Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate a small business in my community on its 25 great years.

Holy Land Bakery and Deli has become a quintessential part of our town of Minneapolis. Holy Land is not only a good place to go to have a bite, but it is also a great place for social space.

Recently, they expanded their facility in honor of their 21st anniversary, and they really feel proud about that because they have been providing jobs and opportunities for so many years.

The CEO of Holy Land restaurant is Mr. Majdi Wadi and his brother, Wajdi Wadi; and they provide really excellent food that they prepare based on recipes that their mother gave them when she emigrated from Palestine many years ago.

For every small business person in America, including the Holy Land Bakery and Deli, happy 25 years to them. May you have another 25 years of serving your great treats and of offering a wonderful social space.

Offered By: Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, now is not the time for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or fast track legislation. Five years into our economic recovery, high unemployment and stagnant incomes continue to keep consumer spending down. American families still cannot make ends meet. For too many people, that is the reality. Meanwhile, we are being asked to pass fast track legislation for TPP, and I think it is a threat to American jobs.

How do we know? We have already tried this 20 years ago when we passed NAFTA. Similar to TPP, NAFTA promised to create jobs, 200,000 Americans jobs every year, but they didn't materialize. Instead, the United States lost more than a million jobs. In Minnesota, more than 13,000 workers were displaced.

We don't want to see this happen again. It is time to pass a trade bill that lifts labor standards around the world, not encourages a race to the bottom. We cannot afford to offshore any more of our jobs. Let's pass a good trade bill.

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

Madam Chair, it is as simple as this: the al-Maliki government has abused and excluded huge portions of his population. Because of that, there is a conflict in that country of al-Maliki's own making. Now, what we are going to do if we send combat troops there is literally be his air force, be his ground troops. We shouldn't do that. That is not the right thing for the United States to do.

If we want to help, what we should do is engage the regional community, the countries around Iraq and Iraqi leaders, in a diplomatic solution that hopefully includes them having a more inclusive, less abusive government. That is the proper role of the United States. Trying to stop us from being combat troops is the right thing to do. I urge everybody to support this.

I think the gentleman is incorrect; we are right to stay out of this thing. What, after all, have we learned if 11 years has not taught us? Training? We have given plenty of training. We have trained these people up the wazoo. They abandoned their post. It is not a training problem.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California.

No, repealing the AUMF will not leave America vulnerable to terrorists. What it will do is put this U.S. Congress in a position to debate the legitimate--or not so legitimate, in some cases-- justification for further military action.

It will update the debate. It will put us in a position to really drill down and find out whether there is a national security interest, which would justify military force in the situation moving forward.

Members of Congress, this thing is over a decade old, and it has gone far afield from its original purpose.

This AUMF has been used more than 30 times to take our country into conflict, countries literally hundreds and maybe thousands of miles away from where it was originally intended.

It is time for a new debate. It is time for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, if we should have one. It is nothing more than a scare tactic to say that this will leave our country vulnerable.

The President is the Commander in Chief and has authority to protect the interests of the United States, but this AUMF has brought us in a direction that was not contemplated.

As the representatives of the people of the United States--that is us--we should have a say on the future of where military conflicts might be conducted. That means we repeal this AUMF, and if there is a legitimate national security interest moving forward, we should debate it on the floor and, if necessary, pass it. It is time to repeal the

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

Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I think Democrats and Republicans can actually agree on, it is that, if a penny is earned, that penny must be paid. This amendment is very straightforward. In fact, a version of it has already passed the House of Representatives. What it says is that, if there is a Federal contractor who has been found to engage in wage theft, that they may not benefit from this appropriation.

Now, there are many contractors who work for the Department of Defense who have employees that cook the meals for our troops, wash their uniforms, do all manner of many, many important tasks to keep fighting men and women in a position to serve our Nation. Some of them may even work in the commissary. They may work at various jobs. And they sometimes, the Federal contractors who serve the Federal Government, do not pay these workers.

Mr. Chairman, you may think, well, you know, maybe that happens, but how often does it happen? Is it really a big problem? I am here to tell you that it is a serious problem. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute found that, in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15 percent of their earned income.

A recent report by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the United States Senate revealed that 32 percent--that is 32 percent, fully a third--of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.

Now, I think that Democrats and Republicans can agree that, if you are a Federal contractor and you want to do business with the United States, you should be fair to your workers. This bill doesn't go out and look and we are not asking anyone to make any judgments. We are talking about people who have been found to engage in wage theft already.

This amendment simply says that the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed under section 2313(e)(1), title 41, and it goes on. But what it means is that you must be fair to your workers, and if you are not, you cannot benefit.

Last word I want to say about this is that don't we want to incentivize good contractors and discourage bad ones? One way we can do that is say, if you don't treat your workers right, we are going to find some Federal contractors who will.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I certainly appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to help American workers as defense-related factories wind down production. The intent of the amendment is to allocate an additional $10 million to the Office of Economic Adjustment from the general operations and maintenance funds.

The Office of Economic Adjustment helps communities across America when a factory shuts down. Over the last decade of war, middle class factory workers have stepped up to the plate to make sure our troops on the battlefield have had the weapons and equipment they have needed. As we transition away from two long wars and as defense production lines slow down, we cannot leave these workers with only pink slips in their hands. That is where the Office of Economic Adjustment comes in.

This little known but very important office in the Pentagon helps communities that would otherwise be devastated when a factory shuts its doors for the last time. The Office of Economic Adjustment provides grants and technical assistance to communities so that they can develop their own strategies to transition to a postwar economy. Just this month, the Office of Economic Adjustment provided grants to Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana. Nearly 4,000 defense workers have lost their jobs in these States since 2012, but thanks to a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment, a regional Defense Manufacturing Assistance Program is underway to help them find new areas of livelihood.

Simply put, the Office of Economic Adjustment helps hardworking Americans keep their jobs, so I urge my colleagues to support this modest amendment to create jobs and help the Americans who keep our men and women in uniform equipped with what they need.

I would also like to submit for the Record a good article from Roll Call which carefully details this issue of slowing down the wartime economy. The title of it reads, ``Don't Cut Programs that Help Communities Adjust to Pentagon Spending Reductions.'' It is dated June 9, 2014, and it is written by Miriam Pemberton and William Hartung.

[From Roll Call, June 9, 2014]

Don't Cut Programs That Help Communities Adjust to Pentagon Spending

Reductions--Commentary

(By Miriam Pemberton and William D. Hartung)

Spring budget season is almost over, and the House and

Senate have once again placed parochial politics above budget

discipline in their consideration of the Pentagon budget. The

most extreme example came in the House version of the

National Defense Authorization Act, which rejected virtually

every cost-cutting measure put forward by the Pentagon, from

base closings to retiring unneeded weapons systems. If the

House's actions aren't reversed, they would bust the current

budget caps to the tune of $50 billion over the next five

years.

There was one place the House authorizers were willing to

cut way back: a program designed to help communities adjust

to defense downsizings. This is particularly ill-advised at a

time when the Pentagon budget has been set on a path to come

down from a war-time buildup that brought it to its highest

levels since World War II.

While modest by historical terms, the defense build-down

that is now underway will demand adjustments in the

unrealistic spending plans Congress continues to authorize

for the Pentagon. And the cuts that are coming will have

impacts in scores of communities across the country.

Since the 1970s a small office within the Pentagon, the

Office of Economic Adjustment, has offered planning grants

and technical assistance to help these communities develop

their own strategies to capitalize on existing economic

strengths and adjust to postwar economic conditions. Once

these strategies are in place, the OEA serves as a point of

contact for impacted communities in accessing resources from

other federal agencies to help with implementation of their

plans. Just this week Ohio, Michigan and Indiana received a

grant of more than $2.4 million to fund a regional Defense

Manufacturing Assistance Program to address the loss of 3,900

defense-related jobs in those three states since 2012.

Most members of Congress want to base their judgments on

Pentagon spending on what is needed to defend the country.

But they also need to show defense-dependent communities,

businesses and workers in their states and districts that

they are watching out for their interests. The OEA's programs

give them a way to judge procurement spending accounts on

their merits,

while attending to the economic needs of their constituents.

Supporting the OEA does not mean that members of Congress

don't care about the existing jobs base. It just means that

they want in addition to have a Plan B in place in the event

of decisions that reduce Pentagon-related activities in their

areas.

It's troubling to watch the House voting to slash the OEA,

while standing firm in supporting costly, unneeded sacred

cows like the F-35 combat aircraft. Even slightly slowing the

pace of the F-35 program would pay for the OEA's programs

many times over.

The F-35--the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program

ever undertaken is--a poster child of waste. Current cost

estimates for building and maintaining the plane: roughly

$1.4 trillion over its lifetime. It has more than doubled in

price since it went into development, and it has had numerous

high profile failures, from cracked wings to unresolved

software problems. It is likely to perform many of its

assigned tasks less effectively than current generation

aircraft. An Air Force far superior to any other should be in

no rush to build over 2,400 F-35s.

The F-35 merely tops the House's list of unnecessary

expenditures. It rejected plans to delay the refueling of an

aircraft carrier at a savings of over $800 million--more than

ten times the cut proposed for the OEA. It attempts to block

the closure of excess military bases, stop the administration

from reducing the size of the Army, and prevent the Air Force

from retiring the U-2 spy plane, even as it funds Global Hawk

drones to do the same job. And the list goes on.

The common thread in all of these actions is a state of

denial about the trends in Pentagon spending. It will come

down this year, and under current law it will stabilize at

levels considerably lower than what the Pentagon's overly

ambitious plans will cost.

Funding programs that will help communities make the

transition to more diversified economies that can weather

reductions in Pentagon spending will make it easier to craft

budgets that put security concerns above pork barrel

politics. When the House and Senate put together a final

Pentagon budget proposal later this year, funding for OEA's

crucial programs should be restored.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated during the hearing and the mark up on The Mortgage Choice Act of 2013 (H.R. 3211), there are serious concerns about steering consumers into buying title insurance with hidden commissions and inflated costs.

I bought two homes in my life. Like most homebuyers, I was asked to sign a bunch of papers with lots of fees such as origination charges, appraisal fees, scoring fees, recording charges, tax service fee and title insurance. Like most consumers, I chose my title insurance provider based on referral: I did not comparison shop.

For most of us, title insurance is the most expensive of the closing cost fees--sometimes running in the thousands of dollars. These fees are poorly understood by homebuyers. This can lead to paying higher fees than is necessary or appropriate.

When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we required the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to do a better job at protecting consumers when buying a home.

We know that the housing finance system had too much predatory and discriminatory lending. African Americans and Latinos were frequently charged much higher interest rates than they qualified for. Homeowners were refinanced into high fee and interest rates they could not afford. The result was more than five million foreclosures and a colossal loss of wealth.

In response to the new law, the CFPB wrote rules to protect people buying homes from products which would strip their wealth. One of those rules defined a Qualified Mortgage (QM) standard which was established in Dodd-Frank. As part of that QM standard, the CFPB established a ``points and fees'' bright line limit for mortgages that qualified under the Ability to Repay provision.

The CFPB established a limit on ``points and fees''--which account for a loan's origination costs--that exceed 3 percent of the loan amount--although it can be up to 8 percent for lower cost homes. Because of concerns that the affiliated title insurance system was leading to higher costs for borrowers in a market based on reverse competition, the CFPB wisely chose to require title insurance charges from affiliated title agents be within the points and fees cap.

H.R. 3211 reverses the CFPB's decision.

By excluding affiliated title insurance firms from within the points and fees cap, H.R. 3211 restores an incentive to overcharge homebuyers.

We know how hard it is to get people into homes. Homebuyers need to save thousands of dollars for a downpayment. So why should we make it easier to let them get overcharged as much as a thousand or more dollars on title insurance? Some say that as much as half or more of a title insurance premium goes to the referral agent. Why would we want to preserve this practice of overpricing title insurance to fund referral commissions?

At the Financial Services hearing that included this bill, I requested that we hear from independent land title agents as well as from groups like the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform and its 100 affiliates and the AFL-CIO.

I requested that the National Association of Independent Land Title Agents be invited to testify. I have heard concerns directly from title agents in my state that some referral sources ask to share ownership of their business. Since title insurance is based on referrals, when realtors, homebuilders and mortgage brokers refuse to provide referrals to a title agent firm, the firm may not be able to survive financially. Unfortunately, these independent unaffiliated title agents were not invited to testify nor was there another hearing on the bill.

Many organizations opposed the bill including the AFL-CIO, Alliance for a Just Society, Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Economic Justice, Center for Responsible Lending, Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Empire Justice Center, Home Defenders League, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of Independent Land Title Agents, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Council of La Raza, National Fair Housing Alliance, New Economic Project, Public Citizen, Woodstock Institute and Center for Responsible Lending.

These concerns about hidden referral commissions are not hypothetical. Last month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined RealtySouth, the largest real estate firm in Alabama for violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Practices Act (RESPA). RealtySouth improperly steered consumers to its affiliated firm, TitleSouth LLC. In addition, The CFPB has taken action against Borders & Borders PLC in Kentucky for funneling kickbacks to shell companies. In June, the CFPB fined Stonebridge Title Services in New Jersey for paying illegal kickbacks to referral sources.

Some who support H.R. 3211 say there are some fixed costs in lending that could result in lower valued mortgages to need to pay loans higher than the Qualified Mortgage guideline of points and fees established by smaller loans. However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau already provided for flexible definitions based upon the amount of a borrower's mortgage:

3 percentage cap on a loan balance at $100,000 or greater,

5 percentage cap on a loan balance from $20,000.00 to $60,000, or

8 percentage cap on loan balances of less than $12,500 \i\.

Since the average mortgage origination fees are below one percent according to the Center for Responsible Lending, the caps set by the QM are appropriate. I have not seen any compelling evidence that shows that lenders will not make loans if the title premiums charged by their affiliates are included in the points and fees cap. Lenders are free to make loans outside the ability to repay rules as well.

I have also heard the proponents of H.R. 3211 arguing that the availability of affiliate service providers helps reduce the overall cost of obtaining a mortgage loan. I question their evidence. The 2010 Harris Interactive study paid by the National Association of Realtors is suspect. In that study, more than 70 percent of buyers ``did not know'' what an affiliate service provider provided or what benefit it allegedly gave.

By contrast, in 2013, The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) commissioned the first-ever national settlement preference survey of American real estate consumers.\ii\ More than 900 consumers participated in the nationwide survey. The results include:

93 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed said it was important that title insurance agents remain a neutral third party in the performance of title insurance-related services.

62 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed said that a title agency cannot remain objective if it is partially owned by a bank, real estate firm, mortgage company or homebuilder.

Only 1 percent of American real estate consumers surveyed prefer a ``one stop shop''.

For all the efficiencies that proponents assert existed prior to this new rule that provided a disincentive to refer homebuyers to controlled/affiliated title firms, settlement costs--exclusive of inflation--continue to rise. I believe the CFPB's rule could actually lower title insurance premiums and increase homeownership for Americans.

I have concerns about a market where people assert that half or more the cost of the product is a referral fee unlinked to the product itself. Consumers and independent title insurance agents say that title insurance premiums can provide renumeration to the referral source based on the capture rate such as lower desk rental fees, bonuses, gifts or higher commissions. This should not be permitted.

I urge Members to stand with homebuyers who want to understand all the fees they are charged.

I urge Members to support a market free of pressures for referral commissions.

I urge Members to vote no on H.R. 3211.

endnotes

i http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401_

cfpb_ atr_qm_ small-entity-compliance-guide.pdf

ii http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/ download/get/file/1102880907824-107/Executive+Summary+10-17- 2013.pdf

Center for

Responsible Lending,

June 9, 2013.

Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge you to

oppose H.R. 3211. This bill reintroduces some of the higher

fees borrowers faced in the lead up to the mortgage crisis;

fees that the new mortgage rules were designed to prevent.

Specifically, this bill creates a loophole that would allow

loans with higher costs to the borrower to improperly meet

the Qualified Mortgage (QM) standard established in the Dodd-

Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Congress should refrain from weakening the QM standard and

reject this bill.

H.R. 3211 would allow many more risky, high-cost loans to

qualify as QM loans by creating exceptions to the points and

fees threshold. These exceptions would exclude fees paid to

certain title companies affiliated with the lender. The

points and fees definition is designed to include all

compensation received by the lender. It is a reasonable

standard that provides basic protections for homebuyers.

The title insurance market is a broken market. In 2007, a

GAO report concluded that borrowers ``have little or no

influence over the price of title insurance but have little

choice but to purchase it.'' As a result, the fees are

grossly inflated--recent studies have found that between 5

and 11 cents is paid out in claims for each $1 of premiums.

Almost the entirety of a title insurance premium

(approximately 70%) goes to commissions, not insurance

coverage. In contrast, loss ratios for health insurance are

minimally 80% and ratios for auto insurance fluctuate between

50% and 70%. Borrowers already pay inflated title insurance

costs. Including affiliated title insurance fees in the QM

defined points and fees cap will not solve all the problems

in the market but the rule provides important market pressure

to control costs.

The current QM protections represent an appropriate step to

directly address recent problems for borrowers without

impacting access to credit. Creating a title insurance

loophole in the statute would eliminate one important

protection to keep costs to borrowers from escalating

further.

We welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion for a

comprehensive fix to the flaws in the current title insurance

market. However, incentivizing an already overpriced market

to further raise rates for borrowers is no solution.

The Center for Responsible Lending urges Congress to reject

H.R. 3211--which will neither benefit consumers nor expand

access to credit.

Sincerely,

Kenneth W. Edwards,

VP, Federal Affairs.

Offered By Mr. Ellison

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development we consider today does not meet our Nation's affordable housing problems.

If this budget passes, more than half of the renters will still pay more than one-third of their income for housing. If this budget passes, fewer than four in 10 low-income elderly will receive the housing assistance they are entitled to. If this budget passes, we will still only provide housing assistance to one in four families who are eligible--tens of thousands will continue to linger on waiting lists for an affordable rental apartment that will never arrive. If this budget passes, there will still be more than 11 million families, Madam Chairman, paying more than half of their income for rent and utilities. There will still be a significant gap between incomes and housing costs.

The HUD budget is tens of billions short in order to meet American families' housing needs. That is why my amendment replaces the mortgage interest deduction with a flat-rate 15 percent tax credit.

My amendment lowers the maximum amount of mortgage interest that can receive a tax offset from $1 million to $500,000. About 4 percent of homes in this country sell for more than $500,000.

My amendment dedicates the revenue generated from these changes to increasing our investments in affordable rental housing for extremely low-income families.

My amendment provides for housing for veterans who find themselves homeless. It provides housing for people who are elderly and people with disabilities who cannot find affordable appropriate housing. It provides money to repair public housing facilities to provide homes to low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. It funds the national housing trust fund, repairs public housing, provides thousands of new vouchers, and raises the rental assistance demonstration cap.

Unfortunately, my amendment will likely be ruled out of order today. Why? Because the rules set by the majority in the House refuse to allow any tax changes to pay for a change in the appropriated budget.

This technical decision made by the majority in this Congress is inconsistent with previous Congresses, which realized that money is fungible.

By refusing to allow tax changes to offset the cost of needed programs, Congress stacks the deck.

Congress preserves the generous tax benefits for most financially successful households while ensuring that there is never anywhere close to the level of affordable rental housing we need.

For every dollar we spend on housing programs through the appropriations side of the budget, we spend more than $3 on the tax side.

The mortgage interest deduction itself is more than twice as large as the entire HUD budget we consider today. Yet, the vast majority of the mortgage interest deduction benefit the top income quintile--about 80 percent of the benefit goes to 20 percent of the households.

I want to keep a tax benefit for homeownership. I want one that is more accessible and more generous to working families. Nearly half the homeowners with a mortgage do not benefit from the deduction. That is because almost half of the people who pay mortgage interest do not itemize. Only 5 percent of the homeowners with incomes of $50,000 take a deduction. Contrast the 5 percent of homeowners with incomes beneath $50,000 and the two-thirds of households with incomes above $125,000 who get a tax benefit. The flat rate credit will benefit about 16 million current homeowners who do not currently benefit from a deduction but who will benefit from a flat tax credit.

I know that my amendment will be ruled out of order today.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Ms. Marionne Robbins. I join her family members and friends from the Sabathani Community Center who gather in Minneapolis on July 1, 2014 to commemorate this special day.

Marionne was born on July 4, 1914, in Sioux City, Iowa. She was seven years old when her family moved to South Minneapolis in 1921, and she has remained here for the 93 years since then. She has one daughter, two grandchildren, one great grandchild, and one great great grandchild. Marionne enjoyed a successful career at Northern States Power Company in Minneapolis until her retirement in 1979 after 34 years of service.

After her retirement, Marionne became a wonderful community volunteer and an active participant in the Senior Center at Sabathani Community Center in South Minneapolis. For many years she has served as a ``sunshine lady'' visiting the sick and immobile seniors, traveling with the Willie Hale Travel Club, bowling with friends, and participating in events with the U-Meet-Us Seniors and Sabathani Senior Center.

Marionne is always looking for new ways to connect senior citizens, like creating the Senior Breakfast Club and founding the Sabathani Red Hat Society chapter in Minneapolis.

Marionne Robbins has led an outstanding life, highlighted by her love of family and service to her community. I wish her many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Susan Park Rani on being named one of eleven ``Champions of Change'' by the White House for ensuring that our transportation facilities, services, and jobs help connect individuals and their communities to greater opportunities.

Ms. Rani is the Founder and the President of Rani Engineering, which has grown from having two employees and a vision to a team of more than 45 people with offices in Minnesota, California and South Dakota. Under Ms. Rani's leadership, Rani Engineering has worked to deliver high- quality solutions and build long lasting relationships within the communities she serves. As a result of the company's efforts, Rani Engineering was named the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Contractor of the Year in 2012 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Ms. Rani is an inspiration for women, minorities, immigrants and anyone who aspires to start their own business. She moved to the United States as a child from South Korea without knowing English, but excelled in school and obtained a civil engineering degree in 1993. She is one of the first minority women to own an engineering firm in Minnesota. There is no doubt that Ms. Rani's ambition and dedication have enabled her company to compete with the largest institutions in the industry.

Ms. Rani's many achievements have been recognized by regional groups and national organizations. She has earned the Minority Business Award for Small Business Excellence by the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, Debener Award for Small Business Growth by St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, Engineering Excellence Award by the American Consulting Engineering Companies, SBA Emerging 200 by the U.S. Small Business Administration and many more highly renowned awards.

With her past positions on the boards of the American Consulting Engineering Companies of Minnesota, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, Mounds Park Academy, the Association of Women Contractors, and the National Association of Minority Contractors, Upper Midwest along with her recent position on the Destination Medical Center Corporation Board, she is inarguably a Champion of Change.

I commend Ms. Rani on her award and her thoughtful contributions as both an entrepreneur and as an excellent member of the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the dire condition of an American political prisoner in Egypt, Mohamed Soltan.

Mohamed is an Egyptian-American citizen who grew up in the United States. He graduated from Ohio State University with a degree in economics.

The Arab Spring inspired Mohamed to support democracy, freedom, and human rights in Egypt. Last year he joined thousands of peaceful protestors in Egypt to oppose the military coup that toppled the government of Mohamed Morsi.

While demonstrating in Rabba Square last August, the Egyptian military shot him in the arm. He was treated in a makeshift clinic with no anesthetic medication.

Mohamed was one of the lucky ones that day. Hundreds of unarmed demonstrators were killed and thousands were injured.

Shortly after being shot, Mohamed was arrested by Egyptian authorities for protesting.

From his jail cell he continues to protest the repression of pro- democracy advocates in Egypt.

Mohamed has been on a hunger strike. He has lost almost half of his body weight and can no longer stand.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to give voice to the struggle for human rights and real democracy in Egypt.

The United States should stand on the side of those like Mohamed who are striving for human rights and democracy in the Middle East.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I will take ``yes'' for an answer, Mr. Chairman.

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, no hardworking American should ever have to worry about whether her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or take money out of her paycheck, especially if she works for a Federal contractor. This practice is known as wage theft.

Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. My amendment would deny Federal contracts to those who violate the Fair Labor Standards Act to deny workers the pay they have earned. The

amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. We should only reward good actors.

Taxpayer money must be spent wisely, and as the largest purchaser of goods and services, the Federal Government must find a way to make sure that funds are going to companies that treat their workers fairly and according to the law and that give every American family a chance to succeed. More importantly, it signals to working Americans around the country that wage theft will not be tolerated.

Low-wage workers are fighting back. They are demanding that they be treated fairly. And now it is time for Congress to stand with these low-wage workers and say clearly that wage theft is not anything that we are willing to tolerate.

So we may not agree on the minimum wage or we may not agree on a lot of other things, but I believe Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that a penny earned is a penny that must be paid. Any time a Federal contractor is found to have violated a worker's rights and is found to have been guilty of that, according to the law, that Federal contractor should not benefit from the money in this particular bill.

So with the remainder of my time, I would like to just add that this is a very serious problem. A recent report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the United States Senate reveals that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors. There should be a consequence. Similarly, the National Employment Law Project study found that 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 percent have been forced to work off the clock.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can get cooperation from all Members on this.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee. It is an excellent example of how we can work together.

I want to rise in support of the conference report for WRRDA.

This report includes language to address the presence of invasive carp in the upper Mississippi River. It contains language to close the Upper Saint Anthony Falls lock and dam in Minneapolis--my hometown.

This would stop the spread of invasive carp which causes harm. Invasive carp decimates the fishing industry, invasive carp wipes out native fish species, and when a 60-pound silver carp jumps out of the water, needless to say, it limits recreational opportunities and causes injury to the people. This is a real picture--fish jumping all out. It is not a good thing.

The language provides for a proactive approach. It protects our vital fishing and recreational industry. It preserves tourism jobs in northern Minnesota. It prevents us from spending government dollars to manage carp if these fish invade northern Minnesota waters.

I want to thank the members of the Minnesota delegation who worked with me on a bipartisan basis to make sure the language was passed. I would also like to thank a staff member Anne Christianson--and you know who you are. You were tireless, you never gave up, and I am very grateful to you.