Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a freshman Member who is a very well-respected member of the Progressive Caucus.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I would like to point out that I think the people who promote this piece of legislation and the people who oppose it basically take their positions for the same reason, and that is that labor unions improve wages, make better working conditions, promote job security, and give strength in numbers. We oppose and support this bill for the same reason. Some people want to see workers get more pay--we have seen stagnant wages--and some people think that when workers make more money, it just hurts corporate profitability--which, by the way, is up and has been increasing. The point is simply this: The NLRB does its job and modernizes union elections and proposes a rule. The Republican majority comes in and says, We don't like that because that might lead to more union elections, and it may lead to more unionized workers, and we like it how it is, we like flat and declining wages, we want the employers to have all of the power, we want the workers to be alone and on their own and without the strength that the numbers that a union provides. It is just as simple as that. Americans watching this debate today have yet another opportunity to see who is on their side and who is not. American workers get more money and get paid better when they are in unions. Collective bargaining strengthens family budgets because it means that workers can say, Do you know what, that is unsafe; do you know what, you are making plenty of money, so should we; do you know what, we need to get some job security in a union contract around here--and that is exactly why we see the opposition to this NLRB rule. So it is disappointing. I think President Obama was right when he said the number one problem facing the United States today is income inequality. That is the concentration of riches at the top and the stagnation for wages for everybody else. If that is the problem, then we need to do something about it. That means modernizing the right to collectively bargain. I will say modernizing union elections is the thing that will help us achieve that equality.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield for another question?

Mr. ELLISON. So the Progressive Caucus budget was not just written by members of the Progressive Caucus. We didn't just sit in a room and write up a budget. We actually pulled in our partners, like the Economic Policy Institute, labor. How important were our progressive partners in pulling our budget together?

Mr. ELLISON. That's right. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that, again, the Progressive Caucus budget is in dramatic contrast to the Republican budget. Take the Republican budget, for example. The Republican budget calls for repealing the Affordable Care Act. This is a piece of legislation that has extended health care access to literally millions and millions and millions of people. The Republicans want to snatch health care access out of people who now, for the first time in their life, have acquired it; and they are doing it by saying: Oh, we want you to have freedom, and we think ObamaCare infringes on your freedom, so now be free to be sick with no access to health care other than an emergency room. That is their idea of freedom, I suppose. They want to partially privatize Medicare. Is that what we need is privatization of Medicare? A few years ago, the Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security. They wanted to say: We are going to take all the money you saved, and we are going to put it in some Wall Street account. Of course, they will be administered for a ``reasonable fee''--I put that in quotes-- but don't worry about it. Everything will be fine. Then we see stock market prices fall and plummet. They go up and they go down. But when you are talking about something like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, these have to be stable and reliable, and they want to privatize it as they have proposed to other important programs. They want to turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for States. What does that mean? In some States, maybe the Governor will do the right thing. I am pretty confident in Minnesota our Governor would do the right thing. Our unemployment is at a record low. In our State, our wages have been climbing. We actually have a surplus in the State of Minnesota. Our next-door neighbor, Wisconsin, is run by Scott Walker. They have a big, ugly deficit, which is embarrassing, given that he is supposed to be this fiscal conservative. But facts don't seem to bother some people. My point is that the Republicans want to block grant these programs. If you block grant it in Minnesota, it will be less money. Whenever there is a budget pinch, they will use that money for other things other than the intended purpose. But if you send it to a State like Wisconsin with a Governor like Scott Walker, the people who are intended to benefit from that money may never ever see it at all. And so this is a very important program not to block grant these programs. Tax reforms that lower rates and eliminate any taxation on profits reported abroad--come on. As a matter of fact, if just cutting taxes to the bone and cutting taxes for rich people as much as we possibly can would be good for the economy, wouldn't we have avoided the recession of 2008? We should have more jobs than we could possibly imagine with these guys. We should have never had any recession, and every American should be paid, I don't know, $100,000 a year if just cutting taxes was good for the economy. Cutting taxes is good for some people, but it is not good for the economy overall. The evidence is all around us. The Republicans want to turn the rest of the world into a tax haven for multinationals. Now, the President has been trying to set the record straight. He has been trying to signal what an economy where there is shared prosperity should look like. But the fact is that, if you look at the Republican budget and you contrast it with other proposals, it certainly fails the test of being good for the American people. The Progressive Caucus budget, on the other hand, passes the test. We do programs that actually help the American people: universal pre-K, robust support for title I, and debt-free college to ensure every child gets a quality education. When you contrast their budget and you look at our budget, it is clear which one the American people find to be most meritorious. So we ask people to look at the Progressive Caucus budget. We ask people to read it; share it with your friends; offer your views on it. We ask people to just support the budget that they think makes a lot of sense. Probably we will be debating the budgets next week. Probably we will have a vote. We think it is important for Americans to tune in to this debate. Because if you are an American person and you are busy, you are trying to raise kids, you are trying get to work on time, and you are trying to earn a living, you don't have time to be plugged in to politics like some of us who do this our whole lives. You are busy. But you are smart and you know what is going on. I am going to ask Americans to actually slow down and say: Hey, look, what is going on in this budget? What does the Republican budget look like? They want to cut taxes. They don't want overseas corporations to return those profits and pay taxes on that. The Progressive Caucus wants to let the little kids go to school, let the teenagers and the young adults go to school. They want to train our workforce, and they want to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. I guarantee this is what the people in this country want to see. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for upholding the Progressive Caucus message, and I wish you very great success in the people's budget.

Mr. ELLISON. I represent Minneapolis, Minnesota, and I was talking with my Housing Authority people who were here in town the other day, and I bet your Housing Authority folks were in town, too. One of the things that they said to me is that they opened up their list, and for 2,000 available units, they had 37,000 people who applied for those positions. Here is another separate fact which I would like you to react to, if you don't mind. In Minneapolis, we pride ourselves on being a progressive town. We have got 4,000 kids who leave shelters every day to go to a public school, and those kids are asked to take standardized tests. How important is it for a budget, particularly a Progressive Caucus budget, to house America's people?

Mr. ELLISON. Should a budget be a moral document which lists the priorities of the Nation?

Mr. ELLISON. That is right. If I could just say, putting workers back on the job who are firefighters, librarians, police officers, teachers, these are very important to the quality of life. I would like to refer to these people as everyday heroes. They may not wear big letters on their chest. But when I think about the people other than my parents who helped inspire me, it was probably a teacher, probably a cop who saw me hanging on the corner and said, Hey, man, we know you are smart. You can do better than what you are doing. You know what I mean? All of these people are the everyday heroes that make neighborhoods run every single day. So I just think it is important for the Progressive Caucus to say, We are going to prioritize rehiring these people who have been let go in the course of this recession. We have seen private sector employment increase every single month. But you know what? We have also seen public sector employment actually go down. One of the things I would also like to get your take on, if you wouldn't mind sharing your views on this issue, is restoring and enhancing emergency unemployment compensation. As you know, back on December 26, 2013, the long-term unemployed were just cast adrift by the Republican majority. These are people who were working but just couldn't find a job soon enough. Some people tried to imply that they were lazy and just didn't want a job, so we had to kick them off unemployment so they would actually look for a job. I wonder what your thoughts are about this.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I was really intrigued by the things that you were saying about the Progressive Caucus budget because I have always believed that you know someone's treasure by how they prioritize their expenses. You can look at a family's budget, and if you see a lot of money being spent on television and movies and candy, you know that they care a lot about that. And if you see people spend a lot of money on books and education, you know they care about that. What does it mean if you have the budget of a nation where the biggest amounts of the budget are spent on helping rich people get richer and cutting health and safety regulations? What does that mean at a time when income inequality is at its height since the Great Depression? My problem with the Republican budget is that they have been acting like rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much for 40 years. What it has brought us is massive income inequality. And their answer to that is to do it some more. It has hurt this economy to prioritize the well-to-do over everyone else. It doesn't even help rich people very much because rich people own stores and factories and stuff like that. If regular folks, ordinary people don't have any money, how can they even help boost the consumer demand? This economy that we have, it is important to point out that the United States is a country of tremendous resources. This is still the richest country in the world. Not only is America the richest country in the world but America itself has never been richer. If you look at per capita income and you scale it on a graph and compare it over time, you are looking at a steadily rising line. Yet the American budget, our governmental expenditures as a proportion of it, we have seen one of the lowest proportions of government spending relative to GDP in a great many years. The fact of the matter is, the reason the proportion of government expenditure to GDP has been going down is because America has been giving away the resources that it needs to take care of the needs of its people. I am talking about lifesaving research in medicine. I am talking about dealing with issues of climate. I am talking about infrastructure investment. One of the things that the Progressive Caucus budget does to try to recapture some of the money that the government is due and owed is we end corporate inversion and deferral. What is corporate inversion? Corporate inversion is where the company does not actually physically move anywhere, but they sell themselves to a foreign corporation with a lower tax rate or no tax rate, thereby escaping the payment of moneys in taxes as an American corporation but not really moving anything. In fact, they might even increase their physical footprint in the country that they are in. We have had that happen in my own community. And before I went to criticize the company that did it, I had to deal with the fact that it is legal to do. How are you going to blame a corporation for trying to get money when it is legal to do? Well, I say, rather than blame the company, I will blame Congress, you know? So we went and did something about it. We went to the Progressive Caucus budget and we ended inversions. You can't do that anymore. We are also in this process of deferral, this idea that corporate profits don't have to be paid as long as they are deferred and kept overseas. We end this process. We end deferrals. I think that these two things alone will bring money back to the United States Government so we can invest in roads and bridges and infrastructure, so we can make sure that no 5-year-old kid is leaving a shelter and going to a public school in the morning, so we can make sure that there is enough SNAP, that kids have a decent meal to eat, and that our seniors can actually hope to one day be able to beat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and all of these kinds of diseases. These things take public investment to solve these kinds of medical problems. So the Progressive Caucus budget, I am very proud to be a part of it because it is a budget that looks at the needs of the American people and does something about it. Let me just talk about the education side of it. We have universal pre-K. Now, it doesn't matter if you are a conservative economist or if you are a liberal economist; they all agree that the best return on investment is educating little kids. You educate those little guys and it will keep them out of trouble. It will put them on a path to college or some form of higher education. And they will not become a government expense; they will be a government asset. They will not be an expenditure on the taxpayer; they will be paying taxes. Yet the Progressive Caucus doesn't just know that, we actually do something about it by funding universal pre-K. I am so happy about that because, you know, those little guys are so cute, and we definitely want to see those bright-eyed little children maximize their talents. They are actually really smart. And if you put them in an educational environment, an academic environment where they can do more than just learn how to count--they can maybe even learn how to use a computer-- you never know what tremendous benefits they will bring to our society. And we move from there. In K-12 education, we help fund municipal and local public employees who need that kind of help. We have placed $95 billion in that, where we can, again, put a teacher or a teacher's aide back into the classroom. Ever since the recession in 2008, local governments have been shedding public employees, including teachers. Now, what does this mean? To the average teacher, the average teacher used to have a classroom of 28 kids, 19 kids. Well, those classes are bigger because you have got fewer teachers. You used to be able to have a little budget to decorate the classroom, to put inspiring messages and notes and pictures up there. I would actually like to ask the gentlelady from New Jersey a question. Have you had the experience of talking to a teacher where they tell you that they are going into their own pocket to decorate the classroom? Have you ever heard that?

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding, the Congresswoman from New Jersey, Bonnie Watson Coleman. As I said earlier today, Bonnie Watson Coleman may have just got sworn in as a Member of Congress a few months ago, but she is no stranger to fighting for people. That was on full display when she spoke at a rollout of our Progressive Caucus budget where she talked about how you can look at any aspect of the Progressive Caucus budget and you will find the same thing in every place: prioritizing people, making sure people can get their needs met in this government, making sure that workers can get access to a job, making sure that people who are sick but who are working can actually get a sick day so that they don't bring that sickness back to their workplace and don't have to abandon their children that might be sick, too. You pointed out, Congresswoman Watson Coleman, the fact is that job creation should be the primary metric of any budget. How are we doing putting people back to work in good jobs? How are we helping take care of them while they are on the job? If they are sick, can they take time off? How are we educating people? You focused on the key elements of the Progressive Caucus budget, and I was proud to hear you do it. The fact is this is our fifth budget that we have put out. It is a budget that is about working people. That is why we call it the people's budget. We urge people to check out the people's budget online at the Congressional Progressive Caucus Web site. Let me name a few things about the Progressive Caucus budget that are important to highlight. It creates 8.4 million good-paying jobs by 2018. Now, you just take the Republican budget that was put out yesterday. It was interesting to me that none of my Republican colleagues wanted to tout how many jobs their budget would create, how many jobs the economists--after looking at the Republican budget proposed--would create because that is not what they consider to be a priority; but it is a priority to the Progressive Caucus budget. Our priority is 8.4 million good-paying jobs investing in America, making sure Americans are working again. Now, you might correctly ask: How are you going to get all these jobs? One way we are going to get the jobs is we are going to invest $820 billion to repair America's rapidly aging roads and bridges and upgrade our energy systems to address climate change, keep our communities safe, and prepare for the next generation to thrive in our society and workforce. I would like to share with the Speaker that I come from a town-- Minneapolis, Minnesota--where, 6 years ago, the I-35 bridge fell into the Mississippi River because we had not taken care of it. We had not done adequate maintenance on this bridge. Thirteen people died when that bridge fell. They were Black. They were White. They were wealthy. They were low income. They were born in America. They were born abroad. They were America. That is who lost their lives on that bridge, and 100 more people got injured. This Progressive Caucus investment in infrastructure repair is not just a job creator and a productivity increaser; it is public safety to have decent, safe infrastructure. I am very proud of that. We also provide $945 million to help States and municipalities hire police, firefighters, health care workers, teachers, librarians, and other public employees. Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you, I met with my chiefs of police in the Fifth Congressional District about a week ago. Of course, all of us here tonight represent more than one city. I met with the chiefs of police--I am very proud to represent a city where law enforcement is dedicated--and they were asking me: What's going on with the Byrne grants? What's going on with the JAG grants? What's going on with the COPS grants? These things that have helped us be a better police department have shrunk. Our ability to protect the public is weakened by our limited resources. Well, we are going to do something about that. We are going to rehire teachers. So if you have got a teacher with 30 second graders in the classroom trying to keep up with all of them, we can hire a teacher's aide who might be able to actually help that teacher do what that teacher does most effectively. We put $1.9 trillion in America's future by investing in the working families. This restores and enhances funding for vital programs that Americans rely on, like SNAP, like food, nutrition, so that young people can be in the classroom and can be fully fed and ready to learn. So these are just a few things about the Progressive Caucus budget. But I wonder if the gentlewoman from New Jersey or the gentlewoman from Michigan will yield to a question.

Mr. ELLISON. The Progressive Caucus budget is trying to step up and address these issues. When you talk to officers and firefighters, health care workers, teachers, librarians, all of these local government functions have been cut. I would like to ask the gentlewoman another question: What does it mean to see the library hours cut in your city because the Federal assistance or the local municipalities just don't have enough funding for the library, so the hours get cut, the library staff gets cut. What does that mean to a local community?

Mr. ELLISON. Right. So the fact is, we need to respond to these kinds of things. I would also like to ask the gentlelady, What does it mean to a police department that needs about, you know, 40 people to protect the people of the city but only has 20 folks? What does that mean? Does that mean the officers aren't getting out of their cars and forming relationships? Does that mean they are just running from call to call to call? Does that mean they may not have the equipment that they need? What does it mean?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, just for people who are watching this debate, I would like to take us back to December of 2014 when we passed this thing called the CR/Omnibus, all these spending bills together that we spent money for the American people over the course of a year to fund our government, except for the Department of Homeland Security bill, which would be funded right through midnight tonight. Why did we single this one bill out for this short term? For one reason and one reason only: The Republican majority wanted to pick a fight with the President over the President's execution of his lawful authority to try to solve problems in the area of immigration. Now, a Federal district court judge, who has a long history of Republican partisanship, decided that he would issue an order stopping the execution of this executive order action; so, now, why don't we let the district court handle it, pass a year-long bill, and look after the public safety of the American people? This thing is where it should be. It is with the courts. People on the Republican side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, who say that this is unconstitutional--which it is not--now have the ball in the court they say they want it in, which is in the court's hands, so let us get about the business of protecting the homeland. Madam Speaker, I am from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and I am proud of that, but I have got a terrorist group in Somalia talking about what they want to do to my mall. That is a fact of my district right now, and I feel very bitter and resentful that we are holding up Homeland Security money. I ask this body to not kick the ball for 3 weeks, but to get to business now, so that we can plan and protect our homeland. This is serious business, not a political football to acquire power.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the founding of Thor Construction, one of the largest minority-owned construction companies in Minnesota, and an industry leader for contracting projects nationwide. Founded with the objective of becoming the number one minority-owned company in the country, Thor Construction is well on its way to achieving that goal. Since 1980, Thor has led many of Minnesota's largest construction projects. Its impressive track record includes work on Target Field, the Minneapolis Central Library, the TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota, the Minneapolis Convention Center, and the new Minnesota Vikings football stadium. Thor Construction shows no signs of tiring in its mission to provide top- notch construction work that benefits both workers of color and communities at large. Richard Copeland, the founder and chairman of Thor, is proud that his company ``generates new investments and exponential returns to the communities [they] serve.'' This guiding principle of social service in conjunction with high-quality development has led to projects in countless communities around Minnesota, as well as in at least six other states and five foreign countries. These industry leaders have jumped at every opportunity to expand their mission, moving well above and beyond humble Midwestern beginnings to leave a mark on the world around them. Thor Construction has received accolades from the City of Minneapolis, Black Enterprise, the US Green Building Council, and numerous other groups for their innovative approach to constructing with purpose. By creating good-paying, union jobs for thousands of underserved individuals, Thor Construction continues to ensure that building projects also entail community development. I am proud to represent the congressional district that Thor Construction calls home, and I eagerly await the day that I can congratulate them for achieving their goal of becoming the number one minority owned company in the United States.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, as I stand before this body today, it is with a tremendous amount of concern for the brave men and women who are protecting our country and work for the Department of Homeland Security. We are only about 48 hours or so away from a potential shutdown, and I am concerned about these people, who are going to have to continue to work because they are dedicated, loyal, and patriotic Americans but won't be getting paid if we allow this government to shut down. Now, all we have to do in this House of Representatives is to bring up a clean Homeland Security funding bill. That is all we have to do. The Senate majority leader said he would do that. So we can get this problem solved right away. This situation is being handled in the courts, and this body of ours, this House of Representatives, is no place to try to work out some sort of ideological partisan divide around immigration. This is an occasion for us to look out after the safety and security of the American people and to fund and pay the salaries of the workers who guarantee that security, not a time for partisan ideological chicanery. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would keep the Department open so it can carry on its mission of keeping the American people safe.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank the gentleman for his long service. Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was created to address the enormous inequality in America's educational system, which created widespread poverty and segregation. Today, we know that we are still not educating Black and Latino students at the same level we educate White students. Fifty years after the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, educating all children, regardless of their backgrounds, is still one of the most important challenges we face as a nation. That is why equity must start at the heart of any attempt to overhaul our education system, but the Student Success Act does little to help kids in Minnesota who are struggling in schools with too few resources. Rather than eliminating the disparities in our education system, the bill today will only increase the achievement gap and leave behind students from low-income neighborhoods and students with disabilities. Education matters, far beyond the individual student. Three-fourths of the return on early education goes back to the community and ensures a healthier society and more stable economy. One of the biggest gaps in literacy in the U.S. is between the children of college-educated and non-college-educated parents. We must be more committed to maximizing the potential of all students. Our students and teachers deserve better. I urge that we all oppose H.R. 5 so we can create education reform legislation that ensures every student can realize their goals and dreams.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, that would keep the Department open so it can carry out its mission of keeping the American people safe.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lori Saroya for her contributions and tireless efforts in promoting justice, civil rights and mutual understanding among the Minnesota Islamic community and all peoples of faith. As Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) Mrs. Saroya has been at the forefront of building coalitions and improving Muslim relations across the state. Mrs. Saroya was raised in Bloomfield, Iowa. She received her undergraduate degree from St. Catherine University and her Juris Doctor from Hamline University. As a child of the only Muslims in a small town she and her family were subject to messages of hate and unfair treatment. She took these early life experiences and turned them into positive actions. While still in high school Mrs. Saroya organized the Iowa Conference on Islam at the University of Iowa. Recognizing a lack of Muslim civil rights advocacy groups in Minnesota she decided to fill the void. In 2007, she co-founded the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. The organization has quickly become a powerful voice for Muslim civil liberties and advocacy across the state. CAIR-MN successfully fought for and won the establishment of the Abu Huraira Islamic Center in St. Anthony, MN despite misguided local opposition. CAIR-MN asked the Justice Department to investigate, which led to a negotiated agreement with the city and the opening of a magnificent new center for gatherings and prayer. In 2014, Mrs. Saroya along with members of CAIR-MN led the first ever Jewish-Muslim Youth Day at the Minnesota Legislature. This ground breaking interfaith program trains students on successfully engaging in dialogue with legislators on the pressing issues of racial profiling, immigration, and safe schools. CAIR-MN has become the go-to legal source for those in the Muslim community. Since 2007 the organization has provided hundreds of Muslims with free legal aid and has become a driving force in fighting unlawful discrimination and bullying in work, schools, and the public sphere. CAIR-MN's outstanding work has been recognized time and time again on the state and national level. Among some of the organization's many awards include the ``Nonprofit Mission and Excellence Anti-Racism Award'' from the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and the ``Pro Bono Difference Maker Award'' from the American Bar Association. It is through achievements such as these that Mrs. Saroya became the recipient of the prestigious Bush Foundation Fellowship for $100,000 in 2014. This fellowship stands as a testament and a capstone to the truly amazing work that Ms. Saroya did in her time as Executive Director. Through this grant she will be able to take even greater leaps in her advocacy work. Thanks to Ms. Saroya's outstanding efforts and hard work, CAIR-MN has immensely benefited the Muslim community in Minnesota. I applaud Ms. Saroya's extraordinary work in advancing the civil rights of the Muslim community and fostering a more vibrant and culturally understanding Minnesota. On behalf of the people of Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District, I wish you continued success and impact in your future advocacy work.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Robert ``Bobby'' Hickman, to recognize his lifetime of persistently fighting for social change and mentoring the youth of our community over many decades. Born in St. Paul, Minnesota, Robert was a fourth-generation St. Paulite. His father was a descendant of the founders of Pilgrim Baptist Church and his mother came from a family of educators. Robert recognized the importance of his heritage and the deep rooted community ties that were instilled in him at an early age. Hickman served as a mechanical engineer in the Air Force and returned to St. Paul in the 1960's. It was during this tumultuous time of the civil rights movement that Robert became an activist within his community. In 1968 he founded the Inner City Youth League and served as the Executive Director for the next 20 years. Robert believed in the importance of empowering and educating youth. The Inner City Youth League taught teenagers art, black history, music, and theater. He would sponsor forums to allow African-American youth to question city officials. He even ran a public television show called ``Black Voices'' and trained community members in video production. Robert often came up with creative ways to protest the powers that be in his community. When the city of St. Paul razed houses for urban renewal he created community gardens out of the vacant plots. He advocated employment programs for young African-Americans, pushed for stronger schools, and protested profiling by police. After his work with Inner City Youth he teamed up with the advocacy and social services group The City Inc. in Minneapolis which opened one of the very first alternative schools in Minnesota. Robert was more than just an activist; he was truly a community leader. He wore many hats throughout his personal and professional life. He was a small business owner and even an occasional actor playing the role of Frederick Douglas in Minnesota's Juneteenth celebrations. He discovered Buddhism and made trips to Kenya and Ghana. Most recently he worked with the Cultural Wellness Center in Minneapolis with young men, many of whom were referred there by the criminal justice system. Throughout Robert's life he always continued to overcome divisions between city officials and community members. He was able to overcome cultural, racial, and generational divides to unite people in finding common ground while consistently and persistently supporting the community's black youth. Robert ``Bobby'' Hickman passed away on January 28, 2015 at the age of 79. His work to improve and inspire the lives of African-American youth will resonate in the hearts and minds of the community for generations to come. He viewed his life's work as a calling and there is no nobler calling than mentoring and empowering our nation's future.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my question to all my colleagues today as I stand before this body is: If we could prevent a humanitarian disaster, would we? Should we? Right now, Somalia may be on the brink of a preventable humanitarian disaster. My district happens to be home to one of the largest Somali American communities in the world, and it is certainly the largest in the Western Hemisphere. My constituents have come to me and have explained in very detailed and moving ways that it is time for us to figure out this problem that we have in the United States with helping people remit money that they have earned to their loved ones in the Horn of Africa. Somali Americans in my district are proud of the progress Somalia has made, as I am and many people around the world are. This is a nation that, for over two decades, had civil war but now has a President, a legislature, and is planning for elections in 2016. This country is fighting off al Shabaab, a terrorist organization in league with al Qaeda, and this nation has successfully fought off famine and want of many kinds. Now, they are on another kind of problem, and this problem has to do with remittances and the ability of Somali Americans to send money to their loved ones. It is important to understand that the progress they have made is fragile. We, in the United States, don't need to worry about sending money there right now, although we should, and we have, and we are. We need to just get out of the way to allow Somali Americans to send money to their own loved ones, and our financial system is inhibiting that. Every year, Somali Americans send about $215 million to Somalia, a figure comparable to the entire U.S. aid package, which is approximately about $200 million a year. Individual Somali Americans send more money than the whole Government of the United States sends there, and that vital pipeline is lifesaving money that is shut off now as we speak. The bank that provided 60 percent of the remittances or funds sent to Somalia closed accounts of businesses that transfer money from the U.S. to Somalia, and this is catastrophic. Now, Somali Americans cannot send money to their loved ones, and Somalis can no longer receive money that they depend on for food, for school fees, for medical bills. Many of the financial institutions in the United States have chosen to avoid serving money services businesses that send money to vulnerable nations like Somalia, due to concern that the money could find its way into bank accounts of unsavory money launderers. The goal of the U.S. financial regulator is good. We want to keep money from the money launderers and the terrorists; but do we arrive at a point where our regulation is so tight that even the legitimate money that we want to flow is being cut off? I am calling on our government to get together--Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, State Department--and have a real conversation, how we can stop the bad money but also let the good money flow. As I said, Somalia depends upon this money. It is a very fragile state. It is emerging from being a failed state. If they cut the remittances off, we will see catastrophic results. One of those catastrophic results will be an opening to groups like al Shabaab, a terrorist group that argues that the United States and the West generally don't want to help Somalia. We need to stop them from using that recruiting message by figuring out how we can achieve our goals of stopping bad money from flowing and allowing good money to flow. For years, I have been asking for agencies to work with me to prevent this foreseeable tragedy. We need to be creative about finding a solution. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York could use its wire service to process transfers to east Africa; that is a possibility. We could follow the example of the United Kingdom and set up a safe corridors program for banks to safely transfer money while managing risk. We could provide proactive training and assistance for banks that want to serve east African communities. There is no shortage of ideas. I urge our government to sit down at a table and figure out a way to stop the money launderers and the bad money from flowing, but to certainly allow legitimate remittances to flow. We could prevent a catastrophe if we do.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Republican majority did not allow a single amendment on this bill that benefits powerful financial interests. Members obviously have concerns about elements of this bill--146 members opposed this identical bill last week. A previous version of this bill also earned more than 100 no votes last Congress. The 52 new members who began service last week were not able to offer an amendment either. These eleven bills make complex legal changes to our financial markets but no member of this Congress was afforded the opportunity to make a change. I offered three different amendments. All were rejected. My first amendment had the support of Chairman Issa and Representative Polis. If we had more time, Ranking Member Cummings would have added his name. This amendment strikes Section 7. Section 7 moves us backwards in efforts to increase transparency in our financial markets. Section 7 would exempt more than 70 percent of public companies from complying with the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) requirement. This exemption would completely undermine progress already made by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Going back to the 19th century approach, requiring investors, academics, regulators and the public to read reams of filing papers is definitely not what we should be doing. Instead, we should provide the data in structured data sets available for bulk downloads for comparison and analysis by investors, academics, the regulators and the public. The SEC has made incredible progress in catching up with more than two dozen other nations that collect information this way. It has also made it easier for firms. A recent study by XBRL.US found that the average cost of submission was only $10,000. In fact, seventy percent of firms in the study reported a cost of less than $10,000. The costs to individual firms is offset by the benefits those firms will receive because investors have easier access to data to make investment decisions. Society will also benefit by having financial data more readily available. My second amendment required the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize its CEO pay ratio rule within 60 days of the bill's enactment. CEO pay rose an average of 4% last year. The average CEO earns more than 330 times his or her average employee. My third amendment highlights what we really need to do to create jobs--end the mindless sequestration cuts which prevent us from making needed investments in infrastructure, housing, basic research, etc. It also strikes the language that further delays the transition to a safer financial system. It is wrong that bills that help Wall Street and multi-national corporations get fast-tracked while bills that help working families have been slow-walked for years. (From XBRL.US) Consequences of XBRL Exemption in H.R. 37--Minimal Savings, Reduced Transparency and Access to Capital for Small Companies New York, NY--The goal of Title VII in H.R. 37 is to reduce the burden on small public companies by delaying the XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) formatting requirement for companies with revenue under $250 million for a minimum of three years. The XBRL exemption in the bill will not reduce the burden on small companies. The savings from an XBRL exemption is only $10,000 per year for most small companies. A December 2014 study conducted by XBRL US found that the average annual cost of XBRL filing for companies defined as ``small companies'' per the U.S. Securities and Exchange (SEC) definition is $10,406; and 70% pay $10,000 or less. These figures demonstrate that the annual cost of XBRL creation is low relative to the benefits that XBRL formatting can provide. Financial data in XBRL format is significantly more functional and timely, and therefore less costly for investors and analysts, than traditional HTML data, which must be rekeyed and vetted before use. The study was based on aggregating annual costs for 1,299 companies, working with 14 separate service providers, geographically dispersed around the country. The dataset captures 32% of all companies with the small company designation.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are about to cast votes on a bill that I believe will make Wall Street a little freer to make risky bets for a few more years: Where were we 6 years ago? Well, let me just give you a blast from the past with some headlines. From The Wall Street Journal, on January 7, 2009, ``ADP Reports 693,000 Private Sector Jobs Lost''; CNN, January 9, 2009, ``Worst Year for Jobs Since '45''; Bloomberg, January 8, 2009, ``December's Job Loss Was Bad. But How Bad?''; in The New York Times, February 14, 2009, ``Job Losses Pose a Threat to Stability Worldwide.'' President Obama hadn't been in office. This was other stuff, mistakes that had happened in the past connected to deregulation of Wall Street. We were staring down the worst recession since the Great Depression. Today, we are about to embark back down that path to deregulate Wall Street again. Don't do it.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is still very young. This Congress that we are in right now began last week when we were gaveled in and we were sworn in. It has taken very little time for my Republican colleagues to begin to message to the American people just where they stand. The things we have seen last week from the very beginning--one thing we saw was an effort in the rules package which prohibited Social Security from sending money over to the Social Security disability fund. This has been done many times before; it is routine. It will certainly create pressure and undermine and create real damage and a scary situation for people who are on Social Security disability payments and who survive on it based on their documented, recorded illness. But they didn't stop there. The very next day they began to erode the financial protections that protect Americans from the massive collapse that took place on Wall Street in 2008. Already they want to dismantle and chip away at the Volcker rule, a very commonsense rule which says that big banks that hold collateralized loan obligations have to move these big assets, these big financial instruments, outside of their banking business, wherein they have protected assets by the FDIC. No sooner than we did that, the very next day we moved on to dismantling the Affordable Care Act, making it so you don't get health care coverage, can't mandate health care coverage until someone works 40 hours, as opposed to 30, which meant that there will be people who will lose out on health care coverage from their employer. And the next day, we were here with the Keystone pipeline. They tried to push that under a bill that wasn't really a pure Keystone bill. It didn't have things like spill protection. And then here we are this week about to see a bill on the floor very soon which will essentially prioritize Republican gamesmanship over immigration. It will prioritize that over our homeland security. The Homeland Security bill, this bill we passed last year, late last year-- you may recall something called the CR/Omnibus bill. It was a CR omnibus bill. We passed a whole series of funding bills for a year's time, except for one particular bill. And the bill that is due to expire is the Homeland Security bill. Now in the wake of Paris happening just a few days ago, the horrific murder, carnage, and barbaric behavior by terrorists that happened just a few days ago, we now are facing a big fight on what of all things-- homeland security? And why are we having this big fight? It's because the Republicans want to show President Obama that they are not going to allow him to use executive authority that is well within his power to do. Presidents have always used executive authority. The Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln was executive authority. The bills that Ronald Reagan passed used executive authority many more times than President Obama has. So has George W. Bush. It is routine. Presidents issue executive orders. President Obama has done some because the Republican majority has refused to move on comprehensive immigration reform. He has used his authority to prioritize the deportation of criminals, people who have committed crimes, over kids who are valedictorians, and he has done this well within his right as the chief executive officer of this country. And because the Republicans don't like the executive orders, because they have very divisive views, in my opinion, on immigration, they have decided to have a very short Homeland Security funding bill, which is putting us in a position where we are either going to capitulate and back off on things that the President wants to do or we are going to pass a Homeland Security bill with a lot of things in it that would be damaging to the action that the President has already taken. Let me tell you, some of the things in the Homeland Security bill are of huge concern to me. I will just share just a few of them. One of them is the Blackburn amendment. The Blackburn amendment would prohibit the use of funds to continue for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Pay close attention to this bill. This is not what the American people want. We urge the American people to pay close attention, and I intend to vote against these Republican measures.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. ``. . . and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; . . .''