Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. That's right.

Mr. ELLISON. If we were the do-nothing Congress of the 1940s, that would be more activity than we have right now. We are the do-nothing Congress. We are the do-nothing Congress. Our goal is to improve the lives of Americans. I would be surprised if it was even half of the 60 that we actually did pass. It is hard to get a label, gentlemen, to what you would call worse than the do-nothing Congress. I don't know what the label would be to establish to us. It has been a highly unproductive Congress. What was interesting, at the end of January, I got on the elevator with a Republican who I won't name, and I said: We have been here for two weeks again, and we haven't done anything. The response I got is: Don't worry. It will get better in 3 or 4 years. I don't know about you, gentleman, but I didn't come to Congress to wait 3 or 4 years. We have real work to do.

Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman would yield about the better-off budget? All I want to say about the better-off budget is that it is going make Americans better off. That is what the better-off budget does. The better-off budget toplines 8.8 million jobs--8.8 million jobs--in 3 years. That is what we do by making infrastructures in education and infrastructure, putting people back to work, making sure that public employees, teachers, police officers, people like that, stay on the job. This is what the better-off budget does. Now, the Republicans are going to come in here with a budget, and they are going to brag about how much deficit reduction it does. We have already been reducing the deficit significantly, by the way; but they are going to talk about what they have cut. They are going say: oh, we cut food stamps, we cut Head Start, we cut medical research, we cut research on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and things like that. They are going to brag about how many people they have left behind. I think that the real thing is that, as we invested 8.8 million jobs, our better-off budget actually has deficit reductions to a tune of about $4 trillion in 10 years because, as people are working, they are paying taxes, and we are growing ourselves out of the debt and deficit picture. That is why even some conservative groups have said that this is a good budget because we are being responsible about the debt, not because we are pointing straight at it, but because we are pointing straight at putting people back to work, people are working, people are paying taxes, and we are dealing with our fiscal picture. So the better-off budget is definitely worth people reading about. It is an awesome budget. A few things I just want to mention about the better-off budget, and then we can talk about it another time. We also require in our budget that the amount of money going to our spy agencies, our intelligence agencies, the topline be revealed, not the nuts and bolts and the guts of it, but just in these days of NSA spying and things like that, I think it is important to have budget accountability, so that people really know. This is something that we hope people will really look at and feel that Congress is actually exercising its proper role in doing oversight with this. The other thing is there was a huge fight over chained CPI. This is that form of CPI, this measure of inflation, which literally cut benefits for people who are older Americans, people who are on disability benefits, and people who are on survivor benefits. It cuts their benefit over time. CPI-E, another measure of inflation that actually enhances retirement benefit because it really reflects the real cost associated with making a living in the United States, so we put CPI-E in our budget, which we believe is a far better measure of what is really going on in days of retirement insecurity brought about because of decisions of the Republican Caucus. It is important that we really invest in making sure that we have some retirement security. So those are just a few lines on the better-off budget, but I do want to thank you for raising it.

Mr. ELLISON. Certainly. I think it is really important for the gentleman to bring us to this conversation about fracking today. It is a lot of courage that you bring to this debate as well. The interests that are really promoting fracking are powerful, wealthy, energy companies; and opposing them, you know, is something that, I believe, is something that not everybody would do. I think raising real questions about how this is affecting the health and the environment are critical. I had the occasion of talking with a number of people in my office who came and told me really amazing stories about what their experiences with fracking were. One gentleman actually told me a story about the lighting of the fire coming out of the faucet in the sink. Another told me a story about how his cows drank the water that was contaminated with the fracking fluid, and those cows died. Another individual told me how, when they made complaints about it, there was just a lack of responsiveness. These are folks who--before they came to my office, I didn't know them--but they wanted to talk to me about a problem of common concern, so I said: Sure. Share with me what you know. What they shared with me caused me to do my own research. I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the process, particularly the fluid that is used, is not something that we can know. I think you are talking about injecting a fluid into the ground that is causing the natural gas to come up, and yet, it has proprietary protections. Now, how can we safeguard the public interest if we don't even know what is in that stuff? If nothing in there is harmful, why don't they want to share what is in that stuff? At the end of day, there are stories of regular citizens, cropping up all over this country, about dead farm animals, toxic drinking water, fire coming out of the water faucet, and all sorts of things. It has happened to people who thought that they could lead a good life, trying to farm, trying to live in rural America, and yet, the answers just are not coming for them. I remain very concerned. I believe that we do have a public interest in knowing much more about this process. A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, we were sort of sold that natural gas would be the answer to get off petroleum, but what we didn't know is all the health hazards that were involved with trying to make that conversion. It is absolutely essential that we, as the American people, get to the bottom of the health risks associated with all of the ingredients of fracking. These same folks who came to my office, Mr. Speaker, made complaints about skin irritation, nasal irritation, eye problems, chronic issues; they talk about farm animals and other sorts of issues that they have lost. It is just something that I think is crying out for real answers. If Congress does not stand up and say, look, we have got to figure out what the environmental health impacts on fracking are on our citizens, then who is now going to? Europe has already asked some tough questions about how fracking works. Europe has already said: Well, wait a minute. We need to know a little bit more about this. In some places, the practice has been banned. I really believe that this is an appalling situation, calling out for answers, and it is our public duty to get those answers. I appreciate the time to talk about my exposure, my discussions with people who have experienced fracking firsthand. I also need to mention one other thing that I forgot. One gentleman talked about the frequency of earthquakes near the fracking area. When he tried to figure out and when he asked questions about, well, is the fracking causing the earthquakes because, before you were fracking, there were no earthquakes, he really was stonewalled and didn't get any answers. It makes sense--you are doing something to disrupt the ground, you are shooting a substance into the ground causing these sort of issues, like tremors in the Earth; and then this farmer who talked to me could not get any answers and could not get much responsiveness. Again, this is something I remain concerned about and look forward to people Facebooking, Tweeting, and writing regular old emails and snail mails telling their stories about what they are going through, so that we can make a case. The true, real investigation needs to take place, and we can actually look out for the public interest.

Mr. ELLISON. I do appreciate the gentleman for going over all of those bills, which, I think, will bring about transparency, accountability, disclosure--all things that are just basic fairness issues. In the United States, we pride ourselves on having due process and fairness and accountability, and I think every one of those bills has a lot of merit and should be carefully considered because they will allow Americans to make decisions about whether this practice of hydraulic fracking is something that we need to just continue to let happen as it happens now. There is an idea in economics, which is, if you make the money, you need to pay the cost, right? If you are going to internalize the profits, you should internalize the costs of what you are doing. If you are going to make a lemonade stand, then you should buy the lemons; you should get the water; you should put in whatever sweetener you have; you should clean up after yourself after you make the lemonade; and you should deal with problems that you cause in the sale of your lemonade. Yet, when it comes to fracking, the profits are absolutely internalized, but the cost is forced on everyone else. How is that good, free market economics to say that we are going to keep the money we make by getting this natural gas but that we are not going to clean up after ourselves and that we are not going to tell everybody what we are doing even though it affects them? I mean, there is just something very unfair about the way fracking is being done right now. So I think that this set of bills, the frac pack, and this Special Order are really important. Again, I really urge people, Mr. Speaker, to let their voices be heard because we were told that this is the clean energy future-- fracking, natural gas--that it is much cleaner than petroleum. It is. Natural gas is cleaner. It is still a fossil fuel, though, and there are still social and economic and environmental and health costs as a result of the way we get this natural gas. Unfortunately, I do have to go to another meeting, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are other ways to power our world. Let us have a real conversation about investing in renewable energy, in zero waste, in living in societies that have more transit options, that are more walkable so we use less, that we make our buildings much more fuel efficient. One of the sad days in Washington was when President Ronald Reagan took down the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had put up on the White House. That was too bad. That was unfortunate that that decision was made. Think about if, in the seventies, we had been moving aggressively into renewables. Think about the world we would live in if we truly had recycling, composting, reuse. Right now, according to the scientists, we have put so much CO2 up into the atmosphere that we are changing the climate. So who knows if the action that we take now will be enough. We had better take that action. We dare not avoid taking that action. I just think to myself that these things like fracking are not the only answer. Oil and gas exploration is not the only answer. There are other things we can do to power our world, and I absolutely urge us to do it. I just want to wrap up by saying, too, that, when we think about what we are going to use our tax dollars to subsidize, we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Bernie Sanders and I worked on a bill called the End Polluter Welfare Act. We have documented up to about $110 billion worth of subsidies to the oil and gas industry, which is six times the subsidy that goes to renewable energy sources--solar, wind. It is high time we started investing in the wind and in the Sun and in the wave technology and in other forms of technology that can help us power our world that don't have these ugly, costly, expensive externalities. I would ask the gentleman to excuse me now, but thank you for hosting this very important Special Order on raising questions around fracking.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Mrs. Pearl Riley and I join her family members and friends on April 6, 2014, in commemorating this special centenarian birthday. Pearl was born on April 6, 1914, and raised in Alsuma, Oklahoma, a suburb of Tulsa. Pearl and her husband, the late Alonzo Riley, Sr. were married for 50 years and raised eight children. She is the grandmother of twenty two; great grandmother of thirty nine; and great, great grandmother of fourteen. One of Pearl's great loves in life, in addition to her family and gardening, was the church. Throughout her life, she was a regular teacher of both children and adults in Sunday school, drama, arts and crafts, and choir. She also served as her church's President of the District Missionary Society and was a member of the Deaconess and Mother's Board. Outside the church, Pearl was an active member of her community working as a volunteer for voter registration and serving as a community representative. Pearl Riley 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Abdullahi Charif, a 12-year-old boy who tragically lost his life on March 1st, 2014, as a result of an accident that occurred while swimming during a physical education class at school. Abdullahi lived a short life but he made a significant impact on his family and community. He was a bright and promising young man who enjoyed life. We must cherish the gifts and lessons he provided to his family and friends during his short time. The tragic loss of Abdullahi should serve as a reminder that pool procedures in schools must be evaluated and held to the highest standards of safety. We must do all we can to avoid tragedies like this from occurring again. I offer my condolences to his family and community in this time of loss. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the life of Abdullahi Charif.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to honor the life of Ricky ``Rick'' Allen Jauert. Mr. Jauert passed away before his time at the age of 59 on June 2, 2013, after a brave battle with Multiple Systems Atrophy. Tuesday, March 18, 2014, would have been his 60th birthday. Mr. Jauert was born on March 18, 1954, to Russell and Norma (Olson) Jauert in Luverne, Minnesota. The fourth of seven children, he was raised on a dairy farm outside of Luverne. He lost his father at age twelve. Mr. Jauert was active in 4-H and began his political career while still in high school. After graduating from Luverne High School in 1972, Mr. Jauert was a foreign exchange student in the Philippines. He returned and became the first person in his family to attend college. While at the University of Minnesota-Morris, he served in a wide variety of leadership capacities including as resident assistant, dorm director and serving as Chairman of the Budget Advisory Committee. He was a vociferous lobbyist for students' rights and student involvement in the decision making of the campus. He graduated with honors from the university in 1976. Soon after, Mr. Jauert moved to Washington, DC to intern in Rep. Rick Nolan's congressional office. Over the next three decades, Mr. Jauert worked for ten members of Congress in various capacities including chief of staff, legislative director and communications director. He is part of an elite group of people to have worked in so many congressional offices and the only person from Minnesota to have done so. In addition to being a savvy political operative, Mr. Jauert was a great story teller. He always had a witty, wise, and anecdotal story to tell of his childhood or early years on the Hill. Rick lived on Capitol Hill during his time in Washington, maintaining a three-story townhouse just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Rick's welcoming and generous spirit, as well as hundreds of pieces of political memorabilia, drew roommates ranging from members of Congress to college interns from Luverne and Morris, and everyone in between. Rick had no children, but referred to many of his renters as ``his kids.'' I had the honor of working with Mr. Jauert for the last three years of his career. He served as my communications director, senior advisor and dear friend. Mr. Jauert practiced the idea that politics is about improving people's lives--he would always go the extra mile to help someone. He ended every e-mail with this quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ``Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we also will have to repent for the appalling silence of good people.'' I have fond memories of Mr. Jauert pushing everyone around him to do whatever they could to make the world a better place, or to at least put a smile on someone's face. Mr. Jauert moved to back Luverne in 2012 after his diagnosis, but continued to be deeply involved with politics. He was proud to be able to travel to Washington one last time on January 3, 2013, for Rep. Nolan's swearing in ceremony. We are all better off because of his life of service. Mr. Jauert, thank you for your service and the wonderful legacy you left for us to continue fulfilling.

Mr. ELLISON

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

Mr. ELLISON. In reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I am sure we will get plenty of people on both sides. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues who are offering this bill believe that it is a good idea, they should agree with my amendment. We will see. My amendment is very simple. It just says that if the voluminous number of reports that may be generated by this bill are so burdensome that they shut down and interfere and gnarl up the instrument of government, then it would be legitimate for the Executive to waive the reporting requirements provided in the bill if sufficient funds are not available to generate the increased volume. It makes simple sense to do so. My colleagues say they want transparency. They also say all the time that they want to cut red tape, that they want to cut extra reports, that they want to get government out of the way. Their bill is getting government in the way, for sure. If they are sincere about their desire for less government, then I am certain that they would be willing to put in a provision by which we would waive reporting requirements provided in the bill if sufficient funds were not available to deal with all of these reports that they are generating. But do you know what? It may just be, Madam Speaker, that, given that we had a 16-day shutdown and given that we just saw the Oversight Committee chairman cut off the mike and given that we have just seen sequestration and the cutting off of government, maybe, right now, what we are seeing is an effort to just bog down government--snarl it, wrap it up, get it twisted up--so that it doesn't really function. Whether you are shutting down or are cutting off or are bogging down, it is all interfering with the American people's government and its ability to serve them. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment because my amendment makes sense given that the general theme around here has been less government, particularly not unfunded mandates and things like that. We certainly are not sending an appropriation along that is compliant with this bill. We are certainly not sending money along and extra staff to be able to generate the reports that would come about as a result of this bill. It just seems to me that it would be fair for the Executive to say that that is not a constitutionally implicated provision for which we are using our discretion to either formally or not formally enforce; therefore, we don't need to write a report but for this amendment. Yet, since we don't have the money and since, I am sure, that my friends on the Republican side wouldn't want to bog down government, they should just be able to waive the requirement if there are not sufficient funds to comply. I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that this particular bill would have the effect of burdening government unless we do have some provision for the Executive to escape it given its overburdening nature. This particular bill would be an undue burden. I also think it is important to point out--I think it is very important for everyone listening to this debate to know, Madam Speaker--that existing law already requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress when it determines that nonenforcement is recommended because the law is unconstitutional. So, when we need a report, the law already requires that we would get one; but informal? Think about the way this bill is written. It would require a Federal agency to issue a report even in the case of informal nonenforcement. Does that mean that if somebody decides not to charge out a case that one has to write a report on it? Does that mean that if EPA officials cannot get down to every single polluter because they are dealing with the big ones that they have got to write a report about it? Does that mean that the FBI cannot prioritize the dangerousness of crimes and go after the most dangerous people and work with local law enforcement to deal with the other ones? This is a ridiculous piece of legislation being offered. It would generate all types of burdens, and in order to meet and comply with it, it would require all types of expenses and extra staff. Since my Republican friends and I agree that it would not be a good idea to just push unfunded mandates on the government, I am sure that I will be able to get a lot of votes from both sides of the aisle that would allow the executive branch to waive reporting requirements.

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

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. I only rise for one simple point, and that is to correct the Record when it comes to this claim that the CFPB engages in massive, excessive data collection of consumers' information. It is not true. Anyone listening to this debate, Mr. Chairman, should know that the CFPB does not monitor the accounts of particular consumers and does not track the financial behavior or activities of any individual customer. The CFPB is already prohibited by law from collecting personally identifiable information in the course of its market-monitoring responsibility. Although the Bureau does collect certain information as part of its responsibility to identify and monitor market trends and proactively address emerging consumer credit issues, this information is deliberately depersonalized and aggregated to ensure consumers' sensitive information is protected. Now, this is critically important because speaker after speaker is trying to scare consumers into believing that somebody is looking at their personal data. It is not true. It is not true, and I think it is important for people listening to this debate to know that. Requiring the Bureau to seek consent on an individual level in order for it to access aggregated or anonymous data is not only a hindrance to the CFPB's core mission of regulating the entities that offer consumer financial products or services, but it is a burdensome requirement and, of course, intended simply to slow down, gum up, undermine, and break down the institution itself. It is not true. People's data is safe. Looking for aggregate trends and proactively addressing emerging problems, as would have been very helpful as we got closer to the financial foreclosure crisis just a few years ago, is what the CFPB is doing. It is doing what it is supposed to do. It is doing it well, and I don't know why any fair-minded person would be against that.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. Among the CFPB's many accomplishments, they have refunded more than $3 billion--billion with a ``b''--to more than 9 million consumers. That is good fiscal stewardship. Now, the CFPB oversees industries that previously were not regulated by the Federal government, including credit reporting agencies, nonbank mortgage providers, debt collection agencies and payday lenders. All of that consumer protection would end if this bad piece of legislation were to pass. Say no, resoundingly. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member for the time. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3193 today. It is a bad bill, and it is bad for consumers, bad for Americans. As I listened to my colleagues, one of them mentioned the CFPB offers uncertainty. Well, here is some certainty for you. You cannot cheat consumers. That is certainty enough for me. Another one said, well, you know, the CFPB doesn't offer choice. Here is a choice. You can offer any product that is fair and transparent to consumers. That is exactly what my friends on the other side of the aisle object to. They don't want average Americans to be able to get a financial services product that is fair, that is balanced, and that makes sense in the marketplace. You have nothing to fear from the CFPB if you do not offer a product that is designed to bilk consumers. If you do, I can see why you might be quite upset at the activity of the CFPB. The bottom line is this is a bad bill. It will set our country back, and in fact, I believe consumer protection is at the very heart of the recession that we just went through. Now, of course, we have heard ad nauseam that it was the housing goals and it was the other sort of measures that caused the recession, but the fact is the recession was caused because large numbers of home buyers were bilked into mortgages that they couldn't afford, that were difficult to understand, with high pressure tactics and were incentivized, even to be guided and steered to products that were more high cost than the ones they qualified for. Then we packaged these things into mortgage-backed securities that were unsound to begin with. The rating agencies said they were fine, took out a form of insurance on them, and then when the house of cards fell, the whole economy went with it. Consumer protection is at the heart of the problem. Consumer protection is the solution to this problem, and so this effort to undermine the CFPB today under the guise of H.R. 3193 is wrong. Mr. Chair, we are at a whose side are you on moment. Are you on the side of Mom and Pop, of the small business owner, of the consumer trying to get a house loan or other form of credit? Or are you on someone else's side who is not in favor of a fair product? I have said to my community bankers, look, your opponents before the crash didn't have the regulator; now, everyone has one. The CFPB offers a level playing field for all. Now everybody offering mortgage products has a degree of accountability. This is good for the financial services sector, not bad. Since the CFPB was created following the financial crisis, it has received, Mr. Chair, more than 250,000 consumer complaints. Mr. Chair, who are these 250,000 complaints supposed to be directed to but for an agency that is responsive to them? Who would my friends on the other side of the aisle have these people go to to try to get their problems solved? We know that they weren't being listened to before the CFPB. Now that the CFPB exists, a quarter of a million complaints and untold numbers of complainants have come forward to say, Please help me. Half of these complaints have been in the mortgage servicing area alone. Of the 3,135 complaints from my own State of Minnesota, 1,320 have been related to mortgage issues. This bill threatens to turn off access to these consumers, and I will not stand silently by while they do this. This is a bad bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, trade of course can be good for Americans and our economy, but we cannot afford bad trade deals. Bad trade deals exacerbate inequality. It makes the ladder of opportunity harder to climb for working people. Twenty years ago, Washington passed NAFTA, and the results have been devastating to our economy for working people. Over 850,000 U.S. jobs left for Mexico, and our trade deficit skyrocketed from $100 billion to $700 billion. Before fast track authority, the U.S. had a trade surplus. Fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not right for the American people. We must have more transparency. We must have more disclosure. We must have good trade deals that reflect the fact that the United States workers produce great services and products. The trade deals need to reflect that, not have a race to the bottom for which we go to the cheapest markets around the world to compete with good American workers who make fair pay. It is not the right thing. I am for trade, but not bad trade agreements that are conducted in secret.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Minnesota Orchestra and Osmo Vanska to congratulate them on their Grammy award in the category of Best Orchestral Performance for their recording of Sibelius' first and fourth symphonies. The Minnesota Orchestra is a source of great pride for Minnesotans and is one of the institutions that makes our state's artistic culture so rich. The Minnesota Orchestra began in 1903, the eighth major symphony orchestra to be established in the United States. Since then, it has represented Minnesota across the globe, performing in over 661 cities worldwide. Renowned composers Aaron Copeland and Igor Stravinsky have both guest-conducted the Orchestra. Since its early years, the Minnesota Orchestra has been a great asset to our state, producing landmark recordings and touring ambitiously to critical acclaim and full houses. Under the leadership of former musical director Osmo Vanska, the Orchestra has grown to elite, world- class status. In 2010, The New Yorker wrote of their March 1 performance at Carnegie Hall, ``the Minnesota Orchestra sounded, to my ears, like the greatest orchestra in the world.'' I felt great sadness, then, when the Orchestra suspended its season two years ago. From October 1, 2012 to January 14, 2014, the Minnesota Orchestra musicians suffered the longest lockout of any American orchestra in history, leading to the resignation of esteemed conductor Vanska and significant hardship for the musicians who went without a secure salary or benefits. This was a painful period for Minnesota arts. That's why I was thrilled when both sides were able to reach a contractual agreement earlier this month, and I look forward to seeing the Orchestra return to the stage in February. The Orchestra has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to artistic excellence and integrity, and this Grammy is well-deserved. I appreciate all that the Orchestra and Osmo Vanska have done and continue to do for Minnesota, and thank them for their exemplary achievement and service.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Matt Little who passed away on Sunday at the age of 92. Mr. Little was an extraordinary man of leadership, integrity, and determination. His achievements in the civil rights movement will have a lasting impact on the citizens of Minnesota and the United States. Mr. Little was born in August 1921 in North Carolina to a factory worker and homemaker. Graduating from North Carolina A&T University in 1948, he served 3\1/2\ years in the military during the Second World War in an all-black infantry regiment. Upon his arrival to the Twin Cities, Mr. Little quickly realized that racism was a prevalent barrier to everything from job opportunities to housing. African-Americans could not stay at major hotels, and could only buy houses in certain neighborhoods. Mr. Little found work in the post office, and started a landscaping business. After being denied a firefighter position due to race, he was part of a federal lawsuit to integrate the Minneapolis Fire Department. Mr. Little joined the NAACP in 1954 where he ultimately became president of his chapter and president of the Minnesota NAACP. His civil rights accomplishments are plentiful. Mr. Little was prominent in supporting the integration of Minnesota public schools. He led the Minnesota delegation to participate in the March on Washington. He fought hard for fair housing laws in the state legislature. He helped create the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission. He was a leading influence in the hiring of former Minnesota Vikings Head Coach Dennis Green, one of the pioneering African-American head coaches in franchise history. Mr. Little also believed strongly in civic participation. He was elected four times as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, five times to Minnesota's State Executive Committee, and four times as an elector to cast one of the state's 10 electoral votes for U.S. President. In 2008, when he watched President Obama being sworn in, he said, ``There are no words to describe this feeling. I waited all of my life, and now I've seen it happen in my lifetime.'' Even in his later years, Mr. Little continued to be involved in the community. He maintained his column ``Little by Little'' featured in the Minnesota-Spokesman-Recorder, and was a fan of seniors tennis. A man of grace and respect, Mr. Little held a pragmatic perspective in tackling racial inequality believing it was an issue that simply needed solving. Matt Little was a political inspiration for many, and I am proud to have known him in my lifetime. He will always be remembered as a relentless civil rights champion, a fervent public speaker, and a Minnesota icon. A truly exceptional leader, I believe if we live by Matt Little's actions, our country will be better for it for generations to come.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Exchange Information Disclosure Act is just a good-faith effort to try to get some transparency. But wait, isn't this bill coming from the same party that shut the government down to try to kill it? Didn't that just happen? My memory is not faint about it. My memory is very clear that we stood here watching the Republican majority shut down all of government to prevent people from health care access. And now we are supposed to believe, Oh, we just want to make the bill a little better with transparency. No. What has happened is that millions of people are signing up. People know that if you snatch a benefit from people that they have--and expect to have--that is going to cause issues. And so now the tactics have changed. Instead of an overt 50th repeal bill, now we will just try to undermine it by making a bunch of paper requirements--more distraction, more paperwork, more division, more obstruction. I think I prefer the days when we just had repeal bills. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, the polluter pays. The polluter pays, and that is a simple idea with very broad appeal. The company responsible for causing the pollution should have to pay for the cleanup. It makes sense. This bill would relieve many companies of that responsibility when it comes to the most polluted sites in the country. Instead, taxpayers will pick up the tab. It is another bailout. Currently, if a company is part of an industry with a record of pollution, it needs to post a bond or buy insurance. This requirement helps to prevent a company from polluting until it goes out of business, leaving the taxpayer with the bill for the cleanup. H.R. 2279 allows the company to skirt its financial responsibility, in essence, to internalize all the money they make while polluting but to externalize all of the costs after they are done and leaving everyone else to shoulder the burden. That is not free market enterprise; that is crony capitalism. The bill would also reduce funding for highly contaminated sites. It should be increasing funding for the sites so their cleanup does not drag on for decades. Less funding is not the answer. Because funding is already so short for these Superfund sites, we have to prioritize the worst sites for cleanup, and the result is the National Priorities List. This bill would disrupt that priority system. Mr. Chairman, instead of letting polluters off the hook, we should use the money to put people to work by cleaning up the long list of toxic sites all over the country that are exposing people to toxic waste, pushing down property values, and inhibiting economic growth. As I close, I just want to say that this bill, like so many bills offered by the majority, rests upon a falsehood, and that is that health and safety regulations hurt the economy. They don't. It is not true. It is a false statement, and there is no evidence for them to prove that it is true. And yet they want us to believe, as these companies deregulate and get tax cuts and all these other benefits, that they are going to use the extra money they get in order to create jobs, which they never do. Reject this bill. It is a bad idea.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, when Lyndon Baines Johnson came before this House and this Nation to say that the United States, the richest country in the history of the world, should not have people living in squalor and in poverty, shouldn't have seniors eating dog food, shouldn't have poor kids living with no chance of a better life, he did what this Nation really is all about. He really lived up to the true meaning of ``liberty and justice for all,'' and he made those words real when, for so many years, they had not been real. And yet those programs which lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, that war on poverty which lifted so many out and gave so many people a chance, after about 10 years, there became a war on the war on poverty. Now the latest battle in the war on the war on poverty, what took place on December 28, 2013, this House refused to extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans. This is no way to uphold the great legacy of the war on poverty. Let's pass unemployment insurance. Let's do it now.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the contributions of R.T. Rybak to the city of Minneapolis during his 12- year tenure as mayor, and to applaud his leadership in areas from education to government accountability to economic opportunity. Mayor Rybak has been an outstanding leader, a great public servant and a close friend. R.T. Rybak, a Minneapolis native, began his distinguished career as a journalist for the Minneapolis Tribune. While working for various media outlets--including the Twin Cities Reader, Minnesota Public Radio, and Public Radio International--he was also an organizer who ran political campaigns and engaged in community activism. He campaigned for airport noise mitigation, sponsoring the famous ``Pajama Protest'' of 1999. Mayor Rybak's tactics have been inventive and inclusive, and his openness has made him a strong ally of communities often left out of the political process. Mayor Rybak confronted a city with serious challenges: an increasing budget deficit, a stark achievement gap, pension issues, and public safety concerns. He went to work immediately, making difficult decisions to adjust taxes and budget priorities. Under his leadership, Minneapolis cut spending by 16 percent and paid down $350 million of the city's debt, in spite of repeated state-level funding cuts. Faced with crises such as the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge, and the 2009 Great Recession, Mayor Rybak helped the city recover with poise and energy. He was a strong advocate for Minneapolis residents, while also using these opportunities to bolster mass transit infrastructure and to further diversify our economy. Minneapolis has recovered all 10,000 jobs lost in the recession, and added an additional 5,000. The city now ranks first in the country for its low unemployment rate, and is less susceptible to future economic fluctuations. Minneapolis is safer now than it has been in years. Most crimes have fallen to levels not seen in 35 years. The people of Minneapolis are also more connected and informed. City- wide wireless internet, digital access to government information and services, and a forum for viewing city goals have made Minneapolis more open and accessible. Mayor Rybak's advocacy for North Minneapolis, in particular, has been long overdue on the city's agenda. He increased city investment in addressing persistent gaps in education, housing, and economic opportunity that have faced North Minneapolis for decades. He championed programs that trained residents and placed them into good jobs, working with businesses to create sustainable, meaningful employment. He reduced foreclosures, and used city-owned land to promote affordable green housing. Mayor Rybak has laid the foundation for revitalizing North Minneapolis, and I am confident that our city's future leaders will follow his lead. Mayor Rybak has also tackled the significant challenges facing Minneapolis schools. He started Minneapolis Promise, which provides young people with free college and career counseling and high-quality summer jobs. Since 2004, the STEP-UP internship program has given real- world job experience to over 18,000 Minneapolis youth. Rybak has led the effort to close one of the nation's widest achievement gaps by connecting schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and businesses to work together for our children's futures. This will be one of the lasting achievements he leaves with Minneapolis, as he continues the fight to close the achievement gap as the next Chief Executive of Generation Next. Minneapolis will always be indebted to Mayor Rybak. From the balanced books of the city's treasurer, to the youth who can aspire to greater opportunity than their parents, to the residents headed to a secure job after months or years out of work, his achievements have improved Minneapolis and I thank him for his tireless service to our community.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for arriving at a budget deal. When we asked our Democratic conferees to negotiate the best deal they could, we did it knowing that they were negotiating with colleagues whose priority is debt reduction, not jobs, even though the Federal Government deficit is the smallest since 2008. Given Republican priorities, they had a heavy task of partially lifting the sequester, protecting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and averting a shutdown. And so I think that is good. But there are parts of the deal that leave me very uncomfortable. I can't possibly imagine leaving this place, leaving all those Americans, over a million people, without any means of sustenance other than maybe their local food shelf. I mean, it is not humane. It is not right, and it is bad for the economy because the people who got those unemployment insurance checks would be able to spend them with local vendors which would actually help our local economy. That is not going to happen unless something else happens. I have heard estimates as high as 310,000 jobs could be lost if something is not done. Also, the $6 billion cut for future Federal employees' retirement, I am very disturbed about that because we need good people working for the Federal Government. How can we attract the best people to work for this country if every time we have to solve a budget problem, we are going into their piggy bank. Jets and yachts, if we accelerated depreciation, we would be three-fourths of the way there on these future Federal employees' retirement benefits. I am deeply disappointed we did not work to close any loopholes. That is a shame. So I remain disappointed.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, for 34 years, the United States and Iran have had no diplomatic relations. Iran has escalated its nuclear weapons program and hostile rhetoric. The United States has upped sanctions and threats of military force. There can be little doubt that, when our diplomats and politicians say all options are on the table, we mean military force. And yet, today, under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to change all that, to avoid the prospect of war or a nuclear-armed Iran. We have a chance to set a new course, a new path. Instead of the collision course, we have an off-ramp, an off-ramp to peace, diplomacy and international cooperation; and we must take it. This is our best opportunity in 30 years to advance the interests of the United States vis-a-vis Iran. It is our best chance to make sure that the Middle East is as free and safe as possible of nuclear weapons. The Iranian people defied the odds and elected a moderate President, Hassan Rouhani. President Rouhani has condemned the inflammatory rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has promised to improve Iran's relationship to the West. Now, instead of moving forward toward the brink of war, the United States and Iran are negotiating, talking; and this is a good thing. This is the way countries should pursue their interests. This is the way to avoid war. Through diplomacy, the United States and its allies have frozen Iran's nuclear program for the first time in more than a decade. The agreement imposes daily inspections to ensure Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon, and Iran has made agreements to move this process forward. Ending our decades-long cold war with Iran isn't going to happen overnight; but through robust, sustained diplomacy, we may prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and disastrous war and spare thousands of our children and theirs from a horrible situation. We cannot achieve these goals if Congress undermines these negotiations, and I have supported sanctions in the past. In fact, I have a very good friend and constituent who is in the Chamber today who has supported sanctions. She was born and raised in Iran, is very concerned about the human rights situation there, and has informed me over the years about the best position that I might take. And she also says now is not the time to hit the accelerator; it is the time to let diplomacy work. These sanctions would undermine the confidence of our international partners, including the P5+1. China, Russia, the United States, Germany, and France are all part of this negotiation with Iran. And if we up sanctions while we have claimed that we want to work with them to have a reduction in nuclear weaponry in Iran, they may well see this as a break and a breach of faith with them, which could set us all back. It has not been easy to get Iran, Russia, and China to the table. We have them there. Let's not lose this chance. New sanctions stand to kill any hope for diplomacy. Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, has said that if Congress imposes new sanctions, ``the entire deal is dead.'' Is that what we want? New sanctions will not increase our negotiating power. If they would, the White House certainly would have told us so. In fact, the White House has warned that new sanctions will undermine negotiations. Negotiations over the next 6 months are the only way to guarantee that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon and will set itself on a path to rejoin the world of nations. And this could well improve the human rights situation in Iran, as it has no justification for the police state which denies human rights. Congress should give diplomats space to do their jobs. Undercutting diplomacy with new sanctions would put our country on the path to war. The choice is clear. We can try to negotiate a deal that prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon and avoids a nuclear conflict, or we can dismiss this opportunity, pile on more sanctions, derail diplomacy, and continue toward war. Americans don't want another war. The best way to honor our men and women in uniform is to avoid unnecessary war. My son is Active Duty military. I am speaking from a personal place as well. Americans support a negotiated deal with Iran by a 2-1 ratio; 68 percent say Congress should not take action that would block an agreement. Passing any punitive measures, including a sense of Congress tying the President's hands, is a mistake. It will not help; and if Congress wants to help, we should set up a people-to-people exchange. We should set up a Congress-to-Congress exchange and move forward. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Before I launch into the substantive critique of this bill and I urge Members to vote ``no,'' I would like to make a preliminary observation, and that is that when our chairman of our committee begins his presentation, making a broad-based critique and attack on regulation, Members should be very careful about this because good regulation is good for the American people. We need health and safety protections. We need to be protected from unsafe water, unsafe products. And investors need to be protected, as well. Any time a Member of Congress or anyone comes up and says regulations are bad, this is obviously wrong and the American people know it. Therefore, when you are being told to do something just because regulations are always bad, you should be very suspicious of what is going on and dig deeper into the situation. I urge Members to just consider how important good, solid, well- tailored regulation is to benefit the American people, and I push back on anybody who just makes a frontal assault on all regulation, no matter how good or how bad and just regulation in general. This has been a theme around here, and I urge Members to be suspicious of it. It should also be considered that when this bill is in front of us, we should know that people have looked carefully at it. Members who are wondering what they want to do on this bill, they should consider that the Obama administration has strongly opposed this bill, with senior advisers recommending a veto. This is a bill that is not going to become law. There is no Senate companion. I just checked and have been advised that there is no Senate companion. So we are really here talking about a bill that is going to be a threatened veto by the President and has no Senate companion, but is also opposed by SEC Chair Mary Jo White and the Council of Institutional Investors, an organization which has investors' interests in mind as this bill is trying to make investor information more opaque, and Americans for Financial Reform, not to mention the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, and State securities regulators. So the people who work with these regulations all the time don't think they are the right thing to do. Even if some Members might consider that maybe this might get capital to somebody who wouldn't otherwise get it, the people who regulate and use these regulations every day have carefully considered H.R. 1105 and have come to the conclusion that it is bad for investors, that it creates less transparency, not more, and, therefore, is, in fact, a risk to our financial well-being.