Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with the support of the chairpersons of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus.

This amendment would prevent funding from law enforcement agencies that engage in discriminatory profiling based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

It would also prevent the use of funds to repeal the December 14 revised profiling guidance issued by the Department of Justice. Discriminatory profiling is wrong. It doesn't help prevent crime. It creates a culture of fear and resentment within our community. It is contrary to the core constitutional principles, and the Federal dollars shouldn't be spent perpetuating this activity.

I commend the work of Attorney General Holder to revise profiling guidance, and I believe that we must do more to close the remaining loopholes in profiling guidance.

You shouldn't be able to profile at the border. You shouldn't be able to map people without cause. You shouldn't be able to use national security as an excuse to engage in prejudicial policing.

And we need comprehensive antiprofiling legislation like the End Racial Profiling Act introduced by the dean of this Congress, John Conyers. In the absence of such comprehensive reform, we should at least prevent Federal funds from being used to discriminate against citizens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I will close and just say that racial profiling has no place, and we urge a ``yes'' vote for the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment which says that the moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress should go to contractors who deal fairly with workers and who do not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This particular amendment is not an allegation; it only applies to contractors who have been found in violation, who have been forced to disclose those violations based on the requirements of law and their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using funds in this bill to hire contractors with wage theft violations.

Madam Chair, we live in a time when it is so hard for workers all across this Nation to make a living. People go to bed at night calculating whether they are going to be able to meet their monthly expenses. If the work that they do can't even be fully paid because they are victims of wage theft by an unscrupulous employer, I think that the Federal Government should not be doing business with that employer.

The fact of the matter is that in this appropriation, we should reserve Federal money for the millions of contractors who do an honest contract, who provide the Federal Government with good work. Evidence suggests that wage theft is widespread and costs workers billions of dollars every year--greater than the cost of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, and other sorts of problems.

Wage theft among Federal contractors is also a problem. Federal contractors are among America's companies that we rely on to discharge good service. But that service should be within the law; that service should be honoring the work that workers do. And Federal contractors, some of them, certainly not all, but some have had a problem in this area.

A national employment law project found that nearly one in three low-wage contractors in the D.C. area reported stolen wages.

A report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee revealed that 35 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.

Now, there are many excellent Federal contractors. These people should not have to compete with companies that circumvent the requirements of the law. In total, those Federal contractors who did had to repay employees $82.1 million in back wages for violations between 2007 and 2012. Despite these violations, many of these same companies received Federal contracts again in 2012.

The fact of the matter is that wage theft is wrong, and the people who engage in it shouldn't receive Federal funds. I hope that all Members will agree that a dollar earned is a dollar that must be paid and that the United States of America only wants to do business with contractors that obey the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the companies that the gentleman has identified ought to obey the Fair Labor Standards Act. Every company that does business with the United States Government ought to pay its workers fairly.

Federal contracts are lucrative, and Federal contracts make people rich. At the very least, those companies and those individuals who benefit from those contracts ought to make sure that their workers get paid properly.

The fact of the matter is that this is an appropriation from this year. It doesn't bar them in the future from applying for Federal contracts again, and if they should prove to have really cleaned up their acts, we can have a conversation about that.

I am afraid, Madam Chair, that if we do not pass this amendment, we will be telling all of the honest, hard-working contractors that you don't need to obey the law, that you can just do whatever.

Companies that don't obey the Fair Labor Standards Act and steal workers' wages actually gain a competitive advantage on the companies that do obey the law. I don't think that is anything that any one of us would like to see happen, so I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this; say ``no'' to wage theft.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source