Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, allow me to thank the ranking member and the chair of the committee. This graphic I have in front of me, Madam Chairman, was taken in Tahrir Square a few years ago now when the people were peacefully demonstrating to overcome the Mubarak regime which had oppressed them for so many years. They're holding up tear gas, and it says ``Made in America'' on it. When our government transferred those riot and anti-riot materials to that government, I believe we didn't have any reason to know that it would be misused by a tyrannical regime to oppress and down press peaceful demonstrators. I propose, though, that when our government has reason to know that there is a tyrannical regime using repressive techniques to put down their peaceful demonstrators, that our government should withhold exports of that nature. The fact is that the tyranny that people lived under under Hosni Mubarak was not made in America. It was made by Hosni Mubarak. But we should not be implicated in the kind of oppression if we know about it, and therefore I think we should have the authority in our government to withhold those kinds of transfers when they come to our attention. So the young man holding up this tear gas canister that police fired at the pro-democracy demonstrators is labeled ``Made in the USA.'' This is a misrepresentation because it was Mubarak who oppressed his own people, but we should not be implicated in this, particularly if we have reason to know. Madam Chairman, this is not the message we should be sending. Whether it's being sent deliberately or not, it's not the message we should send to the people who are seeking nothing more than what we want in the United States, which is to democratically control their own country. It's not in our interest, and we should have the authority to stop it. The United States should not supply tear gas to governments that use it to repress democracy, and my amendment helps us to move to that goal.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today to talk a little bit about the food stamp program. I want to talk about it because it is proposed in the farm bill that we'll be talking about soon that there will be a $20 billion cut from the program. Now, I just thought that I would come before the House today, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the realistic implications for regular people, and maybe even to try to stand against some of the misconceptions that people may have about the food stamp program. Last Monday, I was in my district and nearby there in St. Paul, and I and Betty McCollum sat down with a number of our neighbors and friends and colleagues to talk about the food stamp program. And we had three groups of people who were talking to us. One was a group of people who are using the food stamp program. One of them was a senior citizen, and she was working, she was in her early sixties, got sick, couldn't work anymore, and was hoping to get to the age where she could retire and get her Social Security, get other benefits, but she wasn't quite there yet. She got sick before she did, and she needed the food stamp program. Now, personally, as a taxpaying American, I've got no problem helping this wonderful lady meet her food needs. Another was a young mom. Actually, she didn't have any money for child care, so she brought her baby to the meeting, who was across her shoulder in a sort of a wrap. And this young mom explained how she tried to get the best options for her baby, wanted to get back to work, but, while she was in the middle of trying to find work, needed to have good nutrition for her child. We also talked with a person who was a young adult, 19-year-old guy, didn't get any food stamps until he passed out one day because he hadn't been eating. And then we talked to a person who was not a food stamp recipient, but who was a health care professional in Hennepin County. She explained that the food stamp program was essential for good health because she had had a number of people, she talked about one woman in particular named Mary, who was complaining, was not taking her medication. And her doctor said, Mary, you're not compliant on your medication. Mary said, well, it hurts my stomach. And so when the doctor talked to her more, he found out she wasn't eating, so the medication was sitting on her empty stomach. When she got some food in her stomach, she was able to take her medication and be in compliance and stay well so that she could stay out of the emergency room. So we talked with these folks. Then we talked with people from the faith community--Jewish community, Christian community, and Catholic community--and all of them said that, look, you know, we do a lot of food aid. We're trying to make sure that folks have enough to eat; but if the government steps away from nutrition assistance, then that's just going to leave a bigger hole for us. They talked about how their food shelves were already being used a lot, and how they already were struggling to meet the needs of the folks who came to them. So at the end of the day, they said, look, you know, we're not going to be able to step in where the government steps out. And so at the end of the conversation, it was clear to me that, aside from statistics, aside from all the numbers, there is a human face on the food stamp program; and the cuts that have been proposed will be devastating. Let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker. If there was a program which said that it would improve children's math and reading scores, it would prevent diabetes, asthma and depression, it would contribute to healthy babies with fewer developmental problems, it would decrease health care costs and lower the poverty rate, would you support it? That's the food stamp program. It needs to be supported.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee, who has been leading this country for years on the question of economic justice, civil rights and human rights. This issue of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, is critical. We have a farm bill that contemplates a $20 billion cut in the food stamp program, and I think it's just important that Americans know just a few basic things about the food stamp program. One is that many people on food stamps have jobs and work every day. These folks work hard. They work in jobs that pay so little that they don't have enough money to make it without some assistance. But these are the people who probably are making sure that the office buildings we go into are clean and sanitary. These are the folks who prepare fast-food. These people are the folks who make sure that it's safe, because some of the security guards making very low wages. In fact, in 2010, 41 percent of SNAP recipients lived in a household with earnings. That means 41 percent were earning some income, but they still didn't earn enough money to make a go of it. So this idea that food stamps promote dependency is wrong. In fact, what food stamps do is provide enough food for families to make it, nearly half of whom are working a job. It's also important to bear in mind, too, that 76 percent of SNAP households include a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person, and about 45 percent of SNAP recipients are in fact children. The reality is that if you have a problem with SNAP, then we're talking about children, seniors and disabled people, three-quarters of whom are those households that receive SNAP. Now, it is also true that there are some single adults who get SNAP. I had a chance to meet one on Monday. This young fellow is 19 years old, and he had been looking for work, going from place to place. He hadn't eaten in a few days and actually got so dizzy that he fell. His friends picked him up, got him some supplemental food quickly, and then he somehow got into the SNAP program. But when I looked in the eyes of this young fellow, I didn't see somebody who didn't want to work. I saw a hardworking Minnesotan who wanted to make a contribution, but who had tough times and was down on his luck for a little while. He wanted to work, he is still looking for a job, but the food stamps got him in a position where he could look for a job. I just want to share with you, Mr. Speaker and Congresswoman Lee, on Monday, my good friend Betty McCollum and I were at the State legislature in St. Paul, Minnesota. Betty represents St. Paul, I represent Minneapolis. We came together and we listened to some people who really know the firsthand experience. We talked to people from the faith community. Patricia Law of St. Paul Church of Christ. We talked to Marie Ellis of Catholic Charities, and Judith Tannenbaum of Maison. All three of them talked about how if we cut SNAP to the tune that is proposed in the farm bill--the charities that they run are already stretched to the limit--therefore it would be very difficult for them to try to pick up the slack that the government would drop if the government quit. Patricia Lull of the St. Paul Council of Churches--I said Church of Christ, I made a mistake, it was Council of Churches--has a slogan: ``No More Hungry Neighbors.'' She talked about 18,200 people seeking assistance from food shelves in Minnesota every day, which was pretty upsetting. Another thing that I'd like to share with the Speaker, too, is that there was a woman who spoke from Hennepin County; she's a health administrator, and her name is Jennifer DeCubellis. She talked about the negative health effects of reduced nutrition access caused by SNAP cuts. So she is trying to describe how so many people who end up in the ER or who have medical problems, their underlying problem is that they're food insecure or housing insecure. She talked about a woman who was not taking her meds. And they said, well, why don't you take the meds? She said, well, they hurt my stomach. Well, why do the meds hurt your stomach? Well, have you eaten? No, I don't have any money for food. So she's supposed to be eating this food, eating regularly, and she's not. So she's not taking the meds because they hurt her stomach. Getting food literally helps her take her medication. I just thought to myself, look, what are we doing? Richest country in the history of the world can't take care of some people who happen to have some tough times? The bottom line is most people on SNAP don't use the program forever--some do use it for a long time--but many only use it for about a year when they need it. And as I said, 41 percent are working. I personally don't mind, as an American taxpayer, helping seniors, children, and people with disabilities have a good, healthy nutritious meal. So I have to abandon my friends now; I'm sorry to have to do that. But I am so proud that we're here tonight saying that it's not weakness; you're not some kind of a sucker if you have compassion for your fellow Americans who don't have enough food. You're not throwing away money. You're doing something that is absolutely necessary, and any compassionate society would have a way to help people who cannot eat. It's simply not the case that our churches, our synagogues, our mosques and other charities can pick up the slack if the government drops out of helping people who are food insecure. So I'm going to then thank my good friend from California for carrying on this great tradition. We're going to stay there for the folks on SNAP tonight.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point: AIG, Citibank, and Lehman are recent examples of institutions where the U.S. parent was hurt by those firms' problems abroad. Lehman had 3,300 subsidiaries at the time they declared bankruptcy, and its London subsidiary had more than 130,000 outstanding swaps contracts, many of them guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, headquartered in the U.S. Bank of America, for example, has more than 2,000 subsidiaries, with 38 percent of them in foreign jurisdictions. Bank of America's books its derivatives not only in the U.S. but also in the U.K. and in Ireland. Now, a very simple fact, Mr. Speaker, is that Dodd-Frank, the bill that has been deconstructed before our very eyes, while the ink is still wet on the page, requires that all foreign or U.S. firms transacting with U.S. persons comply with derivatives market reform. We're taking that apart right now. That's a shame, and it's going to put that guy who wants to buy beer in Texas at risk for his job and his house and everything else.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Let me just cut straight to the chase. Congress granted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission explicit authority in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to oversee all derivatives transactions with a direct and significant connection to the U.S. economy. That's a good idea--a $223 trillion industry. I think we need to protect our interests. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am loath to turn attention away from this critical topic, and I agree with all of my colleagues on it. But also part of this rule is H.R. 1256, which is entitled the Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act. This is a closed rule--they're not allowing any amendments on it--and it is bad policy. I urge members to vote ``no.'' This bill reminds me of the old adage that's often said that ``the past isn't dead. It isn't even past.'' I'm referring to the global crisis--the global financial crisis--that a few years ago had every Member of this body absolutely on razor's edge as we wondered what was going to happen to the American economy, and we ended up seeing the TARP passed and all types of things to try to avert collapse. $13 trillion in lost wealth, Mr. Speaker, and still here we are looking at a bill--in a closed rule, mind you--that would allow offshore derivative swap trading to be beyond the jurisdiction of American regulators.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, before the body is a simple amendment of leaders of four separate caucuses, Members of this body--the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Spanish Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus--who join together to support a simple amendment to this important legislation. Now, Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the hardworking staff employees of DHS deserve respect and honor. They keep our country safe. We appreciate that. We appreciate all law enforcement, especially when they put their lives on the line for our safety. No one questions the public service and the professionalism demonstrated by security officials every day. However, occasionally reports of racial and ethnic and religious profiling do occur. We see them in the news and we hear about them from civil liberties organizations. Too many Americans who are simply going about their business have been discriminated against solely because of race, color, ethnicity. This is wrong, and it is well-rooted in our society that this is not an acceptable value or practice, and it's not what America is all about. This amendment we are offering today would simply help to put an end to it. Our amendment--straightforward--simply cites the Constitution and existing antidiscrimination laws to affirm that no funds made available by this law can be used to engage in racial, ethnic, or religious profiling. This is not a controversial amendment, nor is it partisan. In fact, it was a former Bush administration official who said that religious, ethic, and racial stereotyping is not good policing. Now, we simply ask that this amendment receive the support of the body and that we, again, affirm our Nation believes in equality under the law, and that it is behavior that should inform law enforcement decisions, not simply identity. I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I would just like to point out that I do specifically challenge the gentleman from Iowa's claim that the President's deferred action program is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did rule in Arizona v. United States that the Federal Government, under the supremacy clause, does have the authority to set immigration policy over and above that of any State. Inherent in the authority to enforce the immigration laws is the right to be able to prioritize how that policy will be prioritized and how that policy will be executed. Now, the fact is that the executive branch has the authority, has the right to decide that they will take action on some cases and will take action on others in a prioritized fashion. That is the very heart and soul of what DACA represents. So for the gentleman to argue that there is some constitutional infirmity with deferred action is wrong. He's wrong on the law. He's wrong on his constitutional argument. The fact is that it's important for the people of the United States to hear that these specious, weak arguments about lack of constitutionality are incorrect. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. The gentleman is absolutely right. I mean, it is utter hypocrisy to sit up here and talk about the cultural dependency and not talk about corporate welfare. Senator Bernie Sanders and I--an awesome gentleman, by the way--have a bill called the End Corporate Welfare Act in which we identify $110 billion worth of corporate giveaways to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Natural Gas. Look, these are industries that are making record profits. ExxonMobil is not having any trouble. Why do they need the American people's money? Why do they need a subsidy? Well, they're getting one, and yet people in this very body are willing to stand back and say that poor folks working three or four jobs need to have their money cut. I mean, it is astounding. It is shocking how hypocritical some of things that we see go on now. I just want to the say this, Mr. Speaker. This is a country of, by, and for the people. It's a country designed to let the voice of the people be heard, and yet sometimes the people's voice is muted because it's so difficult for the average person to take off time to come down here to talk about what they want to talk about, to be able to access their government. So these are times when you and Mr. Jeffries can come down here and talk about the importance of food stamps, of TRIO, and talk about the absolute concentration of wealth at the very tip-top of the economic stream in this committee. I'm going to wrap up here, Mr. Horsford, but I just want to wrap up by saying this: working people around this country need to know that when poverty increases, the money just doesn't disappear; it goes to the very top of the economy. That is why, since about 2008, if you look at the newly created wealth in this economy, about 93 percent of it went to the top 1 percent. My friends in the Republican caucus believe that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much, which is why they want to cut food stamps and cut taxes for the richest people. One of them even said to me one time, Keith, a poor person has never given me a job. Like, wow. That's the attitude we're dealing with. The bottom line, Mr. Horsford, is that low-income workers are taking matters in their own hands. Low-income workers in Detroit and Chicago and New York and St. Louis, even here in Washington, D.C., have come together and had strikes--even McDonald's workers--in order to get better pay. They are brave and they are courageous. They're taking their families' needs in their own hands. We wish them the best. We had a hearing so they could let their voices be heard. But if we had a functioning National Labor Relations Board, would they need to go on strike and risk their jobs? If we had a social safety net, would they be in such dire straits? If we made sure that American workers had an increase in the minimum wage and we were paying a livable wage, would they be in this situation? The American people are standing up for a better life, but the truth is public policies are failing them and we've got to do better. We can start by getting rid of sequester and getting rid of this very bad idea of cutting $20 billion out of supplemental nutrition. Thank you for your excellent work.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Congressman from Nevada, my friend Steve Horsford, and Hakeem Jeffries are doing such an awesome job. I'm so proud to see you gentlemen holding forth about the issues that affect this whole country and things that the Congressional Black Caucus, of which we are all members, are doing. I also just want to let people know who may be tuned in, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Congress who believe that hard work should be rewarded, who believe that when people get up in the morning, pound it out all day to put food on the table for their families, that it is nothing less than an insult for somebody else who is living in plenty to look back on them and say, You're not working hard enough; you're not doing quite enough. The fact is that sometimes hardworking people need the help of their government. There's no shame in that. There is nothing wrong with that. Lord knows, Apple Computer agrees that sometimes hardworking people need the help of their government. The fact of the matter is that we did have a hearing and that hearing did involve low-wage workers, people making $7, $8, $8.25 an hour, some of whom were working for contractors who had contracts with the Federal Government, people who were literally working in buildings like Union Station, like the Reagan building, Federal buildings across Washington but also across this country, who were not working for the Federal Government but were working for contractors who had contracts with the Federal Government, paying them $8 an hour, a wage that is not livable, is not sustainable. Folks often speak derisively, Mr. Speaker, about low-income folks. They'll say, Why don't they make more money? What's wrong with them? They're working 8 hours a day. They're working 40 hours a week. They're working three jobs, but they can still barely put food on the table, and they're raising their children. They need food stamps. And if we cut the food stamp budget by $20 billion, we're going to be cutting families who work hard at two or three jobs every day. I've heard my Republican friends talk about this cultural dependency. Somehow that moral judgment--you know, the Good Book says, Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 2013, I inadvertently missed rollcall vote No. 146, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Minnesota State Representative Karen Clark. Representative Clark grew up on a small farm in southwest Minnesota. She moved to South Minneapolis in 1967 and was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1980. She is the longest-serving openly gay state legislator in the country. Representative Clark has long worked for the civil rights of all Americans, including LGBT Americans. She led the effort to add sexual orientation to the categories protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act of 1993. The law now bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public services, public accommodations, education, credit, and business contracting. In addition, the law defines sexual orientation broadly to include gender identity, providing important protections for transgendered Minnesotans. Representative Clark has also sponsored successful legislative initiatives to strengthen enforcement of hate crime laws in Minnesota. Her efforts on behalf of LGBT Minnesotans have earned Representative Clark numerous awards, including the Minneapolis Commission on Human Rights' first Martin Luther King Award, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Leadership Award for antiviolence legislation, and the International Network of Gay & Lesbian Officials' Founding Member Service Award. Representative Clark's work for LGBT rights has culminated in the passage of the Minnesota Freedom to Marry bill that will legalize same- sex marriage in Minnesota. Representative Clark was the chief author of this historic legislation and helped shepherd it through the Minnesota House of Representatives, where it passed by a vote of 75 to 59 on May 9, 2013. In a public ceremony on May 14, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill into law, legalizing same-sex marriage for all Minnesotans. For her decades-long fight for LGBT equality, the Obama Administration rightly honored Representative Clark as a Harvey Milk Champion of Change. Representative Clark makes Minnesotans proud. I urge this Congress to recognize her extraordinary efforts on behalf of the rights and freedoms of all Minnesotans and Americans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Pocan. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important topic. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that you should look at legislation like a sailboat on a still pond. It takes the American people, the wind, to move that boat sailing along. And on this student loan issue and on the access to education in this country, we need the American people, Mr. Speaker, to rise up and lift their voices and say, ``We demand affordable secondary college education.'' There are great ideas. Congressman Cartwright has a brilliant idea, the Truth in Tuition Act. It is certainly superior to H.R. 1911, which is just deepening and worsening the problem of college affordability. But at the end of the day, the best ideas will sail when the students and the parents across the United States, Mr. Speaker, come together and say, ``We insist on quality, affordable education.'' Do you know that there are at least 20 million borrowers across the United States for higher ed every year? About 20 million people borrow money every year to go to some form of higher ed: for-profit, nonprofit, private, whatever. It's a lot of people. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if those people, just them, said, ``These interest rates are not fair. This tuition is not fair. We deserve access to higher education,'' it would change everything. Thirty-seven million people owe some sort of tuition payment, and about 5 million of those, according to the statistics I have, are late by at least 1 month. If those people came together and said, ``We're going to form ourselves into an organization and we're going to demand better terms,'' they could move mountains. But this is a civil rights issue. I'm not talking about color or gender or sexual orientation or anything like that. I'm talking about Americans, middle class people wanting to be a part of the American Dream. Let me wrap up by saying this, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Pocan, you've been doing an awesome job with the progressive message. But I think that what we're doing with the progressive message is trying to help the American people imagine America as a generous, inclusive society that accepts people from all walks of life and that it preserves the ladder of opportunity. We believe we should have early childhood education so that the young ones can get a head start on a good life. We believe in solid, quality K-12, and that the kids should have nutrition and be safe while they're at the schoolhouse. We believe that when they get to college, they should be able to seek their dream and be who they want to be, as Mr. Cartwright so eloquently said. And we believe people ought to be able to be paid fairly when they're in their adult life and take care of their family and be able to go to the doctor. And we believe that when people reach their golden years, they ought to be able to retire with dignity, so we protect Social Security. Cradle to the grave, Americans dream of prosperity. It's not too much to ask for in the richest country in the history of the world, but a key link in that quality life of prosperity in this country is college affordability. And it is something that if you want it, you've got to fight for it. Nobody is going to hand it to you. And when Americans wanted to see civil rights before the law, when they wanted to see African Americans have civil rights, women have civil rights, when they wanted to see people on the job, workers have some voice on the job, they stood up and they said, ``We've got to rearrange this deal.'' When we said that our environment was getting poisoned and dirty and they needed to demand that industry do something to make sure we had a cleaner environment, people stood up, Mr. Speaker, and they did something about it. And this is what we have to do right now. So I just want to say to you, Mr. Pocan, and you, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent opportunity to raise key issues about a central issue of American prosperity for working and middle class people. I do thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we hear folks mentioning the need for families to have gas and to pay medical bills and to pay groceries--but wait a minute. Didn't the Wall Street reform crisis of 2008 nearly destroy the American economy? Didn't it lead to 4 million foreclosures? Didn't it nearly wipe out billions of dollars in home value? Didn't it do all of these things? In 2008, didn't we see Wall Street fraudster Bernie Madoff rip off billions from investors and charities and retirees, which is something that the SEC has jurisdiction over? So then, why now are we undermining Wall Street reform and the ability of the SEC to protect investors? Why are we gumming up the works and making it so much more difficult? I mean, the ink is barely dry on the bill, and they are already deconstructing it. There is an interesting article I would ask all of us to take a look at. It's called, ``He Who Makes the Rules,'' by Haley Edwards: Barack Obama's biggest second-term challenge isn't guns or immigration. It's saving his biggest first-term achievements, like the Dodd-Frank law, from being dismembered by lobbyists and conservative jurists in the shadowy, Byzantine ``rulemaking'' process. The fact is that we know what's going on here. We know what the game is. It has nothing to do with groceries or medical bills. It's about Wall Street's interests and its trying to expand even more in the area of bonuses and profitability, which it has so much of already. Banks are enjoying their largest profits in history, and yet we are considering a bill that would undermine landmark Wall Street reform. This bill undermines the financial security for the American people and the economy. Now, I am a firm believer in the American process of civil redress, but I also know that you can kick the door open and use strategic lawsuits simply to slow down and gum up the works. It's clear that that would be the effect of this particular piece of legislation, which is duplicative and which is unnecessary. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1062.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard Copeland on being named the Minnesota Entrepreneurial Success of the Year by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mr. Copeland is the CEO of THOR Construction, a major force in the construction industry that is doing business across the United States and around the world. The success of THOR Construction has resulted from the vision, innovation and hard work of Mr. Copeland, who started Thor Construction in 1980. It has grown from a one man firm to become one of the largest, most successful minority owned construction businesses, employing hundreds of people in seven offices across the country. THOR Construction is a known and trusted commodity in the construction industry, specializing in construction management, general contracting, design-build, consulting, and concrete. Mr. Copeland's efforts have been well recognized. He received a lifetime achievement award from the National Minority Contractors Association in 2005, and was inducted into the Metropolitan Economic Development Association's Entrepreneurial Hall of Fame in 2006. Mr. Copeland's leadership, business acumen, and ability to bring top talent to Thor Construction have made the company one of the largest African- American owned business in the nation. In addition to his company's success, Mr. Copeland has been a selfless contributor to our community through his philanthropic work and personal mentoring of entrepreneurs of color. He has directed Thor Construction to invest in underutilized communities and has employed minority-owned and women-owned subcontractors on projects, aiding in the expansion of their businesses. In addition, he has been a staunch promoter of women and minority-owned entrepreneurs by providing mentoring and contractual opportunities and has participated in a host of civic events promoting diversity. I commend Mr. Copeland on his award and for his contributions as both an employer and an exemplary member of the community.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Minnesota Senator Bobby Joe Champion's accomplishment in passing the ``Ban the Box'' Act in the Minnesota Legislature. Elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2008 and the Minnesota Senate in 2012, Senator Champion is a recognized lawyer, activist, and legislator. He has a long list of legislative accomplishments, including spearheading the Bottineau Corridor transit project, advocating for the creation of the Minnesota African-American History Museum, and supporting the renovation of Nicollet Mall and Orchestra Hall. One of Senator Champion's most important contributions has been helping those with a criminal record reintegrate successfully into their communities. Senator Champion is the author of the ``Ban the Box'' Act, which prohibits employers from asking the job applicant whether he or she has ever been arrested or convicted of a crime, with a few exceptions for sensitive positions. The ``Ban the Box'' Act is a crucial step forward in the fight against poverty and the effort to reduce recidivism. The past crimes of former felons often follow them throughout their lives, preventing them from getting jobs ten, twenty, or even thirty years later. Job applicants who have finished serving criminal sentences face many challenges and few opportunities to restart their lives, making recidivism rates high. The ``Ban the Box'' Act targets the main reason people who have committed a felony never have a chance at a job--a check off box on a job application that asks the applicant to state whether he or she has ever committed a felony. By barring employers from asking this question on a job application, the Act allows individuals with criminal histories to stand on their own merits. The ``Ban the Box'' Act will provide employment opportunities to those who have served their sentence, raising their quality of life and their chance for success and leading to reduced crime. Through Bobby Joe Champion's leadership and perseverance, this legislation passed both the Minnesota Senate and the Minnesota House of Representatives with accolades from both sides of the aisle, and was signed into law by Governor Dayton on May 13, 2013. I commend Senator Champion for his important work on Minnesota's historic ``Ban the Box'' legislation.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2013, I missed rollcall votes No. 129-131 due to illness. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Kellogg- Briand Pact. One of the busiest streets in Minnesota's state capital of St. Paul is Kellogg Boulevard. This street runs along the Mississippi River and was named after the only person from Minnesota to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize. Frank B. Kellogg was a Department of Justice prosecutor who was elected President of the American Bar Association and then served as a U.S. Republican Senator from Minnesota, followed by an appointment as U.S. Secretary of State for President Calvin Coolidge from 1925 to 1929. Kellogg was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 for his work in co-authoring the Kellogg-Briand Pact that made war illegal, renounced the use of war, and committed nations to the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Kellogg-Briand Pact--also called the Pact of Paris, or the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War--was signed on August 27, 1928 by the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan, and several other countries. The Pact prohibited the use of war as ``an instrument of national policy'' except in matters of self-defense. President Coolidge signed the Pact on January 27, 1929 and the U.S. Senate passed it by a vote of 85 to 1. On July 24, 1929 President Herbert Hoover declared the Pact in force. The Kellogg-Briand Pact provided the legal basis for prosecuting Nazi officials at Nuremburg and is still U.S. and international law, with 84 state signatories. Mr. Speaker, some of my own constituents are currently planning a commemoration of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to mark its 85th anniversary and to recognize Frank B. Kellogg. The Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter of Veterans for Peace is taking part in a peace essay competition organized by the West Suburban Faith-based Peace Coalition. The competition asks the question, ``How can we obey the law against war?'' The best essays will be sent to members of Congress. I urge this body to welcome these essays and give them due attention. Everyone must do their part to help eliminate war and promote the cause of peace.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the House floor today to address what I think is a serious issue facing all Americans without regard to race, color, party, region of the country, or anything like that. The issue that I want to talk about is trying to prevent patient deaths. Back in 1999, the statistics show that about 98,000 people a year died from preventable medical deaths, preventable deaths in hospitals and things like that. That number has grown. We're now at about 200,000 people a year who die in hospitals because of preventable death. That's about 3,800 people every week, which is basically the equivalent of two jumbo jet passenger airplanes crashing and killing all of the passengers. The fact of the matter is that this is something that we as a Nation need to step forward and do something about. It's something that is in our power to do something about. The thing that we need to do to prevent these preventable deaths is to coordinate. It is possible to eliminate these deaths. It is possible through a series of measures to even eliminate them completely. What we need to do is first of all look at this problem in a holistic way. There's not one magic thing that is going to stop all of them, but a series of small things that are going to prevent and eradicate these preventable deaths. The first thing I think we need to do is to come together to figure out how to connect our technology, the people and ideas and figure out how to cooperate and, most importantly, make a commitment to prevent these deaths from happening. Ten years ago, there was a young woman named Lenore Alexander, who had a healthy 11-year-old girl, Leah. Leah underwent elective surgery to correct pectus carinatum at a prestigious southern California hospital. Though the surgery went well, Lenore awoke at around 2 a.m. on the second postoperative night to find Leah dead, the victim of undetected respiratory arrest caused by a drug that was intended to ease her pain. If Leah had been monitored continuously after the surgery, hospital staff and Lenore may have been alerted, and Leah would probably have been rescued. There are also other sorts of preventable deaths that have to do with the transfer of infections when hands aren't washed properly. Monitoring was already pointed out by Lenore's tragic situation. The fact is that Lenore's situation is not unique, unfortunately. The Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit is a gathering of people who came together to figure out what we can do to solve the problem-- going back to that coordination and cooperation that I spoke about earlier. The fact is that at this Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit trained professionals came together to figure out what we can do about it. They came together to talk about, yes, technology, but also just more safe procedures to protect, eliminate, and save people from preventable deaths. These preventable deaths are tragedies for the families that suffer them. Imagine going into a hospital for a routine procedure that you don't think is going to be serious only to get the tragic news that your loved one has passed away in the course of it. So today I want to bring attention, Mr. Speaker, to this situation that is within our power to eliminate and stop. I want to salute the people who attended the Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit, who came together to try to bring real attention to this problem. A good friend named Joe Kiani brought this issue to my attention. He's a person who has given a lot of time and attention to try to figure out how we can save families from tragic incidents such as what happened to Lenore's family. And, of course, everyone has something that they can do to prevent these serious problems. At the end of the day, our goal should be to make zero the number of deaths in hospitals, to make preventable deaths something of the past, and to bring Americans to attention so that we can focus our technology, our procedures, our energy, and our love and attention on trying to make sure that no family suffers these tragic incidents anymore. 200,000 deaths is too many. One is too many. Zero should be our goal. Let's stop preventable hospital deaths.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congressman Pocan, thank you. Thanks for holding down this very important Progressive Caucus progressive message. The fact is that the Progressive Caucus and the Democrats generally are about protecting seniors. That's who we are. That's our brand. That's our identity. Social Security came out of the Roosevelt administration, came out of core Democratic values. That's what we stand for, that's what we believe in, and that's why we are standing opposed to the chained CPI. We're not going to relent. We've been fighting this thing for months. We're not going to give up the fight. We're going to keep on pressing until this thing is settled. The reality is that this chained CPI takes place within the general debate on budget, a general debate on fiscal items. And I happen to know that the chained CPI is an idea that emerged from Republican leaders only a few months ago. That's who came up with this. And so now the President has offered a budget in which he says, Okay, we're going to try to compromise from the beginning. We're going to try to take some compromise ideas and put them in here, along with some other good ideas like early childhood education, like investing in infrastructure and jobs. Those things are okay. But I think it was a mistake to ever include anything about Social Security in a budget because the Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. And so if you want to deal with lifting the sequester, deal with something that has to do with taxes or spending. If you want to deal with the budget, deal with something that adds to or takes away from the budget. If you want to deal with deficit reduction, deal with something that has to do with that. But don't drag in something that is actually irrelevant. The fact is that Social Security is one of the oldest, best programs that this country has ever seen and it has taken care, literally, of millions of people. It's not an entitlement. It's an earned benefit program. It is social insurance people pay into. They earn it and then they pay into it. And then they expect it at the end years of their lives. Congressman Pocan, I think it's important just to point out that a full third of widowed women on Social Security rely entirely on Social Security. Some people like to say chained CPI is not that big of a cut. Well, it depends on how much money you have, doesn't it? It depends on what you start with. If you're getting by on $13,000 a year, or under $20,000 a year, $250 may seem like a lot of money. My own experience as a Member of Congress is that people would ask me at community meetings all the time, Are we going to get our COLA check? Are we going to get that $250? Why? Because that's a lot of money to folks who are really trying to get by. And so what I'm saying is let's embrace our core Democratic values. Let's look after our seniors. Let's take care of this great program, Social Security, that has done so much for so many for so long. And let's reject this idea of chained CPI, and let's stand together and say chained CPI is not a good idea. It's not something we should offer as a bargaining chip for a grand bargain. Let's just take it off the table. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just congratulate everybody with the Progressive Caucus and thank all of the staff that did such a good job preparing this excellent budget which gives us an amazing choice as Americans to confront this jobs crisis. I'm so proud that our Speaker has told the world--Speaker Boehner--that the debt crisis is not immediate. He's right, it's not. But let me tell you what is immediate: the jobs crisis. That's why the Back to Work budget brings down unemployment to 5.3 within 3 years by investing in people--our construction workers, our teachers, and our police officers. We're also fiscally responsible, reducing the deficit over the long run by $4.4 trillion. The Republican budget makes the wrong choices for our country. I respect the fact that they have honestly projected a vision, but it's an austere vision for the American people. It's no surprise that this message lost the election that we just had. It was put in front of the people. They said we will have none of it, but the American people do want what's in the Back to Work budget. Gallup released a poll that confirms what you and I already know, and that is that the American people want jobs, not austerity; 72 percent, Mr. Chairman, of Americans said that they support putting people back to work repairing our Nation's infrastructure, including a majority of Republicans. Now, the fact is that the Back to Work budget is about putting people back to work. As the Speaker and I agree, it's not the moment where we need to clamp down on debt. It's the moment we need to put Americans back to work. So which budget meets the test? The Progressive Caucus budget invests at the level the American Society of Civil Engineers says is needed to close our infrastructure gap. The Republican budget cuts transportation by 20 percent. Mr. Chairman, it's time to get back to work, and let's pass the Back to Work budget.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my Republican friends on convincing some Americans that the only thing they should be thinking about is debt and deficit. While it is important, we acknowledge that, even Speaker Boehner last weekend said that it was not an immediate crisis. But the immediate crisis is the jobs crisis, so we should be comparing these budgets based on who creates more jobs. Now, the Progressive Caucus Back to Work budget creates 7 million jobs in its first year with a jobs package that repairs 35,000 public schools, rehires 300,000 laid-off teachers, and boosts consumer demand with a tax credit for working families. I believe my friend who just spoke said that we raise taxes on middle class families. Not true. We actually cut taxes on middle class families. The Republican budget would kill 2 million jobs in its first year by slashing investment in research, education, and public safety. Now by a job-to-job comparison, not just a debt-to-debt, deficit-to- deficit comparison--again, an important thing, but not the most important thing--on the jobs measure, the Back to Work budget is superior in every way to the Republican budget. It puts people back to work doing jobs that need doing. The American Society of Civil Engineers, experts who are completely nonpartisan, have said we have $3.3 trillion in unmet maintenance needs. We make a downpayment on that infrastructure gap, and we put Americans back to work with the Back to Work budget.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congressman, you come from a State, ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette. We all know about his wonderful legacy. And we all love Tammy Baldwin. When she told us she was running for the Senate, we didn't know how anybody could fulfill her tremendous legacy, but you've walked into this building, and you have stepped up right away. So I just want to the say thank you for the work that you're doing. Just if I may take a few moments to talk about the Back to Work Budget. There will be all kinds of budgets being discussed. The Republican budget authored by Congressman Ryan has already been the subject of a lot of conversation. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the real criteria that we should use to evaluate a budget is how well it puts people back to work, and that's why we have the Back to Work Budget. The Back to Work Budget is about--guess what--putting people back to work. Our budget is not an austerity budget. In our budget, we don't try to compete with how many people we can lay off and how many programs we can shut down. We say to the American people, We don't have a debt crisis. We have a debt problem in the out-years, but we don't have a debt crisis. Do you know what kind of crisis we've got? A job crisis. You know what? We've got to fix it. In 1976 when we passed the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, Americans regarded it as a national outrage that we had 6.3 percent unemployment. We have 7.7 percent now. That's way better than at the height of the recession. I remember in January of 2009, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, and we're now adding them. But we are not adding them nearly fast enough. I think that a lot of credit goes around due to the fact that we've had 36 months of positive job growth, but we don't have enough yet. So I think we need a budget that reflects the national priority of putting people back to work. Mr. Speaker, as the people will stand back and say, well, is this budget good or is this budget bad? I'm hearing so much from the talking heads on television. I think, Mr. Speaker, the people need to ask themselves a very simple question: Does this budget put people back to work or not? Congressman Ryan's budget, the Republican budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is going to lay off a lot of people. According to the Economic Policy Institute, it would be 2 million people in 2014. That's a lot of people. We don't need to be laying people off. We need to be hiring them. So I want to turn back to you, Mr. Pocan, because I don't want to just talk the whole time. But I do want to say, the Back to Work Budget is a budget that puts Americans back to work, and I think that's a good thing. In a moment, we can talk about one of my constituents.