Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the bill we took up before this one, on Father Flanagan, that is the kind of bill that we should be doing on suspension calendar. In fact, the heart of this particular bill is noncontroversial, and I think a lot of people would be looking forward to just voting up the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act. I think a lot of people would like to just get this bill up, pass it, and send it right to the President. We could do that. Unfortunately, this bill, even if it does have bipartisan support, has been loaded up with other bills, and the Senate has indicated that they are not going to take it up. So, to the gentleman's point from Michigan, we are not just here to pass Senate bills--that is a fair point of view to hold--but it is a matter of pragmatic legislative action. This is the bill we could have passed and could be passed into law and signed by the President. So to pack this bill up even with bipartisan legislation slows it up, which delays good outcomes for people who could have them. In my opinion, that is unwise and ill-advised, and I am very sorry that the President is not going to get the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act on his desk because he certainly could if there was a spirit of cooperation.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress is ever going to come down to the floor and tell you, ``This bill that I'm offering is going to cut jobs, empower the most powerful, and weaken people who are already in precarious economic circumstances.'' Nobody is going to come and offer you the anti-jobs bill. It is not just going to happen. Every Member who comes down here is going to proclaim, ``Jobs, jobs, jobs and, if you do this right now, jobs''-- chicken in every pot kind of talk--but we have a certain way that we do things here, and that is what the suspension calendar is for, noncontroversial legislation. It is for things that nobody has a real point of opposing. It is not where you bring forth a bill of complicated derivatives legislation and where Members should offer and debate amendments, and there should be an open rule. This bill actually combines a whole range of very complicated financial information. This is the kind of bill that people decry and why they are angry with Washington, D.C., when they hear that they are passing all types of bills that have sweeping implications for Americans all over this country and people don't even know about it. The fact is that there are at least 15 separate pieces of legislation contained in what is being offered as, essentially, a noncontroversial bill. This bill is anything but noncontroversial. I want to hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that there might be pieces of legislation contained in this megabill that they are offering that have merit. I am not even saying that it is 100 percent bad. I am simply saying that it is highly controversial and it is extremely complicated. I happen to remember being on the floor when we debated the Affordable Care Act. My colleagues on the other side made a huge point of saying, ``There are 2,000 pages, and there's five stacks.'' They made this case that there was this big, giant, voluminous bill and people didn't know what was in it and they were going to be called upon to pass this huge bill the public wouldn't really understand. They raised a policy point. My point to them right now is that if passing a bill that is voluminous and that people don't understand is not a good thing, then don't do it. You can hardly put yourself in the position of doing exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing. We should be taking these bills one by one and having amendments and debating them. I can tell you there are a number of bills in here that I personally am concerned about. The Inter-Affiliate Swap Clarification Act is a bill that I believe would diminish the protections to the public of derivatives trading. The Customer Protection End User Relief Act may not have merit, but it is a complicated piece of legislation, and anyone who wants to tune in and watch the debate so they can understand what their Congress is doing ought to be able to do so. We shouldn't just package it up and sweep it through on some big vote. I am urging a very strong ``no'' vote because the process is all wrong. If these bills have merit, let them stand on their own two feet. Please don't run this thing down our throat in the late evening hours or even in the morning. Let's deal with these bills in a careful way that this country deserves. Let's say to the American people that this complicated financial legislation deserves debate, rebuttal, and amendment, and we need an open rule to do this thing right. There is no need to rush this thing through. I just want to end the way that I started, Mr. Speaker. Everybody declares they are for jobs. Everybody says, ``Do what I am asking you to do for jobs.'' That will be the case whether it is some sort of big, giant loophole for a huge oil company who is just going to pocket the money, and it is going to be the case if somebody wants to get rid of health and safety regulations. It is going to be the case in nearly any case that we want to talk about here. But good legislation stands scrutiny, withstands debate, and certainly wouldn't be afraid of standing on its own, which is exactly what this piece of legislation does not offer. Mr. Speaker, I urge a very strong ``no'' vote for this complicated bill that involves very, very serious financial legislation that really needs to be handled one bill at a time.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 478 I was caught in traffic and couldn't reach the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, based on the debates and discussions we have had in this Chamber, I have come to the conclusion that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that $7.25 is enough to raise a family on in America. That is the current Federal minimum wage. Since we haven't had any ability to change it, to move it up, I assume that they assume that it is good enough for people, but I can't imagine that they think $2.13 is enough, but that is the Federal minimum wage for tip workers in America today. That is the Federal minimum wage for tip workers, and it is an appalling condition, and it should be an outrage for all of us. Mr. Chairman, 3.3 million Americans are trying to make it on $2.13 an hour, plus tips; and 75 percent of those, Mr. Chairman, are women. What does it translate to? What does it all mean? It means that millions of Americans go to work every day and are forced to interview every time they serve a customer for their money. Every time they meet a new customer and take an order, they have to do a tryout or an interview to see if they are going to get paid. It is wrong, and we shouldn't tolerate it in this society. Tip workers are twice as likely as other workers to fall below the poverty line and three times as likely to rely on food stamps to close the gap between what they are paid and what they have to survive on. Mr. Chairman, the companies that pay them these tip wages in many cases are relying on us, the Federal Government, through the food stamp program, to make up the wages that they will not pay. At least we should make them pay their own freight for their own workers. People don't want to go to food stamps, but they need to, and the Federal Government helps them by setting food stamps. What if the employers themselves were required to pay a better wage? Tip workers are likely to experience wage theft. From 2010 to 2012, the Department of Labor conducted investigations of full-service restaurants and found violations in nearly all, including tip violations. A tip violation might be when an employer refuses to ``top up'' the pay to ensure that they are getting at least $7.25 when tips are low. Tip violations could also include making employees do work that doesn't earn tips, like cleaning or cooking, but still paying them $2.13 an hour. It happens, and it shouldn't happen. If we lifted the minimum wage to $10.10 for all tip workers, 700,000 tip workers would be lifted out of poverty--half of whom would be people of color--and $12.7 billion in more wages would be pumped into the economy. Mr. Chair, in February, President Obama signed an executive order requiring Federal contractors, including those with contracts to provide concessions like restaurants, to pay $10.10. No one who works full-time should have to live in poverty. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I urge all Members of this body to at least demand that we don't have to make up wages that are not paid in the form of government supports. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2014, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 411. I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Mrs. Lillian K. Kurtz. I join her family members and friends who gather on August 2, 2014, in Minneapolis to commemorating this special day. Lillian Kurtz was born August 1, 1914, in Minneapolis, MN. She started life in Northern Minnesota on her father's farm where she attended school in a one-room school house. Lillian's outlook on life was molded by the Great Depression and World War II. During World War II, she traveled as an officer's wife and lived in many areas around the country. She did volunteer work for the Red Cross. After the war, she and her husband settled in South Minneapolis where she has lived ever since. She worked as a floral designer for Bachman's in South Minneapolis while raising her family. Her husband of over 62 years, George Kurtz, was a noted attorney, Workers Compensation Judge and Air Force Reserve Colonel. She has two children Kathleen and Michael, seven grandchildren, five great grandchildren and three great-great grandchildren. She is still living on her own at the Walker Place in South Minneapolis. She continued her volunteer work at the Walker until recently. Lillian has led an outstanding life, highlighted by her love of family and service to her community. I wish her many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, today I am offering an amendment that is very simple. Basically, it is one of those issues that I think both conservatives and liberals and Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to get together and agree on. And that is, if a hardworking American earns a penny, they ought to get that penny. So what the amendment does, it says that if there is a Federal contractor who has a demonstrated, recorded, proven history of wage theft, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, then they will not be able to participate in this appropriation. This amendment addresses a very serious problem. I would like to bring to the House's attention that the Economic Policy Institute found that in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing about 15 percent of their earned income. Another report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of the United States Senate revealed that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. Similarly, a National Employment Law Project study found that about 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 percent were forced to work off the clock. Now, we might debate taxes. We might debate how high the minimum wage should be. But I know this House, this body, as a whole, believes that hardworking people should get the money that they have worked for. Also, the Federal Government, the government is the largest spender in the world, I think, when you add it all up. And anyone who would want a contract with the Federal Government should be a contractor who is willing to uphold the best, most ethical business standards. We, as a body, should appropriate our money to those businesses that believe in paying the workers on time, no matter what that agreed amount of money is. Madam Chair, let me just conclude by saying that I think this is an important amendment. I urge adoption. And as we, as a body, work hard to provide opportunity for all Americans, particularly those who work for Federal contractors. I think one thing we can do is to support this amendment today and send an important signal that a penny worked for is a penny that must be paid. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, an increase in the minimum wage is good for jobs. Minimum wage workers are adults who support families, and exorbitant CEO pay actually has been proven to hurt the performance of companies. Three new studies confirm these three points, and I would like to elaborate a little bit. Minimum wage workers are older than they used to be. Their average age is 35 years old, and 88 percent are at least 20 years old. Most are women. Women make up 48 percent of the workforce; yet 55 percent of the would-be beneficiaries of an increase to the minimum wage are women. Raising the minimum wage will not cost jobs. That is a myth. Here are the facts: 13 States raised the minimum wage in 2014, and all but one have seen employment gains. Now, that doesn't prove causation, but it does prove that this claim that minimum wage hurts jobs is false. It is also the case that we are often told that high pay for CEOs is just a reward and that it incentivizes them to work hard. High CEO pay does not increase profitability. In fact, in June, a study was published that looked at the long-term performance of 1,500 companies. That is a lot of data. They are finding that higher, exorbitant CEO pay hurts companies. Forbes says, ``How could this be? In a word, overconfidence.'' The bottom line is that the myths that we live by are not true. Let's raise the wage and get some accountability at the executive level.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate a small business in my community on its 25 great years. Holy Land Bakery and Deli has become a quintessential part of our town of Minneapolis. Holy Land is not only a good place to go to have a bite, but it is also a great place for social space. Recently, they expanded their facility in honor of their 21st anniversary, and they really feel proud about that because they have been providing jobs and opportunities for so many years. The CEO of Holy Land restaurant is Mr. Majdi Wadi and his brother, Wajdi Wadi; and they provide really excellent food that they prepare based on recipes that their mother gave them when she emigrated from Palestine many years ago. For every small business person in America, including the Holy Land Bakery and Deli, happy 25 years to them. May you have another 25 years of serving your great treats and of offering a wonderful social space.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 2014, I missed Rollcall Votes No. 360-369 due to commitments in my district. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on Rollcall Vote 360, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 361, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 362, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 363, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 364, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 365, ``no'' on Rollcall Vote 366, ``yes'' on Rollcall Vote 367 and ``no'' on Rollcall Vote 368.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, now is not the time for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or fast track legislation. Five years into our economic recovery, high unemployment and stagnant incomes continue to keep consumer spending down. American families still cannot make ends meet. For too many people, that is the reality. Meanwhile, we are being asked to pass fast track legislation for TPP, and I think it is a threat to American jobs. How do we know? We have already tried this 20 years ago when we passed NAFTA. Similar to TPP, NAFTA promised to create jobs, 200,000 Americans jobs every year, but they didn't materialize. Instead, the United States lost more than a million jobs. In Minnesota, more than 13,000 workers were displaced. We don't want to see this happen again. It is time to pass a trade bill that lifts labor standards around the world, not encourages a race to the bottom. We cannot afford to offshore any more of our jobs. Let's pass a good trade bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2014, during floor consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on Mr. Moran's amendment, rollcall vote No. 324, when I intended to vote ``yea''.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ELLISON. I certainly appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I think Democrats and Republicans can actually agree on, it is that, if a penny is earned, that penny must be paid. This amendment is very straightforward. In fact, a version of it has already passed the House of Representatives. What it says is that, if there is a Federal contractor who has been found to engage in wage theft, that they may not benefit from this appropriation. Now, there are many contractors who work for the Department of Defense who have employees that cook the meals for our troops, wash their uniforms, do all manner of many, many important tasks to keep fighting men and women in a position to serve our Nation. Some of them may even work in the commissary. They may work at various jobs. And they sometimes, the Federal contractors who serve the Federal Government, do not pay these workers. Mr. Chairman, you may think, well, you know, maybe that happens, but how often does it happen? Is it really a big problem? I am here to tell you that it is a serious problem. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute found that, in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15 percent of their earned income. A recent report by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the United States Senate revealed that 32 percent--that is 32 percent, fully a third--of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. Now, I think that Democrats and Republicans can agree that, if you are a Federal contractor and you want to do business with the United States, you should be fair to your workers. This bill doesn't go out and look and we are not asking anyone to make any judgments. We are talking about people who have been found to engage in wage theft already. This amendment simply says that the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed under section 2313(e)(1), title 41, and it goes on. But what it means is that you must be fair to your workers, and if you are not, you cannot benefit. Last word I want to say about this is that don't we want to incentivize good contractors and discourage bad ones? One way we can do that is say, if you don't treat your workers right, we are going to find some Federal contractors who will. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California. No, repealing the AUMF will not leave America vulnerable to terrorists. What it will do is put this U.S. Congress in a position to debate the legitimate--or not so legitimate, in some cases-- justification for further military action. It will update the debate. It will put us in a position to really drill down and find out whether there is a national security interest, which would justify military force in the situation moving forward. Members of Congress, this thing is over a decade old, and it has gone far afield from its original purpose. This AUMF has been used more than 30 times to take our country into conflict, countries literally hundreds and maybe thousands of miles away from where it was originally intended. It is time for a new debate. It is time for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, if we should have one. It is nothing more than a scare tactic to say that this will leave our country vulnerable. The President is the Commander in Chief and has authority to protect the interests of the United States, but this AUMF has brought us in a direction that was not contemplated. As the representatives of the people of the United States--that is us--we should have a say on the future of where military conflicts might be conducted. That means we repeal this AUMF, and if there is a legitimate national security interest moving forward, we should debate it on the floor and, if necessary, pass it. It is time to repeal the AUMF.

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

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, it is as simple as this: the al-Maliki government has abused and excluded huge portions of his population. Because of that, there is a conflict in that country of al-Maliki's own making. Now, what we are going to do if we send combat troops there is literally be his air force, be his ground troops. We shouldn't do that. That is not the right thing for the United States to do. If we want to help, what we should do is engage the regional community, the countries around Iraq and Iraqi leaders, in a diplomatic solution that hopefully includes them having a more inclusive, less abusive government. That is the proper role of the United States. Trying to stop us from being combat troops is the right thing to do. I urge everybody to support this. I think the gentleman is incorrect; we are right to stay out of this thing. What, after all, have we learned if 11 years has not taught us? Training? We have given plenty of training. We have trained these people up the wazoo. They abandoned their post. It is not a training problem.

Mr. ELLISON

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

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