Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, first of all, I have a particular story I would like to tell. There is a young woman named Mayra who works at the Pentagon food court. She was fired after challenging her managers to comply with labor laws and for going on strike multiple times in response to those violations. Mayra is a first-generation immigrant who is struggling to pay her tuition at George Mason University. She now works odd jobs to make ends meet. Her experience at the Pentagon has inspired her to seek further education so she can help workers who get treated unfairly. Research shows that Mayra is not alone. Federal contractors break Federal laws sometimes--not all. Many are good, but not all are, and the bad ones are not good for the United States. A U.S. Senate report, for example, found that over 30 percent of the biggest penalties for law-breaking were filed against the biggest U.S. contractors. This is an issue. We need an office to make sure that the best public contractors--Federal contractors--are the ones who get the best contracts and who get preferential treatment over the ones who have multiple violations. Workers aren't the only ones who benefit from this new office, as I already mentioned. Let me emphasize that this is about benefiting law- abiding contractors, high road employers. They are competing with people who cut every corner and do the least to avoid debarment. We need to make sure that our system works well and that the largest spender of money in the world--the U.S. Government--spends it wisely, not with the ones who can barely skate by through the debarment process but with the best contractors, the ones who really prioritize good employment practices. I ask Members to vote in favor of this amendment. It is a step toward bringing forth good jobs and closing this awful wage gap and wage stagnation we have seen in our country for 30 years. Please give us a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chair, it is intended that funds in the appropriation for Defense Wide Operations and Maintenance be used to establish an Office of Good Jobs in the Department aimed at ensuring that the Department's procurement, grant-making, and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. The office's structure shall be substantially similar to the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we can raise living standards for working families across this country if we use Federal dollars to create good jobs. My amendment would reprogram funds to create an office of good jobs within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. This office would help ensure that the House's procurement and contracting decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, support collective bargaining rights, and encourage responsible employment practices. Our amendment does nothing to alter existing procurement, debarment, or contracting processes. Right now, the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job creator, funding over 2 million poverty jobs through contracts, loans, and grants in corporate America. That is more than the total number of low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonald's combined. Mr. Chairman, at this point, the Federal Government is leading the race to the bottom through its processes and its failure to capitalize on the procurement process. U.S. contract workers earn so little that nearly 40 percent use public assistance programs like food stamps and Section 8 to feed their families. In other words, Mr. Chairman, because these jobs are paid so low that are funded by the Federal contracts, Uncle Sam has to subsidize these people, working people, because they are not getting paid enough by the Federal contractors that employ them. To add insult to injury, many of these low-wage U.S. contract workers are driven deeper into poverty because their employers steal their wages and break other Federal labor laws. Treating the people who work with us here at the Capitol with dignity and respect is absolutely essential. It is intended that the appropriation for the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer be used to establish an Office of Good Jobs aimed at ensuring that the Chief Administrative Officer's procurement decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. The office's structure shall be substantially similar to the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, it is long past time, given this economy that we have, for the Congress of the United States to prioritize good jobs. The fact is that, if we have an agency, an office of good jobs making sure that everyone who we do business with is making sure that workers are paid fairly, that they get every penny that they earn, and that we are making sure that we prioritize good employers over the bad ones, this is exactly what we should be doing. We live in a time of 40 years of wage stagnation, and the Federal Government is deeply implicated in this wage stagnation. The Federal Government, the U.S. Congress should do something about it. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a friend of mine named Vee. Vee has been a catering worker here at the House of Representatives for 27 years. She is 67 years old. She says she has next to nothing for retirement. She jokes that she will be working until half an hour before her funeral. In Vee's own words: We aren't looking for a handout; we are looking for a hand up. No one who works for decades should be left without a secure retirement. Retirement insecurity isn't the only trouble she and her colleagues face. Some of them don't get healthcare benefits from their employer. Of the 50 catering workers serving Members and visitors to the Hill, only about half have access to year-round health care. We need to make it clear to current and future contractors that we want them to put taxpayers' dollars in their contracts to use, taking care of Americans who are working for them. This will help raise living standards for all workers. Let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman, when we see the Federal Government and we see State governments make good jobs the issue, the private sector falls in line. We have seen the Gap, even Walmart, talking about raising issues. Why? Because President Obama signed an executive order to say that anyone who works for a Federal contractor has to get paid at least $10.10 an hour. That kind of leadership is what makes the Federal Government not the leader in the race to the bottom but the leader in the race to the top. Vote ``yes'' on my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the transgender, queer, lesbian, bisexual, and gay members of my community as we begin celebrating Pride. Every year, Twin Cities Pride selects outstanding leaders to helm the celebration. The 2016 Grand Marshals are Roxanne Anderson and D Rojas, and the Lifetime Champions of Pride are Minnesota Representative Karen Clark and Minnesota Senator Scott Dibble. Both Grand Marshals have a long history of LGBTQ advocacy in the Twin Cities. Roxanne's dedication spans four organizations noted for their dedication to the most underserved segments of the community. Through providing healthcare access to trans individuals at the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition, leading trans and racial justice initiatives at OutFront Minnesota, organizing trans and queer musicians of color at RARE Productions, and employing and serving the queer community at Cafe SouthSide Roxanne is one of the hardest-working and most effective trans advocates anywhere in the country. D Rojas is the president of Dykes on Bikes Minneapolis, a lesbian motorcycle club noted for its inclusivity. The group hosts dozen of events throughout the Twin Cities annually, attracting hundreds of LGBTQ participants. In recent years, D has escorted Minneapolis Mayors Betsy Hodges and R.T. Rybak on her motorcycle at the Pride Parade. The 2016 Lifetime Champions of Pride are highly effective leaders in the Minnesota Legislature who have worked extensively on equality. When Representative Karen Clark was first elected to the Legislature in 1980, there were only a few out elected officials nation-wide. Throughout her time in office, she has achieved countless successes for the LGBTQ community: including ``Sexual Orientation'' in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, expanding housing and healthcare for HIV positive individuals, and promoting social and economic justice. She is the longest-serving lesbian Legislator in the U.S. Senator Scott Dibble became involved in politics in the mid-1980s, inspired to fight for the civil rights of the LGBTQ community. Since his election to the Senate in 2002, Senator Dibble has helped pass the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, the Safe and Supportive Schools Act, and numerous transportation and transit plans. Representative Clark and Senator Dibble were instrumental in gathering popular support to defeat the anti-marriage ballot amendment in 2012. Their tireless advocacy to engage Minnesotans culminated in the successful effort to legalize marriage equality statewide in 2013. Twin Cities Pride also recognizes the contributions of organizations that are creating a more equitable and inclusive world. The Community Champions of Pride are the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition, TransForming Families, and Out & Sober Minnesota. Since marriage equality has become the law statewide and nationwide, some people hung up their coats and thought, ``We're done!'' As almost anyone in the community can tell you, that is absolutely not the case. LGBTQ individuals, and especially trans folks and people of color, face disproportionately high rates of homelessness, health issues, discrimination, and income insecurity. In order to achieve true LGBTQ equality, we need to continue focusing on the intersections of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, income, immigration status, and other identities that highlight the despicable disparities in our state. I am proud these honorees have continued to fight on behalf of communities routinely excluded from advocacy or glossed over in public policy. They each demonstrate that when we stay engaged, when we turn out--we win. In the era of bathroom bills and legalized discrimination, it's more important than ever to make our voices heard--in the ballot boxes, in the halls of Congress, and beyond.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I support the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act because it offers Americans meaningful protection from exposure to dangerous, unregulated chemicals found in the products we use every day. This bill represents a substantive step in favor of public health, but it's far from what's needed. Today, the status quo isn't working. Industries can release hundreds of chemicals each year into our homes and workplaces without any federal requirement to consider their safety. Researchers have linked chemicals used in things like household cleaners, clothing, and furniture, to serious illnesses like cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson's. The current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), isn't up to the job. It restricts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing much of anything about these dangers. Under TSCA, only a small fraction of the thousands of chemicals used in our products have ever been reviewed for safety. The current law is so weak that the EPA couldn't even regulate asbestos. In 1989, after 10 years of research and more than 100,000 pages of administrative record supporting action, the EPA issued a rule under TSCA to ban most uses of asbestos. But two years later, the EPA's regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; while acknowledging that ``asbestos is a potential carcinogen at all levels of exposure,'' the Court ruled that the agency's administrative record failed to demonstrate that the regulation was the ``least burdensome alternative,'' as required under the law. Since the court's ruling, the burden to regulate most toxic substances under TSCA has been insurmountable. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is an important improvement over TSCA. It would require reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals, and removing barriers that have prevented the EPA from regulating highly toxic substances in the past, such as asbestos. This reform is necessary, but it's not adequate. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act doesn't do everything public health and safety demand. Unfortunately, it bows to chemical industry, which stood in the way of reform for so long, in key provisions. For example, the chemical industry demanded and got unprecedented state preemption standards in the bill. It also imposes limitations on the EPA's ability to monitor chemicals in imported products. Federal policy should be a floor, not a ceiling, for public health and safety. States, like my Minnesota, have led the way in creating chemical safety standards that protect their residents. Last year in Minnesota, we took an important step toward protecting children and firefighters' health when the legislature passed a law to prohibit toxic flame retardants. For my part, I will continue to be an advocate for reform that protects public health, not special interests like the chemical industry.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I support the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act because too many Americans are getting sick from dangerous, unregulated chemicals found in the products we use every day. This bill would protect public health by making long-overdue chemical safety reforms. Today, industries can release hundreds of chemicals each year into our homes and workplaces without any federal requirement to consider their safety. Research has linked chemicals used in everyday products, such as household cleaners, clothing, and furniture, to serious illnesses like cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson's. But currently, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)--our broken chemical safety law--gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) little power to do anything about these dangers. Under TSCA, only a small fraction of the thousands of chemicals used in our products have ever been reviewed for safety. The law is so weak that the EPA couldn't even regulate asbestos. In 1989, after 10 years of research and more than 100,000 pages of administrative record supporting action, the EPA issued a rule under TSCA to ban most uses of asbestos. But two years later, the EPA's regulation was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; while acknowledging that ``asbestos is a potential carcinogen at all levels of exposure,'' the Court ruled that the agency's administrative record failed to demonstrate that the regulation was the ``least burdensome alternative,'' as required under the law. Since the court's ruling, the burden to regulate most toxic substances under TSCA has been insurmountable. The reforms in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would help keep our communities safer by requiring reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals, and removing barriers that have prevented the EPA from regulating highly toxic substances in the past, such as asbestos. This reform is an urgently needed next step, but there are still problems with this bill and more work should be done to protect our communities. Provisions in this bill sought by the chemical industry create unprecedented state preemption standards and put limitations on the EPA's ability to monitor chemicals in imported products. Federal policy should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to establishing standards for public health and safety. We must support states, like my home state of Minnesota, that have led the way in creating chemical safety standards that protect their residents. Last year in Minnesota, we took an important step toward protecting children and firefighters' health when the legislature passed a law to prohibit four toxic flame retardants (Deca, HBCD, TCEP and TDCPP) from children's products and upholstered furniture. Policies that preempt state action or restrict EPA's ability to monitor imported products threaten public health and safety. We need to fight back against these bad policies as we continue our efforts to reform TSCA. For my part, I will continue to be an advocate for reform that protects public health, not the chemical industry.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 242 on the McNerney amendment to H.R. 5055, I mistakenly recorded my vote as no when I should have voted yes.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we can raise living standards for working families all across the United States if we use the Federal dollars to create good jobs. My amendment would reprogram funds to create an Office of Good Jobs in the Department of Energy that would help ensure that the Department's procurement grant making and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. Right now the U.S. Government is America's leading low-wage job creator, funding over 2 million poverty jobs through contracts, loans, and grants with corporate America. That is more than the total number of low-wage workers employed by Walmart and McDonald's combined. This is a fact, Mr. Chairman, and I think it should alarm all of us. The Federal Government should not lead the race to the bottom for poorly paid low-wage jobs. U.S. contract workers earn so little that nearly 40 percent use public assistance programs, Mr. Chairman, like food stamps and section 8, to feed and shelter their families. To add insult to injury, many of these low-wage U.S. contract workers are driven deeper into poverty because their employers steal their wages and break other Federal labor laws. Not all. Many Federal contractors are excellent, but some do steal wages, and they tend to get away with it. Take, for example, the story of Edilicia Banegas. Edilicia is a single mom. Edilicia worked for 7 years at the Ronald Reagan Building food court, a Federal building. Her employer stole her wages, paid her with cash under the table, used checks from two different establishments in the same food court to avoid paying her overtime, and retaliated against her when she and her coworkers stood up for their rights. Edilicia has been on strike several times to highlight the plight of low-wage Federal contract workers in Washington, D.C., and across the country. Well, what about the story of Mayra Tito. Mayra is a Pentagon food court worker who was fired for challenging her managers to comply with labor laws and for going on strike multiple times. She is a first-generation immigrant struggling to pay her tuition at George Mason University and now works odd jobs to make ends meet. Her experience at the Pentagon has inspired her to go to law school to help workers defend their rights. Mr. Chairman, research shows that Federal contractors break Federal laws somewhat on a regular basis. A U.S. Senate report, for example, found that over 30 percent of the biggest penalties for lawbreaking were filed against the biggest U.S. contractors, people who the procurement process got money from the U.S. taxpayer. But workers aren't the only ones who would benefit from this new office. This new office would also benefit law-abiding businesses and high-road employers--employers who play by the rules but who get put at a competitive disadvantage because they obey the law. The Office of Good Jobs would direct taxpayer dollars to American businesses that play by the rules and ensure that cheaters don't get a leg up. It is unfair to make law-abiding companies compete with contractors who are willing to cut corners. Think about it: you are a law-abiding company that fought hard for that contract, but now the Federal Government is going to give it to your competitors who are willing to steal from their workers? Plus, we know that contractors who consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have greater productivity and an increased likelihood of timely, predictable, and successful delivery of goods and services to the Federal Government. Bad contractors usually not only cheat workers, but they cheat the Federal Government by poor performance. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, these are tax dollars that should be used to build the middle class, to support high-road employers, and to provide the best possible service to the American public. An Office of Good Jobs would achieve that. Abandon the days when the U.S. Government was the leading funder of low-wage jobs. After all, Mr. Chair, when you and I and all of the other taxpayers have to fund low-wage workers with section 8 and food stamps, that comes out of our pockets. Make these folks pay their workers right. Let's set up an Office of Good Jobs. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, let's have an Office of Good Jobs that makes sure that the Federal Government leads the example in creating good jobs, not encourages a race to the bottom as we are doing now. This is a good amendment, and if we want to restore the American middle class, all Members should vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chair, it is intended that the appropriation for Departmental Administration be used to establish an Office of Good Jobs in the Department aimed at ensuring that the Department's procurement, grant- making, and regulatory decisions encourage the creation of decently paid jobs, collective bargaining rights, and responsible employment practices. The office's structure shall be substantially similar to the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships located within the Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for National and Community Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes language telling the President to expand our mission in Afghanistan, language that tells the President to put more of our troops in harm's way, to go backwards towards a combat mission in Afghanistan. Now, Republicans may not say it, but the effect is exactly what they are pushing for--moving the United States military and the United States back toward a combat mission in Afghanistan, not forward away from one. Worse yet, they are pushing for an expanded mission before the new commander on the ground, General John Nicholson, finishes his review. That is right. Congress is giving instructions to the President before the current commander has weighed in. This is a mistake. So the opening line of the sense of Congress tells the President to leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan next year. The current plan calls for 5,500. This sets the tone for what is next. Unfortunately, the amendment that strikes this language was not ruled in order. My amendment starts by striking the next provision. The Republicans want our military to unilaterally strike the Taliban. Now, of course, these people are absolutely bad news, but the State Department does not recognize them as a terrorist organization at this time. This is a decision that should be based on military considerations. Thus, our counterterrorism mission is allowed to strike and go after Daesh and al Qaeda, but the mission regarding the Taliban is defensive in nature; and if that is going to be changed, it should be based on military considerations, not just through a piece of legislation. In fact, the Afghans are leading all missions against the Taliban, and this has been happening well before we transitioned to a noncombat mission. So let's not call for going back to combat mission tactics, especially when the commander has not asked for it. Finally, I would like to talk about a particular provision that is close to me. I would like to address what I regard as actually a troubling piece in the provision, which says, and I will quote from the proposed legislation: The United States military personnel who are tasked with the mission of providing combat search and rescue support, casualty evacuation, and medical support should not be counted as part of any force management level limitation on the number of United States ground forces in Afghanistan. This is a mistake. I believe that our medical personnel and others should be considered boots on the ground, contrary to the language in the provision. Combat medics carry weapons, they take casualties, and they are killed. Why shouldn't we count them? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. One of the closest people in the whole wide world to me is an Active Duty military combat medic, and if they are in a war zone, I want them counted. So with that, I ask for my amendment to be approved and included, and I ask that we listen to military people on the ground before we start trying to tell them what to do, and that we absolutely count combat medics and people who do rescue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I want to just say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is absolutely wrong when he says there would be a unilateral ending to the struggle against Daesh, or ISIL. The only way that would happen is if we do not take up a new AUMF that would authorize us to take on that battle. What we need to do is take on our constitutional responsibility. We cannot abdicate it with this out-of-date AUMF that is only tenuously connected to many of the conflicts we see arising today. We have a responsibility under the Constitution, Article I, section 8, to debate and vote, up or down, use of force. We should do that. We should do it now. There is nothing to prevent us from passing a new one or crafting our own or passing the President's unless we abdicate that responsibility. This allows us to criticize anything the President does and yet, at the same time, never take responsibility for passing our own AUMF adapted for the moment that we are in. That is not right. I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, while millions of Americans are struggling to get by and sustain their families, Republicans are trying to make it easier for employers to steal their wages. Right now we know that there are reports of at least $5 million in stolen wages and penalties from the U.S. contract companies. Last month, Representative John Kline, my colleague and friend, introduced an amendment to this bill to block the President's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order at the Department of Defense. This executive order that the President issued helps ensure companies with Federal contracts are following Federal labor laws, like protections against wage theft, workplace safety rules, and the right for workers to organize. It is the result of years of advocacy by workers, labor rights activists, members of the Progressive Caucus, and Members of Congress generally. This week I introduced an amendment to strike Mr. Kline's language. Let's at least have a debate about it. Let's at least debate whether or not workers should get protection from wage theft. I guess that was one of those amendments that didn't quite make it through the process. It is no surprise that the Republican-led Committee on Rules didn't give us a vote on our amendment, because they don't want to have to debate this in front of the American people. The American people might like to know that there are companies that are stealing workers' wages but that the President is trying to protect those workers. Now the Republican majority is trying to stop the President from protecting those workers.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, now, the President's executive order isn't punitive. It actually helps companies to follow the rules. Debarment is the last resort, and it is the clear nuclear option for companies that refuse to correct their behavior, but Republicans don't like it. Instead of helping companies that are fair to workers, they want to make it easier for companies that steal workers' wages. Workers aren't the only ones who should be outraged. This amendment actually gives a leg up to contractors who don't play by the rules, putting companies who are doing right at a disadvantage. Please vote ``no'' on this rule for this and many other reasons.