Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm always happy to join my colleagues, the difference-makers, who heard the call of the American people and came to Congress to really make the case for a safer America, a stronger America; an America that is not mired down in the quagmire which is Iraq; an America that says, look, we are ready to defend American interest around the world, but that does not include being mired down in a war we never should have been in in the first place. I'm proud to have voted for this safe redeployment act today, but I just want to point out something that's so very important; and that is, that while dollars and cents clearly are important in this debate, no one can calculate the loss of a loved one. Since this surge began, 600 families have received the most devastating news that any family can ever receive, 600 spouses, 600 sets of parents, 600 sets of children, 600 communities lost a loved one because of this surge that was wrong- headed from the very beginning. We can't calculate the costs of this war in dollars really. It must be calculated in terms of the lives of our fellow Americans that have gone forward in this horrible conflict. We have to calculate this war in terms of the injuries and the casualties that have been faced, in terms of the young people who have lost limbs, who have lost their strong sense of mental health, their ability to discern reality, their ability to have a calm frame of mind because, for so many of these young people, the helicopter sounds don't stop even after they come home. For so many young people, the explosions, a car backing up, any sort of sound sends them back to that war zone they used to be in. And it's a horrible tragedy, it's a human tragedy, and no amount of calculation of dollars and cents will ever truly capture what we have lost as a Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here, the difference-makers, today we want to state to the American people that we are here to keep the faith with the American people. We will never forget all of our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters who have gone forward in this conflict, who have lost lives, who have lost limbs, who have lost their health and their families, who have received an injury that is so impossible to ever heal from. But we know the resilience and the strength of the American people, and we know that they expect us to put their best interests first forward always, and that means a safe, responsible redeployment out of this conflict. So, Mr. Speaker, just as I say that the losses in this war cannot simply be calculated in dollars and cents but in terms of real human lives, it is also true that they be calculated in dollars and cents as well. And before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out this very important graph that I have right to my right, and this shows very clearly the costs of this war. It wasn't the $8 billion that we thought it was. Now, we know it's 10 billion per month, but just look here. Per year we're talking about a number with so many zeros behind it I think that my young children will be very hard pressed to be able to pronounce this number. This is a huge number. What is this, this number is about 120 T, trillion? Billion. I think I need an arithmetic lesson, and I'm a fellow that's had a little bit of schooling. But as I look at this big number, it will be a challenge for any fifth grader, Mr. Speaker. It's a whopper of a number and it can't even begin to calculate the true losses of our country in this war.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, there's an easy civics pop quiz for the summer break. How many branches of government are there in the United States? Well, any high school civics student can tell you that there are three. But it seems like our Vice President is confused about the facts. House investigators have revealed that since 2003, the Vice President's office has failed to provide data on its classification activities as required under an executive order claiming that the Vice President's office is not, ``an entity within the executive branch.'' It seems that the Vice President's office believes that his office is its own branch of government above the law. Madam Speaker, in light of this confusion, perhaps the President will see fit to give the Vice President some time off to improve his understanding of civics in the United States.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman and commend the gentlewoman for her good wisdom and excellent intentions behind section 699 which would conditionalize aid to Egypt. However, I must rise in support of the amendment that has been brought by Mr. Boustany because I believe that the impact of this piece in the bill would signal to the region a very hostile and unhealthy message. The message that we should be sending to allies in the region is that we want to work constructively and productively to seal that border. I would point out that sealing borders is no easy enterprise. But I also believe that with a greater amount of help and with proper resources that the border could well be sealed between Gaza and Egypt. This conditionalizing sends a signal that Egypt, that it is criticism of Egypt, that Egypt is somehow not putting forth the proper effort. Given that Egypt is such a long-standing and important ally, I think this is not the right message to send.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, General David Petraeus acknowledged that we will not see any significant improvements in the situation on the ground in Iraq by September. When President Bush first proposed the troop escalation plan at the beginning of this year, he said we should know if it's actually working by the beginning of the summer. A couple of months later, when the troops were actually on the ground, the President revised that time frame, saying that we should have a good grasp if the plan is working by September. Now we have confirmation from the President's top general on the ground that positive signs in Iraq will continue to be elusive. The question now is, will the administration do as it has in the past and change the deadline? Moving deadlines are simply no longer acceptable. President Bush has been promising for months that we would see significant changes come September, and since that is no longer possible, a significant change in direction is needed in Iraq. It is time for the President and the congressional Republicans to realize that Petraeus is now admitting that no improvements will be seen by September.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. A wide variety of tools. I would be curious to know what some of those tools might be. Are we talking about tickling somebody with a feather, or what kind of tools are we talking about? Are we dragging somebody into a tribunal and getting sanctions on them, or are we just talking about something else?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Well, if we already start out with what is a trade policy that is lax, a trade policy with a model that is not inclined toward saving American jobs, and then they won't even enforce the rules that they do have, what will happen if we vote for a trade policy for Peru and Panama that supposedly has these provisions in it, but they don't enforce them? The fact is, I would like to ask the gentleman from Maine and the gentlelady from Ohio what they think about a trade model which would give labor organizations, for example, the right to charge an infraction of a labor standard and to bring a country into court for violating a labor standard? What if the sole power for enforcing the labor agreement was not in the hands of a trade representative that was favorably inclined to multinational trade but not so much for American workers, but actually in the hands of a labor organization; how might that play out?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlelady yield? I agree. American workers are some of the best in the world, innovative, hard-working, no doubt about it, and given a fair chance, can compete with any workers or anyone around the world, but we just need a fair opportunity. So I think we need a new model, a new way of doing business that will protect American workers and also protect American small businesses, and other businesses that actually are in the business of helping America prosper and do well. And before we wrap up, because I think we are probably getting close, I just want to say briefly that I hope that people who feel so passionately about immigration will incorporate into their arguments the impact of trade policy on immigration.

Mr. ELLISON. He ought to know.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Should our trade model be driven by promotion of American economic activity, including jobs? Or should it be driven by profit margins of huge multinational companies that really have no allegiance other than the profit margin each quarter?

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Michaud, Congresswoman Sutton, Congressman Ryan, and also Congresswoman Sanchez, who left us, because you all have been carrying the banner of trade all night, fair trade. And I think that before I jump into my remarks that I pulled together for tonight, I just want to say this: We are talking about trade, Mr. Speaker, within the context of two decades of flat wages for working people. When you look at real wages, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about flat real wages for working people. We are talking about a system of health care where we leave 47 million people out of it and so many other people carrying an increasing burden on their jobs just to be able to afford the health care that their job does provide. It is within this context that I want to talk about trade tonight within flat wages, within increasing health care costs, within the context of increasing and mounting consumer debt. The average American, when you take their mortgage out of the equation, has about $13,000 worth of consumer debt to carry around. And that is talking about your credit cards and everything else. So we have got consumer debt, increasing health care costs, and flat wages. And now we are going to talk about trade, trade that has sapped our jobs. If you look at NAFTA, NAFTA alone I want to talk about tonight. NAFTA was sold as a way to make sure that workers both in Mexico and in America would benefit. But has that really happened? Has that really happened? What has really happened is the opposite. We have seen 3 million jobs lost, 30,000 in Minnesota alone. NAFTA, by permitting its heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other agricultural business products to compete with the small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low price imports of U.S. corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those who cross the border to feed their families. NAFTA service sector rules allow big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and begin selling low price goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China to displace locally based shoe, toy, and candy firms. These estimated 28,000 small- and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated. Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25 percent since NAFTA. The Mexican border has actually been driven down since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An oversupply of workers, combined with a crushing of union- organized drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay, running sweatshops along the border, where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned what is going on with Mexico because I think it is so important from the standpoint of the American worker, the American worker who is trying to put food on the table, hold jobs here in our country, it is critically important. We are talking about, as I said, flat wages, rising health care costs, increasing consumer debt. And it is so important to understand that this immigration debate we are having is heavily informed by what? Trade. Our trade policy is increasing the pain not only on American workers but on workers abroad. As we fight back and forth, to and fro, about what we should we do, more border security, higher walls, fences. We have all these raging debates around here around these issues. What we have literally done through this NAFTA trade policy and other trade policies like it is wiped out an economy in another country and not just pulled people here through higher wages but pushed them here by elimination of their economies in Mexico. So, Mr. Speaker, I bring these points to the floor tonight so that we can have more informed debate so that when people say, hey, look, why are these folks making such a big deal about fair trade policy, it is important to know that the middle class is being pinched and squeezed. And so often even here in Congress, we are being told that the problem is some immigrant, when in reality the problem, I believe, is heavily subsidized agri-businesses and our trade policy, which allows us to dump cheap, low-cost corn into countries like Mexico, which wipes out their farm economy and drives workers there over here so that they can make a living. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we understand these issues and we get these issues on the table as we debate them because it is hypocritical, in my opinion, to talk about spending $700 million, or however much we are going to spend on a fence, and not adjust our trade policies. We can't build a fence high enough if we keep on destroying the farm economy in Mexico and dumping cheap commodity prices there. We have to fix our trade policy. We have to fix a trade policy that benefits American workers and workers around the world too, Mr. Speaker. So I didn't come here to say a whole lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. I want to get this issue of trade policy in the debate as we talk about immigration policy, and I want to talk about trade policy within the context of the squeeze the middle-class people are feeling every day.

Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ELLISON. Under the current model that we have, who is the entity responsible for enforcing trade provisions such as labor or environmental standards? Whose job is it to police those standards?

Mr. ELLISON. So has the administration been an advocate, protector of the rights of workers in America, much less right around the world?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, it is fitting that the Twin Cities Pride Parade falls on the same day that former Minnesota State Senator Allan Spear celebrates his 70th birthday. For those unfamiliar with the legacy Allan created in Minnesota, I want to take this moment to recognize him, thank him, and extend my wishes for a very happy birthday. Allan served in the Minnesota State Senate from 1972 to 2000. He is widely recognized as not only the first openly gay legislator in Minnesota, but in the Nation, as well. Allan was certainly in uncharted waters--this was long before organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) or the Victory Fund even existed. I've read accounts that Allan went public because he felt ``lousy'' for staying silent about his sexuality during an antidiscrimination bill debate. His commitment to equal rights never wavered and I think our new generation of GLBT legislators and allies is a testament to his courage and honesty. In 1993, Allan was elected President of the Senate--the same year he succeeded in guiding the passage of Minnesota's gay civil rights law. During the debate on this legislation, several senators described homosexuality as ``a choice, not a condition of birth.'' Spear infamously replied, ``I'm 55 years old; it's not a phase.'' The amendment to Minnesota's civil rights law is an incredible achievement. Although I did not have the opportunity to work with Allan during my time in the Minnesota legislature, his accomplishments over 28 years in the State Senate certainly inspire my own work on civil and human rights. It is an honor for me to recognize Allan during our month of celebrating the accomplishments and contributions of the GLBT community. Allan has made a real difference in the quality of family life in Minnesota. Because of his unwavering commitment, we have much to celebrate, and more to be hopeful for! Thank you, Allan.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the emergency service workers of Minnesota. This week is National Emergency Services Week and I am grateful for the opportunity to recognize the extraordinary dedication and service of Minnesota's Emergency Medical Dispatchers, First Responders, Emergency Medical Technicians, Paramedics, Emergency Department Nurses and Physicians and introduce this brief proclamation. Whereas, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and Whereas, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and Whereas, the emergency medical services system consists of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators and others; and Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and Now, therefore, I--Keith Ellison--Congressman for the Fifth District of Minnesota hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2007, as National Emergency Services Week.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Army Specialist Robert J. Dixon of Minneapolis who died on May 6th in Baghdad. His funeral service occurred on Thursday May 18th in Minneapolis and I would like to read the following May 11th, 2007 Associated Press Article about Army Specialist Dixon into the record: A Minneapolis soldier who graduated from high school in Gladwin and was just three months into his tour in Iraq was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle, the military said. Army Spc. Robert J. Dixon, 27, died May 6 in Baghdad, the Defense Department said Wednesday. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kan. Dixon was born in Portland, Ore., but moved to Gladwin in 1992, said Irene Dixon, who said she and her husband Daniel were Robert Dixon's legal guardians. In high school, Robert was a running back for the football team, set the school record in the 100-meter dash and also wrestled, his mother said. ``He especially enjoyed family activities,'' Irene Dixon told The Associated Press on Thursday. ``We did a lot of family activities. He hunted, he paint-balled, he snowboarded. We went camping, snowmobiling. ``If you ever knew Bobby, you'd love him. Every time we got a report from a teacher it couldn't have been any better. We got a call from a commander who said everybody there (in Iraq) loved him.'' After graduating from high school, Dixon attended Olivet College for a year and later was briefly enrolled at Northwood University in Midland. Dixon joined the Army in the summer of 2005, shortly after he moved to Minneapolis in search of work, his mother said. ``He wanted to further his education, and he always had a desire to be in the Army,'' she said. ``He had planned to make it his career.'' Dixon said she last heard from her son last Friday, when he called during a funeral for her uncle to express his condolences. Robert Dixon is survived by his wife of 1\1/2\ years, Rusty Rose- Dixon, and two children. Funeral arrangements were incomplete but were likely to take place at the Gladwin High School gymnasium. ``I can't even convey to you how we're going to miss not having him here,'' his mother said. ``But I also know that he is a Christian and he is with the Lord now.'' Madam Speaker, Specialist Dixon served our country, Minnesota and the 5th District with incredible distinction and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know I speak for you, the entire House of Representatives, and our country in sending my deepest condolences to Specialist Dixon's family and loved ones in their time of grief.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Hare, thank you for leading us in this very important Special Order tonight. Trade is one of the critical issues facing our Nation. Let me say that on the campaign trail, Mr. Speaker, I found myself talking about jobs, employment, and opportunity to people on a daily basis. Whether I went to the suburban areas or the heart of Minneapolis, I could talk to people about trade. And it wasn't just people who were in labor unions. Also, Mr. Speaker, it was people who had small businesses. One particular business that does a metal plating service was very concerned about trade and expressed to me how vital it was that they be able to continue to compete with other companies around the world that do metal plating but that they were in jeopardy and loss of business all the time due to trade policy. So whether you are a small business person, farmer, worker, no matter who you may happen to be, trade policies are affecting our country, and we need to be very clear about it. As I was on the campaign trail, I ran into people who were recent immigrants who were concerned about immigration policy; and, Mr. Speaker, here is what they told me. They said, look, prior to NAFTA, we were doing okay where we lived, but after NAFTA it got a lot harder to run a farm in certain southern parts of our country, and we just couldn't make a go of it anymore. So some folks started moving north. Now the fact is we have to understand that whether we are talking about small business people, trade unionists, people who have been forced to immigrate, no matter what you are talking about, trade policy is critical. So when I was on the campaign trail, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I made very clear to people is that I was concerned about trade, that I wanted to do something about trade, and we need a model for trade that said that we were not going to export our jobs. We were not going to incentivize sending our jobs away. We were going to care about the human rights of people abroad. We were going to care about our small businesses here, and we were going to have a new trade policy that said that Americans who are trying to live the American Dream and experience prosperity could do it right here and would not be subject to an unfair trade policy of our Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, I set about this journey working hard, working with my colleagues in the freshmen class, talking about trade and how we could get a better trade deal, Mr. Speaker. So I am very concerned about these issues. On May 10, 2007, the Bush administration and congressional leadership talked about a new, with bipartisan cooperation, deal on trade; and I am not saying that the deal is bad or good. What I am saying is that we have got to be very clear, very careful about how we proceed forward. I am happy about the announcement of labor standards and environmental standards. Of course, those things are good. But, Mr. Speaker, we can't rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need a whole new boat. We need a new model. We need a new way of going forward. The ``deal'' covers changes to certain provisions of the Bush- negotiated free trade agreement with Peru, Panama, but also Colombia and South Korea. The legal texts of the proposed agreement have not been made public, though summaries have been shared with Members of Congress. We appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with the AFL-CIO on the labor chapter and are pleased to see a commitment to the International Labour Organization's standards on the May 10 agreement. However, we have got to be careful as we go forward, because, ultimately, it is going to be the Bush administration that is responsible for enforcing these labor standards; and we are a little skeptical. Let me be clear. We remain concerned, I remain concerned over the future of ``fast track'' authority, and the proposed Korea and Colombia Free Trade Agreements. Congress needs to reassert its authority over trade policy as we move forward. We are concerned, and speaking for myself, I am concerned, that as we go forward, that we make sure that we have a new model on trade, a new commitment to the working people of America, a new commitment to the human rights and environmental rights around the world. I fear there are remnants of the failed FTA-WTO trade model in the May 10 agreement which will only lead to further hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs and the erosion of American manufacturing and service industries. Mr. Speaker, over 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, one in every six, have been lost under the FTA-WTO trade model. By the end of 2005, the U.S. had only 14,232,000 manufacturing jobs left, which is nearly down 17 million before NAFTA and the WTO went into effect in the early 1990s. What makes these already horrible statistics worse is the fact that the U.S. job export crisis is expanding from manufacturing to high-tech and service-oriented jobs. Contrary to the belief of Big Business and the multinational corporations, the decline of U.S. manufacturing is not the result of Americans simply choosing different careers; in fact, job loss and wage stagnation are increasingly affecting workers from sectors where the U.S. is understood to have a competitive advantage, such as professional services and high technology. Studies commissioned by the U.S. Government show that as many as 48,000 jobs in U.S. jobs, including many high-tech jobs, were off- shored in the first 3 months of 2004 alone. Economy.com estimates that nearly 1 million U.S. jobs have been lost to off-shoring since 2000, with one in six of those being in IT, financial services and other services. Goldman Sachs estimates that about half a million U.S. service jobs were off-shored between 2002 and 2005. Projections of future job losses are frightening. A University of California-Berkeley study concluded that 14 million jobs with an annual average salary of almost $40,000 are vulnerable to being sent overseas. That is a lot of food, clothing and shelter, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot tolerate the loss of these important jobs. Additionally, we can expect up to 25 percent of additional IT jobs will be relocated by 2010. We can't let it happen. Furthermore, since NAFTA, the U.S. trade deficit has risen from about $100 billion to about $717 billion, or 6 percent of national income. Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to continue to happen. Remember that real wages for U.S. workers are flat or declining, and jobs now available in the U.S. economy suffer and offer less pay and fewer benefits than jobs that we've lost since 1994. Our Nation is in trouble when it comes to trade policy, and we've got to have a change. And we don't have confidence, or I don't have confidence, in this administration to make sure that any standards are being enforced, and we've got to demand that they are. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be said about this. I look forward to the continuation of this Special Order because trade policy is important to the American people. It was a common theme on the campaign trail during my election, and from what I've heard from my freshman colleagues, they are very concerned about it, too. Mr. Speaker, we need a new trade policy. I want to yield back at this time, but I want to commend my fellow Members and colleagues, and especially freshman Members, on standing up for American working people, business people, immigrants, and all kinds of people when it comes to trade policy.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the bi-partisan passage of H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007. The COPS program has been one of the most successful law enforcement programs in our Nation's history. Created in 1994 as part of the ``Clinton Crime Bill,'' it is often referred to as the 100,000 cops program. In fact, COPS has put almost 120,000 more officers on the street nationwide, 1,400 new officers in Minnesota, and 354 additional police officers and/or sheriff deputies in the 5th Congressional District which I serve. With the passage of the COPS Improvement Act, an additional 151 officers will likely be hired in the 5th Congressional District over the next 6 years. The COPS program was created as an incentive to law enforcement agencies to hire more officers. COPS provides that incentive by assuming 75 percent of an officer's salary for 3 years. Funded at over $1 billion a year near the end of the Clinton Administration, the hiring portion of COPS has been zeroed out under President Bush. According to a study by the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO), between 1998 and 2000, COPS grants were responsible for reducing crimes by about 200,000 to 225,000 crimes--one third of which were violent. In 1998, COPS grants were responsible for an 8 percent decrease in crimes--and a 13 percent drop in violent crimes. Yet, President Bush and Republicans in Congress eliminated the hiring program last year, at the same time, violent crime spiked across the Nation. Earlier this year, the Police Executive Research Forum, a prominent law enforcement association, released a report which found that violent crime rose by double digit percentages over the last two years. Among the cities surveyed, since 2005, 71 percent had an increase in homicides, 80 percent saw robberies rise and 67 percent reported an increase in aggravated assaults with guns. Thankfully, under the leadership of Mayor R.T. Rybak, Minneapolis was not among those cities. In fact, Minneapolis has seen an 11 percent decline in violent crimes since the beginning of the year. We want to keep those statistics headed downward and the way to do that is through the funding of successful hiring programs like COPS. If the COPS Improvement Act of 2007 passes into law, an additional $11,159,925 will likely flow into law enforcement agencies for hiring additional officers in the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota in the next 6 years. Furthermore, an additional $4,110,303 in technology grants will likely flow to the 5th District and 3 more school resource officers will likely be put on the beat. Little wonder this legislation has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. COPS has been one of the most cost-effective law enforcement programs in our nation's history resulting in dramatic declines in both crime and violent crime rates. It is good common sense that the new Democratic Congress has sought to restore funding to this successful program. It is good for the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota; good for the state of Minnesota; and good for America. I am proud to have voted to make our streets safer by supporting the COPS Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, the new Democratic House has been busy passing a wide range of measures to help our Nation's economy grow. Unfortunately, we are having a difficult time finding support from the White House. We began by increasing the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years. The bill was overwhelmingly supported by this House, and yet President Bush has already vetoed it once. This House also voted to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which helps all Americans share in our Nation's economic growth by supporting the basic right of workers to choose their own representative. But the President has threatened a veto. The Congress also overwhelmingly supported a bill that invests in hiring 10,000 new science and math teachers so that we can better compete in the new global economy. Unfortunately, the Bush administration opposes this legislation in its current form. Madam Speaker, the new Congress is passing legislation that will grow our economy. Now we just need support from the White House to make it a reality.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.