Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, as I stated during the hearing and the mark up on The Mortgage Choice Act of 2013 (H.R. 3211), there are serious concerns about steering consumers into buying title insurance with hidden commissions and inflated costs. I bought two homes in my life. Like most homebuyers, I was asked to sign a bunch of papers with lots of fees such as origination charges, appraisal fees, scoring fees, recording charges, tax service fee and title insurance. Like most consumers, I chose my title insurance provider based on referral: I did not comparison shop. For most of us, title insurance is the most expensive of the closing cost fees--sometimes running in the thousands of dollars. These fees are poorly understood by homebuyers. This can lead to paying higher fees than is necessary or appropriate. When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we required the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to do a better job at protecting consumers when buying a home. We know that the housing finance system had too much predatory and discriminatory lending. African Americans and Latinos were frequently charged much higher interest rates than they qualified for. Homeowners were refinanced into high fee and interest rates they could not afford. The result was more than five million foreclosures and a colossal loss of wealth. In response to the new law, the CFPB wrote rules to protect people buying homes from products which would strip their wealth. One of those rules defined a Qualified Mortgage (QM) standard which was established in Dodd-Frank. As part of that QM standard, the CFPB established a ``points and fees'' bright line limit for mortgages that qualified under the Ability to Repay provision. The CFPB established a limit on ``points and fees''--which account for a loan's origination costs--that exceed 3 percent of the loan amount--although it can be up to 8 percent for lower cost homes. Because of concerns that the affiliated title insurance system was leading to higher costs for borrowers in a market based on reverse competition, the CFPB wisely chose to require title insurance charges from affiliated title agents be within the points and fees cap. H.R. 3211 reverses the CFPB's decision. By excluding affiliated title insurance firms from within the points and fees cap, H.R. 3211 restores an incentive to overcharge homebuyers. We know how hard it is to get people into homes. Homebuyers need to save thousands of dollars for a downpayment. So why should we make it easier to let them get overcharged as much as a thousand or more dollars on title insurance? Some say that as much as half or more of a title insurance premium goes to the referral agent. Why would we want to preserve this practice of overpricing title insurance to fund referral commissions? At the Financial Services hearing that included this bill, I requested that we hear from independent land title agents as well as from groups like the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform and its 100 affiliates and the AFL-CIO. I requested that the National Association of Independent Land Title Agents be invited to testify. I have heard concerns directly from title agents in my state that some referral sources ask to share ownership of their business. Since title insurance is based on referrals, when realtors, homebuilders and mortgage brokers refuse to provide referrals to a title agent firm, the firm may not be able to survive financially. Unfortunately, these independent unaffiliated title agents were not invited to testify nor was there another hearing on the bill. Many organizations opposed the bill including the AFL-CIO, Alliance for a Just Society, Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Economic Justice, Center for Responsible Lending, Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Empire Justice Center, Home Defenders League, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of Independent Land Title Agents, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Council of La Raza, National Fair Housing Alliance, New Economic Project, Public Citizen, Woodstock Institute and Center for Responsible Lending. These concerns about hidden referral commissions are not hypothetical. Last month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined RealtySouth, the largest real estate firm in Alabama for violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Practices Act (RESPA). RealtySouth improperly steered consumers to its affiliated firm, TitleSouth LLC. In addition, The CFPB has taken action against Borders & Borders PLC in Kentucky for funneling kickbacks to shell companies. In June, the CFPB fined Stonebridge Title Services in New Jersey for paying illegal kickbacks to referral sources. Some who support H.R. 3211 say there are some fixed costs in lending that could result in lower valued mortgages to need to pay loans higher than the Qualified Mortgage guideline of points and fees established by smaller loans. However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau already provided for flexible definitions based upon the amount of a borrower's mortgage: 3 percentage cap on a loan balance at $100,000 or greater, 5 percentage cap on a loan balance from $20,000.00 to $60,000, or 8 percentage cap on loan balances of less than $12,500 \i\. Since the average mortgage origination fees are below one percent according to the Center for Responsible Lending, the caps set by the QM are appropriate. I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows that lenders will not make loans if the title premiums charged by their affiliates are included in the points and fees cap. Lenders are free to make loans outside the ability to repay rules as well. I have also heard the proponents of H.R. 3211 arguing that the availability of affiliate service providers helps reduce the overall cost of obtaining a mortgage loan. I question their evidence. The 2010 Harris Interactive study paid by the National Association of Realtors is suspect. In that study, more than 70 percent of buyers ``did not know'' what an affiliate service provider provided or what benefit it allegedly gave. By contrast, in 2013, The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) commissioned the first-ever national settlement preference survey of American real estate consumers.\ii\ More than 900 consumers participated in the nationwide survey. The results include: 93 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed said it was important that title insurance agents remain a neutral third party in the performance of title insurance-related services. 62 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed said that a title agency cannot remain objective if it is partially owned by a bank, real estate firm, mortgage company or homebuilder. Only 1 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed prefer a ``one stop shop''. For all the efficiencies that proponents assert existed prior to this new rule that provided a disincentive to refer homebuyers to controlled/affiliated title firms, settlement costs--exclusive of inflation--continue to rise. I believe the CFPB's rule could actually lower title insurance premiums and increase homeownership for Americans. I have concerns about a market where people assert that half or more the cost of the product is a referral fee unlinked to the product itself. Consumers and independent title insurance agents say that title insurance premiums can provide renumeration to the referral source based on the capture rate such as lower desk rental fees, bonuses, gifts or higher commissions. This should not be permitted. I urge Members to stand with homebuyers who want to understand all the fees they are charged. I urge Members to support a market free of pressures for referral commissions. I urge Members to vote no on H.R. 3211. endnotes i http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401_ cfpb_ atr_qm_ small-entity-compliance-guide.pdf ii http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/ download/get/file/1102880907824-107/Executive+Summary+10-17- 2013.pdf Center for Responsible Lending, June 9, 2013. Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3211. This bill reintroduces some of the higher fees borrowers faced in the lead up to the mortgage crisis; fees that the new mortgage rules were designed to prevent. Specifically, this bill creates a loophole that would allow loans with higher costs to the borrower to improperly meet the Qualified Mortgage (QM) standard established in the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Congress should refrain from weakening the QM standard and reject this bill. H.R. 3211 would allow many more risky, high-cost loans to qualify as QM loans by creating exceptions to the points and fees threshold. These exceptions would exclude fees paid to certain title companies affiliated with the lender. The points and fees definition is designed to include all compensation received by the lender. It is a reasonable standard that provides basic protections for homebuyers. The title insurance market is a broken market. In 2007, a GAO report concluded that borrowers ``have little or no influence over the price of title insurance but have little choice but to purchase it.'' As a result, the fees are grossly inflated--recent studies have found that between 5 and 11 cents is paid out in claims for each $1 of premiums. Almost the entirety of a title insurance premium (approximately 70%) goes to commissions, not insurance coverage. In contrast, loss ratios for health insurance are minimally 80% and ratios for auto insurance fluctuate between 50% and 70%. Borrowers already pay inflated title insurance costs. Including affiliated title insurance fees in the QM defined points and fees cap will not solve all the problems in the market but the rule provides important market pressure to control costs. The current QM protections represent an appropriate step to directly address recent problems for borrowers without impacting access to credit. Creating a title insurance loophole in the statute would eliminate one important protection to keep costs to borrowers from escalating further. We welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion for a comprehensive fix to the flaws in the current title insurance market. However, incentivizing an already overpriced market to further raise rates for borrowers is no solution. The Center for Responsible Lending urges Congress to reject H.R. 3211--which will neither benefit consumers nor expand access to credit. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Edwards, VP, Federal Affairs.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development we consider today does not meet our Nation's affordable housing problems. If this budget passes, more than half of the renters will still pay more than one-third of their income for housing. If this budget passes, fewer than four in 10 low-income elderly will receive the housing assistance they are entitled to. If this budget passes, we will still only provide housing assistance to one in four families who are eligible--tens of thousands will continue to linger on waiting lists for an affordable rental apartment that will never arrive. If this budget passes, there will still be more than 11 million families, Madam Chairman, paying more than half of their income for rent and utilities. There will still be a significant gap between incomes and housing costs. The HUD budget is tens of billions short in order to meet American families' housing needs. That is why my amendment replaces the mortgage interest deduction with a flat-rate 15 percent tax credit. My amendment lowers the maximum amount of mortgage interest that can receive a tax offset from $1 million to $500,000. About 4 percent of homes in this country sell for more than $500,000. My amendment dedicates the revenue generated from these changes to increasing our investments in affordable rental housing for extremely low-income families. My amendment provides for housing for veterans who find themselves homeless. It provides housing for people who are elderly and people with disabilities who cannot find affordable appropriate housing. It provides money to repair public housing facilities to provide homes to low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. It funds the national housing trust fund, repairs public housing, provides thousands of new vouchers, and raises the rental assistance demonstration cap. Unfortunately, my amendment will likely be ruled out of order today. Why? Because the rules set by the majority in the House refuse to allow any tax changes to pay for a change in the appropriated budget. This technical decision made by the majority in this Congress is inconsistent with previous Congresses, which realized that money is fungible. By refusing to allow tax changes to offset the cost of needed programs, Congress stacks the deck. Congress preserves the generous tax benefits for most financially successful households while ensuring that there is never anywhere close to the level of affordable rental housing we need. For every dollar we spend on housing programs through the appropriations side of the budget, we spend more than $3 on the tax side. The mortgage interest deduction itself is more than twice as large as the entire HUD budget we consider today. Yet, the vast majority of the mortgage interest deduction benefit the top income quintile--about 80 percent of the benefit goes to 20 percent of the households. I want to keep a tax benefit for homeownership. I want one that is more accessible and more generous to working families. Nearly half the homeowners with a mortgage do not benefit from the deduction. That is because almost half of the people who pay mortgage interest do not itemize. Only 5 percent of the homeowners with incomes of $50,000 take a deduction. Contrast the 5 percent of homeowners with incomes beneath $50,000 and the two-thirds of households with incomes above $125,000 who get a tax benefit. The flat rate credit will benefit about 16 million current homeowners who do not currently benefit from a deduction but who will benefit from a flat tax credit. I know that my amendment will be ruled out of order today. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Ms. Marionne Robbins. I join her family members and friends from the Sabathani Community Center who gather in Minneapolis on July 1, 2014 to commemorate this special day. Marionne was born on July 4, 1914, in Sioux City, Iowa. She was seven years old when her family moved to South Minneapolis in 1921, and she has remained here for the 93 years since then. She has one daughter, two grandchildren, one great grandchild, and one great great grandchild. Marionne enjoyed a successful career at Northern States Power Company in Minneapolis until her retirement in 1979 after 34 years of service. After her retirement, Marionne became a wonderful community volunteer and an active participant in the Senior Center at Sabathani Community Center in South Minneapolis. For many years she has served as a ``sunshine lady'' visiting the sick and immobile seniors, traveling with the Willie Hale Travel Club, bowling with friends, and participating in events with the U-Meet-Us Seniors and Sabathani Senior Center. Marionne is always looking for new ways to connect senior citizens, like creating the Senior Breakfast Club and founding the Sabathani Red Hat Society chapter in Minneapolis. Marionne Robbins 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. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ELLISON. I will take ``yes'' for an answer, Mr. Chairman. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, no hardworking American should ever have to worry about whether her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or take money out of her paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal contractor. This practice is known as wage theft. Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. My amendment would deny Federal contracts to those who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act to deny workers the pay they have earned. The amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. We should only reward good actors. Taxpayer money must be spent wisely, and as the largest purchaser of goods and services, the Federal Government must find a way to make sure that funds are going to companies that treat their workers fairly and according to the law and that give every American family a chance to succeed. More importantly, it signals to working Americans around the country that wage theft will not be tolerated. Low-wage workers are fighting back. They are demanding that they be treated fairly. And now it is time for Congress to stand with these low-wage workers and say clearly that wage theft is not anything that we are willing to tolerate. So we may not agree on the minimum wage or we may not agree on a lot of other things, but I believe Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that a penny earned is a penny that must be paid. Any time a Federal contractor is found to have violated a worker's rights and is found to have been guilty of that, according to the law, that Federal contractor should not benefit from the money in this particular bill. So with the remainder of my time, I would like to just add that this is a very serious problem. A recent report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the United States Senate reveals that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. There should be a consequence. Similarly, the National Employment Law Project study found that 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 percent have been forced to work off the clock. So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can get cooperation from all Members on this. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Susan Park Rani on being named one of eleven ``Champions of Change'' by the White House for ensuring that our transportation facilities, services, and jobs help connect individuals and their communities to greater opportunities. Ms. Rani is the Founder and the President of Rani Engineering, which has grown from having two employees and a vision to a team of more than 45 people with offices in Minnesota, California and South Dakota. Under Ms. Rani's leadership, Rani Engineering has worked to deliver high- quality solutions and build long lasting relationships within the communities she serves. As a result of the company's efforts, Rani Engineering was named the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Contractor of the Year in 2012 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Ms. Rani is an inspiration for women, minorities, immigrants and anyone who aspires to start their own business. She moved to the United States as a child from South Korea without knowing English, but excelled in school and obtained a civil engineering degree in 1993. She is one of the first minority women to own an engineering firm in Minnesota. There is no doubt that Ms. Rani's ambition and dedication have enabled her company to compete with the largest institutions in the industry. Ms. Rani's many achievements have been recognized by regional groups and national organizations. She has earned the Minority Business Award for Small Business Excellence by the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, Debener Award for Small Business Growth by St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, Engineering Excellence Award by the American Consulting Engineering Companies, SBA Emerging 200 by the U.S. Small Business Administration and many more highly renowned awards. With her past positions on the boards of the American Consulting Engineering Companies of Minnesota, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, Mounds Park Academy, the Association of Women Contractors, and the National Association of Minority Contractors, Upper Midwest along with her recent position on the Destination Medical Center Corporation Board, she is inarguably a Champion of Change. I commend Ms. Rani on her award and her thoughtful contributions as both an entrepreneur and as an excellent member of the community.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the dire condition of an American political prisoner in Egypt, Mohamed Soltan. Mohamed is an Egyptian-American citizen who grew up in the United States. He graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in economics. The Arab Spring inspired Mohamed to support democracy, freedom, and human rights in Egypt. Last year he joined thousands of peaceful protestors in Egypt to oppose the military coup that toppled the government of Mohamed Morsi. While demonstrating in Rabba Square last August, the Egyptian military shot him in the arm. He was treated in a makeshift clinic with no anesthetic medication. Mohamed was one of the lucky ones that day. Hundreds of unarmed demonstrators were killed and thousands were injured. Shortly after being shot, Mohamed was arrested by Egyptian authorities for protesting. From his jail cell he continues to protest the repression of pro- democracy advocates in Egypt. Mohamed has been on a hunger strike. He has lost almost half of his body weight and can no longer stand. Mr. Speaker, I am here to give voice to the struggle for human rights and real democracy in Egypt. The United States should stand on the side of those like Mohamed who are striving for human rights and democracy in the Middle East.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee. It is an excellent example of how we can work together. I want to rise in support of the conference report for WRRDA. This report includes language to address the presence of invasive carp in the upper Mississippi River. It contains language to close the Upper Saint Anthony Falls lock and dam in Minneapolis--my hometown. This would stop the spread of invasive carp which causes harm. Invasive carp decimates the fishing industry, invasive carp wipes out native fish species, and when a 60-pound silver carp jumps out of the water, needless to say, it limits recreational opportunities and causes injury to the people. This is a real picture--fish jumping all out. It is not a good thing. The language provides for a proactive approach. It protects our vital fishing and recreational industry. It preserves tourism jobs in northern Minnesota. It prevents us from spending government dollars to manage carp if these fish invade northern Minnesota waters. I want to thank the members of the Minnesota delegation who worked with me on a bipartisan basis to make sure the language was passed. I would also like to thank a staff member Anne Christianson--and you know who you are. You were tireless, you never gave up, and I am very grateful to you.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the gentleman for the time. I thank my dear friend Frederica Wilson from Florida for bringing forth this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, a number of people across the country who are of the Muslim faith contacted me and Congressman Carson, who happen to be the two Members of that faith in this body, and expressed to us how outraged and offended they were by the actions of Boko Haram. What we did is said, well, you guys write a letter and we will draft it; we will get a lot of signatures on it, and we will send it to Nigeria. And that is what we have done. It is written in English and in the Arabic language, and we are trying to get it translated into Hausa right now. It has well over 30 leaders in the community. It just reads a little bit this way. I doubt I will have the time to read the entire letter, but it reads: We urge to you immediately release the young children you have unconscionably taken. Your actions have shocked Muslims across the United States and the world and have disrespected our faith and the teachings of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon Him.) Your justification for stealing these children--that education for girls goes against Islam--has no basis whatsoever in our faith. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon Him) wisely emphasized that every Muslim man and women has a duty to seek education. You have truly strayed from the path when your actions betray its first command ``Iqra,'' which means to read. You do not represent Islam or what Muslims know to be the teachings of Islam. Your attempt to transform a central tenet of Islam into a vile lie used to kill and maim innocent Nigerians of all faiths is transparent. You treat children like cattle. It is abhorrent and sinful to pretend to be a Prophet to whom Allah has spoken. It goes on. The last sentence reads such as this: If you would like to follow the teachings of Islam, listen to the global chorus.

Mr. ELLISON. ``If you would like to follow the teachings of Islam, listen to the global chorus of voices that are enjoining you to do what is right: return these children to their families and replace the evil in your heart with peace and learning.'' It goes on to be signed by myself, Congressman Carson, and many others. We join our colleagues, both sides of the aisle, in the demand for the return of these precious children immediately.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Horsford, and thank you for leading this Special Order on Brown v. The Board of Education. Mr. Speaker, I think it can be safely argued that there is really no more important Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States. I believe it is the most important decision. The reason is that our country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; yet for so many years--243 years--men and women were held in bondage in this Nation that is dedicated to freedom. American slavery--racial discrimination--stands as an indictment and as evidence of the insincerity of that fundamental promise of America. Then for another 100 years after slavery ended, for Black people to exist in a state of Jim Crow's subordination is further evidence that those original words really were not intended and really were not sincere. Brown v. The Board of Education was a restoration. It was an attempt to say: Do you know what? We have had an ugly past in this country, and we have not lived up to our values. We have called on freedom, and we have declared freedom, yet we have given people the opposite of freedom, which is slavery; so with Brown v. The Board of Education, the United States has begun a process of pushing the old, ugly past to the back. I know very well we could stand up here--and we will stand up here-- and talk about the mission that we have to pursue to stand up for equal education opportunities for all, but if we take a minute just to look back at what we have achieved, Brown v. The Board of Education represents a seminal moment in American history when we rejected that ugly history that was in conflict and in sharp contradiction to the principles that this country stood for. I think it is also important, Mr. Horsford, to point out that Brown v. The Board of Education was not some gift that fell out of the sky. This case was fought and won by some seriously committed soldiers for justice. I know we will talk about Thurgood Marshall here tonight quite a bit, but before Thurgood Marshall, there was a man named Charles Hamilton Houston. Charles Hamilton Houston was a brilliant man. He was a Harvard-trained lawyer and was the assistant dean of Harvard Law School. At an early point in his career, he was offended and outraged by Jim Crow segregation, particularly in schools, so he got an old video camera, and he drove down south in his car. He couldn't stay in a hotel because Black people were not allowed to stay in White hotels during those days. You had to sleep in your car, or maybe somebody would take you in for the night; but he took that video camera--took film and footage--and showed exactly what African American students were living through--the harsh conditions, the fact that there were all grades of students in the same classroom, the fact that the buildings were inferior, the books were outdated, the facilities were in every way inferior--and that this promise of separate but equal was anything but equal and was inherently unequal. Charles Hamilton Houston trained up a cadre of lawyers who would take on and fight American segregation. Among those were Thurgood Marshall, but there were others as well--Spottswood Robinson. There were many other great lawyers. Back in the day, when it was even difficult for an African American lawyer to stand up and do anything, these lawyers stood up and made the case that, in America, the ideals upon which this country were founded demanded that segregation be struck down. These lawyers, first of all, didn't go straight to the elementary schools. First, they went to the graduate schools, and they desegregated the graduate schools. They fought against White primaries. Blacks, in some States, could vote in the general elections, but they couldn't participate in the primaries, so they had no choice in picking who was the Democrat and who was the Republican. They took on restrictive covenant cases. They took on all types of cases. They attacked these standing monuments to segregation and beat them down. Then they got to the famous Brown v. The Board of Education, but Charles Hamilton Houston, a man who died at the age of 54, was not able to see the great work that his student, Thurgood Marshall, had done as they led the team to beat down segregation in public schools, but his spirit was there. Today, as we commemorate this towering victory of defeating Jim Crow segregation in schools, we have to also commemorate the heroic figures of Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood Robinson, and of many, many more who fought these battles, these Black lawyers who fought these battles and who would not accept the status quo. I want to commend you, Mr. Horsford, for leading this today; and I certainly hope that Americans all across this country, Black, White, Native American, Hispanic, Asian--of all colors and all backgrounds-- will take a moment and thank those lawyers who fought to defeat segregation in America because what they literally did--and they did this for every single American of every color--is they allowed Americans to stand up and say: we do, in fact, live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Whereas, if we had not defeated segregation, we would have to say: we live in the land of the White free and the White brave and of the enslaved and segregated everybody else. That is nothing to crow about. In fact, that stands as a shame on our Nation's history, but the achievement of these brave lawyers restored our Nation's honor. This is why I think Brown v. The Board of Education is the most important case in history. I thank you for taking a moment to focus our attention on it.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of George A. Emanuelson, a World War II veteran who served as an Armed Gunner with the United States Navy aboard the S.S. Mello Franco as well as the S.S. James S. Lawson. Mr. Emanuelson honorably and faithfully carried out his duties, and our country is indebted to him and his fellow sailors for their heroic service. As a member of our nation's ``Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Emanuelson answered the call of duty during a perilous time of war. World War II was an event that shaped the trajectory of not only our country, but also the entire world. We owe service members like Mr. Emanuelson our eternal gratitude for standing up against fascism that threatened democracy and safety across the globe. Thanks to men and women like Mr. Emanuelson, our democratic ideals have persevered and led us to become the most influential nation in the world today. Mr. Emanuelson makes Minnesotans proud. On behalf of all Minnesotans and Americans, I recognize Mr. Emanuelson's dutiful service to our country during one of its most dire times of need.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, while the Democrats are working hard to address the needs of working Americans, over 2.5 million having been left out in the cold since the Republicans refused to bring up a bill, which is paid for, to extend unemployment insurance. Republicans are busy with yet another partisan, political exploitation of the tragedy in Benghazi. Yesterday, citizens had to go to the steps of the Capitol to talk about how they have lost their jobs and their unemployment insurance, and now they are at their wits' end and at the end of the family's budget. They need a responsive government to step up. Yet Republicans are announcing a select committee on Benghazi, despite already having had 13 hearings, 25,000 pages of document requests, and 50 briefings. This is an exploitation of a serious tragedy. We know what happened. But, you know what? It is politics. Unfortunately, the American people need a responsive government to help them, like the 2.5 million people who are desperately in need of the opportunity for their government to step forward to help them with this unemployment crisis. We can do more. We have got to do it now. Stop the games.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I would like to start out by thanking Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters. I would also like to thank the people who I have worked closely with on the bill, including my own staff, who did a fine job, but also Congressman Paulsen, who has been my friend of many years; Congressman Duffy, who is away tending to family affairs with a newborn baby; and also Congressman Hinojosa and many others. The fact is that this is a commonsense good piece of legislation. It is the kind of thing that it would be great if we worked on more of. Both Federal and State regulators have a responsibility to provide oversight over nonbank financial institutions like money services businesses, jewelry merchants, and mortgage brokers. However, Federal regulators have not been able to rely on the information that comes from the State exams for their oversight purposes. This bill changes that. In so doing, it reduces duplicative exams and increases efficiency. Madam Speaker, I urge support of this bill because it reduces duplication in exams between State agencies and the IRS and makes the system more efficient. One reason I introduced the bill is because I want to see more money service businesses have access to bank accounts. Financial institutions will feel more assured in providing bank accounts because more nonbank financial institutions will now be formally examined. Groups ranging from Oxfam America to Dahabshiil agree. New Americans know that their ability to send money back to their families in Somalia and elsewhere is literally a matter of life and death. For many Americans, remittances are a lifeline, providing food, shelter, education, and economic development. This bill is an example of how robust oversight can reduce risk, resulting in greater beneficial activity. This bill received a great deal of support from a wide range of supporters. Again, I would like to thank my cosponsors for the bill. I would also like to thank the Senate leads on the bill, Senators Kirk and Klobuchar, and finally, again, Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for prioritizing the need to improve regulatory oversight, which also meet humanitarian needs. I urge my colleagues to support the Money Remittances Improvement Act, H.R. 4386.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We do live in a great country. Thank God people before this Congress, before Mr. Ryan's budget, understood that investing in our Nation's infrastructure was critical to achieving that greatness. The budget being offered by the Democrats invests in America, we invest in infrastructure. The Ryan budget does not do that. In fact, we go back. Our country has never been made great. We have never built railroads, never built great dams, never built great things to make this country the wonderful place that it is based on cutting and slashing and redistributing money up toward the wealthiest. Vote against the Ryan budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues have been saying for maybe 100 years that if we don't regulate and have fair, good rules for health and safety and financial markets and in other areas of our economy, and if we don't tax people, the wealthy and corporations, then our economy will take off. They have been saying this for years. They didn't just start saying it with Bush or Reagan. They were saying it back in the thirties. Thank God the American people did not listen to them, because it was in the thirties that we put up the SEC, we put regulations on banks, and we put other sorts of health, safety, and commonsense regulations in place. Because of that, between 1948 and about 1975, we had an expanding economy. Sometimes tax rates were way higher than they are now. They are wrong. They don't know economic history, and so they continue to repeat Herbert Hoover-type myths that were dispelled decades ago. Oh, but they came back and they deregulated the economy in the late 1990s, and then in the early 2000s they cut taxes on the wealthy, and we have had a dismal jobs economy since that time. The Better Off Budget is here to present a better alternative that involves investment in our Nation's economy to put Americans back to work. The Better Off Budget puts 8.8 million Americans back to work by doing something that everyone--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--agrees that everyone needs: we invest in infrastructure. We put $820 billion into fixing our roads, our bridges, and our smart grids, into our transit systems and our wastewater treatment systems. We invest in our Nation's infrastructure. Just like under the great Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, as we invest in infrastructure, we put people to work building it, and we make our economy more productive as we use it. This is exactly what this version of Republicans--my goodness--doesn't understand, that you have got to invest in the economy in order to reap benefits from the economy. The Better Off Budget puts 8.8 million people back to work. The Ryan budget puts 3 million people out of work. Vote ``yes'' on the Better Off Budget today.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Congressman Pocan has been just a beacon, a voice for working Americans all over the country. Our States are next to each other, and we share a lot. I am honored to be here with you today. We are going to talk about fracking, but I just want to set the stage for the conversation. You know, we are in the United States House of Representatives and we have had stagnant wages for 40 years, yet we can't see a way, a bill to raise the minimum wage on the House floor. We see that unemployment insurance has been stalled since December 28, 2013. Mr. Pocan has made this point abundantly clear, and over 2 million people are now without that unemployment insurance support, and yet we still see no action on the House floor here. We see our infrastructure crumbling across the United States. In Minnesota, we saw our I-35 bridge fall into the Mississippi River. We have seen water mains break and problems with grids, and yet we see no action here on the House floor. We all thought we were going to get some action on immigration reform. In fact, even the Speaker, to his credit, said I have some principles out there, let's talk about how we move forward. The Senate already has moved forward. Yet no sooner than the Speaker said he had some principles he wanted to start working on did he come back and say he can't trust Obama so we can't have an immigration bill. It is outrageous how little substantive work we have done on this floor of the House of Representatives: no to immigration reform; no to unemployment insurance; no to raising the minimum wage; and no to all these key things that Americans really, really need. What is the idea here? What is the idea when we won't do anything other than politically charged bills to sort of make a point? I mean, what is that all about? Well, today we are going to talk a little bit about fracking, but I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: When are we going to get to some real work around here? We cannot be in this House of Representatives with a responsibility to discharge the duties of the American people, and we are completely unresponsive under this Republican leadership to what the American people want. People are unemployed. People need a raise. People need a better life, and we are not doing anything to help. In fact, the only time we ever care about NEPA, which is environmental review, is if it is going to block monuments that the President may want to decide to establish. Every other time, it is a ``job-killing regulation.'' It is total lingo, total rhetoric, and it is just really a shame. I am getting to the point, Mr. Speaker, and I want to yield back to the gentleman so we can begin talking about fracking, but it is really getting frustrating. We know we are here with different political points of view. I am a proud, progressive liberal, absolutely. Just like Hubert H. Humphrey, LBJ, Martin Luther King, I admired them all, and I am not apologizing to anybody for being as progressive liberal as I am. But that doesn't stop me from talking to a conservative Republican as long as we are both trying to solve the problem. But they are not trying to solve anything. I am happy to talk to Republicans with their conservative views. We will haggle it out, and we will meet somewhere in the middle. It will not be everything I want, and it will not do everything they want, but we will do something. Where are we at? No immigration, nothing. Where are we at with UI, people are suffering, 2 million strong? Nowhere. Where are we at on raising the minimum wage, which has been sliding as inflation goes up, and we have lower minimum wage than we did since the 1950s when you adjust it for inflation? Nothing. We are just not meeting the needs of the American people. We have tried to repeal ObamaCare--I even hate that phrasing--the Affordable Care Act, 53 times. This is an outrage. We shut down the government for 16 days for the one purpose of stopping people getting access to health care, and yet it feels like we are in ``Star Wars,'' Mr. Speaker. I just had to share those views and just share my thoughts that it is time, high time, for us to get to work, to stop this party of no business, to stop this obstructionism and bring our values, different though they are, to this debate and come up with something to meet the needs of the American people. I thank the gentleman for letting me share my views on those matters.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?