Floor Statements

I thank Congressman Raskin, and I thank Congresswoman Jayapal.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the House of Representatives has tremendously benefited by these two awesome freshmen who have come in here like gangbusters. I am sure that my classmate and friend of many years from New York, Ms. Yvette Clarke, will agree with me that we are always trying to welcome these folks who have come straight off the campaign trail, because you really know how people are feeling when they come straight off the campaign trail--fresh. I am sure the Congressman from Rhode Island, David Cicilline, agrees.

The people of this country are fundamentally fair folks. Our countrymen and -women believe that everybody ought to be treated with dignity and respect. Yes, we believe that we have to have an economy that works for everybody. Absolutely true. We also believe that people should be treated based on their behavior, based on who they are, based on what they bring, not based on their race, their sex, their gender, their religion. In fact, this idea is enshrined in the Constitution.

The first clause of the First Amendment reads: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Later on in the Constitution, it reads that Congress shall not impose any religious test for participating-- serving--in public office.

In America, you don't have to have one religious belief or another. In America, you can be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or of no faith whatsoever. You can be Baptist; you can be Methodist; you can be whatever you want to be. That is up to you, and it is a private matter. Americans basically understand that this is right because the Framers of the Constitution, people like Thomas Jefferson and others, looked over at some of the Colonies and even looked at some of the conflicts in Europe and said that we don't need to be mixed up--fighting--with each other over religion.

Now, the Framers got a lot of things wrong. They got women's rights wrong; they got race wrong; they got Native American rights wrong. There were many things that they needed to correct in this Nation.

As the great Thurgood Marshall said, we were defective from the start, and we needed to have civil wars and civil rights movements and other movements to make this country the country that it is today.

Yet one thing we did decently in the beginning is with regard to religious freedom--until now. Donald Trump is introducing a religious test for whether or not people can be a part of this American story.

Donald Trump claims: Oh, I don't have a Muslim ban.

Wait a minute, President Trump. Wasn't it you who, on December 7, 2015, said that you were calling for a ban on all Muslims who enter into the United States? Wasn't it you who said it multiple times throughout your campaign? Didn't you say you wanted to have a Muslim database for all of the Muslims who were in the country? Didn't you say you wanted to shutter mosques? You said these things, and now, all of a sudden, you are shy about saying that you are running a Muslim ban.

These people who say, oh, it is not a Muslim ban surprise me because I am, like, I thought you all were proud of it. I thought you were bragging about it. I thought it was how you rode your way into office-- by appealing to people's fears and trying to whip up hostility among different Americans of different faiths and traditions. Yet now, all of a sudden, you are shy about saying what you are doing, which is a Muslim ban. Yes, it is a Muslim ban. Just because it doesn't ban every Muslim everywhere does not mean that the people who are banned are not banned because they are Muslim. That is exactly why they are banned. That is why they are banned.

He was asked on a TV program: Would you give preferential treatment to people of another faith?

He said: Yes, I would give preferential treatment to another faith.

He said it. It is on the record. So don't come telling me how there is no Muslim ban. There is one, and these people who bragged so much about it--I mean Trump and Bannon and all of the rest of them--should not act like there is not a Muslim ban now. There is a Muslim ban. It is a religious test for entry into this country. It is unconstitutional; it is immoral; and it is wrong.

I just want to say to all of my fellow Americans right now, if they can ban Muslims, they can ban Jews; if they can ban Jews, they can ban Seventh-day Adventists; if they can ban Seventh-day Adventists, they can ban Mormons; and if they can ban Mormons, they can ban Catholics. It is wrong, and we should stand up and say that it is wrong and immediately demand that it be repealed right away. I think this is absolutely critical that we do so.

I want to share a story for a moment longer, if the gentleman doesn't mind, because I know we have some really excellent speakers coming right behind me, and I want to yield to them as quickly as I can. I want to share a story about one of the families that has been affected in my own home State of Minnesota.

One person who was prevented from flying to United States this week is a little girl from Somalia whose mother came to Minneapolis as a refugee in 2013. This child was stuck in Uganda without her family because she hadn't been born by the time her mother was granted refugee status. When her mother, Samira, was given permission to come to the United States 4 years ago, she was told to leave her daughter behind with friends of the family in Uganda and apply for reunification in the United States. This little girl was supposed to fly to Minnesota and rejoin her family on Monday. Instead, her flight was canceled because of the Muslim ban.

President Trump is not making our country safer. President Trump is reinforcing the narrative of people who don't like our country.

What does ISIS ultimately say? That America is at war with Islam.

I am here to tell everybody on the planet that America is absolutely not at war with Islam or with any other religion. The American people are of a peaceful nation. The people who live in the United States want to live in harmony with all of the other people of the world; but this particular person who happens to occupy the Presidency doesn't reflect the values that we represent. He doesn't reflect who we are. The thing that he is doing is actually reinforcing the narrative of the people who would mean to do all of us harm no matter what religion we may be.

I just want to sit down now and say: For the sake of this young woman and for the sake of Samira's daughter, who is languishing in Uganda right now and who wants to be reunited with her family, may we please get rid of this ban and get rid of this unlawful executive order?

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes:

Roll call no. 66, I would have voted yes.

Roll call no. 67, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a Budget Resolution later today that makes it possible to take away health coverage from tens of millions of people.

But the Democrats know that this is just the beginning.

Congressional Republicans have started their plans to not just repeal the Affordable Care Act, but to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Republican proposals would threaten nursing home coverage for millions of seniors, undermine comprehensive health care for children by cutting Medicaid, and slash benefits earned after years of hard work.

The CPC and Congressional Democrats will not stand for this. That is why we introduced an amendment that would ensure the Budget Resolution we are voting on today or any future bill can't be used to cut benefits from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, increase the retirement age for these benefits, or privatize Social Security.

But, the majority is not allowing debate or a vote on our amendment.

This sends a clear message: Congressional Republicans are willing to put the lives and futures of millions of children, seniors and working families at risk.

It also puts them on the wrong side of history. Cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is not what the American people want.

President-elect Trump has promised several times that he will not support cuts to these important programs that help millions of Americans make ends meet.

This leaves Congressional Republicans in a tough spot. Whose side are they on?

Will they commit to protecting hard-working Americans? Will they protect America's children? Seniors? What about people with disabilities?

Or, will they yet again cut the benefits of working people so they can give tax breaks to big corporations?

The Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Democrats will not back down. We will oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the CPC amendment to block the House GOP from cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Will House Republicans stand with us?

Today, 55 million older people and people with disabilities have health care because of Medicare.

82 percent of Americans--including 74 percent of Republicans, 88 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents--agree it is critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.

In 2015, 11 million Americans became newly eligible for Medicaid thanks to Medicaid expansion.

If Republicans repeal the ACA, at least 11 million people's Medicaid coverage will be at risk.

The House Republican budget plan far fiscal year 2017 would have cut federal Medicaid funding by $1 trillion--or nearly 25 percent--over ten years. That is in addition to ending Medicaid expansion.

The Urban Institute estimated that the 2012 Ryan proposal would lead states to drop between 14.3 million and 20.5 million people from Medicaid by the tenth year, in addition to the effects of repealing health reform's Medicaid expansion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lori Saroya for her contributions and tireless efforts in promoting justice, civil rights and mutual understanding among the Minnesota Islamic community and all peoples of faith. As Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) Mrs. Saroya has been at the forefront of building coalitions and improving Muslim relations across the state.

Mrs. Saroya was raised in Bloomfield, Iowa. She received her undergraduate degree from St. Catherine University and her Juris Doctor from Hamline University. As a child of the only Muslims in a small town she and her family were subject to messages of hate and unfair treatment. She took these early life experiences and turned them into positive actions. While still in high school Mrs. Saroya organized the Iowa Conference on Islam at the University of Iowa.

Recognizing a lack of Muslim civil rights advocacy groups in Minnesota she decided to fill the void. In 2007, she co-founded the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. The organization has quickly become a powerful voice for Muslim civil liberties and advocacy across the state. CAIR-MN successfully fought for and won the establishment of the Abu Huraira Islamic Center in St. Anthony, MN despite misguided local opposition. CAIR-MN asked the Justice Department to investigate, which led to a negotiated agreement with the city and the opening of a magnificent new center for gatherings and prayer. In 2014, Mrs. Saroya along with members of CAIR-MN led the first ever Jewish-Muslim Youth Day at the Minnesota Legislature. This ground breaking interfaith program trains students on successfully engaging in dialogue with legislators on the pressing issues of racial profiling, immigration, and safe schools. CAIR-MN has become the go-to legal source for those in the Muslim community. Since 2007 the organization has provided hundreds of Muslims with free legal aid and has become a driving force in fighting unlawful discrimination and bullying in work, schools, and the public sphere.

CAIR-MN's outstanding work has been recognized time and time again on the state and national level. Among some of the organization's many awards include the ``Nonprofit Mission and Excellence Anti-Racism Award'' from the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and the ``Pro Bono Difference Maker Award'' from the American Bar Association. It is through achievements such as these that Mrs. Saroya became the recipient of the prestigious Bush Foundation Fellowship for $100,000 in 2014. This fellowship stands as a testament and a capstone to the truly amazing work that Ms. Saroya did in her time as Executive Director. Through this grant she will be able to take even greater leaps in her advocacy work.

Thanks to Ms. Saroya's outstanding efforts and hard work, CAIR-MN has immensely benefited the Muslim community in Minnesota. I applaud Ms. Saroya's extraordinary work in advancing the civil rights of the Muslim community and fostering a more vibrant and culturally understanding Minnesota. On behalf of the people of Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District, I wish you continued success and impact in your future advocacy work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Robert ``Bobby'' Hickman, to recognize his lifetime of persistently fighting for social change and mentoring the youth of our community over many decades.

Born in St. Paul, Minnesota, Robert was a fourth-generation St. Paulite. His father was a descendant of the founders of Pilgrim Baptist Church and his mother came from a family of educators. Robert recognized the importance of his heritage and the deep rooted community ties that were instilled in him at an early age. Hickman served as a mechanical engineer in the Air Force and returned to St. Paul in the 1960's. It was during this tumultuous time of the civil rights movement that Robert became an activist within his community. In 1968 he founded the Inner City Youth League and served as the Executive Director for the next 20 years.

Robert believed in the importance of empowering and educating youth. The Inner City Youth League taught teenagers art, black history, music, and theater. He would sponsor forums to allow African-American youth to question city officials. He even ran a public television show called ``Black Voices'' and trained community members in video production.

Robert often came up with creative ways to protest the powers that be in his community. When the city of St. Paul razed houses for urban renewal he created community gardens out of the vacant plots. He advocated employment programs for young African-Americans, pushed for stronger schools, and protested profiling by police. After his work with Inner City Youth he teamed up with the advocacy and social services group The City Inc. in Minneapolis which opened one of the very first alternative schools in Minnesota.

Robert was more than just an activist; he was truly a community leader. He wore many hats throughout his personal and professional life. He was a small business owner and even an occasional actor playing the role of Frederick Douglas in Minnesota's Juneteenth celebrations. He discovered Buddhism and made trips to Kenya and Ghana. Most recently he worked with the Cultural Wellness Center in Minneapolis with young men, many of whom were referred there by the criminal justice system.

Throughout Robert's life he always continued to overcome divisions between city officials and community members. He was able to overcome cultural, racial, and generational divides to unite people in finding common ground while consistently and persistently supporting the community's black youth.

Robert ``Bobby'' Hickman passed away on January 28, 2015 at the age of 79. His work to improve and inspire the lives of African-American youth will resonate in the hearts and minds of the community for generations to come. He viewed his life's work as a calling and there is no nobler calling than mentoring and empowering our nation's future.

Mr. Speaker, my question to all my colleagues today as I stand before this body is: If we could prevent a humanitarian disaster, would we? Should we?

Right now, Somalia may be on the brink of a preventable humanitarian disaster. My district happens to be home to one of the largest Somali American communities in the world, and it is certainly the largest in the Western Hemisphere.

My constituents have come to me and have explained in very detailed and moving ways that it is time for us to figure out this problem that we have in the United States with helping people remit money that they have earned to their loved ones in the Horn of Africa.

Somali Americans in my district are proud of the progress Somalia has made, as I am and many people around the world are. This is a nation that, for over two decades, had civil war but now has a President, a legislature, and is planning for elections in 2016.

This country is fighting off al Shabaab, a terrorist organization in league with al Qaeda, and this nation has successfully fought off famine and want of many kinds. Now, they are on another kind of problem, and this problem has to do with remittances and the ability of Somali Americans to send money to their loved ones.

It is important to understand that the progress they have made is fragile. We, in the United States, don't need to worry about sending money there right now, although we should, and we have, and we are. We need to just get out of the way to allow Somali Americans to send money to their own loved ones, and our financial system is inhibiting that.

Every year, Somali Americans send about $215 million to Somalia, a figure comparable to the entire U.S. aid package, which is approximately about $200 million a year. Individual Somali Americans send more money than the whole Government of the United States sends there, and that vital pipeline is lifesaving money that is shut off now as we speak.

The bank that provided 60 percent of the remittances or funds sent to Somalia closed accounts of businesses that transfer money from the U.S. to Somalia, and this is catastrophic.

Now, Somali Americans cannot send money to their loved ones, and Somalis can no longer receive money that they depend on for food, for school fees, for medical bills. Many of the financial institutions in the United States have chosen to avoid serving money services businesses that send money to vulnerable nations like Somalia, due to concern that the money could find its way into bank accounts of unsavory money launderers.

The goal of the U.S. financial regulator is good. We want to keep money from the money launderers and the terrorists; but do we arrive at a point where our regulation is so tight that even the legitimate money that we want to flow is being cut off?

I am calling on our government to get together--Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, State Department--and have a real conversation, how we can stop the bad money but also let the good money flow.

As I said, Somalia depends upon this money. It is a very fragile state. It is emerging from being a failed state. If they cut the remittances off, we will see catastrophic results.

One of those catastrophic results will be an opening to groups like al Shabaab, a terrorist group that argues that the United States and the West generally don't want to help Somalia.

We need to stop them from using that recruiting message by figuring out how we can achieve our goals of stopping bad money from flowing and allowing good money to flow. For years, I have been asking for agencies to work with me to prevent this foreseeable tragedy. We need to be creative about finding a solution.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York could use its wire service to process transfers to east Africa; that is a possibility. We could follow the example of the United Kingdom and set up a safe corridors program for banks to safely transfer money while managing risk. We could provide proactive training and assistance for banks that want to serve east African communities. There is no shortage of ideas.

I urge our government to sit down at a table and figure out a way to stop the money launderers and the bad money from flowing, but to certainly allow legitimate remittances to flow. We could prevent a catastrophe if we do.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Republican majority did not allow a single amendment on this bill that benefits powerful financial interests. Members obviously have concerns about elements of this bill--146 members opposed this identical bill last week. A previous version of this bill also earned more than 100 no votes last Congress. The 52 new members who began service last week were not able to offer an amendment either.

These eleven bills make complex legal changes to our financial markets but no member of this Congress was afforded the opportunity to make a change. I offered three different amendments. All were rejected.

My first amendment had the support of Chairman Issa and Representative Polis. If we had more time, Ranking Member Cummings would have added his name. This amendment strikes Section 7. Section 7 moves us backwards in efforts to increase transparency in our financial markets.

Section 7 would exempt more than 70 percent of public companies from complying with the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) requirement. This exemption would completely undermine progress already made by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Going back to the 19th century approach, requiring investors, academics, regulators and the public to read reams of filing papers is definitely not what we should be doing. Instead, we should provide the data in structured data sets available for bulk downloads for comparison and analysis by investors, academics, the regulators and the public.

The SEC has made incredible progress in catching up with more than two dozen other nations that collect information this way. It has also made it easier for firms. A recent study by XBRL.US found that the average cost of submission was only $10,000. In fact, seventy percent of firms in the study reported a cost of less than $10,000.

The costs to individual firms is offset by the benefits those firms will receive because investors have easier access to data to make investment decisions. Society will also benefit by having financial data more readily available.

My second amendment required the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize its CEO pay ratio rule within 60 days of the bill's enactment. CEO pay rose an average of 4% last year. The average CEO earns more than 330 times his or her average employee.

My third amendment highlights what we really need to do to create jobs--end the mindless sequestration cuts which prevent us from making needed investments in infrastructure, housing, basic research, etc. It also strikes the language that further delays the transition to a safer financial system.

It is wrong that bills that help Wall Street and multi-national corporations get fast-tracked while bills that help working families have been slow-walked for years.

(From XBRL.US)

Consequences of XBRL Exemption in H.R. 37--Minimal Savings, Reduced

Transparency and Access to Capital for Small Companies

New York, NY--The goal of Title VII in H.R. 37 is to reduce

the burden on small public companies by delaying the XBRL

(eXtensible Business Reporting Language) formatting

requirement for companies with revenue under $250 million for

a minimum of three years. The XBRL exemption in the bill will

not reduce the burden on small companies.

The savings from an XBRL exemption is only $10,000 per year

for most small companies. A December 2014 study conducted by

XBRL US found that the average annual cost of XBRL filing for

companies defined as ``small companies'' per the U.S.

Securities and Exchange (SEC) definition is $10,406; and 70%

pay $10,000 or less. These figures demonstrate that the

annual cost of XBRL creation is low relative to the benefits

that XBRL formatting can provide. Financial data in XBRL

format is significantly more functional and timely, and

therefore less costly for investors and analysts, than

traditional HTML data, which must be rekeyed and vetted

before use.

The study was based on aggregating annual costs for 1,299

companies, working with 14 separate service providers,

geographically dispersed around the country. The dataset

captures 32% of all companies with the small company

designation.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are about to cast votes on a bill that I believe will make Wall Street a little freer to make risky bets for a few more years: Where were we 6 years ago?

Well, let me just give you a blast from the past with some headlines. From The Wall Street Journal, on January 7, 2009, ``ADP Reports 693,000 Private Sector Jobs Lost''; CNN, January 9, 2009, ``Worst Year for Jobs Since '45''; Bloomberg, January 8, 2009, ``December's Job Loss Was Bad. But How Bad?''; in The New York Times, February 14, 2009, ``Job Losses Pose a Threat to Stability Worldwide.''

President Obama hadn't been in office. This was other stuff, mistakes

that had happened in the past connected to deregulation of Wall Street.

We were staring down the worst recession since the Great Depression. Today, we are about to embark back down that path to deregulate Wall Street again. Don't do it.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is still very young. This Congress

that we are in right now began last week when we were gaveled in and we were sworn in. It has taken very little time for my Republican colleagues to begin to message to the American people just where they stand.

The things we have seen last week from the very beginning--one thing we saw was an effort in the rules package which prohibited Social Security from sending money over to the Social Security disability fund. This has been done many times before; it is routine. It will certainly create pressure and undermine and create real damage and a scary situation for people who are on Social Security disability payments and who survive on it based on their documented, recorded illness.

But they didn't stop there. The very next day they began to erode the financial protections that protect Americans from the massive collapse that took place on Wall Street in 2008. Already they want to dismantle and chip away at the Volcker rule, a very commonsense rule which says that big banks that hold collateralized loan obligations have to move these big assets, these big financial instruments, outside of their banking business, wherein they have protected assets by the FDIC.

No sooner than we did that, the very next day we moved on to dismantling the Affordable Care Act, making it so you don't get health care coverage, can't mandate health care coverage until someone works 40 hours, as opposed to 30, which meant that there will be people who will lose out on health care coverage from their employer.

And the next day, we were here with the Keystone pipeline. They tried to push that under a bill that wasn't really a pure Keystone bill. It didn't have things like spill protection.

And then here we are this week about to see a bill on the floor very soon which will essentially prioritize Republican gamesmanship over immigration. It will prioritize that over our homeland security. The Homeland Security bill, this bill we passed last year, late last year-- you may recall something called the CR/Omnibus bill. It was a CR omnibus bill. We passed a whole series of funding bills for a year's time, except for one particular bill. And the bill that is due to expire is the Homeland Security bill.

Now in the wake of Paris happening just a few days ago, the horrific murder, carnage, and barbaric behavior by terrorists that happened just a few days ago, we now are facing a big fight on what of all things-- homeland security? And why are we having this big fight? It's because the Republicans want to show President Obama that they are not going to allow him to use executive authority that is well within his power to do.

Presidents have always used executive authority. The Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln was executive authority. The bills that Ronald Reagan passed used executive authority many more times than President Obama has. So has George W. Bush. It is routine. Presidents issue executive orders.

President Obama has done some because the Republican majority has refused to move on comprehensive immigration reform. He has used his authority to prioritize the deportation of criminals, people who have committed crimes, over kids who are valedictorians, and he has done this well within his right as the chief executive officer of this country.

And because the Republicans don't like the executive orders, because they have very divisive views, in my opinion, on immigration, they have decided to have a very short Homeland Security funding bill, which is putting us in a position where we are either going to capitulate and back off on things that the President wants to do or we are going to pass a Homeland Security bill with a lot of things in it that would be damaging to the action that the President has already taken.

Let me tell you, some of the things in the Homeland Security bill are of huge concern to me. I will just share just a few of them. One of them is the Blackburn amendment. The Blackburn amendment would prohibit the use of funds to continue for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Pay close attention to this bill. This is not what the American people want. We urge the American people to pay close attention, and I intend to vote against these Republican measures.

``. . . and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

What is before us today is a mini omnibus bill that contains, actually, 11 separate pieces of legislation, some of which may not be controversial but some of which are incredibly controversial and do not belong in this legislation. This is not an emergency. We have a new Congress. This bill should go through the regular order. Unlike the TRIA bill we just talked about, this bill is a bill which should and must go through the regular order, and it is absolutely inappropriate for the suspension calendar.

Our Republican friends would have us believe that this is just some benign piece of legislation, yet this bill contains not only procedural problems but substantive problems which have never seen the light of day in any committee. Some of the legislation has only been public for about 24 hours, and what is particularly frightening is that the text of the bill has changed at least three times since Tuesday. We just got started yesterday in talking about the importance of regular order, and we are already violating those claims and promises.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives should return to regular order with this piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Regular order, whereby legislation is debated at a hearing, marked up by a committee, and then finally considered by the whole House, is the process by which we vet legislation. That is not going on right here and right now, and there is no good reason for it. We do this to ensure that we fully understand the changing law. Nevertheless, Republicans have come here to suspend the rules and to consider a package of 11 bills which will ease the oversight of Wall Street firms, large banks, multinational corporations, and certain brokers.

It should be pointed out right now that the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, who is unable to be in Washington due to personal matters she has to address, has issued a call to reject this piece of legislation for many of the reasons I am articulating now.

I think it is also important to point out that there are 52 Members of Congress who were sworn in yesterday and who represent more than 30 million Americans who will have to vote on bills affecting a collateral firm's pledge, when they borrow money, affecting what information must be disclosed about certain brokers and financial statements of firms, without the opportunity to offer changes. This is the absolute antithesis of regular order, and this bill is not appropriate. We urge a ``no.''

I would like to talk a little bit about the specific reasons this bill is bad. Members should know that this is not the identical bill that came through in the fall. It has very important changes. If you voted for it last fall, that is no reason to vote for this bill now.

First, the Volcker rule. This bill undercuts an important part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Volcker rule was intended to prevent deposit-taking banks--banks that use money insured by the Federal Government, the people's money--from making bets

and using taxpayer-insured funds. The Federal Reserve went out of its way to try to ease the transition to a safer system, but this bill would give megabanks an additional 2 years, totaling 5 years, to sell off certain securities in which they retain ownership rights--5 more years of risk, 5 more years of massive profit-taking. This provision, which almost certainly juices the profits of big, megabanks like Citigroup and JPMorgan, has never been vetted. The public has not even had a day to review the text. It is wrong that bills that help Wall Street and multinational corporations get fast-tracked on day 2 of this Congress while bills that help working families get slowed up for years, literally.

Just last month, Republicans successfully handed Citigroup and other megabanks a multibillion-dollar gift by repealing another reform measure, known as the ``swaps push-out,'' which was intended to prevent another Great Recession. The repeal of that provision allowed the megabanks to continue to borrow money from the Federal Reserve lending window, which is currently at about zero percent interest, to finance their risky derivatives. Experts have weighed in. Let me read for the Record the statement by the CEO of Better Markets:

``It's all about the bonus pool,'' said Dennis Kelleher,

president and CEO of Better Markets, a financial reform

nonprofit. ``The attack on the Volcker rule has been nonstop

because proprietary trading is about big-time bets that

result in big-time bonuses. Wall Street has been fighting it

from day one, and they're not going to stop.''

If you believe that there are things in this mini omnibus, or this megabill, that might be worth your support, understand that this particular provision has not been vetted anywhere. For that reason alone they are literally trying to sneak it in, and you should vote against it.

Also, this particular bill includes three other provisions that weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These provisions take away the authority of regulators who are charged with ensuring that everybody plays by the same rules so that, if at some point in the future, we find out that our financial system is threatened, our regulators will be unable to take decisive action to fix the problems that they can fix today.

After witnessing the effect that one type of derivative--the credit default swap--had in spreading losses from the subprime mortgage market around the world, I would like to know why our first order of business in this Congress is to roll back the financial reforms that this Congress deliberated on and passed over an 18-month period following the 2008 financial crisis.

This bill undermines investor protections. It includes three provisions that have the potential to leave investors worse off than they are today. As we proclaim small investors and workers and all of these things, why are we undermining investor protections? In one instance, the bill exempts individuals who would broker a merger of a privately owned company to be exempt from SEC regulations. Since this legislation passed in a previous Congress, the SEC has taken action to make this unnecessary. However, if we pass this bill today, we will undermine a few basic investor protections that the SEC has retained.

For example, the SEC determined that bad actors, such as convicted securities fraudsters, should not be able to take advantage of a carve- out. However, by voting ``yes,'' you are saying that it is okay for people convicted of fraud to sell other things, like franchises or the restaurant down the street. Another provision would allow 75 percent of all public companies to no longer report their financial statements in computer readable formats. When everything is online today and when investors rely on computers to crunch the financials of various companies, this bill comes across as a huge step backwards.

My colleagues want to address this bill, and I think it is important that they do. So, at this point, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and an active participant on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is the former subcommittee ranking member on the Oversight Committee and is an active member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how much time does the Democratic side have remaining?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee for the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, H.R. 4167 passed. I voted against it, but it is not the same as the language in title VIII which is in this bill today, which extends by 2 years the delay we requested, totaling 5 years. It is not the same legislation. This bill, title VIII, has not passed before. It is new.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this big bill may have some things that are not bad, but it also contains a bill that delays protection of our economy and families from Wall Street gambling, and it should be voted down.

We urge a very strong ``no'' on this bill. Go back, do it right, follow the process, regular order, and maybe we could make some progress here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sarah Deer to congratulate her on receiving the 2014 MacArthur Foundation Fellowship. This grant is given to individuals who show extraordinary dedication and originality in their field, as well as exceptional promise for continuing their work in the future. Ms. Deer demonstrated these qualities through her advocacy and knowledge of tribal and federal

law to develop policies and legislation that empower tribal nations to protect Native American women from sexual and domestic violence.

Ms. Deer is a nationally recognized activist and expert in the movement to end violence against Native American women, a professor of law, and co-director of the Indian Law Clinic at William Mitchell College of Law. As a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, she works with grassroots and national organizations to protect Native American victims of violence.

Receiving the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship is a testament to Ms. Deer's outstanding work. This includes membership on the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Domestic Violence and the board of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. In 2007, Ms. Deer led Amnesty International's report, Maze of Injustice, which cast domestic violence as an international human rights problem. Her efforts were instrumental in passing the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, giving tribal courts the power to prosecute non-Native Americans who assault Native American spouses or dating partners, or violate a protection order on tribal lands.

Ms. Deer has exhibited exceptional devotion to a worthy cause and continues to improve countless lives. I appreciate all that she has done to serve our nation, and I thank her for her exemplary work. She deserves this honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 4926, to designate a segment of Interstate Route 35 in the State of Minnesota as the ``James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway.'' This legislation would designate the segment of Interstate Route 35 between milepost 133 at Forest Lake, Minnesota, and milepost 259 at Duluth, Minnesota, as the ``James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway.''

Renaming these highways is a good way to memorialize Congressman Oberstar's contributions to Minnesota and our country. Born to an underground miner from Chisholm, Minnesota, Jim Oberstar served as a representative for the state of Minnesota for 36 years, totaling 18 terms from 1975 to 2011. He is the

longest-serving congressman in Minnesota history.

During his over thirty years of service to our state, Jim always put Minnesotans first. He was a public servant above all else. He had a gifted mind and an uncanny memory that helped him master a number of languages, including Haitian Creole. Jim's passion for helping people get from one place to another safely was contagious and his vision for Minnesota's future lives on as the projects he fought for as chairman of the Transportation Committee remain in Minnesota today.

After the Interstate 35 Bridge collapsed in Minnesota, Jim authored legislation which authorized $255 million without delay to begin the recovery and rebuilding process. His effective leadership was essential in that time of crisis. In addition to helping rebuild the I-35 Bridge, Jim was responsible for the Gitchi-Gami trail along Lake Superior's North Shore, the lakewalk in Duluth, and the 120-mile long Paul Bunyan bike trail.

Jim Oberstar embodied the Minnesotan values of public service, selflessness and compassion. His spirit, ideas and energy are deeply missed. For these reasons, I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 558 on H.R. 4681, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

I thank the gentleman from New York for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that the Iranian Government must improve the status of

human rights in their country. Let's not pretend though that this resolution is taking place at this time outside of any context. There is a context, and the context is that we are closer than we have ever been to reaching a peaceful agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons.

I don't know what is going to happen on November 24, and I suspect the people who do know aren't telling the public just yet, but I do know that we have made substantial progress and that we are close.

The context is important that we should stand with the people of Iran and stand for their human rights. I absolutely believe that that is the right thing to do; therefore, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this.

I have to ask the question: Is this the most well-timed time for this resolution? I do worry that we could undermine the negotiations, but the four corners of this resolution are right, so I am a ``yes'' vote.

I think today's resolution, which highlights the human rights abuses in Iran, also could be improved if it included words and language about the best way to bring those abuses to an end.

I believe improving human rights in Iran is much more likely if we secure a nuclear agreement. The best way to empower human rights leaders within Iran is to engage, not isolate.

Increased sanctions and the threat of war hurts human rights activists because it allows the hard-liners in Iran to claim that they are under imminent threat and, therefore, there is no time or space or room for human rights. I believe that a nuclear agreement will actually increase the likelihood for human rights advocacy.

I don't want to see us go back to the days when we talked in terms of the ``axis of evil.'' It didn't improve the set freedom and security of Americans or anyone. I liked the fact that we have embarked on the path of diplomacy.

President Rouhani has prioritized diplomacy, and I think this is an important opportunity that we should pursue.

In the final analysis, human rights are what the United States should always stand for, and we in this Congress should never not stand for human rights. I am proud that we are clear on human rights in this resolution.

I simply want to admonish and warn us that taking action that could undermine very delicate negotiations may not be the best timing that we have ever pursued and that for the last 30 years--and I hope for the next 30 years--we will always raise the banner of human rights whenever and wherever, but I think we should be sensitive of the reality of the moment that we are in.

Let me just say thank you to the brave souls who stand up for human rights under very difficult conditions in Iran.