Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Oh, yeah.

Mr. ELLISON. I would say, and we have about maybe 5 or 6 more minutes to go tonight. I just want to say it's always a pleasure to be on the floor with the difference makers, the majority makers. It's an honor to be able to stand in front of the American people and to project a progressive vision that includes us all, that allows us to share in a common good and a common wealth together and also allows us to, you know, embrace the fact that we are an economy, that our society embraces the free market as well, that we look at these two things as complementary and not one superior to the other, that we see them as something that enhances our life together. And I just want to say, as you mentioned, Mr. Yarmuth, that I don't think Americans want to be under a corporatocracy. I think we like our national identity. And I'll say that you should know that before the 1870s, the corporate entity was nothing close to what it is today. As a matter of fact, you couldn't even own one unless the charter was issued by the State, the same as it is today. That's the thing; we think of these things as somehow natural or inevitable, but corporations are creatures of the State. Without a State charter, they don't exist. And we should say that corporations should ask, does it work, does it make money, and is it the right thing to do? That is a perfectly legitimate question. And I look forward to the day when that question is asked by all of us. So with that, I again thank you two gentlemen, and also salute the majority makers. And I look forward to a day when we have a cooperative and productive relationship with the executive.

Mr. ELLISON. That's why I really believe that we need a philosophy and a President who believes in the philosophy of the common good. The common good because, you know, as Representative Yarmuth refers to infrastructure, that's another word for our common wealth. That's our common wealth. That's what we all own together. That's the roads, the bridges, the dikes, the levees, the transit. That's the universities, the public school system. That could be a health care system that we own together, that's ours. And that's all of these things that when we invest in them, they pay dividends back. Like you just said, that military spending is a one-way good. You shoot that bullet, and it's gone. But when you build that road, all of us who use it for even just our businesses, just to truck stuff over it, are using it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who go to school on it, that's a return on investment. Those of us who use it just for recreation, that's a return on our investment. It's our common wealth, and we need to get back to the idea that, you know, America is a country where we have our common good and we share it, and we believe it and we have a common wealth that we share and we keep and we promote. And our market is a part of the common wealth, but it's in service to the people of the country. It's in service to tap into the creativity and the productive power of the people so that they can produce goods and services for the people of this country. Our markets are another, not just to produce goods and services, but to improve our social life because in that way, when I'm allowed to do my thing, right, I can be more happy, more productivity, more creative. And if I had health care and if I had a pension and if I had a school system that my kids could go to, boy, I could sit in that garage and come up with all kind of cool stuff. The fact is we've got to get back to this place where it's about the common good, it's about the common wealth, and not about just me for me and I don't care about anybody else. Greed essentially elevated to a political philosophy, we've got to get away from that. It has not served us well.

Mr. ELLISON. You put your finger on a very important issue. You used the word ``philosophy,'' and I think it's a good time to talk about the philosophical framework that I believe is crumbling before our eyes. The idea that the middle class doesn't matter, that the wealthiest among us--and let me just tell you, I'm one who says, thank God that you were able to do really, really well. I'm not against people in the top 1 percent. I mean, I'm like great. But I think people in the top 1 percent say, you know what, I climbed up the ladder and I'm going to leave it there so other people can climb up the ladder, too. But the philosophy that I think we have seen over the last 8 years is the philosophy that says, you know what, we're going to give every opportunity, every incentive to the people at the very tiptop; we're not going to make sure people in the middle are making it. And what eventually happens is that those people there in the middle don't have anymore money to spend. They are now spending out of debt, and then what happens is that they can't even afford the basic necessities of life, which then is going to have an impact on the consumer sector and on corporate America. Seventy percent of the whole GDP is what we spend, consumer spending, but we ain't got no money. And so the point is, we are literally killing the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to say that we need new politics where the market is a part of our life but not a holy, sacred grail. The market helps to propel productivity, but is not all there is. But we have alongside the market, a regulated market, a market that makes sure that competition is present, a market that says that consumers cannot just get stuck and gouged and pinched and pulled and taken advantage of, and a market that says that we want to have innovation and room for small producers so that there's this competition over goods and services and brand and innovation and, of course, price. We need a new market that has the middle class as the VIP of this economy, not the CEO.

Mr. ELLISON. I've got to ask the gentleman to yield on this one. What is the opinion of you two esteemed gentlemen on the $40.7 billion ExxonMobil cleared? I mean, that's not revenue, that's profit, and yet and still, this President does not want to take away their incentives, their oil subsidies. What kind of sense does that make? Can somebody please rescue me from my ignorance?

Mr. ELLISON. What do you think about an energy policy that would incentivize the production of cars that get 100 miles to the gallon? They're out there. The technology is there. There are a lot of things that we're looking at here in Congress that could help people go a long way. You plug that thing in at night when the load is a little lower, nonpeak hours. What about getting some of these light bulbs that don't use as much energy? What about converting some of these old windy buildings so they don't waste as much energy?

Mr. ELLISON. I think you're right, Mr. Yarmuth, and I appreciate you pointing that point out. The article 1, that's kind of our theme this year, isn't it? Reasserting the power of the legislative branch. I want to pick up on a theme that Dr. Kagen mentioned a moment ago as he was laying out how he was speaking with some workers in northern Wisconsin. I was talking with some workers in Minneapolis recently, and we're kind of like cousins, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Folks had talked about how their pay has been stagnant and they haven't seen much of a pay increase except in the late nineties. But the prices of everything seems to be going up: health care, housing prices, and all of that. And what people did in the early part of this decade is they were able to get money out of their houses, right, which has led us into the foreclosure crisis. But what are people doing now that housing prices are flat? Well, they're turning to credit cards. Charge it. They're putting it on the plastic. And I think this is a big deal because I think we need to know that people are essentially consuming not out of savings, they're consuming out of pay-day loans, credit cards. They used to do it out of the equity of their houses. And this is a serious problem, and people cannot consume out of their savings but have to consume out of debt. And what it has caused us in our economy today, gentlemen, is that we have seen the credit card debt jump from 6.7 percent in the first quarter of this year, a credit card increase of 6.7 percent in the first quarter of this year to a whopping $957.2 billion. This is a very serious issue for our economy. That's why we need a high-wage strategy. We need to put more money in people's pockets by reducing the costs of education, housing, health care, gasoline, and by saying that folks are going to have a fair, decent wage that they're going to be able to earn; and we need a strategy to pull those things together for the American people.

Mr. ELLISON. Did the rising tide lift our boats?

Mr. ELLISON. As we talk about this merger of Northwest Airlines and Delta, I have a number of serious concerns I'd like to point out. One is that Northwest has a pilots' union, has a mechanics' union, has an airline attendants' union. Delta only has an airline pilots' union. And the fact is that Delta is the bigger entity. And so when they merge, what will happen with these organizations that are designed to make sure working people have some rights? I'm very concerned about that. And I think that's one of the reasons why I think--and I hope and pray we can pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which we already passed through this House, but we have not yet been able to make into law. I'm also concerned that Delta and Northwest in the future, if they merge, will never compete based on price or based on product. They will never compete because they will be one entity. They won't make each other better, and they won't make each other more efficient. They're just going to bond together and make some money. And of course, they're quite candid, and they tell you they are going to merge so they can get efficiencies. So what is that? Well, that means somebody is getting fired. That means somebody's got to go. You can't have two Employee Relations offices; you can't have two H.R. offices. Can't have two of everything. Somebody is going to go. And at the end of the day, a lot of folks who are paying property taxes, who are raising families, who are doing well, are going to be out of work and lose their jobs. So I'm very concerned about this. I'm concerned about what consumers are going to pay in terms of ticket prices. I'm concerned about loss of jobs. I'm concerned about the fact that this Justice Department has never seen a merger that it didn't like, and we are seeing an increasing monopolization, oligopolization of our, what should be, competitive markets. And I would love to see some of these free-market advocates get out there and fight for a competitive market. They seem to not be in favor of competitive markets. They seem to be in favor of really big business, not competitive markets, not free enterprise. These are things that are on my mind, and I think Americans want to know what is this Justice Department going to be about. Because as I wrap up and toss it back to you, I would like to ask you gentlemen a question. Did you know that in 1980, the average CEO made about 42 times the average worker; but in 2005, which is the last year I have data, the average CEO made about 411 times the average worker? That is a problem. What do you guys think of that?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the great State of Kentucky. He has been helping to lead our majority-maker class in this leg of our two-term service, and has been doing a fine job of it. As I start, I want to invoke the memory of two young men, one Robert Dixon and another one, Quising Lee. These are two young men who are from Minneapolis who were killed in Iraq. There have been 64 Minnesotans killed in Iraq, and Robert Dixon and Quising Lee are two gentlemen who lived in my district. I'll never forget when I went to go see Quising Lee's family after he was killed. He went to North High School. He was 20 years old when he died, and he was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq. Robert Dixon was killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq as well. I wasn't able to go to see Robert Dixon's funeral. I was here. My wife went for me. Kim, thank you for doing that. And she sat there and listened to stories about Robert Dixon and his life and his service to our country and the things he hoped for and wanted. But I did get a chance to visit the family and go to the funeral of Quising Lee. Quising Lee, 20 years old when he was killed, went to North High School, had his whole life in front of him. Only 20 years old. It's in the memory of those two young men from Minneapolis that I offer remarks tonight, and on behalf of those 64 Minnesotans that have been killed, and on behalf of those 4,500-some individuals, Americans who've been killed in Iraq, and on behalf of those, probably as many as perhaps 600,000, perhaps even 1 million Iraqis who've lost their lives in Iraq. That's the spirit in which I approach tonight, my fellow majority makers, because, as you know, tomorrow is the big day we're going to be voting on Iraq appropriation once again. Just for the facts, I think it's important to point out this will be a three-tier vote. One will be on appropriation for Iraq. I'll be voting ``no.'' The second will be on certain terms and conditions to get out of Iraq. I'll be voting ``yes'' on that. And the third will be appropriations for GI bill and things like that, and I expect to be voting ``yes'' on that. And so I want to just lay this out tonight because I think people that are listening should know that tomorrow is a big deal. Tomorrow is a big day. We're all going to be casting votes, votes, I pray, of conscience, votes that are not based on licking a finger and sticking it in the wind, votes that we earnestly believe in. No matter what you may conclude about how you should vote tomorrow, I pray that you do it based on your conscience, consistent with your conscience. And as we sit here tonight, you know, I reflect on the fact that I've been to Iraq once, been to Afghanistan once, look forward to going back. I think it's the responsibility of every Member of Congress to see the place that we have these soldiers struggling to survive in. I don't think it's right to just send somebody there and then just expect that they're going to be fine. We should at least go there, eat with them, sit with them, listen to them, their hopes, dreams, aspirations, what they hope to do if they make it out of there. I think it's important for us, as Members of Congress, to go to the VA hospitals in our local communities and here in Washington, DC. I think that what we're dealing with is serious issues, life and death. And more importantly, perhaps most importantly for me, we're dealing with issues of how our Nation works in relation with other nations in the world. I believe that the United States should aspire to be a good neighbor in the world. I believe that our country, blessed with tremendous economic power, blessed with tremendous democracy, meaning not just elections, but the power to respect minority rights, the power to respect religious diversity, ethnic diversity. In America, we're not saying that people don't discriminate, but it's illegal if you do it, and good people fought and even died to make it so. So I hope that tonight, as we reflect upon our great Nation, we reflect upon our role in the world, reflect upon not only the hard power but the soft power of America; that we all reflect on the sacrifices that were made to make it that way; and that we say that American history is not written yet, and that greater things are left for us to do. And the greatness of this country is not bound up in guns and bombs, but, my friends, it's bound up in the goodness of the people and our desire to say that we cannot rest on having a democracy at home, but we should model it for the world, but not impose it or inflict it upon the world; and that we are not the world's police officer, but we could be a good example for what people might want to emulate, and that we should use our power to beat swords into plowshares and make war no more. I'll be voting ``no'' on that appropriation tomorrow. And so I just want to turn it back, as we reflect tonight, as I reflect on the lives of Robert Dixon and Quising Lee. I know my friends from Kentucky and Wisconsin have some young people, or not so young people who they're remembering tonight as well. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. ELLISON. That's the problem. He just doesn't know that oil is not $55 a barrel, but actually hit about $126 a barrel. He just doesn't know. Somebody ought to send him a news flash.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me ask you this, do you think there will come a day when the folks in the White House might just say, they might not need that subsidy after all?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, it was on May 7, the day of the Indiana primary election just last Tuesday, I believe that was May 5, excuse me, May 5, that 12 nuns came to the voting booth to cast a ballot in the election. These nuns, women of the cloth, women who have dedicated their lives to prayer and service, only wanted to vote but were barred from doing so by Indiana's photographic identification law. This law, which is the most stringent in the United States, the most stringent of any State, requires that before you can cast a ballot, you must present a government-issued photographic identification card. This 98-year-old nun, American citizen, devoted to her country and her faith, was denied along with 11 of her colleagues. I'm disappointed to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this problem didn't have to happen. Only a few days before this Indiana photographic ID law was put in place, the United States Supreme Court reviewed this law and found that it was reasonable for Indiana to force citizens to provide such identification. Now, Madam Speaker, you might say, well, isn't this designed to just stop voter fraud? The answer is ``no,'' Madam Speaker. In the United States Supreme Court decision, the Justice that wrote the majority opinion admitted and acknowledged that there was no evidence of voter impersonation. And in fact, Madam Speaker, this bill was a bill to solve a problem that simply did not exist at all. This bill was confronting a mythical voter fraud that worked only to stop 12 nuns and many others from voting. The bill that required the photographic ID clearly would disenfranchise people who were low-income and didn't have a photographic ID. It clearly would, and did, disenfranchise older Americans who may not have an ID or maybe were born at home and can't even find a birth certificate, which is what they would need to get such a photographic ID. It would clearly bar college students, who maybe haven't gotten a driver's license yet, from voting. In effect, this bill prohibited people from voting who need a change in America. It stopped seniors who are against the donut hole of the prescription drug, Prescription Medicare Part D that is hurting our seniors. It's barring their way to the ballot box. It's barring our students' way to the ballot box as they struggle to confront galloping tuition increases and mounting debt. It's barring the rights of our citizens who cry for greater civil and human rights in our country. And it's basically standing in the way of voters who need a fairer, more equal, more just society. The fact is, Madam Speaker, I wish those people who pushed this law forward would have simply admitted that they don't want to debate the ideas, they just want to stop voters from getting to the ballot box. They don't want to debate whether or not it makes sense to help rich people get even richer, to help big corporations get even bigger. They don't want to debate that. They just want to stop the people who would be opposed to their ideas from them ever being able to cast a ballot. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the New York Times which, on May 13, submitted this editorial: The Myth of Voter Fraud. And what this editorial shows is it is not just Indiana but many other States which are requiring this absolutely unneeded, unneeded photographic ID requirement. States like Missouri, Kansas, Florida, South Carolina, and now others are considering these bills. They must and should be stopped. They're not intended to stop fraud. In fact, if there's any fraud going on, Madam Speaker, it is that people in the category that I mentioned, the senior citizens, communities of color, low-income people, students, those people are being defrauded because actively in almost every election, we've seen schemes and devises reminiscent of Jim Crow to bar them from the ballot box. And so, Madam Speaker, I ask you and all of the Members of this House to consider a bill that will preempt the Supreme Court's decision in the decision that upheld the Indiana voter law. It's what we need. It would improve the quality of democracy in our country. And as I close, Madam Speaker, I just want to say our country is a great one not because of bombs and guns and a huge economy, it's a great country because this country has been advancing liberty ever since its inception. In the beginning of this country, Madam Speaker, you and I know that only white men of property were able to vote. Just being a white male would not get you the vote. But then we saw the Jacksonian Revolution, and people without property could vote; and then we saw the Civil War come, and then black men could vote; and then we saw the 19th amendment, and then women could vote. And then we saw the barring of the 24th amendment which said that no more poll taxes could stand in the way of people voting. And then we saw the amendment that allowed people 18 years old to vote. Every generation we've seen increases in the right to vote except for this one. It's a sad day, Madam Speaker. I yield back, and I call on this Congress to keep the doors to the voting booth open for all Americans.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, let me start by thanking Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters for bringing this critical and much-needed legislation to the floor. I'm proud to have worked with both of them on this important legislation which represents the most comprehensive response yet in the American mortgage crisis. The package of housing measures that we will vote on today and that I proudly support will help thousands of families facing foreclosure keep their homes. This bill will ultimately help other families avoid foreclosures in the future and help recovery of communities harmed by empty homes caught in the foreclosure crisis. This legislation comes before us at an important time in the mortgage foreclosure and housing crisis. The Pew Center has stated that between seven to eight thousand people per day are filing for foreclosure. Hennepin County alone, which is the largest county in the Fifth District of Minnesota that I represent, has experienced a 54 percent increase in foreclosures from the year before. Statewide foreclosures have risen by 39 percent. The legislation we're considering today establishes a $15 billion HUD-administered loan and grant program for the purpose of rehabilitation of vacant, foreclosed homes with the goal of occupying them as soon as possible. Madam Chairman, let me just say this: The fact of the matter is that for the people who paid every single mortgage payment and were never late even one time, they are suffering because of this mortgage crisis because they live on a block with foreclosed homes. This bill saves money. Can you imagine the cost to a city, in terms of fire, police and public works resources, just to be able to deal with a home that's foreclosed on a block? This is saving money. This is actually improving the quality of life for people all over America. And this amount of money that we will spend on this bill will pay thousand- fold in terms of quality of life for people all over this country. And so I'm proud to be able to associate myself with this bill, proud to be able to say that when the people of America face a serious foreclosure crisis that is affecting not just the victims of foreclosure, but others, we responded.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, every day between 7,000 and 8,000 people file for foreclosures on their homes. In the next 2 years, one in 33 homeowners is projected to be in foreclosure as a result of subprime loans. But the housing crisis doesn't only affect families losing their homes. An additional 40 million neighboring homeowners could see their property values drop, with 44 percent of all homeowners likely to feel the ripple effect of foreclosures from subprime loans. And the overall impact does not end in the housing market. The ripple effects are felt throughout the economy with a reduction in economic activity and severe job loss. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot turn our Nation's economy around without properly addressing the housing crisis, and that is exactly what we plan to do this week. Today, House Democrats will bring a package of housing bills to the House floor that will address the current housing crisis, while also seeking to prevent the problem from getting worse. These bills are the appropriate response to a problem that is affecting our families, our communities and our overall economy. I hope it receives the bipartisan support that it deserves, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, today is National Teachers Day, and Mr. Ramstad and I want to pay tribute to all of America's dedicated, talented and energetic teachers who have so much influence on our Nation's children and our country's future. We thank them for their sacrifice, selfless devotion to young people and their public service. We want to call special attention today to one such teacher, Minnesota's ``Teacher of the Year,'' Carleen Gulstad. Carleen, who lives in Maple Grove, teaches language arts at Hopkins North Jr. High School in Minnetonka, which serves the families of both the 3rd and 5th Congressional Districts. She has been teaching 8th and 9th grade students in English classes at Hopkins North since 1999. Carleen is truly most deserving of this distinguished honor from Education Minnesota. The award was announced Sunday, May 4, at its 44th annual awards program in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Madam Speaker, Carleen says that one of her guiding principles as a teacher is to treat each student as an individual. ``Every kid counts. Every kid has a story. And every kid has value,'' Carleen says. ``I teach them critical thinking. They need to decide for themselves.'' That kind of approach is what makes Carleen a great teacher, and our Nation's outstanding teachers carry those very same traits, teachers who are brilliant in their ability to offer encouragement, who can spark the imagination, instill in young people the drive to reach for excellence in all their varied pursuits and the confidence to speak their minds. Carleen's principal at Hopkins North Jr. High, Pat Schmidt, says: ``Carleen has the courage to lead discussions focusing on racial identity, religious affiliations, cultural and ethnic customs and family membership.'' To all of America's teachers, thank you for your steadfast commitment to quality education. Thank you for caring so much about our kids and their future. Thank you for overcoming immense challenges to provide Minnesota's and America's children with the best education. You hard-working, dedicated educators are Minnesota's and America's unsung heroes. With great challenges ahead, we need more than ever to put partisanship aside, take off our Republican hats and our Democrat hats and come together as Americans. We must find common ground to adequately support public education and provide maximum flexibility at the local level to manage our schools and teach our children. Madam Speaker, our Nation salutes Carleen Gulstad and all our remarkable teachers who bring an exciting world of opportunity and justice to the door of our children's classrooms each and every day. It is often a thankless and difficult task, but today we thank them for their great perseverance, commitment and inspiration.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats know that middle class families are struggling to make ends meet in an economy that is simply leaving too many of them behind. That is why we worked in a bipartisan way to pass an economic stimulus plan earlier this year. And starting this week, more than 130 million Americans will receive some much-needed relief in the form of recovery rebate checks. This is a good start, but more needs to be done. Once again, this Democratic-led Congress is reaching out in a bipartisan way to develop consensus for a second round of economic recovery legislation. We believe that a second economic stimulus plan is needed as the bleak news around the economy continues to mount and Americans everywhere are feeling the negative impact of President Bush's economic policies. Unfortunately, the President has said that a second economic stimulus package is not necessary. Mr. Speaker, the President is incorrect. The congressional Democrats hope the President will reconsider so that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to get this economy back on track, create jobs, and speed up assistance to middle class families.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on April 2, 2008, I inadvertently failed to vote on rollcall No. 155. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Vote No. 155.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank you, Congressman Waters and Congressman Lee. Before I got to Congress I thought both of you just were towering heroes of peace. Now that I have been here and had the chance to get to know both of you, I am certain that I was right from the very first impression I had of you. Thank you for standing up and calling this special order tonight. The point I would like to make is simply this. We see in Iran a country we have not had any open diplomatic relationships with since 1979, except for brief moments around IEDs last summer. The meetings have not been continued, and, in essence, we have had no real diplomatic relationships with Iran in many, many years. Many Americans don't remember the day when we did have relationships with Iran. Yet, despite all these years of having no diplomatic ties to Iran, no open communications, channels of communications, it really has not solved any of the problems. Not talking has not helped. I want to join with Representative Waters and Representative Lee in calling for an open dialogue, unconditional bilateral dialogue. Dialogue is not a gift, dialogue is not a present, dialogue is not a reward. Dialogue is a tool that can help us stabilize the world, bring peace to millions and millions of people all over the world. Dialogues should not be used as some sort of a gift. It doesn't make sense for any nation to say capitulate to our demands, and then we will talk to you. The very purpose of negotiation is to say, let's talk, and the first agenda item could be serious problems we have with one another. But the start is talking, unconditional talking, talking with a clear agenda in mind, talking with no illusions about differences. But talking, nonetheless, is something that I think we need, and we need it now. I want to say that our effort to isolate Iran by not talking to Iran, reminds me of our effort of trying to isolate Cuba by not talking to Cuba. Now everybody in the world does business with Cuba except the United States. American farmers wanting to sell grain, Cubans want to buy stuff from the U.S., people wanting to see family, those things are hampered because we are the only ones in the world maintaining this policy of nondialogue. I fear that we could end up in the same way with Iran. Let me just point out an article in the Times online from March 3, 2008. The headline is, ``Four kisses, then the band played: the day former foes became friends.'' It starts out describing a meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nouri al-Maliki. It goes on to talk about how a young girl dressed in a white dress clutched a bouquet of flowers as she waited with a small boy in a smart suit to greet President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who began a historic visit to Iraq. Earlier today, we heard a speaker who I won't name say that, oh, the United States needs to get with China and Russia to isolate Iran. China and Russia, we can't even get Iraq to isolate Iran. We can't even get Iraq, a country we have invaded and essentially have taken over, though it does operate under the guise of sovereignty, we can't even get them to say don't talk to Iran. They have open relationships with Iran and are building them more and stronger every day. It doesn't make any sense. Now, it's not just Iraq that has a welcome mat for Iran. But let me just say that when Americans, Members of Congress go to Iraq, all of us know we go into military aircraft that takes evasive maneuvers into Baghdad, because we are concerned about our safety. This is a fact. So much for isolating Iran from Iraq. Okay, well, then, what about another country, Pakistan. We send a lot of money to Pakistan. Yet Pakistan announced in a March 5, 2008 article, the Times of India, Iran, on Wednesday, said it was ``ready to sign the India- Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal,'' but technical issues between the two are hindering the process. ``We are ready to sign the agreement as soon as possible,'' Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs said. ``Everything is okay from our side. There are some technical issues between India and Pakistan,'' he said. ``The India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline, which is dubbed as the 'Peace Pipeline,' is stuck over issues such as price and transition fees.'' So much for isolating Iran from Pakistan and India. All right, so Iraq, they are talking to them, Iran, Pakistan and India are talking, but, okay, maybe we can still get Russia and China, countries that have militaries, countries that have economies, countries that have been freestanding and independent for many, many, many, many, many years. Okay, what about Afghanistan? Isn't that country essentially a failed state which we invaded and kicked out the Taliban and now are trying to reconstruct today? ``In the electricity substation just outside of Herat, western Afghanistan, there's the loud hum of power--Iranian power,'' that's right. ``More electricity reaches Herat than the city can use, but the industrial park just across the road from the NATO military base is putting it to good use. ``Small plastic bottles of fizzy orange juice shuffle along the conveyor belt to be labeled and packed--the building is noticeably Iranian in design and the markings on the machinery show exactly which country helped these Afghan businessmen. ``The camels grazing outside cautiously cross the fast, straight, asphalt road--one of the best roads in Afghanistan stretching 120km to the border. ``Soon a railway will link Afghanistan to Europe, or so boasts the Iranian government.'' I would just mention, with a quick Google search, Iraq, India, Pakistan and, now, Afghanistan are all coalescing economically with Iran. We are not talking to Iran. We don't talk to Iran. We don't want to try to get into that market of 70 million people. We don't want to try to open up diplomatic ties and work on issues. We are not trying to solve this nuclear conflict with dialogue, discussion and open conversation. We are just trying to isolate them, but nothing suggested we are being successful at doing that. The fact is maybe isolation of Iran is not the right tactic. Maybe the right tactic is to try to talk to them, to try to build a better relationship, to try to have cultural exchange, try to have exchange of views, different though they may be, with an eye toward a more peaceful world, with an eye toward a world in which people can have security and in which an eye toward which the world can rest and feel their children are safe at night. The fact is this saber rattling, I remember that it was about maybe 16 months ago that I sat in my first meeting that I ever had with the President, with, I believe, Representative Lee and Representative Waters. I think it was Representative Lee who said, are you, Mr. President, planning on hitting Iran? He gave us a sure statement that he was not. Yet ever since that time, all we have been hearing, time and time again is that Iran is the problem. I don't know how Iran could be the problem in Iraq without the complicity of the Iraqi government. I mean, I need somebody to correct me on this point because I just don't get it. How can Iran be an issue in Iraq unless Iraq wants them in the country. It just doesn't make any other kind of sense to me, and I need somebody to explain that, because maybe I have just not been in Congress long enough to get it. Let me just say, I want to move aside now, and I want to thank the two Members who have been leading the charge, along with Congresswoman Woolsey, who is recovering from back surgery. I know if she was feeling better she would be right better with you, the triad, the triad for peace. I admire you so much.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I just want to again thank Representatives Waters and Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee. I just want to make a few quick points. We're under no illusions. I think that by this special order, I don't think anyone intends to excuse bellicose, inflammatory remarks that have been made by the President of Iran. There's no excusing that. But you don't deal with bellicose remarks with a war. You deal with bellicose remarks by issuing a statement condemning those statements, but not with a war. And I don't think any bellicose statements or inflammatory remarks by the President of Iran could ever justify an attack which will result in the massive loss of life. I also want to say that a strike against Iran, no one can predict what the consequences of that will be. Will it excite the Shiia community in Pakistan, of which 30 percent of the people are Shiia there? What will it do to Afghanistan? Again, Iran is providing electricity in Afghanistan in an effective way, much, much more than other countries have done. Again, Kabul and Kandajar are not electrified 100 percent of the time. What will happen in Lebanon? Will that inflame another war such as the one in the summer of 2006? That could inflame the region, and no one knows whether bombs will start falling from other parts of the region. This war against Iran, a strike against Iran has no clear outcome. It is a very bad idea. And I think that what we must do is pursue diplomatic negotiations, and remember that negotiation is not a reward, it's not a gift, it's not a present; it's a tool for the security of the world.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Ralph Rapson, one of the country's most influential architects. His Modernist designs were not only significant in the State of Minnesota but can been seen around the world. While I regret to report the recent passing of Ralph Rapson at the age of 93, I am grateful for his talent, his dedication and his passion; all of which we were lucky to have him share with the state of Minnesota. Born in Alma, Michigan in 1914, Ralph earned his degree in architecture at the University of Michigan. In 1939 he designed a streamlined rocking chair that went on to bear his name, the Rapson Rapid Rocker. From 1942-1946 he taught at the Illinois Institute of Technology and then at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1946-1954. Mr. Rapson's relationship with Minnesota began over 50 years ago when he came to the University of Minnesota to serve as the Dean of the Architecture School. From 1954-1984 as the Dean he went on to influence the lives and careers of many architecture and design students. Ralph Rapson's defining work was the innovative and asymmetrical themed former Guthrie Theater building across from the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. Mr. Rapson's resume also includes the Rarig Center for Performing Arts on the University of Minnesota campus, St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church in St. Paul Park, the Riverside Plaza housing complex in Minneapolis and the former Pillsbury House in Wayzata and Prince of Peace Lutheran Church for the Deaf in St. Paul. He also designed the United States Embassies in Stockholm, Sweden and Copenhagen. Most recently Mr. Rapson's Minneapolis-based company had developed a line of prefabricated modern houses called the Rapson Greenbelt. In closing, Madam Speaker, I wish to express my condolences to those surviving Ralph Rapson: his son Rip of Birmingham, Mich., who is president of the Kresge Foundation and Toby, of Minneapolis, who is also an architect and six grandchildren. Mr. Rapson today we thank you.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 170 on H.R. 2016, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Altmire

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Kirkland ``Kirk'' Calvet Anderson, Sr., of Minnesota, a beloved member of the South Minneapolis community. While I regret the recent passing of Kirkland Anderson on March 14, 2008 at the age of 79, I am grateful for his lifelong service to his family, friends and his dedication and love for our community. A native of Bolton, Mississippi, Kirkland attended the University of Minnesota from 1946-49. He served in the U.S. Army during the Korean war from 1950-1953, and returned to Minneapolis, where in 1954 he married Alice A. Gaskins. After starting his career at the VA Hospital and the U.S. Postal Service, Kirk then went on to operate Kirk's Mobil from 1961-2007. Most importantly, Kirk will be remembered for his ever willingness to lend a hand to his friends and neighbors. Steadfast dedication to his community was evident through his participation on the board of the Blaisdell YMCA, his support for area schools and parks and the local Scouts. In closing, Madam Speaker, I wish to express my condolences to those surviving Mr. Anderson: his wife, children, grandchildren, great- grandchild, sister, sisters-in-law, nieces, nephews, great nieces, great nephews, cousins, friends, and community. It is an honor to stand in recognition of the memory and life of a man who gave so much. Mr. Anderson, today we thank you.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank my friends from New Hampshire, Kentucky and Florida. My dad likes to say, ``people respect what others inspect. If you don't inspect, you are not going to get any respect.'' So it is important that we have oversight. It is important that we have a regulatory system. The market and the public sector should work in a balanced way, should compliment each other. That has not happened, and, as a result of the lack of regulation, as a result of deregulation, Gramm-Leach- Bliley in 1999, and I would like to talk about that in a moment, we have got ourselves into quite a situation. Let me share with you what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued recently. You probably would not be surprised to know that between 2005 and 2006, the average income of the top 1 percent of households increased by $73,000, after adjusting for inflation, while the average income of the bottom 90 percent, that is us based on our pay here, increased by $20. I am talking about a twenty-spot. You know, bam, that is your pay increase between 2005 and 2006 if you are in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution. Now, you might be thinking, gee, that is not good. But let me just tell you, what this means is that the share of the Nation's income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, as a matter of fact rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006. That means that people in the top 1 percent of our income distribution make one- fifth of the money. That is not good. Now, you might be thinking, that is kind of bad there. But the fact is that it hasn't been this bad since. Mr. Yarmuth, when was the last time the top 1 percent were making this much of the money in America? It did happen before, Mr. Yarmuth. I want to ask you if you know?