Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in a few hours from now, the Republican Conference is going to bring forth a tax bill. This bill will redistribute wealth from working Americans up to the very richest people in our country. It will result in massive deficits. It will result in a starvation of the government to stop it from doing critical things that it needs to do to afford the expenses of our country and to help Americans lead better lives.

But after it is all said and done, after that is done, Mr. Speaker, it is going to do at least three more things that are very, very bad.

One of them is that the corporations that get all this money and the wealthy individuals will, one, do stock buybacks and promote their personal wealth. They will give each other bonuses to give each other greater personal wealth.

They will have more money to do more mergers to concentrate markets even more so that we have more monopoly and oligopoly around, and they will buy political influence to further corrupt our democratic government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad thing, and I am looking forward to a big, strong ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to ask themselves: Have they ever seen a Republican big-time tax cut for the wealthy and big companies ever trickle down to them?

If you look over the course of these things that they do every few years, all they do is concentrate wealth at the very top and take money out of the hands of working people. They starve government and make it more difficult for your government--which is of, by, and for the people--to help you with

disaster, with Social Security, with Medicaid, with Medicare, or with any kind of program that you need. It just starves the government of its ability to make your life better.

But, do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

There is another thing about this particular tax bill. They have been studying it, and there is going to be one tremendous beneficiary of this tax bill. It is going to be Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo, which will see its corporate tax rate drop down to 21 percent from the 35 percent it is now is going to make, on average, a 13 percent increase in earnings per share.

Do you remember that big company that opened up a bunch of accounts people didn't need and sold people insurance they didn't need?

They will be doing better. American families will be doing worse.

Vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this tax bill.

Mr. Speaker. I oppose this bill. It would remove consumer protections put in place by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. H.R. 1699 would weaken Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) requirements for people who buy manufactured homes. HOEPA requires additional disclosures to people taking out a loan to buy a home when the interest rate is 6.5 percent or 8.5 percent above the annual percentage rate (APR) for the average Prime Offer Rate (APOR). Those disclosures include: Explaining the consequences of default, disclosing loan terms and monthly payments, and ensuring the borrower receives homeownership counseling.

In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under Regulation Z, forbids firms selling manufactured homes from steering buyers into loans. This bill would remove these protections.

Manufactured homes are the biggest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. More than 17 million people live in manufactured homes. If you removed manufactured housing, our national homeownership rate would fall 6 percent. The homes are of good quality.

Thanks to the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, high-cost loans to manufactured homeowners are rare. Wednesday, we received updated Duty-to-Serve requirements from the Federal Housing Finance Agency which will provide even more affordable financing to these buyers.

Before Democrats enacted the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the financing for manufactured homes was notoriously predatory. If you want to see how badly manufactured homebuyers used to be treated, read the award-winning series of articles in the Seattle Times. The investigation showed that the main seller of manufactured homes--Clayton Homes--steered borrowers to lenders like Vanderbilt Mortgage and 21st Mortgage which Clayton actually owned.

Clayton's loans are particularly expensive compared with those of its peers. The company locks buyers in loans at interest rates that can exceed 15 percent. If this bill, H.R. 1699 was enacted, borrowers could again be asked to pay 14 or 15 percent without being told that there might be cheaper options.

I've also introduced bills to help manufactured home buyers:

The Energy Efficient and Manufactured Home Act (H.R. 515) helps manufactured home buyers replace their outdated homes.

Two bills--the Frank Adelmann Manufactured Housing Community Sustainability Act, (H.R. 3296) and the Fair Tax Treatment for Manufactured Home Communities (H.R. 3399)--help residents of mobile home parks buy the land and run their community as a cooperative.

Let's bring those bills to the House floor. Not this bill which would steer borrowers to high-cost lenders. Now is the time to keep hard fought protections for manufactured home buyers so they re can buy homes they can afford. People who work with manufactured homebuyers oppose this bill. Therefore, I include in the Record letters of opposition from the Housing Assistance Council, Americans for Financial Reform and MHAction.

Protect homebuyers. Oppose H.R. 1699.

Housing Assistance Council,

Washington, DC, November 27, 2017.

Hon. Keith Ellison,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Ellison: As a national voice for

affordable rural housing, the Housing Assistance Council

(HAC) opposes HR 1699. HR 1699 would eliminate reasonable

safeguards for consumers of manufactured homes put in place

by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CPFB). Examples

include protections against high-interest loans when lower

cost options are available.

Manufactured homes are an important source of housing for

millions of Americans, especially those with low-incomes and

in rural areas. While the physical quality of manufactured

homes continues to progress. the basic delivery system of how

these homes are sold and financed needs improvement. HAC

continues to work with manufactured housing stakeholders--

including the

industry, housing finance entities. and consumer-focused

groups--to improve the system, starting with improved data

collection. Moreover, ``Duty to Serve'' requirements of

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represent an important infusion of

capital into the manufactured housing market. HR 1699's

enactment could undermine such progress.

As housing costs rise for poor rural Americans--exacerbated

by recent natural disasters--it is important that Congress

seek opportunities to make housing for the rural poor more

accessible and fair. HR 1699 is a step in the opposite

direction.

Sincerely,

David Lipsetz,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a decade of groundbreaking work by the Council on American-Islamic Relations-- Minnesota Chapter (CAIR-MN). Ten years ago, CAIR-MN was founded to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, regardless of religious background. Their tireless work represents our core American values: freedom, justice, and equality for all.

During this challenging year of record increases in hate crimes and attacks against Muslims, CAIR-MN has led the fight to strengthen our community. CAIR-MN spearheaded protests against the Muslim Ban and provided community information to those affected by discriminatory policies. It has also successfully defended the rights of refugees and newcomers in the Twin Cities and beyond. CAIR-MN has educated more than 100,000 Minnesotans and has been instrumental in engaging our community in dialogue. They've also worked tirelessly to legally represent over 2,500 Minnesotans facing discrimination. From working with local journalists to ensure accurate representation of Muslims, to supporting interfaith relationships in our community, CAIR-MN has been at the frontline of our fight to achieve our common goal of inclusion.

It is an honor to represent community members like those who are a part of CAIR-MN and benefit from their advocacy. Please join me in recognizing a decade of their efforts to create a Minnesota where all are welcome and justice is upheld.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I come to this conversation based on people I know who live in manufactured housing. A lot of folks call it mobile homes or trailer parks. We call it manufactured housing. But I have walked those places, sat in those rooms, and just been with my neighbors, friends, and constituents who live in manufactured housing. I appreciate them tremendously. They are wonderful folks. The folks I know are just part of those 17 million people who live in manufactured housing.

If Congress got rid of manufactured housing, the national homeownership rate would fall about 6 percent. So manufactured housing, no doubt, is important and is an affordable alternative for many people.

But that doesn't mean the lender can rip them off. That doesn't mean the lender can pick their pockets, and that doesn't mean that the lender can let some big monopoly reach in the borrower's pockets and take their money away from them.

Just because the loan payment on manufactured housing might be lower than rent doesn't mean they get to up the skim. They have still got to be fair to people.

Look, for folks who are watching this debate, it is important to understand what we are really talking about. I am going to boil it down as best I can. We are saying: If you live in manufactured housing and if the loan is going to be extra high in the interest rate, if the interest rate is 6\1/2\ or 8\1/2\ above the annual percentage rate, which could bring you as high as the ranking member said, 18 percent, then certain things kick in for you.

If they are going to charge borrowers that kind of interest rate, the law says we are going to look out for them by saying that the lender has to explain the consequences of default--it will ruin the borrower's credit--that the lender has to disclose the loan terms in the monthly payments, that the lender has to ensure that the borrower receives homeownership counseling. And this is really important: under another regulation, the lender is forbidden from being the dealer and steering that person to a lender. In the case of Clayton Homes, they are both.

They will sell the borrower the unit and give them the loan. They will say: Hey, do you know what? We are going to sell you a nice new unit here. Don't worry about borrowing or where to look for a loan. We got you covered. We are in that business.

They are a monopoly. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that all those protections that a high-cost-loan borrower is about to face this legislation takes away. That is all we are talking about here. We are saying that if a borrower is going to get a high-cost loan, then he should get certain protections. The borrower should get information and counseling. People should tell the borrower what is going to happen if he defaults.

They are saying: Hey, man, that is getting in the way of my money. We don't want you telling them what their rights are because that is interfering with the millions and millions that we are going to get off of them. A dumb consumer works out for our monopoly just fine, a smart one not so much.

That is what this is all about.

Now, I want to just say--giving my friends on the other side of the aisle the best of intentions--that we do have a philosophical debate here. We believe that the problem--if there is one--of people lending in this market is not that there are consumer protections, but it is that there is a huge monopoly.

If the Congress wants to fix the problem of manufactured housing lending, then break up that monopoly. If the Congress wants to get more entrants into the market and get some downward competition in price, then break up the monopoly.

But if the Congress just tells the monopoly you can charge these people more now, you don't have to give them the protections, you don't have to inform them, you can steer them, and you have got to get a really high-cost loan before they get any protections, then all that is going to do is benefit the firm that is already occupying this market space.

The firm that already sells the unit and gives the loans, the one that has all the advertising set up, the one that has all the sales force set up, the one that has all the infrastructure already set up, the monopolists will be the ones who will benefit from this legislation.

The theory of this legislation is that consumer protection is why you have seen some entrants, some lenders, not be in this space. Our knowledge and our facts indicate that it is because we have got a big, giant monster that controls the whole market.

If Congress wants to do something for manufactured housing residents, we can do it, we can do it now, and we urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am most proud of is being from Minnesota. What a beautiful State that we have. People joke about how cold it is in the wintertime, but let me tell you, Minnesota is awesome all year round.

One of the things that we are so proud of is the Boundary Waters. Mr. Speaker, look at this picture. This is no glossed-up photo. This is what it looks like. It is awesome.

Back before I was in Congress, I was able to bring young people to the Boundary Waters who were court-involved. Mr. Speaker, one day a judge asked me: Hey, Ellison, come up here. You want to take some kids to the Boundary Waters?

I said: Fine. I kept doing it for 5 years straight because I loved the place.

Yet this bill will perhaps damage all that, all that beauty, that gem of our State, which not only is a beautiful place that needs to be preserved for people, but also is a job-generator. A lot of people earn good livings because of the Boundary Waters, and if we just do this, pass this bill, what it will do is jeopardize their livelihood and our crown jewel of our State.

This bill will grant a mining company the right to build sulfide-ore copper mines along rivers and lakes that flow directly into the Boundary Waters. Sulfide-ore copper mining has never been done without polluting water, and thousands of communities and wildlife will be at risk.

When you mine sulfide ore, water and air interact to create sulfuric acid. One leak or spill would contaminate substantial portions of the Boundary Waters, decimating wildlife and habitat, and destroying the livelihoods of so many Minnesota workers.

The Boundary Waters, the waters of the Boundary Waters, are especially vulnerable to acid mine drainage because they lack a buffering capacity.

This bill is a bad idea, and I urge Members to vote ``no.'' This bill will undermine core environmental laws, including the Antiquities Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Antiquities Act is a bipartisan conservation law to protect irreplaceable Federal lands, including in the Grand Canyon, Acadia Forest, Zion, Muir Woods in California, and the Olympic National Parks. If they undermine the Antiquities Act, what else is in danger? Well, I would say every national treasure of the United States.

This attack on the Antiquities Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments, making this not only a Minnesota issue, but a national issue.

This bill would permanently lock in all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests by overriding two laws on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that require Forest Service consent to any mining. They don't want to go around the regular process. They want to use Congress to short-circuit that process.

If you have never been to the Boundary Waters, as I said, I urge you to go there. If you vote ``no'' on this bill, you will not just be protecting the Boundary Waters for yourself and people around all over the United States, you will be protecting it for your grandchildren.

Much is said here about children and grandchildren. Think about the Boundary Waters when you think about the legacy that we are leaving our grandchildren and how H.R. 3905 would destroy and jeopardize that legacy.

Economic analysis by Key-Log Economics shows that sulfide-ore mining on the Superior National Forest lands and the watershed of the Boundary Waters could lead to a loss of 5,000 jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 20,000 jobs in the rest of the economy.

As people tout this bill as a job creator, it is a job destroyer. I would tell you that, if you are an outfitter or you are a wilderness guide or you are a forest ranger, your job is just as important as anybody else's. What this bill is saying is, no, your job is no good. Nobody cares about it. Only the mine companies' interests are important.

We could stand to lose $1.6 billion in annual income and $500 million in reduction in private property values because of this piece of legislation.

We shouldn't have to choose between a robust economy and a clean environment. We can and must have both. Saying ``no'' to this piece of legislation gives us a chance at both. Voting for it makes us pick one over the other, and not just economic interests, but certain interests--not everyone's.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the extra time.

Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are studying this issue, but the author doesn't want to wait for the study because he knows the study is not going to help. They just want to drive this mine straight through without doing the proper care.

More than 126,000 Americans participated in the study and asked for protection of the Boundary Waters. Minnesota voters oppose copper mining near the Boundary Waters by more than 2 to 1, and 79 percent support the current study.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. This is a bad bill. It is not good legislation, and the damage it will do is not Republican nor is it Democratic. It is American. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Chip Halbach's retirement in September of 2017 after 30 years of service with the Minnesota Housing Partnership.

Chip has long been an advocate for affordable housing for Minnesota residents. In 1987, Chip founded Minneapolis Housing Partnership (MHP). MHP convenes, guides, and supports a diversity of partners working to improve conditions of home and community. Initially, MHP's focus was informing housing groups and partners on pending legislation. MHP evolved to become a major provider of technical assistance and financial support to increase the capacity of organizations building and developing affordable housing. MHP has served as an intermediary for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Seeing the need to bring together the affordable housing community, Chip Halbach

started the Homes for All Coalition. The Homes for All Coalition is a statewide coalition that works to provide safe, stable, and affordable housing for people across all income levels. From working to increase rental subsidies, to improving infrastructure at manufactured housing parks, and resources for first time homebuyers, Homes for All is tackling the diverse range of housing issues facing Minnesotans.

Chip is widely known for his encyclopedic knowledge of federal and state housing programs, sophisticated housing finance tools and their history. Policymakers and elected officials have often drawn on Chip's wealth of knowledge and expertise in the affordable housing field. Many have cheekily quipped, ``before `Google' there was Chip Halbach.''

Chip Halbach's leadership has helped shape legislation, provided education, and secured money to create safe, decent, affordable places for families and individuals to live. His steady leadership leaves the Minnesota Housing Partnership poised to move forward in tackling our affordable housing crisis. I want to thank Mr. Halbach for all his years of service. His presence will be missed, but his contributions will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Eliot Seide, for his thirty-eight years of public service to the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District, to the 43,000 members of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 5, and to the great state of Minnesota. Mr. Seide was the first in his family to attend college, graduating Phi Beta Kappa from New York University. In graduate school, Mr. Seide realized that he was tired of talking about making a difference and decided it was time to take action.

Mr. Seide's father Julius, was a leader of the Printers Union in New York City. Eliot followed in his father's footsteps when he went to work for AFSCME and its President, Jerry Wurf, in 1979. Mr. Seide came to Minnesota in 1980. He was central to helping state employees in AFSCME Council 6 wage a successful strike in 1981. He worked to strengthen AFSCME in local government in the Twin Cities metropolitan area by helping form AFSCME Council 14 in 1982. Over the next 12 years, Mr. Seide was instrumental in building power for working people in Minnesota and improving the quality of public services in Minnesota through a strong and progressive labor movement.

In his thirty-eight year career with AFSCME, Mr. Seide has fought hard for a better Minnesota for everyone. He worked his way up in the union, serving in many capacities as field representative, legislative director, international area director, and as Executive Director of both AFSCME Council 14 and AFSCME Council 5.

In 2004, Mr. Seide became the executive director of AFSCME Council 5, one of the largest unions in the state of Minnesota. In 2006, Mr. Seide was also elected AFSCME International vice president. Governor Mark Dayton has shared these words about Mr. Seide: ``He's a tireless advocate for his members, and he has that New York edge to his style but believes fiercely in doing what's right for his members.''

The state of Minnesota will long remember the work of Mr. Eliot Seide as a leader of not only Council 5, but for all Minnesotans around issues of fair taxes, decent wages, responsible investments in transportation, clean water, a strong education system, and healthy families. He believes deeply that we all do better when we all do better. I thank Mr. Seide for his many years of service to Minnesotans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Mr. Frank Adelmann. I join his family and friends to celebrate his life and honor his legacy.

Frank was born as the second of four children on March 16th, 1958, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. When he was three years old, his family moved to the suburb of St. Anthony where he would spend the rest of his life. He had a deep interest in his family history, and he often contacted his older relatives for information and reached out to his extended family. He was named after his grandfather, and he shared a birthday with his grandmother, Anna.

Frank excelled academically, and he attended college at both Hamline University and the University of Minnesota. He used his accounting skills in several purchasing and retail positions throughout his life. When he wasn't working, Frank dedicated his time to an eclectic set of interests and hobbies. He was a gifted pianist; he was well-read, often immersing himself in the Scripture; he had a playful sense of humor; and he taught himself Arabic.

Those who knew Frank consistently point to his uncanny ability to befriend the unusual, the lonely, and the hurting. Though he lived a private life, he held many close friendships, and he was respected and liked in his community. He was also involved in his community; Frank attended many local caucuses and reached out to elected officials. Without a doubt, his care and consideration for people led to his understanding of the importance of civic engagement.

Frank Adelmann led an outstanding life, highlighted by his love of his family and his care for his community. To honor the legacy of Frank's life, I introduced the Frank Adelmann Manufactured Housing Community Sustainability Act. This legislation would offer a tax incentive to manufactured home park owners who sell the property to their residents, offering residents the long term stability they deserve to build long lasting community.

Mr. Speaker, I really do believe that the American people deserve a tax system that invests in our people and our community.

We need to have enough income and enough resources to make sure we are fixing our roads, our bridges, and our transit. We need resources to invest in scientific research for families who are wondering about what the answers just might be for their loved ones who have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or whatever. We need to be able to defend our country. We need to be able to help people get a good education, healthcare, and housing.

These are things that I believe are well worth investment in as a nation.

Yet when we look at the Republican tax bill, we don't see a bill that reflects the needs of the country to take care of our people. What we see is a mass distribution from working people--middle class people--to the wealthiest Americans in the country.

We need a tax reform--a real tax reform--that protects retirement security for today's seniors and future generations; that provides quality education, job training; that researches new medical cures and renewable forms of energy; and that supports our Nation's children.

Mr. Speaker, we need a tax bill that supports America's families and that can help us do better and live higher quality lives.

But, instead, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--a bizarrely named piece of legislation because it doesn't do anything for jobs--is in front of us. It is what Republicans offer as tax reform.

But here is what it does, Mr. Speaker: it moves more jobs overseas. This bill gives tax breaks to corporations offshoring jobs, driving down American wages.

How many workers lay in the bed at night looking at the ceiling hoping and praying that the plant doesn't close? How do we explain to them that we are going to cut taxes for these big corporations that would incentivize them to offshore? How do we tell them that?

Is that making America great again? I don't think so. It increases taxes for millions of Americans. Thirty-eight million middle class households will see an immediate tax increase--averaging $2,000 by 2026.

Is that what we had in mind when we started talking about tax reform? Absolutely not.

This Republican tax bill doubles taxes on American families by making folks pay Federal taxes on taxes you already pay to your State and local government.

It is a good thing when local communities say: We are going to raise taxes on ourselves to meet local needs. When States and cities do that, they have been expecting for literally over 100 years that that would be deductible.

Yet the Federal Government, under the Republican tax plan, wants to take that deduction away, which will have the effect of putting downward pressure on what local and State governments can raise to make their citizens' lives better, beginning a downward spiral. As the Federal Government pays less, the States and cities will get less, and you will see services for people go down the toilet.

At the same time, you will see money not trickle down but geyser up to the richest Americans. Double taxation will drive down home values and limit local governments' ability to fund law enforcement--which is police, folks--schools, health services, and infrastructure.

Medical expenses, Mr. Speaker. The GOP tax bill raises taxes on families who have children with expensive disabilities or adults who need expensive lifesaving treatment for longstanding disabilities because it eliminates the medical expense deduction.

I had a lady named Carol, who is a senior, say: Look, I don't know how I am going to make it without this. I need this.

She met with me in my office just Monday, and she pleaded with me to fight this Republican tax bill, specifically on the elimination of medical expenses.

But what about student loans? We live in a country where there is massive student debt, Mr. Speaker. If you are one of the 40 million people with student loan debt, you will no longer be able to deduct the interest you pay on these student loans, plus it eliminates the learning credits that make your tuition affordable.

As we all know, if you are rich already, you don't worry about student loan interest because you don't borrow the money, you just pay it. But what about the middle class of America? What about the working class people of America? What about folks who really need it?

Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Republican tax bill. It would have been nice to have real reform, but we are not getting it. Our only option is to eliminate this particularly sad piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following Roll Call votes. Had I been present, on Roll Call no. 613, I would have voted yes; and on Roll Call no. 614, I would have voted no.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Republican effort to roll back the joint-employer rule that the Obama administration promulgated. This joint-employer rule is an attack on workers, and it is an attack on franchisee businesses.

For people watching, Mr. Speaker, understand that when a franchisor, the big headquarters, tells a franchisee, ``You have got to do every single thing we tell you. You basically work for us. We are going to tell you the size of the sandwich. We are going to tell you the kind of oil to use. We are going to tell you how to schedule your workers. We are going to, basically, control your enterprise, though you are supposed to be an independent business,'' the Obama administration said, ``We are going to treat you as if you are joint employers.'' So if there is wage theft or there is unfairness on the job or some problem that comes up with workers, then the big company, the headquarters, will also be held responsible for solving the problem.

What the Republicans do today, Mr. Speaker, is say: ``No, we might impose all these conditions on you per the franchisee agreement, but, if there are problems, it is going to be your problem, franchisee.''

This is absolutely unfair. As workers are going all over this country trying to get higher wages, this is a whole movement for them to get livable wage for people who work every single day at our fast-food chains. They are going to their local franchisee owners to ask for those wages.

But if the franchisor says: ``You can't pay any more than this. We are going to restrict you in multiple number of ways. We are going to make you sell food items at a cost that you can't even sustain, like the dollar menu''--those things cost more than a dollar, folks. But if the big headquarters says you have got to charge a dollar as a promotion, then the franchisee has to eat that.

But when workers need more money, the big company makes that impossible, and then workers are left holding the bag along with the franchisee.

The joint-employer rule, holding both sides responsible for those wage thefts to pay for hours, these things make a more fair process and require the big headquarters to take responsibility as well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is an antiworker bill. This is an anti-small business bill, which is somewhat surprising to me, given that my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for small business, but, really, they are just for big business. If you have any doubts about that, all you have got to do is look at this tax bill they are putting out there.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from United Steelworkers urging a ``no'' vote on the joint employer bill.

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, November 1, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of

the United Steelworkers (USW), I strongly urge you to oppose

H.R. 3441, the ludicrously named ``Save Local Business Act''.

The bill has virtually nothing to do with small businesses

but will greatly restrict the definition of employer under

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Targeting a National Labor Relations Board decision,

Browning-Ferris Industries, H.R. 3441 is not only drafted to

repeal a decision where the employer tried to avoid

collective bargaining responsibilities through

subcontracting, but radically changes the Fair Labor

Standards Act. Currently, under the FLSA, employers cannot

hide behind labor contractors or franchisees when they set

conditions of employment. H.R. 3441 strips nearly a century

of workforce protections to give large employers almost

unfettered ability to hide from long established employer

responsibilities.

The rise in temporary or precarious work in the United

States is fast becoming an unfortunate norm in the economy. A

recent study on the rise of temporary employment found the

proportion of American workers engaged in ``alternative

work'' jumped from 10.7% to 15.8% in the last decade. When in

the last decade 94% of net job growth is in the alternative

work category, workers continuously find themselves unable to

seek remedy for their grievances or an ability to

collectively hold their ultimate employer accountable. H.R.

3441 will accelerate the growth of job-instability as

employers will be able to manipulate the system to avoid

collective bargaining by hiring temporary employees or

contractor employees.

Congress' responsibility to American workers in this time

of rising income inequality and precarious work must be to

improve access to collective bargaining and stop employer

circumvention of U.S. labor laws, not to weaken them. H.R.

3441 strips workers of another tool to hold their employers

accountable. A vote for this legislation is a vote against

working people and the right to democratic representation in

the workplace. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3441.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard,

International President.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, trickle-down economics has influenced our policies to redistribute economic power to the top.

My friend and outgoing Executive Director, Larry Mishel has long been at the forefront of developing progressive economic alternatives to counter the popularity and effectiveness of trickle-down theory. Thanks in large part to his research; we know trickle-down policies gave us slower growth and stagnant wages for working families.

Throughout his career--before, becoming President of the Economic Policy Institute--Larry focused on researching the wages of working people and making the case for actions that would raise these wages. He realized how important power was in this equation, and so he argued for measures to improve the rights of working people to organize and bargain for higher wages.

Larry's work on the discrepancy between wages and productivity, and his analysis of skyrocketing CEO pay, were the first of their kind. Larry has expanded on and refined this research over the last 30 years. Larry's recent work focuses on workers' rights and how the erosion of unions has hurt working people--union and non-union alike.

Throughout his career, Larry Mishel has created a necessary counter balance to the ``common knowledge'' Wall Street approach to economic policy in the U.S. He did this through his own research, but also by building EPI up as a research organization willing to take on the conventional wisdom in either party.

We all know the immeasurable contribution Larry and EPI have made to successive campaigns to raise minimum wages at the federal and state levels. For years, EPI's Policy Center has provided the economic analysis of the Progressive Caucus budget. We know the budget adds up, would boost wages, and would, in time, lower the deficit. We know it would build better infrastructure and a better education system because EPI, under Larry's leadership, runs all the numbers for us, and alerts us if our plans threaten to come up short in any way. Larry's contribution is incredibly valuable as it provides a concrete framework for our fight to support working folks across the country.

After 30 years at EPI--15 as President--Larry is stepping aside at the end of 2017. He will continue to provide innovative research on the rights and wages of working people. And, he will remain at EPI as a senior researcher. Thea Lee, who is the incoming President, will have big shoes to fill. However, Thea is the perfect fit to build on Larry's legacy and EPI's work on behalf of low- and middle-income families.

I want to extend a heartfelt thanks to Larry for his years of service, and I look forward to seeing the incredible work he will do in the months and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Baha'i Faith to recognize the two-hundredth year anniversary of the birth of Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah, born in 1817, is the founder of the Baha'i Faith which is currently practiced by people across the world. Its teachings promote oneness and human unity between all people regardless of race, religion, or class.

Baha'u'llah's teachings have proven to be timeless as followers continue to study and practice his teachings two centuries after his birth. As many as five million people make up the Baha'i Faith in virtually every country. This includes Minneapolis and its surrounding areas where members of the faith continue to promote unity and serve their community.

The Baha'i Faith has shown a continued commitment to peace and community globally as well as in Minnesota. I am proud to represent members of their community as they celebrate the two-hundredth year anniversary of Baha'u'llah

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 539.