution to this problem that she has, I think, identified as a legitimate issue. But ensuring that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, particularly key remittance channels for vulnerable populations, is a subject of great importance and one on which I and my Democratic colleagues remain focused. Many of us represent districts with significant immigrant populations from Central and South America, the Caribbean, Africa, all across the globe. We have heard just how critical it is for immigrants here in the United States to be able to send money that sustain their loved ones back home. While I am pleased that there is a bipartisan recognition about the need to preserve critical remittance channels for legitimate transactions, I must say that I am deeply concerned by some of the rhetoric and proposals that we have seen from the Trump administration, which make me fear that access to remittances, particularly for vulnerable populations, may be in jeopardy. Not only has the President been overtly anti-immigrant in his rhetoric during the 2016 campaign and since, he put out an alarming proposal about how he would force Mexico to pay for a wall on our Southern border. He proposed cutting off access to remittance transfers for anyone who couldn't document their immigration status until Mexico agreed to pay an extortion payment of between $5 billion and $10 billion. I also note that while it is essential that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, it is equally important that illegitimate and illicit transactions do not. For this reason, I am concerned that the amendment before us falls short in that it fails to call the administration to disclose how it plans to curtail the flow of illicit funds, particularly funds which may be coming from key adversaries like the Russian Federation. One doesn't have to look far to see that, despite record fines and numerous enforcement actions, global megabanks have continued to facilitate shady transactions even when such transactions are highly suspicious, have no economic rationale, and even likely involve money laundering and tax evasion. One example of concern, Deutsche Bank, which operates in the U.S. and around the globe, was found by the Federal Reserve, New York State, and the United Kingdom to have facilitated a massive fraudulent trading scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia to unknown locales. In order to better understand the scheme, I recently joined with a number of my colleagues in writing to the Treasury Secretary to ask for any and all records of suspicious activity related to Deutsche Bank's 2011 scheme in the Department's possession, including the names and identities of all parties who participated in, or benefited from, the scheme. But, like much of the oversight Democrats are conducting on this administration, this request has apparently fallen on deaf ears. So, again, I do appreciate the intent of the amendment--I even commend Representative McSally for identifying this is an important issue--it should have gone further in demanding that this administration disclose how it will curtail well-known schemes being used to facilitate fraud. So I must urge a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with Representative McSally on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, as if the CHOICE Act was not bad enough, this amendment piles on to the Republicans' misguided attacks on the highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I don't understand why my Republican friends don't get--29 million people got $11.5 billion of their money back because unscrupulous financial services firms unlawfully took their money. I would think we could get together on that. I would think we could agree that that is an important thing to work on. And now we are trying to mess with their building, for the sake of the children, no less. The Bureau's inspector general conducted a thorough investigation of the Republican's made-up suggestion that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's building renovations were inappropriate. The inspector general released an audit back in 2015, that stated: We determined that construction costs appear reasonable based on comparisons to an independent cost estimate and the costs of two comparable building renovations identified by the U.S. General Services Administration. We also determined that potential renovation costs are below the amount previously budgeted and obligated for the renovation. . . . Current controls for approving, managing, and documenting renovation costs and project decisions are designed appropriately. . . . May we put this issue to bed that there is some nefarious plot going on with the building? It wasn't legitimate when they first raised it. It is not legitimate now. And trying to bring a big deal up about their building, which is an issue that has been resolved, is not going to benefit the children of tomorrow. I think it will benefit the children for those 29 million families to get $12 billion back. Now, that might help some kids. That might pay for some lunches, some school fees, and a whole bunch of other things to help families. But just messing with the CFPB over their building will not help anyone. Even if the House Republicans are not willing to thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for all it has done, I am. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a tough independent watchdog, has done a great job on behalf of American consumers, and has done a great job for American financial firms which do honest work. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, being a financial services firm that is actually selling a good product at a fair price and you have somebody down the street cutting corners, ripping off consumers, and you are losing your competitive advantage because you are honest. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps keep good financial firms good and not create this pervasive sentence to drag them in the wrong direction. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau maintains a transparent database that has collected over 1.1 million consumer complaints about financial institutions, and 97 percent of those have received a timely response. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has demystified financial transactions by requiring simple know-before-you-owe disclosures, and providing educational and comparison shopping tools so that consumers are empowered to make the right choice for them and their families. Perhaps one of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's most notable accomplishments to date was its investigation of Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal. Let me tell you, Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal definitely hurt families and kids in those families, and the CFPB's good work helped those families. Last September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $100 million for secretly opening up 2 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of its consumers and ordered the bank to compensate customers it harmed. This marks the largest penalty the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has imposed to date. And that, Mr. Chairman, has helped families and children. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to stop the petty stuff about the building. This has been reviewed by independent people. It is really just a waste of time. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. It has been years since we have increased the Federal minimum wage, which is an abysmal $7.25. All over this country, we see ballot measures passing in red States and blue State increasing the minimum wage, like Alaska and Arkansas. We have seen the minimum wage go up in New Jersey and all over the country. While people in Congress may not realize that America needs a raise, people across the United States do. Today I am going to participate in a press conference to say that we are going to propose a bill to raise the minimum to $15 an hour and index it. This is a simple recognition that if you work full time, you shouldn't live in poverty. If you work full time, you shouldn't have to rely on food stamps, you shouldn't have to rely on housing assistance, and you shouldn't have to rely on medical assistance. I believe in those programs and I support them, but if you work hard every day, you shouldn't have to rely on government assistance just to put food on the table. Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the people who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are women. This is a gender issue. This is a general inequality problem. We have to fight. America needs a raise, Mr. Speaker. Let's do it.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to Congressman Raskin for holding down this Special Order. You do such an excellent job, you and Pramila Jayapal, and we are grateful for it. Mr. Speaker, here are just a few headlines from the budget that the Trump administration just released: ``Trump Budget Leaves Working Class Base Behind''; that is the Detroit Free Press. ``Meatloaf Again: Christie Meekly Accepts Trump's Medicaid Cuts''; that is the New Jersey Star-Ledger. ``Trump Budget Replicates Disastrous Kansas Approach. This Won't End Well''; that is the Kansas City Star, Mr. Speaker. ``No Help from Trump''; that is the Houston Chronicle. ``Trump Meets the Pope While His Budget Threatens the Least of Us''; that is The Sacramento Bee. ``The Harsh Budget Americans Voted for''; that is the Charlotte Observer. ``Another Bad Budget from Trump Targets the Poor,'' The Washington Post. ``Trump's Assault on Working Voters''; that is the Baltimore Sun. ``Surprise, Surprise: Trump's Budget Punishes the Sick and the Poor While Rewarding the Wealthy''; that is the LA Times. ``A Slash-and-Burn Budget,'' New York Daily News. ``Budget Cuts Include U.S. Heart''; that is northjersey.com; The New York Times: ``A Budget That Promises Little But Pain.'' Bloomberg View: ``Trump's Budget is a Waste of Everybody's Time.'' Financial Times, no beacon of liberalism there, Mr. Speaker: ``Trump's Implausible Plan for the U.S. Budget.'' So whether you are talking about conservative instruments in the news or more liberal ones or more middle-of-the-road, it is really kind of amazing: Everyone seems to share one feeling about the Trump budget. We all hate it. It is bad. It is not a good thing, and there are plenty of reasons why people don't like it. And so I just want to add that the OMB is led by one of our former colleagues, Mick Mulvaney, and I think Mick is a nice guy. I can't tell people that I personally dislike Mick. He is nice to me. But that is not what this is about. This is about how we are operating in our public lives. In our public lives and discharging our public responsibility, I have to quote the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He says: Meals on Wheels sounds great. We're not going to spend money on programs that cannot show that they actually deliver on promises that we've made to people. I will submit to you that Meals on Wheels is a very meritorious program, it costs very little money, and it allows vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to live at home. Deep cuts. Actually, Mick said as well: Deep budget cuts are actually one of the most compassionate things we can do. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, compassionate for who? Maybe those billionaires at Mar-a-Lago--maybe they need a little love, too, sometimes--or the people who occupy Trump Towers. Regarding HUD, or Housing and Urban Development, he said: It doesn't work very well. Tell that to the people who rely on low-income housing tax credits, section 8 voucher programs, and all types of housing programs that allow people to afford their housing. On the issue of school nutrition programs, he says: Guess what. There's no demonstrable evidence that they're actually doing that. There's no demonstrable evidence that we're actually helping kids to do better in school. This is about school nutrition. Here is another one: We can't ask single mothers to continue to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Well, single moms might rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to help their kids learn how to read. I think that Sesame Street is a pretty good outfit. That might be their only avenue. Here is another one: If you ask, 999 people out of 1,000 would tell you that Social Security disability is not part of Social Security. It is an old-age retirement that they think of when they think of Social Security. Quite the contrary. People do think of Social Security disability when they think of Social Security. Here is another quote: ``Are there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?'' That is the question. So we are, again, trying to focus on fraud in SNAP, rather than worrying about hungry Americans. Here is another quote: ``Maybe it's reasonable to ask if there are folks who are on there that shouldn't be. That is a reasonable question to ask.'' You know what? I think it is focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Hunger, Mr. Speaker, is the problem in the richest country in the history of the world. At its richest point in its own history, we are being told by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that we cannot afford SNAP, Meals on Wheels, and public broadcasting. Amazing. I think that, honestly, Mr. Speaker, it is often said that you should speak truth to power. I think we must speak truth to power. I think the gentleman from Maryland would agree with me that we have got to speak truth to power. But it occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the power knows exactly what the truth is: this budget is going to hurt hungry children. The budget is going to cut seniors. It is going to cut veterans. It is going to cut public broadcasting, which is one of the major ways people get news in South Dakota and rural America. It is going to cut the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is going to leave devastation almost everywhere. It is going to cut the EPA by a third. The power knows--and I am talking about Trump and his administration--the devastation that they are going to inflict on people. In fact, that is why they are doing it. They just don't believe the government has any role in helping to make Americans lives better. Their idea of freedom, Mr. Speaker, is a billionaire being able to pollute anywhere and everywhere he wants. Their idea of freedom is amassing great fortunes at the expense of everyone else, all the while relying on our Nation's military, our Nation's police, the road system; all the while relying on clean water, clean air; all the while relying on public schools to educate their workforce. They say: I did it all by myself. Yet everything they have done has been with the help of the government of the people of the United States of America. It is really outrageous, Mr. Speaker. I think that we are in a moment when we have got to speak truth to each other, Mr. Speaker. We have got to go all across this Nation and talk to people in the barbershops, the VFW halls. We have got to talk to people in the church basement, the mosque basement, the synagogue basement. We have got to talk to people on the corners and tell them about this budget. If they hear about this Trump budget, they will be outraged. Nobody can support this budget, not even a millionaire or a billionaire, unless you believe that you are not your brother's keeper, that you have no obligation to other people around you, that everything around you should be amassed to accumulate wealth for yourself. That is the only possible way anybody can stand next to this budget. I really do hope that the Republican caucus puts this budget up for a vote. I want to see who is going to stand next to this monstrosity of a budget. I am curious to see who, representing southern Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee, is going to vote to zero out the Appalachian Regional Commission; who, representing a northern-tier State, is going to cut, zero out, LIHEAP. I want to see the Republican who is going to do that. I think that will be a pretty gutsy move. I guarantee you, your constituents will know exactly what you did. They are watching, Mr. Speaker. People watch C-SPAN and they read the news. They read the headlines that I read off, Mr. Speaker, and they are aware of what is happening in the people's House at this very hour. I want the people to know that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the least of these. If you are too poor, too old, or too sick to work, we should help people. We should do it. I believe it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I don't care if they call me a bleeding heart liberal-- they can call me anything they want--but I am going to be there for low-income people who are too old, too sick, or too young to work. I am going to be there to make sure that people who are out of work but who are able-bodied have the support that they need to get to work, to have clean air, to have clean water, to promote jobs and infrastructure. We are going to be there to do those things, Mr. Speaker, because we believe in them. Do you know what else, Mr. Speaker? We don't believe ``tax'' is a four-letter word. It is actually a three-letter word. It is not a bad word at all. In fact, it is the dues that you pay to live in a civilized society. If you think tax is some kind of a curse word, you can move to Somalia, because they don't have many there. Here, we have the protection of our police. We have the protection of our courts. We have the protection of our Nation's military. We have the protection of people who inspect the meat, the water, the air, and everything else, and these people look after us as they discharge their public responsibility and they get paid in our tax money. There is nothing wrong with it. We stand on that. I believe there has got to be a few Republicans who agree with what I just said. I believe there has got to be a few Republicans who believe that it is a good idea for the public to spend money on figuring out the vexing diseases that are ravaging people all over America, like ALS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. We should research these diseases. And if we need public money to do it, Mr. Speaker, we should spend that money. But I don't think this Trump budget reflects that. I want to see my friends on the Republican side of the aisle join us and say we should not cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; we should not cut critical programs that help people; we should not cut supplemental assistance programs, SNAP, and food stamps for hungry Americans; we should not cut Medicaid, leaving families on the hook to pay more for the care of their loved ones with disabilities. I don't believe they believe these cuts are right. I just think that it is going to take a lot of political courage to stand up and say: You know what? Sometimes the government does good for people--we have spent decades saying the government is the problem--and now people actually believe it sometimes, except they don't believe it when you are cutting their healthcare, basic research, cutting money for our parks, and literally cutting everything, except the military. Oh, by the way, I am the proud father of a military son. My son is a veteran. He just finished 4 years of service in the United States Army, Mr. Speaker. He was a combat veteran. My whole family is proud of him. But I am going to tell you one thing: the money didn't go to him. He made less than $25,000 a year. He didn't mind. He is serving his country. Where is all this Big Money going to go? Who is getting it? I don't know. People who make the machinery, the weapons industry, they are going to make out like bandits, you better believe that. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, even the money that they are asking us to spend is going to hurt veterans. I know they are trying to plus-up a little on the VA, but there are a whole lot of other services that veterans benefit from, and they are going to get hurt. Mr. Speaker, this Trump budget is wrong, and I believe that every Democrat knows it is wrong, and I even believe a few Republicans know that it is wrong. We should stand up and say that it is wrong. It is wrong to slash the earned income tax credit and child tax credit by $40 billion. This is money that goes to people who actually work for a living. I heard one of our Nation's leaders in the administration say: Oh, you are crying about these people who are going to get cut. What about the people who pay all the taxes? Mr. Speaker, if we would raise the minimum wage, you would have more people paying taxes, because people's pay would be higher. It is no comfort to say that half the people don't pay taxes. They do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, they pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay all kind of taxes, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong to try to imply that they are freeloaders because they don't pay income taxes. They would be glad to pay those income taxes if their income were higher, which it would be if we invested in America, which this budget does the opposite of. It divests America. I just want to say to you as we begin to wrap up that our Nation is the greatest Nation in the world not because of bombs and guns and military. It is the greatest Nation because we believe in liberty and justice for all, and not just a millionaire's and a billionaire's liberty to pollute all they want, escape taxes all they want, do whatever they please, without any ramifications. Mr. Speaker, justice is also a part of that equation. Justice means doing right by people. Justice means being fair to people. This budget is the exact opposite of it. This budget leaves out people like our veterans. It cuts almost a billion dollars from housing assistance programs to keep a roof over people's heads. It cuts Social Security by $72 billion by restricting enrollment in disability insurance programs. It hurts our national security. It spends over $2 billion to build an unnecessary border wall. Oh, this wall. Mr. Speaker, in his campaign, the wall was among the most offensive things, because what it really said is we don't really want folks from south of the border around here. That is what it said. That is how they felt. Yet here we are spending money to prove that point. It cuts the State Department and USAID by almost 32 percent. Generals will tell you that it is better to talk it out than to shoot it out. Yet here we are cutting down our ability to talk it out. What an outrage. It eliminates international family planning. Let me wrap up by saying this. I was talking to some of my Republican friends--and I do have many, and I am proud to say so--and one of them said to me: Keith, this thing probably is never going to see the light of day. I said: Maybe it will and maybe it won't. But this Trump budget is a direct reflection of what he would do if he could do it. And that is scary.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 260.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, recently, I sat down with a number of activists in Minnesota to talk about how LGBTQ folks, and especially trans people, are fighting for basic economic rights in a world that belittles, excludes, and dehumanizes them. The transgender community is more visible than ever. Leaders like Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, and Janet Mock have become icons for the future of the LGBTQ movement. And in my hometown of Minneapolis, my dear friend Andrea Jenkins just received the democratic endorsement for City Council. She will be the first out trans person to hold office in Minnesota. But this increased visibility hasn't improved the lives of all transgender people. Compared to other states, Minnesota's transgender community is a lot safer and healthier. But that's not saying much. Nationwide, violence against trans people--and trans women in particular--is at an all-time high. Even in deeply progressive Minneapolis, my constituent CeCe McDonald was attacked outside a bar and imprisoned in a men's prison for 19 months for defending herself. This sort of violence has far-reaching repercussions--high unemployment, difficulty accessing lifesaving healthcare, housing instability, and educational barriers. And we need to stop thinking of these injustices as separate from our economic lives. To get a better understanding about how trans folks are living in the 21st century, I attended Minnesota's LGBTQ Lobby Day in April and hosted a town hall forum. I'll tell you--it's not easy. It takes a lot of courage to hold space for your truth. My friend Kye kicked off the testimony with a story about how important simply accepting people's identities are: For many young trans people, growing up and going through elementary school, junior high, high school, and even college can be extremely difficult. And these folks don't always have the support system they need. Many talked about the deep opposition they faced from their families. But it doesn't end there. There's difficulty finding work too. And even when trans people do find work, they can be subjected to cruel behavior from customers and even their own colleagues. Now most American get their health insurance through their employers. But there are no protections to ensure that trans people can have the medically necessary care covered. This extends to our service members too. But there are also issues of racism and people being excluded because of their disabilities. Listening to these very real struggles, I get upset thinking about how much time we have to spend convincing others to treat trans people as equals. It's clear we still have a lot of work to do, including in places that are seen as more tolerant to the LGBTQ community. I don't always know the right words, and I don't always get everything right when talking about this issue. And that's okay--I'm not trans. I do not have that experience. What's important is that I listen, that I hear and accept what my trans friends and colleagues are telling me. And that I do the work they ask me to do. That is how you build a movement of generosity and inclusion. Thanks to OutFront Minnesota and the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition for their help coordinating this town hall. But more importantly, thank you to those who shared their stories. The following are excerpts from various LGBTQ activists I recently invited to a town hall forum: Kye Allums: I was a sophomore in High School. I was unaware of all things transgender and had no words to describe who I was. Constantly fighting with my mom to prove I liked who I liked, and that I would rather wear basketball shorts instead of a dress. I was invisible; never validated or affirmed. My mom let it be known that she was the one who defined me. I was her daughter; I was her girl. Until one day I went with her to meet a friend. We walked up to his office and he asked my mom, ``Is this your son? He's a lot taller than I remember.'' In my mind I was like, ``Yes!'' Before my mom could say anything, I quickly replied, ``Yup that's me. I'm her son.'' That moment, I was seen; I was seen by somebody, and that somebody was Congressman Keith Ellison. Aaron Dotta: I am a co-president of the GSA at St. Paul Academy, which is a private school in St Paul. Something I want to point out is, because our parents have resources to send us to a private school, we are able to be educated in a community that supports us, and we are able to be GSA presidents and we are able to push for things such as gender neutral bathrooms, which we now have in our school. What we wanted to say is, this privilege of being able to push for equality and have our identities be recognized, should not be limited to private schools. Students at all schools, including public schools, should be able have their own GSAs and their identities recognized by their administration, teachers and peers. Also as gender queer youth, we do face a lot of hardship when it comes to choosing colleges, when it comes to trying to finding summer jobs. We have to think about what names we put on our applications, and resumes. Looking at schools where we will hopefully be able to spend four years and get a college degree, we have to carefully think about what places in the country and what schools will be friendly to our identities, so that we can focus on getting an education without having to worry about our indent threatening our safety and our mental health. Leo Bukovsan: Most of my college decision making was based on where I wouldn't get kicked out of school. As a female to male transgender person, figuring out where I could be housed, where I could be safe, basically, and that really was tough, making those decisions. Because I'm in a privileged situation where I can choose where I go to college pretty well, based on all those kinds of things, I still have to make sure that I'm going to be safe. Zaylore Stout: I live in St Louis Park. I'm a board member for RECLAIM!, which provides mental health services to transgender and gender non-conforming youth. Locally, I'm a member of the Allies of St Louis Park, which is an advocacy group that started right after the election, in regards to working towards progressive issues. Today I'm here representing as well the St Louis Park GSA group. The focus here is a student-led initiative to try to get the St Louis Park school board to pass a gender inclusion policy. Now the school board has been working on this. They came up with a draft policy that's been enhanced since October of last year, but they stalled. They stalled because of the Gavin Grimm case in front of the Supreme Court. They also stalled because of the Virginia-Minnesota case, as well. Part of the issue was that they're currently in the midst of looking for a new super intendant, but students need protection. There's current no policy on the books in regards to whether the transgender and gender non-conforming students can use whatever restroom facilities it is they need. There is no protection for them in regards to faculty members or staff outing them to other students, to staff members or to the parents. There are great model policies that are out there, but the schools locally need to be able to pass these policies on their own. It's my understanding that the Minnesota Department of Education, as well the district attorney has advised the school boards to hold off, in regards to passing these policies because of the Virginia- Minnesota case. But the plaintiffs have pulled back in regards to that action, so there's not holding the local school boards in regards to passing these types of initiatives. Jannifer Halpaus: My child is transgender. He's a sophomore. He came out 2 years ago, so it's been a learning experience. And in this experience, I have encountered multiple phone calls from the school district because my child is trans. Because he wants to use a certain bathroom, because he wants to use a certain locker room and he won't use the one they tell him to. On a state level, leadership should pass gender inclusion policies or gender affirming policies for all the schools in Minnesota, so we can end the problems we are having. My child is being pulled out of classes. He's is being sat down with principals, and district employees, such as Title IX coordinators, upper level employees, the superintendent. As a child, I did not know my principals; I did not know my superintendents, personally. I think my child should have that experience if he chooses. He should be able to attend schools as a boy, and be one of the guys. My child has recently been hospitalized three separate times in a psych ward. Since things were brought to the school board's attention, he successfully joined the boy's swim team. The staff supported him. With three swim meets left in the season, the school board contacted the principal, who contacted me to say, ``Your son cannot change in that locker room anymore.'' Three hours later they rescinded that, but then instead of being allowed to take phy-ed like his peers, he was told, ``We will give you a phy-ed credit for having participated in the swim team, in lieu of you not being in these locker rooms.'' My child is female to male transgender, and many times when groups speak, they are not speaking about my child. They are speaking about male to female transgender. My child has problems with self-harm, suicide ideation, high level of anxiety, and addiction. And I can't believe that none of these has been part of why. Dave Edwards: I am a board member at Transforming Families Minnesota it's a peer group and community organization that supports families with gender diverse youth. I appreciate you being here today and focusing on future outcomes for trans people, because that's where my daughter will be not that long from now. I love the focus on the future; I think that always has to include our youth's experiences in public schools. We can't expect our landlords to rent to a trans person when they watch their high school principal tell a trans student where they can and can't use the restroom. We can't expect managers make hiring decisions equitable if they have watched their teachers minimize or diminish the discrimination that their trans classmates faced. I'm glad we brought up the gender inclusion policy; I worked with Minnesota Department of Education create the Model Policy. It has been completed and sitting since October and needs to come out and be available to schools before the 2017-2018 school year. Danny Roman: A lot of the times people don't realize it but home life isn't very good either, along with school. It's kind of hard for me, I suppose, because I don't get all the support, but I get the support from friends and stuff and the school does supports me. Dasia Timmerman: Growing up is really hard in this state. I came from the Montevideo, Fairmount, and Morris area, finally the Twin Cities, Bloomington, and Eden Prairie. I didn't get to come out. I tried in 1996; I couldn't find services and I was with a really belittling family, and I eventually disowned my dad because of all his hate. He would get red in the face, and looked like he was going to get violent. Kaylee Jakubowski: It took me three years to come out to myself because it was terrifying. Once I finally did, soon after coming out to my parents, they told me (their exact words): not in this house. So, I was not allowed to come home. I got abandoned from all the financial stability that they offered. And I was kind of set out to figure it out myself there on out. I was going to university at Winona State at that time, and being very financial responsible, as I thought I was, I took out just enough money so that I can survive from beginning of fall semester to end of spring semester. What I didn't foresee was losing the financial stability for the summer. I had no other option but to take out a credit card in order to feed myself. I maxed out the credit card, fifteen hundred dollars throughout the summer, to survive. I took out even more loans to go back to school. Funny thing about signing up for student loans with your parents as co-signers is that once you have to pay them back, they assume that you're still under your parents' budget. So when they're making $80,000 a year, I have to pay my loans as if I'm making $80,000 a year. When in reality, after taxes, I'm making 18 to 19 thousand dollars a year. That is very difficult. Turns out to be six to eight hundred dollars a month, depending on whether or not I want to skip one. Getting through the day, day to day, is an incredible challenge. Hayes McRoy: One of my groups I go to, a LGBTQ group, is losing some of its funding. It is a free group, but they supply snacks and activities. One time, there's a trans girl there who doesn't have any clothes because her family doesn't support her. And we went out, we got her some clothes so she can feel more comfortable. And a great resource like that is currently losing funding, and along with that there also homeless shelter for LGBT youth, which will take up 20-40 percent of homeless population, is also losing some funding. And that just seems very wrong to me. Dasia: At first I got some part time jobs. I wasn't paid for three weeks because they had a problem with my preferred name versus my legal name. I've since changed my legal name, all my documents, but I'm starting my own business to escape transphobia. I am house cleaner and I am good at it. It's awesome. Kaylee: I tried to get a job [after my parents cut me off], but that posed to be another difficult challenge. There's nothing I can do legally about the hiring discrimination that I faced. Because the evidence is seeing the hiring professional come out with all this little books, looking over the papers as he was going to ask me questions about [my application]. Looking up and seeing who I am, and then losing all that energy and giving me half of an interview because he didn't want to. There's nothing I can prove there, but it's everything that I feel to know that I was not allowed to get a job in that establishment. I went back to school at this time. Tried to get a job on top of school and ended up working at McDonalds because they're very easy to get a job with. I worked there for seven months until it culminated on me that all the bullying I was getting from co-workers and customers was too taxing on my mental health. The entire last week that I worked at McDonalds, I remember just crying in the washroom because there nothing else to do. This is not a way that anyone deserves to make money. To make $7.25 an hour to try to feed themselves. Zaylore: As a labor and employment law attorney, I still see discrimination cases and handle discrimination cases from individuals within the LGBTQ community. Whether it's employers not providing reasonable accommodations to individuals who are HIV positive, or terminating employees once they find they are HIV positive, or outing transgender employees at their facilities. And when they report to HR, they end up getting retaliated against in regards to that. So this is still an issue, even though we have laws on book protecting individual. We still need the support from our local officials regards to making this type of things get addressed and taken care of. Emily Ott: My specific concern is the First Amendment Defense Act and the similar bills that are popping up around the United States, one of which is here in Minnesota. I feel that these bills set a dangerous precedent. These bills will allow blatant and open discrimination against members of our community based solely on individuals saying, ``I have a religious objection to who you are,'' or to how you live your life, or who you love. I cannot think of anything more potentially damaging to the concept of American liberty and freedom and justice for all people than these bills. It sets a dangerous precedent for future minority groups that might also run afoul. For example, what about Wiccan people? Do I throw them out of my business because I don't agree with their philosophies and their religious beliefs, and they're objectionable to me? Do I refuse service as a medical provider to somebody because, ``I'm sorry but I can't treat your child you're a lesbian couple and I don't agree with your lifestyle''? These things are happening already, and I fear what this does and what it can do to the United States of America and to its people if these bills are allowed to become law. Dasia: We're facing insurance things in this state that would prevent me from my HRT, which I have been on for seven months. It's good insurance, Minnesota state insurance. She works for MNSCU, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. It's awesome insurance. Apparently it's not going to be soon. Dave: I am an employee of the University of Minnesota. I work in the Educational Psychology department. I have great health insurance. Last year my daughter was lucky enough, after being on the waiting list for over a year at the Center for Sexual Health, to finally get in. The second they ran my insurance, they wanted to let me know that there was a categorical exclusion for any kind of medical intervention. While that is many years down the road, that's something we need to fix. If the University of Minnesota can't provide coverage for the services they offer as an institution to their employees, something's wrong. The Center for Sexual Health is leading in the Midwest as the expert location for affirming Trans care; all the service that they either provide or refer to should be covered by our insurance. Kaylee: I fought very hard to get HRT programs in Winona because, before I petitioned Semcac, which is essentially our Planned Parenthood, about getting hormone procedures in their office, we would either have to go up to Rochester, an hour away, or down to Lacrosse, out of state and forty minutes away. So I tried to get those local and I succeeded. And now, I get to pay about $80 a month for hormones, which is not doable for me. Right now, I take about half the recommended dosage. I skip days; I skip weeks at a time because I don't have the money to take care of myself because all the things I've had to sacrifice financially have culminated on top of another and stacked. Now, it's difficult. Even getting here was challenging. I've counted every penny that every bus has required of me. $50 for round trip train ticket to here. $2.25 for the bus here, but I had to pay $3 because I didn't have any quarters. Bottled of water cost $1.25. I'm counting all this in my head; keeping it on track so I don't go negative before my next paycheck. HRT is described as very big challenge I can't do. Nicole Vanderheiden: I am a queer trans woman. As a direct result of my trans status, I have experienced family rejection, homelessness, hunger, and sexual assault, discrimination in education, employment, and health care. I am going to talk about my experience as a veteran in the U.S. Forces. Like many other trans folk who serve in the military at a proportion twice that of the general population, I served honorably in the U.S. Air force. I get my treatment solely from the Department of Veteran Affairs, which currently operates under blanket exclusion for transgender surgical care. It is unconscionable that in 2017 we have a federal agency that is not only failing to prohibit discrimination, but also operating under policies that prescribe discrimination. I really want to ask you to take action to end those polices, and to prevent our federal agencies from discriminating against trans folks. Luci Peterson: I am transgender, male-to-female, I am autistic, Jewish, and just recently was hired as a para- educator with a great company. The real reason I want to share and testify, whenever it comes to the LGBT community in conversation, wherever I go, I experience what I consider a gap in the conversation. That gap is around disabilities. The one I can specifically speak about is autism. I volunteer a lot with Autism Society of Minnesota, Awesome.org, and AUSM. I just think that it is very dangerous for those people out there, because there is a lot of nonverbal autistic people and then people of all types of disabilities that, depending on where they are living or what their current situation is, they may not have the freedom that able-bodied people do to speak for themselves. We're trying to get a mentorship program going for autistic adults like me to mentor younger autistic people, and I'd like to see more programs like that in the LGBT community, where no matter what your other identities are that LGBT adults could come along LGBT youth. Showing them how they have coped and managed to live a healthy and successful life. Roxanne Anderson: I want to talk a little bit about where I work and spend time at 3405 Chicago, The Minnesota Transgender Health Organization and Coalition. We're formed by and for transgender folks. We're the only transgender led by-and-for 501(c)3 nonprofit in Minnesota. We do a lot of work, and we've been doing that work since 2007. We offer services that are inclusive, and serve about 165 Trans and gender non-conforming folk throughout the week. We do six support groups. Our shot clinic serves over 40 people in the six hours that we are open during the week. We spend a lot of time working with Dave [Edwards], and others with the Minnesota Department of Education to be gender-inclusive in schools, and to insure that trans and gender non-conforming can mark their identities on the student survey, something we need to make sure we keep in place in Minnesota. We do harm reduction through syringe exchange; we have food selves, clothe shelves, gender gear. We do shot assistance, and we do that all through the support of volunteers. We do that all under a budget under $30,000 a year. That sounds awesome, and it is not sustainable. It means that everybody that gives their time, and energy, and effort to MTHC does so without pay. We are located at 3405 Chicago which also houses Cafe Southside, which employs at about 80-85 percent trans and non-gender conforming folk. I don't know if there is any other place in the whole state that can say that the majority of the people that they employ are trans. It also houses Rare Productions, which is an art and entertainment for LGBT folk of color. The reason I am mentioning this is because like lots of folks have said, we're in jeopardy. We don't have a lot of funding, and we don't get a lot of support from foundations or big business. I think to the point of economics it's really important to know that those organizations that are specially supporting trans folk, and figuring out how to support them.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Reverend Peg Chemberlin, for her many years of public service to the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District, the Minnesota Council of Churches (MCC), and to the great state of Minnesota. As the leader of the MCC since 1995, Reverend Chemberlin has led the organization into one of the premier state councils of churches in the nation. The Rt. Rev. James L. Jelinek, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota, described Reverend Chemberlin as, ``both a professional and a volunteer, with the gift of leadership and inspiration.'' During her time leading the MCC, the membership has grown by over 30 percent, half from historic Black Churches. She has been a key voice against religious bigotry, working hard to unite interfaith communities, foster interfaith solidarity, and to uphold the constitutional right to religious freedom without the fear of violence. Following the attacks of 9/11, she organized a diverse group of faith leaders for a massive gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol. She also aided in organizing a broad group of religious leaders, including Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and more to pray after the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Reverend Chemberlin also had the honor of being the 25th President of the National Council of Churches from 2009 to 2011. She was the first Minnesotan and the fourth woman to hold that position. The NCC has been a leading force in increasing collaboration among various Christian groups throughout the United States. Reverend Chemberlin has also been the recipient of numerous awards, including former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson's Woman of Excellence award in 1994, the NOVA (Non-Violent Alternatives) Peace and Justice Award presented by St. Cloud State University, and Angel of Reconciliation award from Unity Baptist Church. After 21 years, Rev. Peg Chemberlin has chosen to retire. Twenty-one years of mobilizing faith communities to engage in civic matters, strengthening ties within different religious denominations, and emphasizing the importance of welcoming refugees to our nation. Through her accomplishments, she has excelled in bringing to life MCC's mission to manifest unity in the church and to build the common good in the world. I commend Rev. Peg Chemberlin, and all she has done for the state of Minnesota. I want to thank her for her dedication and service in creating interfaith connections and a safe atmosphere for people of all faith communities.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, today we consider another bill requested by large corporations. But, I have to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week? We've been here for three months now. House Republicans set the agenda. They lead this governing body. Why do they keep bringing us bills that are the priorities of corporate America? In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills get considered have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests. Here are some of the bills that are now law: 1) Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37). 2) Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res 42). 3) House and Senate Republicans--and the President signed--H.J. Res. 86 which allow Internet Services Providers to sell your browser history. 4) Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38). 5) Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption. H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments. This is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations. 6) And, a law preventing state governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan (H.J. Res 66). So, in the three months we've been back, these laws, removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy, are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda. These are all asks of corporate America-- 1) don't punish us for polluting streams, 2) let us sell your internet browser history, 3) let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them and do not make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals. When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these. They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?'' My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour? They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a bit and invest in infrastructure. They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges. Let's put people, not corporate wish lists-- first. But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them. While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. Not some IOU that they cannot cash in any time soon. With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless. So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected. And the market to sell them could be non-existent. Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder? Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision about whether to invest in securities. If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the company's financials. It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non-disclosure agreements. It can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 Exemption from the SEC in the first place. I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees. I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases. For example, we could ask George Maddox. George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON. After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million. Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing. All his retirement was in ENRON stocks. If you haven't watched the movies ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name. One image has consistently stuck with me. A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm. Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already their stock. Yet, they were urging employees to buy! ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated. And since ENRON usually fired 10 percent of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm. I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons. I'm sure they find my reference to ENRON hyperbolic. They might also say that it's irrelevant since ENRON was a public company and we are talking about private companies. So, let's talk about Palantir Technonologies. This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options. But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them. The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves--or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies. Palantir is not a small firm. Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIRbnb. It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook. Which is a long time to wait to cash in your options. Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers, like George Maddox, to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.'' I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures. I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers. We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy Vote no on H.R. 1343. I would like to include in the Record an article from BuzzFeed News regarding ex-Palantir employees struggling to sell their shares: [From BuzzFeed News, Oct. 28, 2016] Ex-Palantir Employees are Struggling To Sell Their Shares ``Demand has evaporated'' for the shares that make up the bulk of Palantir's pay packages, and the company's CEO seems aware of financial angst among his staff. Former employees of one of Silicon Valley's most valuable startups are struggling to cash out of the stock options that formed a major part of their pay packages. As it grew into a $20 billion company, Palantir Technologies convinced top-tier engineers to accept salaries considered meager by Silicon Valley standards, pairing the relatively low wages with generous stock option grants. But some former employees who accepted this bargain, banking on a future windfall, are now complaining that the market for their stock has gone ``completely dead.'' The complaints add to pressure on Palantir CEO Alex Karp, who has long contended that the company would avoid the public markets. This week, Karp acknowledged publicly that he was ``positioning'' Palantir for an initial public offering, as part of efforts to reward cash-starved employees. This reversal didn't come out of the blue. A chorus of complaints has arisen in a private Facebook group for Palantir alumni, with many former employees expressing concern and regret over their inability to sell their shares. In September and October, two former employees promoted possible opportunities to join together to sell a block of shares, including an unsuccessful attempt to organize a sale in China. Numerous other former employees shared personal stories: Some said they needed the cash to buy a house or pay down debt, while another said they took out a loan to fund the process of turning the options into shares. One said it was ``infuriating'' trying to sell their shares in a ``crap'' market. Compared with last year, when the stock was highly sought after, demand among big investors for Palantir shares has recently gone cold, two brokers who specialize in startup shares told BuzzFeed News. This chill reveals more about the fickle and sometimes inscrutable nature of markets for startup stock than it does about the business health of Palantir,'' which makes money by analyzing data for government and corporate clients But it has stirred frustration among current and former employees. A complaint about Palantir's below-market compensation was the most upvoted question in an internal question-and-answer session in the first part of this year, with 259 votes from employees, an internal document reviewed by BuzzFeed News shows. ``Our cash compensation + bonuses are below the market for tech and our equity growth has slown significantly,'' the question, posed anonymously by an employee, said. ``The total comp is not competitive; even more so due to the illiquidity.'' The questioner continued, ``Are we planning to change our compensation model?'' Palantir did move to address such concerns in April, announcing it would raise salaries for many employees by 20% and offer to buy back a portion of employee shares. But on Wednesday, Oct. 26, in another move that seemed aimed at placating employees and investors, Karp gave the strongest indication yet that an IPO could be on the horizon--though it is hardly a certainty. ``We're now positioning the company so we could go public,'' he said from the stage of a tech conference hosted by the Wall Street Journal in Laguna Beach, California. ``I'm not saying we will go public, but it's a possibility.'' An IPO would provide a payday to major investors, including Palantir co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel. ``Of course I want my investors to be happy,'' Karp said, ``but the primary people I care about are the wide-eyed people at Palantir who are working day and night.'' A Palantir spokesperson declined to comment. With a $20 billion valuation, Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and Airbnb. It is also by far the oldest of that elite group, meaning its workers have waited a long time for their stock-option payday. Founded in 2004, Palantir is as old as Facebook-- which went public in 2012. In tech years, it is a generation older than Airbnb, founded in 2008, and Uber, which was founded in 2009. The much younger Snapchat, which was founded in 2011, is reportedly laying plans for an IPO early next year that could cause its valuation to leapfrog Palantir's. Stock options have long been central to compensation at Palantir. A 2015 template for a Palantir offer letter gave new hires the ability to choose among three different pay packages, with lower cash salaries corresponding to higher amounts of stock options. ``It is our hope and belief that these options will ultimately constitute the bulk of your overall compensation,'' says this internal Palantir document, which was reviewed by BuzzFeed News. To illustrate the potential value of the options, the offer letter template invites new hires to imagine a scenario in which Palantir's valuation were to grow to $50 billion, or $100 billion--or even $200 billion. ``Although the values in the table below are hypothetical and inherently uncertain, we want to emphasize our belief in Palantir's potential to become a $100 billion company,'' the letter says. . While it waits for this dream to materialize, the company has sought to ease financial angst among its employees. It held a ``liquidity event'' this year that gave current and former employees an opportunity to sell a fraction of their shares. But Palantir also indicated it wanted to curb share sales done outside of its official channels, warning that selling to outsiders could make staff ineligible for future liquidity events. That outside market hasn't exactly been humming with deal activity anyway. Trading in private company shares is opaque and fragmented, and data is hard to come by. But the two brokers who spoke with BuzzFeed News said Palantir's prolific fundraising--the company has raised more than $2.5 billion in capital, according to data provider PitchBook--may have dampened investor appetite. A number of big investors who would want a piece of Palantir already have one, they said. In May, BuzzFeed News revealed some of the setbacks Palantir has experienced as it seeks to expand beyond its roots as a government contractor and woo major corporations. The article, based on internal documents and insider interviews, reported that Palantir had lost some blue-chip corporate clients, was struggling to stem staff departures, and had recorded revenue that was a fraction of its customer bookings. At the conference Wednesday, Karp was asked about those customer losses, which included Coca-Cola, American Express, and Nasdaq. ``We date heavily before we marry,'' he answered. Even before the article was published, members of the private Facebook group for Palantir alumni voiced concern about selling their shares in the so-called secondary market. BuzzFeed News is withholding the names of former employees to protect their privacy. ``Any 2nd market shares going on right now? My broker disappeared,'' one former employee posted in April. ``There are still periodic deals happening,'' another replied. ``One that I know of right now, but it's full already.'' ``Yeah, the demand has evaporated,'' another said. More recently, however, some of the posts took on an urgent tone, as sales appeared to grow scarcer. Options are contracts to buy shares at a certain price; to use them, the owner must pay this price in addition to applicable taxes-- which can amount to a large bill. What's more, options expire at a certain point if they're not used, adding time pressure to the equation. In the public market, owners of options can easily sell a portion of their holdings to cover the tax bill and the exercise price. But this strategy is much trickier in the private market, and there was some debate in the Facebook group over whether Polar would even allow it. In September, one former employee asked the group whether anyone was ``coming up on their 3-year expiration,'' soliciting advice on ``approaches people are taking given the less-than-stellar private market.'' Among the replies, one former employee reported taking out ``a personal loan to meet my exercise deadline.'' Another wrote: ``I'm in the same boat: 3 years coming up in April, market is crap, and I probably don't have the resources available for a loan. The fact that it's so difficult to sell is infuriating and I'm wishing that I'd taken the `high' salary option (which TBH wasn't that high to begin with).'' ``On the same boat,'' wrote another. ``Hoping to buy a house next year and really couldn't wrap my head around throwing so much money in addition to the stress and work needed to process.'' The former employee who started that thread apparently didn't receive much solace. In response to a later post, which asked whether there were ``any secondary market sales brewing,'' this former employee wrote, ``Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the market is completely dead at the moment.'' This person then quoted an unidentified broker as saying, ``There is absolutely nothing moving in Palantir. People who have bought through us are trying to sell now. I don't see it changing without the company changing their tone on an IPO.'' Others in the thread shared snippets of information they said they had heard from brokers. According to one, a broker ``told me that there are a few `price insensitive' sellers satisfying what little demand exists.'' Another former employee wrote: ``I'm interested in joining any sales going down too, I've got a year to pay off a hefty debt with the proceeds.'' The person added a neutral face emoji. With buyers scarce, one former employee tried looking across the Pacific. ``I spoke to someone that brokers sales in China, they said they might be willing to get something together if there's enough of us,'' they wrote above a link to a Google Doc that asked others to report information about their holdings One of the repliers questioned whether this process would actually turn into a sale--potential investors might just be ``fishing for information on prices''--and another cautioned the original poster against ``acting as an agent for a group of sellers.'' (The poster said the query was ``just intended as an interest check.'') In the end, none of that mattered. ``Not likely to go anywhere in the next couple of months,'' the former employee who posted the opportunity wrote later. ``Sorry if I got anyone's hopes up.'' Early this month, another member of the group posted about an opportunity to sell options through EquityZen, a startup that arranges small transactions of private company shares. This former employee advised others to contact the EquityZen CEO, providing the CEO's email address. But less than 12 hours later, another former employee replied to say that the deal ``has been already submitted,'' meaning the opportunity had passed. ``Dang,'' another member wrote. Discussions in the group about news related to Palantir often come back to a familiar theme. In September, for example, the Department of Labor accused Palantir of discriminating against Asian job applicants, a claim Palantir later rejected as ``flawed and illogical.'' In a thread discussing the allegations, one former employee found a financial angle. ``I sure hope this isn't an expensive lawsuit for them to defend,'' this person wrote. ``I don't claim to understand how the legal system works in cases like this, but geeeeez this doesn't bode well for any of us looking for liquidity at a fair price over anytime soon.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the value of companies doesn't always go up. It is not true that the stock market always goes up and only goes up. It would be nice if Methuselahs at Google and every other company in America could get stock options and end up millionaires, but the truth is the world doesn't work that way. That is why disclosure is very important. That is why there is nothing wrong and no one objects to employees being compensated with stock options, but those employees ought to at least know the value of those stock options. If you give me a check and it has a monetary value, I can read it and I know how much it is. If you give me stock options and you don't tell me because you don't have to disclose how much they are worth, then that is not fair, and that is what we object to. This bill simply allows companies to avoid disclosure to employees of what those stock options are worth. That is wrong, and that is why we oppose it. Let me just start in terms of the context, Mr. Speaker. Today we consider yet another bill in favor of the moneyed interests. Today we consider another bill that basically helps out people who have a lot while so many Americans are struggling to get by and problems abound almost everywhere. I have got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the SEC's rule--section 701, to be precise--the priority for this week? We have been here for about 3 months now. The Republicans have set the agenda. They are in the majority. They get to decide which bills come up. Why do they keep on bringing up bills that only the moneyed interests want? Mr. Speaker, in the past few months, congressional Republicans--I almost called them corporate Republicans--who decide which bills are the priority, have brought forth a hodgepodge of pieces of legislation. I will just review a few. Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation. Do you think the unemployed want that? I doubt it. Republicans have passed and the President even signed a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations like wage theft before winning government contracts. I have got a feeling the employees were not calling for that. House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet service providers to sell your browser history. I don't think most folks on the internet today were clamoring for that gem, which I was proud to vote ``no'' on. Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams. Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption. H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments, which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations. Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation comes within a certain kind of context--a context where we are not talking about increase in pay, making people safer, making water cleaner, making foreign governments more honest. It is quite the opposite. In the 3 months that we have been back in Congress, these laws removing competition, removing disclosure, and removing consumer privacy are all priorities of Republicans, who set the agenda. Mr. Speaker, people who might be clued into this broadcast today need to know what the majority has been up to. It has not been up to business. These are all multinational corporate interests that don't punish people for polluting, allow them to sell your internet browser's history, allow them to make money off of testing laid-off workers receiving employment compensation that is due them, and don't make corporate interests disclose payments to foreign governments when they drill for oil and minerals. I just want the American people and Members to understand what is going on here, what is the larger context of this piece of legislation that we look at today. When I talk to my constituents, they don't bring up any of this stuff. Mr. Speaker, they want to know: Where is the jobs bill? When are we going to get back to work? Somebody said we were going to work on real infrastructure, real fair trade. When is that going to happen? Well, the people who are in charge around here, I guess they are going to get around to it at some point. My constituents say: Can't we raise the minimum wage from something higher than $7.25 an hour, which is the Federal minimum wage? When is that bill coming up? Or, what about reconstructing our roads and our bridges and allowing us to raise a gas tax to invest in our Nation's infrastructure? They say they want to increase skills. Let's invest in preschool, Pell grants, and community college. Let's put the people, not the corporate wish list, first. Today we are asked to vote on a bill that basically makes it easier for private companies to provide options, like stocks, rather than compensation to their employees. As I have said, fundamentally, this may not be a bad thing if disclosure is made. This bill makes it not required. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to employees without disclosing financial information to them. While I am glad to see employers reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. I don't think that is asking too much, Mr. Speaker. With this bill, H.R. 1343, it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised or even completely worthless.

Mr. ELLISON. Employees could decide to forego a salary increase and accept lower pay in order to receive more stock options; yet, those stock options could be worth way less than they expected. Why should employees receive less information than any other minority shareholder? If an employee is trusted enough to run day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock. Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision. It is not difficult to allow participating employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, and it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. These firms prepare these types of disclosures to receive rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place. So I am also concerned about the mismatch of power between corporations and their employees, and I am very concerned that employees can be susceptible to pressure. Let me do a quick example. George Maddox was one of 21,000 people who worked for Enron. After working at Enron for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock valued at $1.3 million. When Enron collapsed, he had literally nothing, Mr. Speaker. All of his retirement was Enron stocks. If you haven't watched the movie ``Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room'' recently, I would urge you to watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name. One image consistently stuck with me: a staff rally where leaders extolled the virtues of the firm. Just as we heard on the other side of the aisle a moment ago, leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy Enron stock, even as leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy. Enron had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring new employees to buy Enron stock to keep the stock price inflated. Since Enron usually fired 10 percent of the workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show commitment to the firm. I can't just support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forgo cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. It is not right. Mr. Speaker, I see you reaching for the gavel. I will include the rest of my comments in the Record. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation until it allows for disclosures. Today we consider another bill requested by corporations. But, I got to wonder, of all the things the American public want, why is a revision to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules--Section 701 to be precise--the priority for this week? We've been here for three months now. House Republicans set the agenda. They lead this governing body. Why do they keep bringing us bills that corporate America wants? In the past few months, Congressional Republicans, who decide which bills are priorities have brought forward a hodgepodge of corporate requests. Here are some of the bills that are now law. Republicans made it easier to drug test people receiving unemployment compensation (H.J. Res. 42). Republicans passed--and the President signed--a law to protect corporate firms from having to disclose labor violations--like wage theft--before winning government contracts (H.J. Res. 37). House and Senate Republicans passed laws that allow internet services providers to sell your browser history. Republicans enacted a new law making it easier to dump coal debris near rivers and streams (H.J. Res. 38). Republicans stopped efforts to help governments around the world avoid corruption. H.J. Res. 41 removed the requirement that corporations disclose resource payments to foreign governments. Which is a crushing blow to democracy activists working in fragile nations. And, a law preventing State governments from setting up retirement plans for residents who do not have a work-based plan. So, in the three months we've been back, these laws--removing competition, disclosure, and consumer privacy--are the priorities of Republicans who set the agenda. These are all asks of corporate America--don't punish us for polluting streams; let us sell your internet browser history; let us make money drug testing laid off workers receiving unemployment due them, and; don't make us disclose our payments to foreign governments when we drill for oil or minerals. When I talk to my constituents, they don't ask for any of these. They say, ``Where's the jobs bill?'' My constituents say, can't we raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour? They say, our roads and bridges need work. Let's raise the gas tax a skoch and invest in infrastructure? They say, we want to increase our skills; let's invest in pre-school, Pell grants and community colleges. Let's put people, not corporate wish lists--first. But, nope, today we are asked to vote on a bill that makes it easier for private companies to provide options--like stocks--rather than compensation to their employees. This bill makes it easier for firms to offload some of their options to their employees without disclosing financial information to them. While I'm glad to see companies reward employees with stock and other compensation in addition to salaries, workers should be told the value of the compensation they receive. With this bill--H.R. 1343--it is possible that employees would be promised stock options which could be worth less than promised, or even, completely worthless. So, employees could decide to forego a salary increase--or accept lower pay--in order to receive more stock options, yet, those stock options could be worth way less than expected. Why should employees receive less information than that of any other minority shareholder? If an employee is trusted enough to run the day-to-day aspects of the business, they should be trusted enough to receive full disclosure about the stock. Employees should be able to receive information on the financial position of the company so they can make an educated decision. It's not difficult to allow participating employees to sign non- disclosure agreements. And it can't be because these disclosures are an additional burden on the firm. Because these companies prepared these types of disclosures to receive the Rule 701 exemption from the SEC in the first place. I'm also concerned about the mismatch in power between the corporations and their employees. I am very concerned that employees can be more susceptible to pressure to take options instead of salary increases. For example, we could ask George Maddox. George was one of the 21,000 people who worked at ENRON. After working at ENRON for 30 years, he had 14,000 shares of company stock. It was valued at $1.3 million. Then ENRON collapsed, and he had literally nothing. All his retirement was in ENRON stocks. If you haven't watched the movie ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room recently, I'd urge you to watch it again. You could also read Bethany McLean's book by the same name. One image has consistently stuck with me. A staff rally where leadership extolled the virtues of the firm. Leaders whipped employees into a frenzy to buy ENRON stock even as the leaders knew it was worthless. In fact, corporate leaders had already sold their stock while urging employees to buy. ENRON had a strategy of buying companies and then pressuring the new employees to buy ENRON stock to keep the stock price inflated. And since ENRON usually fired 10% of workers every year, workers felt pressured to buy stock to show a commitment to the firm. I just can't support a bill that gives employees fewer protections than investors. I can't support a bill that encourages employees to possibly forego cash in their paychecks in exchange for some unverified investment option. I don't think the supporters of this bill are doing this for nefarious reasons. I'm sure they find my reference to Enron hyperbolic. They might also say that it's irrelevant since Enron was a public company and we are talking about private companies. So, let's talk about Palantir Technologies. This $20 billion company convinced top-tier engineers to accept below-market salaries by promising them generous stock options. But some employees who accepted this bargain, hoping to make money on selling their shares, cannot sell them. The only buyer of their stocks is Palantir Technologies themselves-- or a buyer approved by Palantir Technologies. Palantir is not a small firm. Palantir is the third biggest American tech startup, behind only Uber and AIR B-N-B. It was also founded in 2004, which makes Palantir as old as Facebook--which is a long time to wait to cash in your options. Pushing employees to own more of employer's stock exposes workers-- like George Maddox--to put all their retirement eggs in one basket-- what we call ``concentration risk.'' I ask this Congress to stop doing the bidding of corporate America until we address the priorities of American families and workers. We should increase wages and access to affordable housing, provide clean air and clean water, and protect our privacy. We should not make it easier for employers to pressure workers to choose options over salary without adequate disclosures. Vote no on H.R. 1343.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition, Minnesota's largest organization led by and for the trans community. In 2002, concerned community members began to organize around the difficulties they and other trans people face in finding accessible, culturally competent healthcare. Organizers began hosting meetings and events as part of the University of Minnesota's GLBTA Programs Office and the Schochet Center for GLBT Studies. After years of activity, the group incorporated on March 30, 2007 to become a trans-led health service and rights organization, founded on their principles of racial, social and economic justice. MTHC is a unique organization. In addition to organizing for trans- inclusive public policies, they provide direct medical and psychological support for hundreds of people from all over the Midwest. Through their Shot Caller program, MTHC ensures that trans folks, people with diabetes, and anyone else prescribed shots can get free help taking them in a safe, supportive space. They run a successful harm reduction program that includes syringe exchange, safe sex materials, and more. With a Community Innovation grant from the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, MTHC expanded three youth-oriented programs called Gender Jam, Little Rainbows and GR8. Since November 2016, their longest-running support groups have been pushed to capacity, reflecting both the success and great need for their programs. MTHC's reach also extends far beyond the LGBTQ community; in fact, dozens of people that MTHC helps regularly do not identify as LGBTQ. In this way, they have become a true center of community health in our state. Through their advocacy, MTHC has worked with the City of Minneapolis, the Minnesota Department of Education, and many other public groups. They've advocated for stronger inclusion for and protection of trans youth in schools, effective policies to address bullying, access to life-saving transition healthcare, and more. Due to their tremendous leadership in the Twin Cities and around the Midwest, MTHC was named a Community Champion of Pride for the 2016 Twin Cities Pride festival. During my time in Congress, I have been guided by generosity, inclusion, and justice for all. Organizations like the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition represent the best of these values. We know that if we don't fight for all aspects of racial, social, and economic justice, we won't have any of them. I am honored to represent the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition in Congress, and I can't wait to see what they accomplish in the next decade of leadership.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 204 on H. Res. 233, the rule for H.R. 1431, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I should have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I do quite agree with what Mr. Capuano just shared, but I will say this: for anybody listening to this broadcast today, this is a classic fight of the big money against the many. The big money, they say that they want even more money, so they want to be able to dig into your private information so that they can figure out when you get up, when you go to bed, what you looked up, and then write ads just so they could try to sell you more stuff. And as disgusting as that is, you can see easily how that is not the end of it. What if you have somebody who has something really sensitive that they just want a little bit more information about, that is not of a nature where it is saleable, but it is just their business? Well, somebody else is going to know now. And they may well be able to monetize it, gather it, and distribute it. It is outrageous what the majority is doing today, and I can't possibly believe that it is conservative, that it is small government. I can't believe that they believe that this is what a government in restraint should do. The government should be protecting our rights, protecting our privacy. Small government means that the individual ought to be protected from the big powers out there, like the corporate interests, yet the majority is handing us over to them at this very hour. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the majority to vote against this. I can't believe that a person who is a constitutional conservative would ever vote for a monstrosity like this. It is beyond my comprehension that a conservative libertarian would say: oh, yeah, give the individuals' information over to the big commercial interests. This is one of those moments. The majority, you guys have the House, you have the Senate, and you have the White House. The only restraint you have is yourselves. And I know there has got to be somebody in that body who believes that Comcast, Sprint, and all of the rest should not have anybody's underwear size in this body. It is an outrage. It is an abuse, and I urge a very emphatic ``no.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Representative Eni Faleomavaega. He passed away on February 22, 2017 in his home at age 73. Representative Faleomavaega was American Samoa's lieutenant governor from 1985 through 1989, and congressional delegate from 1989 through 2014. Mr. Faleomavaega was born in Vailoatai Village, American Samoa in 1943, and graduated from Brigham Young University. He later earned his Juris Doctor and Master of Law degrees at the University of Houston Law Center and the UC-Berkeley, respectively. He served in the United States Army from 1966 through 1969, and fought in the Vietnam War. In 1973, Mr. Faleomavaega started his life in public service by working as an administrative assistant to American Samoa's first representative, A.U. Fuimaono. Following a six-year stint as staff counsel for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs beginning in 1975, he became attorney general of American Samoa in 1981. During his time in the House of Representatives, he helped improve the lives of his constituents, directing essential funding to help the development of schools, infrastructure, and health care in American Samoa. Mr. Faleomavaega was a founding member of the Asian Pacific American Caucus in 1994, and was a tireless advocate on behalf of the wider Asian American and Pacific Islander Community. He served thirteen terms, and was a proud member of both the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he was a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia. He is survived by his wife, five children and 10 grandchildren. Upon his passing, Mr. Faleomavaega's wife expressed gratitude for the trust placed in him for so many years by the people of American Samoa. I am honored to recognize Representative Eni Faleomavaega for his work as a public servant. We are all better off due to his life of service. He is dearly missed by his friends and colleagues.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congressman, thank you for that introduction, and thank you for your service to the Congress and the great people of Maryland. I think it is really important tonight to focus on a few key things about what is happening in Congress. One is that 20 million people stand to lose their healthcare coverage. Many have never had it, and the Republican majority is set to snatch it from their hands. That is really sad. One of the people who come to mind is actually a young woman who works on my staff. Her name is Abby, and she is a young woman who has her whole life to look forward to, but as a young person, when she was born, she had a disease called toxoplasmosis. She doesn't mind me talking about it because what Abby would tell you if she were here is that it was tough growing up. She had a lot of medical attention growing up. She was a good student, and she really braved all of the medical care she needed with tremendous courage, and her family was there with her the whole time. But she had numerous surgeries growing up, and she also came close to death's door on more than one occasion. One thing that she says--and says to anybody who is willing to listen--is that the Affordable Care Act helped save her life. Why? Because Abby has a preexisting condition, a pretty serious illness. And she had insurance companies that have lifetime limits and annual limits on coverage and care. Without the Affordable Care Act and with the provisions that preceded the Affordable Care Act in the insurance industry, she simply was uninsurable, therefore, not in a position to get the care she needed. By some miracle, she made it to adulthood with the status quo before the Affordable Care Act, but the Affordable Care Act made the difference between her being with us and not. I was talking to a physician who operates an institution in my district called the Hennepin County Medical Center, HCMC, who said: Look, if you were to stack up all of the diseases in our country that end in fatality, you would have to put up there car accidents, you would have to put up there heart disease, you would have to put up there pulmonary illnesses and cancers, of course. But, he said, if you stacked those illnesses up on a list, the most fatal in a given year, he said, the third one would be uninsured, people dying because they don't have insurance. And our Republican majority is here to tell us they are okay with that. It is hard for me to believe, but it is true. Right in front of us, we know that this repeal will relieve wealthy individuals of paying taxes. If they are able to repeal the Affordable Care Act, people with a lot of money are going to have more of it, and people who needed health care will have less of it. People who need help dealing with the doughnut hole and need to be filled in with the moneys that come from the Affordable Care Act won't have that anymore. Now they will go back to the status quo of Medicare part D, which is where they get help up to a certain amount, then there is no help, then they have got to spend up to start getting help again. The Affordable Care Act filled in the doughnut hole, and seniors who can barely afford their prescription drugs now will have even more trouble. Seniors who need Daraprim, which was a medication that cost about 13 bucks until this guy Shkreli bought the patent for it and jacked it up to about 700 bucks, people who need even things like insulin, people who need all kinds of medications now are going to be staring at that doughnut hole all over again. I mean, we can get up here and talk about the toll, the human tragedy, the pain and suffering that people are looking at, but none of it seems to penetrate the minds of our colleagues. They seem to be deaf to the pleas of people like Abby and so many other people like that. I was here when my colleagues on the other side brought forth I think as many as 60 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We would come forth and we would say: People are getting lifesaving treatments that they never could afford before; people are getting treatments that are literally keeping their families intact, keeping their lives intact; people are getting coverage they never had; people have something more than the emergency room to turn to. Our colleagues would just say: Well, we are just going to get rid of it anyway. In fact, I remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans shut down the government for 16 days because we refused to cooperate with their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Ted Cruz occupied time and demanded that we repeal it. We said we would not turn people like Abby and others back to the tender mercies of the insurance industry. They said: Well, we will shut down the entire government unless you do it. We said no, and, well, here we are. It is true that we never thought we were going to lose this election. We never thought we would be this deep in the minority, but we now have gotten in a position where the Democrats don't hold the Presidency. We have a President who ran on the promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and we have two Houses of Congress that are committed to doing it. The last line of defense really is the American people, Mr. Speaker. The last line of defense is the American people standing on the most fundamental of rights, the First Amendment, which guarantees them the right to redress grievances, guarantees them the right to petition their government, guarantees them the right to freedom of assembly, guarantees them the right to freedom of faith, guarantees them the right to receive information from a free press. We are relying on that amendment, Mr. Speaker, to stop these Republican efforts to snatch healthcare access out of the way, out of the hands of Americans. We are relying on Americans to stand up and say: We will not tolerate this--going to community meetings, going out on the street, using their rights as Americans to express their right to have health care. This is what the moment calls for. Governors, even some Republican Governors, are saying: Wait a minute. This Medicaid expansion, you know, we used it. It is not so bad. It is helping us. Their pleas are being ignored as well. We are at a critical moment: Will the American people continue to make the same advances that people all over the developed world have made with regard to health care? You know, Europeans look at us and think there is something wrong with us. Even our northern neighbors look at us and say: Wait a minute. Health care is not a right down there? No. You get it if you can pay; and if you can't pay and answer somebody's bottom line, you are just out. We pay the most for health care in the whole wide world, Mr. Speaker. We pay the most--the most--and yet we don't have the best outcomes. We don't have the best indicators of health. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to return us to a day when the number one reason that people would declare bankruptcy was medical debt. That is the world we are looking at, and it is really, really something. Now, many people have said--you know, Democrats say to me all the time, and I am sure they say it to Mr. Raskin of Maryland: Hey, look, you know, there are things we would change in the Affordable Care Act. We are not saying that it fell down from tablets in the sky. Of course, there are reasonable amendments that might be made. But I am here to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican caucus has never said: We will talk about how we are going to make reasonable amendments to make it better. They have only said to repeal, repeal, repeal. They have also said replace, but everyone knows you cannot repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because, if you repeal it, you are repealing all of the taxes that go along with paying for it. And if you repeal the taxes, you are going to tell me that a Republican caucus is going to levy a tax? They think tax is a four-letter word if somebody with a lot of money has to pay it. Now, they are okay with fees and pushing down regressive taxes. They do that every day and all the time. If somebody with real means has to pony up, even though they are already wealthy, you could never see a Republican do that. It is just not something they are going to do. The ACA has provided coverage to more than 20 million people. That is 20 million more people who have better patient care, access to doctors and medicines, and are no longer turned away because of preexisting conditions. The Republican proposal puts the brakes on the progress we have made. People will lose access to insurance coverage. The Republicans gut the preventative health fund, which literally funds programs to invest in keeping people healthy. Who do Republicans help? Insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. They get huge tax breaks at the expense of the help and the future of the American people. The Republican bill doesn't stop there. It is an outright attack on Medicaid. Seniors out there should know that the Republicans are attacking Medicaid. They are attacking Medicaid. Medicaid is one of our most effective antipoverty programs and provides lifesaving care to millions of elderly, children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Republicans want to dismantle the program as we know it and kick people off and leave States to pay for the bill. This bill takes away health care from women and shifts costs to the older, sicker people. It compromises the Medicare trust fund. It destroys Medicaid and gives tax breaks to corporations and millionaires. It is wrong, and the American people need to oppose it. And I oppose what they are trying to do.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for being so clear on the issues in front of the American people. It is so important that we have these Special Order hours so that we can really help the American people understand what is at stake; and what is at stake literally is the health and security of our Nation. When we talk about security, usually people think about law enforcement and military. There is also the security that families can expect, the security of your health. In this situation, the Nation's security of health and family security is absolutely on the chopping block. Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the district I represent in Minnesota--which I am so proud to represent the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota--we used to have an uninsured rate which we thought was low. It was 10.9 percent. If you remember, in the pre-Affordable Care Act days, 10.9 percent was pretty low. Well, now it is 6.6 percent. That means literally thousands of Minnesotans can now go and get regular doctor care rather than just show up at the ER. Part of the way that we used the Affordable Care Act in Minnesota in the Fifth Congressional District is that the folks at HCMC set up something called Hennepin Health. What Hennepin Health does is it says: We are going to take some of these Medicaid dollars and we are going to help people who are chronic users of the ER system. We are going to work with other agencies and other providers in the community to help house them stably and then do regular medical surveillance with them. Do you know what has happened with this program? The costs at the ER have dropped through the floor. The money has been saved because of the Affordable Care Act. Not only is it about the money--because if you talk to our Republican friends, all they want to talk about is money--something even more important has happened. When you talk to the people who would go to the ER all the time, they are saying: I have somewhere to live. I have somebody who helps me stay on my medication. I am beginning to rebuild relationships with my family again. Schizophrenia can be very devastating to your mental health; and I was all out of control when I was off my meds, and I used to end up in the ER within an inch of my life. But now, because of the Affordable Care Act, I can get the care that I need, I can be stably housed, I can be productive in my community, I can be a participating family member again. It has improved their lives. I don't understand what the Republicans don't understand. It is a good thing to have people to have an option other than the ER. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, well, in America, if you show up at a hospital, there is a Federal law that says they have got to take you. It is true that if you show up at an ER, somebody is going to have to let you in there. They may move you from one hospital to another, but, eventually, the law does say you will end up with somebody seeing you. Guess what the medical professionals say about it? It doesn't work. It is the most expensive care. It is usually left to people who have allowed an illness to fester and to go on and to advance, which makes it more difficult to treat, more expensive to treat. It is the wrong way to run a healthcare system. Yet, people have a straight face and say things like, well, you know, you can go to the doctor if you need to. It is called the ER. This is absolutely not the right thing. And so here we are again, right at this hour where, really, things look kind of grave, and we need the American people to stand up and object. I tell you, we need people to say that they insist upon a humane society where a person suffering from schizophrenia, who is so afflicted by their illness that the only thing they can do is make it through the day and then, if they get sick, maybe somebody will take them to the ER. We should have a society where that person can get the care they need, can get housing that they need, can be cared for, and can be a participating member in our society with just a little bit more help. I think that is what makes us Democrats. That is the difference between us and them. We care about people. We believe people are inherently valuable and all have dignity, and we don't believe that you are only as worthy as what is in your pocket or your bank account. We reject that idea out of hand and believe that people must be--if you are too poor to work, too sick to work, too old to work, we believe our society should care for you; and I don't make any apologies to anybody for believing that. I believe the government should do everything it can to make sure there are enough good-paying jobs for everybody. Lord knows we have got enough work to do around here, potholes here and there, school kids need help. We have got plenty of work to do. That is not the problem. We have also got plenty of wealth. We have got plenty of wealth in our society. And I believe that if you live in this greatest of all countries in the world--and I believe that, I am so proud to be an American--and you are allowed to make a profit, which I believe in that, I am a former businessperson myself--I don't think it is asking you too much to put a little bit in the pot so some people who can't afford it can go to the doctor. I don't think it is asking you too much to put a little bit in a pot so a kid can go to school, or so that a senior can get medication, or so that we can have clean water. I don't think it is too much. But some people think it is too much to say that, even though I have been blessed by being an American and being able to pursue my economic dream, I don't want to give them anything. This is all for me. I just don't--we are just not on the same page with that. We think that it is all right to make sure that we fund the basic necessities that people need to have a thriving, humane society, and that includes health care. So tonight, I just want to say to people that it reminds me of a question that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin when Benjamin Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia, way back so many years ago. The lady said to Benjamin Franklin: What do we have, Mr. Franklin? He said: A democracy if we can keep it. Part of being a democratic society in this country right now means that we should have health care for people because this society can afford it. Part of what it means to have a civilized democracy in this moment means that people can rise up and lift their voices up to defend their right to have decent health care for all in this society; and we urge people to do that because it is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. So I want to just yield back to my friend from Maryland. I will be taking my leave at this point, but I want to thank the gentleman for holding down this very important Special Order because the Affordable Care Act is worth fighting for. As you said, Mr. Raskin, the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. What piece of legislation ever was? We have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We have amended the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We amend laws all the time because, as society changes and times change, the needs come up. But to just repeal and then not come anywhere close to replacing, it is wrong, and we must oppose it.

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. 100, I would have voted yes; Roll call no. 101, I would have voted no; and Roll call no. 102, I would have voted yes.

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. 86, I would have voted yes. Roll call no. 87, I would have voted yes.

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. 79, I would have voted yes. Roll call No. 80, I would have voted yes.