Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for my amendment to H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The overseas contingency operations account is supposed to provide emergency funding for wars and unexpected operations overseas, operations that cannot be planned for in the base budget. Republicans are raiding this account. They are taking money from missions designed to protect our Nation from imminent threats to feed the military industrial complex. They argue that this makes our military stronger and that it improves our national security; but what it really does is, the Republicans have taken money from operations overseas and put it towards money for procurement, for nonwar needs, so much so that the operators would only be funded through 2017, April of next year. My amendment puts the money back. Mr. Chairman, Secretary Carter stated that this gimmick is gambling ``with warfighter money at a time of war.'' He said: ``It would spend money taken from the war account on things that are not DOD's highest priorities across the joint force.'' My amendment takes the $9.4 billion taken for procurement on items like extra F-35s and the littoral combat ship, which the Pentagon did not prioritize, and puts the funds back in the OCO operations and maintenance account. Mr. Chair, $26 million of that money will go to preventing suicides amongst our military, as the President's request for this was $26 million lower than the amount we appropriated in 2016. This problem is not going down, and it should not receive less support from us. In summary, we are putting money back where it belongs. We are supporting our troops on the ground. We are supporting those services overseas. We are supporting military readiness. We are supporting the priorities of the Pentagon and the President, not those of the defense industry. And I will say, Mr. Chairman, that if I were to ask you who I got a call from and ask you to guess, did I get a call from the President's office or the Pentagon or Boeing, the answer would be number three, Boeing. That is who called me and doesn't like this particular amendment. In fact, we didn't hear from the others. We heard from the industry, the special interests. Let's just say the Republicans do push through extra funds for OCO next year. This would still be shortchanging domestic programs that will have to be cut to pay for the defense industry. We all know that Republicans won't let us raise taxes to cover additional costs. We won't be able to take on more debt. Americans are going to suffer under the Republicans' scheme to give the Pentagon equipment and the industry just more. I oppose it, and I urge support for my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that it is time to put resources where they are needed, among suicide prevention and directly to our troops, not into simply more military-industrial complex procurement stuff, not just to help private business feed its bottom line profit, but to help our soldiers and to help our military on the ground, when needed. I urge support for 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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I also want to lend my voice to hers as I stand here before you to say that I was happy to vote for the legislation addressing opioid addiction today; sad that Republicans didn't support Democratic initiatives, but overall happy with the work that has been done on this this week. I know many people fighting opioid addiction. It is debilitating. It is heartbreaking in the lives that it has ruined. And I think that though the steps we took today were positive, we could have taken more. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect upon an issue that is related to this, but give a little historic perspective because I think that Congress' response to opioid addiction has, I think, in the main, been commendable. Unfortunately, if it were 20 years ago today, in the mid 1990s, perhaps the response of Congress then to crack cocaine was very different. The response to crack cocaine was massive incarceration. The effect of the crack cocaine epidemic was massive blanketing of police in certain neighborhoods, front-end loaders in poor neighborhoods. I hope that what this more humane, more medical-oriented response to drug addiction represents is America learning how to deal with drug addiction because I think a more cynical person, not me, might say that because crack cocaine was associated with people who were African Americans, a more harsh, police-oriented, prison-oriented response was warranted and tolerable; and because opioid is more broad and affects the majority community as well, that a more reasoned response is warranted. Thinking about people like Kemba Smith, who got 24 years in prison when she was a student at Hampton University. She never touched 1 gram of crack cocaine; had a boyfriend who was a drug dealer. He housed some drugs in her house. She got convicted, ended up getting 24 years in prison. Thank goodness President Clinton gave her a commutation, but ruined her life. We now have about 2.4 million people in prison, many of them for nonviolent drug offenses, many who were arrested and given an enormous amount of time in the crack cocaine wars of the 1990s. I hope that the enlightened approach that we have now, which is not marked with helicopters and front-end loaders and all types of weaponry, literally militarizing Black neighborhoods across the United States back in the 1990s--I am glad that that is not the response we have taken this time. I hope it means we have learned something, but I hope it also means that we go back and ask ourselves if some of the exorbitant sentences that people got, life sentences in some cases, 10 years, 20 years, we revisit these; we look at mandatory minimums for some of these offenders; that we look at how we have exploded massive prison rates all around crack, even though, in my opinion, crack and powder cocaine are basically the difference between ice and water. They are essentially the same chemical. We incarcerate one much more severely than the other. One is used predominantly by Whites; the other, more Blacks are found in possession of it, and the rates of incarceration are dramatically different. This Congress corrected a grievous injustice where we punished crack cocaine 100 times more severely than we did powder. We changed that to 18 times more. That is improvement; it is not equality. But I hope that today, the way we dealt with opioids, which I supported and I voted for--because I do believe that we do need to have more of a medical approach to drug addiction than the militarized, police-oriented, incarceration-oriented measure that we have used in the past--I hope that this new way of dealing with drug addiction is an advance in our understanding rather than a reflection of who is being hurt. I think that if we really want to demonstrate that it is a reflection of what we have learned, then we have some unfinished business to achieve because there are still a lot of people who are dealing with the vestiges of mass incarceration and the war on crack cocaine. Let me also just say that I remember being a young criminal defense lawyer in Minnesota, and I remember being in court when a courageous young judge named Pam Alexander, an African American female, found that the difference between powder and crack cocaine sentencing was not warranted by the facts or the evidence; in fact, amounted to an equal protection violation under the Minnesota constitution. To the credit of the Minnesota State Supreme Court, they upheld her ruling, but Pam Alexander paid a heavy toll for her courageous judicial work because she was nominated to be a Federal district judge. That was blocked by people who wanted to maintain the status quo, and she never got to be a Federal district court judge. Now, she is still a distinguished journalist, to the pride of us all; but, you know, just showing that some people went to prison for this and others had their careers limited because of their willingness to speak up against these equal protection problems. So I just hope that today represents advancing our understanding rather than just the different treatment that different people historically have received in our country. I definitely feel that I was proud to vote for the four measures today and enjoyed the debate and definitely was--my heart was in sync with all of my colleagues when they were talking about some of the very horrific problems that people suffer from opioid addiction. I am right there with them and my heart is right there with them and my mind is right there with them. But I cannot get it out of my head about how differently we dealt with the crack epidemic. According to the Center for Disease Control, Blacks and Whites use crack about the same rate. And yet, there were whole jurisdictions in this country where there was literally no White person being charged with crack possession, and there were African Americans getting 5 years for a few grams, 10 years for a few more, and their lives absolutely devastated because of it. I mentioned 2.4 million Americans behind bars. Much of this is driven by the war on drugs. There are 2.7 million children whose parents are behind bars. When your parent goes to prison, it devastates family income. So I am just going to turn it back over; announce that I am proud of the votes that I took in favor of addressing opioid addiction today; say that I hope that it was because we learned something about the war on drugs; say that we must go, sort of fix some of the overzealousness of the war on crack years in the 1990s; and say that I really hope that our sympathies don't return only in favor of people who look like us, but to all Americans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his hard work. We know that, when people leave their jobs, they may get a call from an adviser offering to help the worker roll over their 401(k) or 403(b) into an IRA. What the worker does not know is that the adviser oftentimes is really a salesperson. That salesperson has no responsibility to put the worker's best interest first. The law did not require a best-interest standard. So some advisers steer people to high-cost products with hidden fees and hidden commissions. This practice by some, but not all, financial advisers strips wealth from families trying to save for retirement. For 15 years consumer and investor advocates have fought to protect savers from these conflicts of interest. Finally, the Obama administration and Democrats worked with industry for a workable, best- interest standard. Today's vote is clear: Do you support rules that protect savers' ability to build wealth? Do you want to protect investors from conflicts of interest? I do. That is why I oppose today's effort by Republicans to put the profits of the financial advisers ahead of future retirees. Best interest of the saver and the worker, not the best interest of the industry, is how you should vote today. Vote ``no.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 170 on H.R. 4998, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I stand with Representatives Johnson, Sanchez, and my other colleagues to discuss a well-known scourge on the rights of everyday Americans: forced arbitration clauses. People talk about how the rules are rigged. They say the deck is stacked in favor of powerful interests. Forced arbitration clauses are a perfect example of an unfair system. Powerful corporations rig the rules to make it more difficult for people to hold companies accountable for wrong doing. Nearly all companies add non-negotiable clauses in contracts that people are required to sign when we open a bank account, get a credit card or a cell phone or choose a financial advisor. Virtually any product and service that requires we sign a contract that includes fine-print will limit our ability to seek damages in open court. If consumers have a complaint, we are limited to secret arbitration forums. These arbitration forums are controlled by the corporation. The corporations decide the venue and the arbitrator. Even if the arbitrator makes a terrible ruling or makes egregious errors, the ruling likely cannot be appealed or reversed. In fact, arbitrators' decisions in prior cases are not publicly available. How did we get to this point? How is it possible that nearly all consumer and investment contracts include forced arbitration clauses? Why are consumers forced to resolve disputes after they arise in secret courts, not in the public courts? We should look across the street. No entity has done more to expand forced arbitration clauses than the Supreme Court. Numerous anti- consumer rulings have restricted people's freedom to take a company to court. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DirecTV California customers could not band together to fight an early termination fee assessed by DirecTV. Instead, each customer had to file individually and use arbitration. They could not seek a class action lawsuit. In 2013, American Express v. Italian Colors preserved the monopoly powers of American Express so it could continue to charge retailers high fees. Retailers who had sought a class action lawsuit were restricted by arbitration clauses in their contracts. In 2011, AT&T Mobility v Concepcion had the same outcome; people who were offered a ``free cell phone'' realized they were actually charged $30. Consumers sought damages as a class but the Supreme Court ruled that the customers had to pursue their claims individually through arbitration. As you would expect, these anti-consumer rulings were decided on ideological lines. In fact, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote many of these decisions which were unfair or onerous to consumers. But we are not giving up. We are pushing back hard against these mandatory arbitration contracts. Congress barred forced arbitration clauses in residential mortgage terms. Military members now have the right to go to court for disputes involving many types of loans. Small-business auto dealers can choose to go to court when locked in disputes with the big auto manufacturers. Unfortunately, most auto dealers have deprived their own customers of this benefit. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working on a rule that could curb mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts. The CFPB could restore our ability to join our claims together to hold financial companies accountable when they break the law. But there is still more work to do. The Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority to eliminate forced arbitration clauses that brokerage firms and financial advisors require their customers sign. But the SEC hasn't acted. Therefore, I have sponsored legislation, the Investor Choice Act, (HR. 1098). My bill restores the rights of investors who are simply trying to save for retirement and other life goals. The bill says investors must have access to court to seek justice if advisors and brokers, who typically have the incentive to charge outsized commissions and fees, do not act in their customers' best interests. The bill has 21 cosponsors. I am also a proud cosponsor of the Arbitration Fairness Act, Mr. Johnson's bill eliminates forced arbitration for all consumer and worker disputes; I am also a cosponsor of the Court Legal Access & Student Support (CLASS) Act. This bill bans forced arbitration and class action prohibitions from college enrollment contracts. Minnesota's own attorney general Lori Swanson has been a leader in trying to level the playing field for all Minnesotans. She worked to stop a corrupt arbitration provider from operating its business against consumers across the country; and she has urged federal regulators to eliminate arbitration clauses from nursing home contracts. In closing, let me say, my colleagues and I are not seeking to do away with arbitration as a way for parties to work out their problems. We just think arbitration should be voluntary not mandatory. I simply ask ``If arbitration is so fair, why force it? Why not present it as an alleged ``fair'' option when a dispute has arisen-- where both parties can consider all alternatives and agree on an appropriate forum?'' We know why: Because companies like forced arbitration clauses because they are a perfect tool to avoid liability for their actions. If you want a fair system, if you want people to be able to accumulate wealth, then we need to stop these forced mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer and investor contracts.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul F. Woxland, and to recognize the nearly twenty-five years of service that he has given to our region as well as to the federal government in his work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Woxland began his service with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1991. Paul would eventually assume the role of Director of the Minneapolis Multifamily Asset Management Division and Satellite Office Coordinator. In this role, Mr. Woxland was tasked with the ultimate responsibility for physical, managerial, and financial condition of every HUD property within the region. Mr. Woxland has also been instrumental in the development and improvement of housing in Minnesota and in our neighboring state of Wisconsin. In this capacity, he has overseen thousands of housing developments, working diligently to provide all families with access to one of our most basic yet most needed resources, a safe space to call home. To that end, Mr. Woxland has had a direct hand in over one thousand affordable housing projects in Minnesota, and over eight hundred projects in Wisconsin. This staggering number of developments has had an immeasurable impact upon the health of the region, and in partnership has provided permanent housing to over fifteen thousand households. Mr. Woxland's work with the Interagency Stabilization Group has shown the true level of his commitment to providing housing for very low income residents. Mr. Woxland, through this collaborative organization, has succeeded in not only preserving but stabilizing affordable housing in Minneapolis for thousands of low-income residents. Some notable developments this partnership has preserved are Ebenezer Tower, Cecil Newman Plaza, and Riverside Plaza, a local landmark that is honored in the National Register of Historic Places. To his colleagues and staff, he is regarded as the leader of one of the most effective and efficient HUD offices in the nation. Mr. Woxland leaves a legacy at HUD of tireless commitment and of service to our most underprivileged. For that he deserves our gratitude. He also leaves a legacy of touching countless lives and fostering inclusive communities throughout the region.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul F. Woxland, and to recognize the nearly twenty-five years of service that he has given to our region as well as to the federal government in his work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Woxland began his service with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1991, where he assumed a position as Director of the Minneapolis Multifamily Asset Management Division and Satellite Office Coordinator. In this role, Mr. Woxland was tasked with the ultimate responsibility for physical, managerial, and financial condition of every HUD property within the region. Mr. Woxland has also been instrumental in the development and improvement of housing in Minnesota and in our neighboring state of Wisconsin. In this capacity, he has overseen thousands of housing developments, working diligently to provide all families with access to one of our most basic yet most needed resources, a safe space to call home. To that end, Mr. Woxland has had a direct hand in over one thousand affordable housing projects in Minnesota, and over eight hundred projects in Wisconsin. This staggering number of developments has had an immeasurable impact upon the health of the region, and in partnership has provided permanent housing to over fifteen thousand households. Mr. Woxland's work with the Interagency Stabilization Group has shown the true level of his commitment to providing housing for very low income residents. Mr. Woxland, through this collaborative organization, has succeeded in not only preserving but stabilizing affordable housing in Minneapolis for thousands of low-income residents. Some notable developments this partnership has preserved are Ebenezer Tower, Cecil Newman Plaza, and Riverside Plaza, a local landmark that is honored in the National Register of Historic Places. To his colleagues and staff, he is regarded as the leader of one of the most effective and efficient HUD offices in the nation. Mr. Woxland leaves a legacy at HUD of tireless commitment and of service to our most underprivileged. For that he deserves our gratitude. He also leaves a legacy of touching countless lives and fostering inclusive communities throughout the region.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the years of service of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis as he retires and assumes senior status in August 2015. Educated at Macalester College in St. Paul, and the University of Minnesota Law School, Chief Judge Davis has dedicated his career to advancing the highest justice and integrity within the legal community. From his early work as law clerk for the Legal Rights Center from 1971 to 1973, to his time as an attorney in Social Security Administration in Baltimore, to a criminal defense lawyer for the Neighborhood Justice Center in 1974, Chief Judge Davis has upheld the principled defense of equal justice under the law. Returning to the Legal Rights Center as an attorney in 1975, and in his later work as an attorney for the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission, he continued his commitment to legal excellence. As a Judge for the Hennepin County Municipal Court, he earned a reputation as a strong legal mind with a firm devotion to justice. His service to the community and legal profession has helped to ensure open and equitable access to justice. Davis's contribution to the founding of the Pro Se Project in May 2009, which helps provide litigants in Minnesota with a volunteer attorney, demonstrates his passion for fair access to legal counsel for all. His influence in the international arena has taken him to Egypt, Uganda, and Senegal, where he has offered insight on intellectual property law from an American perspective. His travels to Saudi Arabia, which facilitated the travel of a group of Saudi Judges to the United States to learn about the United States justice system, has no doubt enriched the understandings of the global judicial community. As a leader in the community, Davis has championed the court's involvement in outreach and education, including the 2013 Dred Scott Project. This collaboration between the Minnesota District Court, the Minnesota chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the Bloomington Human Rights Commission, and the Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department included bringing historical presentations to high school classrooms in Bloomington and the installation of a new plaque for the Dred Scott Playing Fields. Chief Judge Davis has worked tirelessly to educate and inspire future generations of attorneys and judges as an instructor and professor at the William Mitchell School of Law, the University of Minnesota Law School, and the Minnesota Institute of Legal Education. In 1993, he was nominated for federal judicial service as a Judge in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota by President Bill Clinton. He has served as the first African-American Chief Judge of the District of Minnesota since 2008. As Chief Judge of the district, Judge Davis has brought diversity and compassionate deliberation to the courts, while presiding over pressing budgetary issues and a demanding case-load. Chief Judge Davis has led an outstandingly impactful career, defined by his impassioned pursuit of integrity under the law and service to his community. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I think context is important in this debate we are having today. I can't get it out of my head, as we look at House Resolution 639, that our Senate has just announced that it is going to shut down the Supreme Court nomination process. Only a few years ago, the House shut down the government for 16 days. We have had 62 ACA repeals. Mitch McConnell once said, famously, that his goal was to make Obama a one-term President. He failed at that. The fact is that here we are again with Republican efforts to undermine, thwart, and shut down President Obama. This is outrageous, in my opinion. House Resolution 639 is nothing but a continuation of the politics of obstruction, just one more way to say you are not really the President, you are not legitimate. That is what this represents today. That is the exercise we are taking on this floor. President Obama's action will bring relief to millions of families who live in fear. Families shouldn't be torn apart because House Republicans refuse to work together with Democrats to pass an immigration bill which would make executive action unnecessary. While the Republicans held up progress, President Obama worked within his authority and took courageous steps needed to address the problems of millions of Americans. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is an important step toward fixing an immigration system that is inhumane and cruel, and it is within the right of the President to prioritize removal proceedings for certain people. We have to prioritize them. We cannot remove everybody at the same time. Furthermore, it is consistent with the action of past Presidents, dating back to President Eisenhower, including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, who both took executive action to keep immigrant families together. The Republicans offer no substantive findings and no legal arguments in their resolution. This is a delay tactic. This is a political tactic. This does not serve the interests of the American people.

Mr. ELLISON. The fact that executive action is right for American families, and right for our economy, and right for our society, is what should guide our actions today, not political delay tactics. Republicans won't acknowledge that immigration and immigrants are an important part of the society that we live in. I stand with the families that President Obama is trying to keep together within his authority. Vote ``no'' on House Resolution 639.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the floor today to pay homage and honor to a great Minnesotan and a Member of this body, Martin Olav Sabo. He was the Congressperson who preceded me to represent the Fifth Congressional District. I can say without any reservation that very, very few people can boast to be greater public servants than Martin Sabo in my State of Minnesota or in America. Martin Sabo served for more than 40 years in public life, 28 years in Congress. He was the chair of the Committee on the Budget, and he was also a good friend to all. I will say that he was always gracious and well-mannered. He was a helpful person, and he was available to mentor literally hundreds of Minnesota politicians, public activists, and servants. It is with a heavy heart that I give these remarks because, of course, it would be wonderful to have all of our friends, including Martin Sabo, be with us for a long, long time; but, of course, every one of us does leave this world, and when they do, they would be very, very lucky to make the mark that Martin Sabo did--a great man, a great Minnesotan.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the Representative Watson Coleman. I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership during the Progressive Caucus Special Order hour. Every week, she helps give the world the progressive message, and I am so grateful that she does. Mr. Speaker, let me mention that The People's Budget is really not just some document that members of the Progressive Caucus, when huddled in a room, drafted up. We actually believed that the people ought to participate in the writing of The People's Budget, so we engaged not only the ideas of constituents from our districts but also those from other people, like from the Economic Policy Institute, the people in the labor community, and others, who all had great ideas about how to formulate our budget. Altogether, we included the ideas of 44 different groups and of many, many individuals beyond that to support and help us draft The People's Budget. We want to thank all of them. This really is a People's Budget because it puts forward the main thing that any budget ought to put forward in a budget from Congress, and that is the promotion of good-paying jobs. Now, just because the unemployment rate has gotten to a lower level doesn't mean that we have got a great jobs picture for working Americans. The People's Budget would increase good-paying jobs by 3.6 million, and we are very proud of that. While Republicans may think that the best way to judge a budget is by how many dollars from the Federal budget they cut, we believe that the main way to judge a budget is by how many Americans are put to work in good-paying jobs. How do we create these jobs? One, by investing in our infrastructure. The People's Budget invests in $1 trillion so that we can rebuild our roads, bridges, railways, water systems, and grids. We make sure that the crumbling infrastructure that faces us right now gets fixed. That includes infrastructure in Flint, Michigan, and in other cities around this country where water infrastructure is so hard-pressed. Beyond that, we will provide the protections that American workers need. The People's Budget calls for the protection of collective bargaining; it works to close the pay equity gap; it increases funding for worker protection agencies that crack down on wage theft and overtime abuses--but that $1 trillion will also save American lives. Two weeks ago, I and many members of the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses traveled to Flint, Michigan, and I saw firsthand what happens when governments are run like a business. When money is the only consideration and when the Governor thinks that passing an emergency manager law just to cut costs at the expense of children's health and clean water, we see what the results of that kind of thinking are and that it is penny-wise, but incredibly pound-foolish. I met dozens of families who were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, but also people who were touched by the evils of Legionnaires' disease because of waterborne illness. The People's Budget includes $765 million for the city of Flint so that we can replace toxic pipelines and provide health and education services for residents. Flint isn't the only city that is exposing residents to lead; so The People's Budget also includes $150 billion for waterlines nationwide. We can never allow a tragedy like Flint's to happen again, but we have to make the investments right now. It is a simple choice: Do we believe that we should have a State's tax cuts go to the richest dead people? Should we cut their taxes? Should we cut the taxes of multinational, giant, profitable corporations? Or should we spend the money to help ensure the health and welfare of American children and other citizens? I think we should look out for the American people. The People's Budget does that. We are glad to have the support of so many organizations, and we look forward to a very strong vote when the day arrives. Stop Violence in Honduras

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make another statement which is unrelated to our budget, but it is still very important. I am profoundly saddened and angered by the murders of Berta Caceres and Nelson Garcia, two leading environmental activists in the nation of Honduras. These two murders were less than 2 weeks apart. It is an ongoing challenge that must be addressed immediately. Ms. Caceres spent decades fighting for the rights of Honduras' indigenous community, winning the Goldman Environmental Prize--an internationally recognized award--for her work. She was assassinated in her home while she was supposed to be under special protection by government security forces. Mr. Garcia was a member of Ms. Caceres' organization, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. He was shot yesterday in front of his mother-in-law's home. Honduras and the world have lost two extraordinary advocates for environmental and indigenous rights, and also for social justice. We need to do more than mourn their losses. It is time to act. It is time to suspend assistance to the Honduras security forces until such time as we know they are not penetrated by illegal actors; until such time as we can be assured when they say they are going to protect somebody, those people are protected; and until we know and have confidence that American taxpayers' dollars are not being used to assassinate leaders who are doing nothing more than trying to improve the environment and increase the rights of indigenous people. These assassinations fit into a pattern of attacks that has taken place against Honduran activists since the 2009 military coup. The NGO Global Witness calls Honduras the most dangerous place in the world for environmental activists. More than 100 environmental activists have been killed in the last 5 years there, and many activists and community leaders remain at risk. We must do everything in our power to stop this violence and harassment in Honduras. Please rest in peace, Berta Caceres and Nelson Garcia. The people who remain behind will continue to fight for environmental justice and indigenous rights, and we here in the United States join that fight. U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Zion Baptist Church, to recognize and commemorate 127 years of religious devotion through community building and advocacy in North Minneapolis. Zion Baptist Church, founded in 1889, has sought to provide a strong, steadfast foundation for their congregants through biblical teaching, equipping families through faith, and fostering an uncompromising belief in God. The church has fought for important changes in policy, community support systems, and physical safety--all led by their deep devotion to their faith. For four decades, until 2012, the Reverend Curtis Herron led his congregation on the belief that ``the church started in the building, but ended in the world.'' Through his advocacy for affordable housing, racial equity, and job creation, Reverend Curtis Herron championed substantial improvements for Zion Baptist Church, and the Minneapolis community as a whole. The people of Zion Baptist Church have guided families along the path of faith while engaging them in local issues; and they show no signs of slowing down. Zion Baptist Church is one of the largest and most influential African American churches in Minneapolis, and for the last 127 years their advocacy has helped make our community the best it can be. Their legacy of lifting up the most vulnerable in our community should serve as a reminder that faith calls us to stand up against injustice, no matter the form.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the impact of VocalEssence, a Minneapolis-based vocal ensemble of international repute. Through their WITNESS program, they have taught, performed alongside, and serenaded more than 155,000 students throughout the Twin Cities over 26 years. The WITNESS vision began in 1991 with one school and one teaching artist. It has since grown to more than 40 schools and 9 teaching artists, impacting more than 5,000 students annually. The program provides diverse role models and increased exposure to the arts through performances and classroom workshops. For many students, WITNESS is their first opportunity to receive professional training or perform at a major concert hall. The program celebrates the contributions of African Americans to choral music--a rich history that has led to collaborations with James Earl Jones, Rita Dove, Billy Taylor, and countless others. This year, WITNESS is hosting the Morehouse College Glee Club. These young men from a Historically Black College are living proof of the world of possibility for students of color. Over 200 young men from six Twin Cities high schools will rehearse and perform alongside some of the brightest Black minds in our country. It is crucial that we celebrate Black culture; when we do, we must include Black youth at the helm. VocalEssence WITNESS does just that. I commend VocalEssence for the WITNESS program's success in educating, engaging and inspiring students in the Twin Cities. VocalEssence has given our community so much beauty through their music, and they continue to better our future through their top-notch community program WITNESS. I can't wait to see what they accomplish in the future.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, today marks one year since three young Americans were killed for their faith. On February 10th, 2015, Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu-Salha were murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. They were shot and killed because they were Muslim. Yusor was a graduate of North Carolina State University and planned on enrolling at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Dentistry, where her husband, Deah, was studying to become a dentist. Razan, Yusor's sister, was a student at NCSU as well. She was only 19 years old. These murders break my heart. They should be heartbreaking to every American. The tragedy in Chapel Hill shows us the stark reality of anti-Muslim bigotry: hate speech and scapegoating has real life consequences. Children are bullied in schools, houses of worship are vandalized, and people are killed for the way they dress or how they pray. Candidates for public office, public officials, and leaders are spewing hatred against American Muslims, calling for Muslim refugees to be banned from entering the country, or for Muslims living here-- including some that were born and raised as American--should carry ID cards or register their names in a database. This type of rhetoric is why our young children are afraid to go to school and why people are being killed because of how they look or how they pray. After the murder, some people in the press argued that it was over a parking dispute. I'm reminded of what Deah's brother, Farris, said: ``I can only accept Deah, Yusor, and Razan's murders as being over a parking dispute, if Rosa Parks's struggle was over a bus seat.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, today marks 1 year since three young Americans were killed, I believe, for their faith. I think the evidence supports that. On February 10, 2015, Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu- Salha were murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. They were shot and killed because of their faith. They were Muslim. Yusor was a graduate of North Carolina State University, and planned on enrolling at UNC Chapel Hill School of Dentistry, where her husband, Deah, was studying to become a dentist. Razan, Yusor's sister, was a student at NCSU as well. She was only 19. These murders are heartbreaking. They should be heartbreaking to every American. They show us the stark reality that bigotry is alive and well and that good people have to stand against it. Hate speech and scapegoating have real life consequences. Children are bullied in school, houses of worship are vandalized, and people are killed for the way they dress or how they pray. This should end now.