Keith Ellison

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to welcome you, Mr. Speaker, and the American people to the Accountability Congress. Over the next 1 hour, my freshman colleagues and I will be claiming this hour to talk about the accomplishments of this 110th Congress. We have seen not only an auspicious and bold, brave, new agenda for the first 100 hours, but also the first 100 days. And we are not just going to talk about and celebrate the accomplishments of the last 100 days. We are going to talk about a vision for our country and talk about what will happen in the days to come. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that the American people know that by getting a new majority in the Congress that they have signed up to get a vision that is inclusive, that brings Americans all together, that makes for a safer America, a fairer economy, that makes for an economy where working people, middle-class people can strive and do well in our society. And joining me tonight with the members of the freshman class are a host of tremendously brave and tremendously intelligent, capable leaders who are aiding not only in charting a new course for our country, but who in this very 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker, are fully engaged from the very top. The leadership has engaged our talents, our skills, our ability, and we have been proud to be able to help this 110th Congress be a stronger, better place. And tonight I am going to be anchoring the one hour, but I am not going to hang on to it long. I think the American people want to hear from the brilliance that this 110th Congress class has to offer. So in the very beginning, I am just going to pass it right off to Mr. Hodes, who is the president of our class. I yield to Congressman Hodes.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. I thank you for your leadership on this issue of fair trade. I think that the time is right, the time is now to begin talking about fair trade. I want to commend all of the Members here tonight talking about this critical issue. This election sent a strong message: no staying the course on Bush's failed trade policy. So now what do we hear, that the Bush administration wants to send to Congress NAFTA expansion agreements with Peru and Colombia. Consider the problems that Democrats have endlessly raised in writing, in hearings, on the floor, think about these problems and the administration's trade agreement model, how we have continually demonstrated that the Bush trade model is killing American jobs and is an enemy of the middle class. Then consider what the administration chose to put in the deals anyway. Democrats are for consumers' right to affordable medicine. The 2002 trade negotiation authority instructed the Bush administration not to lard up and pack up these trade deals with new protections for big pharmaceuticals that could cut poor consumers off from access to medications and cause endless deaths in poor countries. But the administration inserted this poison pill into the FTAs. The TRIPS-plus requirement needs to come out. Democrats are against privatization of Social Security. We believe the elderly in whatever nation they are in should have safeguards for their security as they age. Yet the Peru free trade agreement requires Peru to open its social security system for privatization. That has to come out. Democrats believe that foreign businesses operating on U.S. soil shouldn't have greater rights than U.S. businesses. And we believe that our environmental and health safeguards cannot be exposed to attack in international tribunals. But the administration included the extreme foreign investor rights and investor state enforcement of NAFTA's Chapter 11. That needs to come out as well. Democrats believe in the right of Congress and the President to protect this Nation's security. We have made it clear that the trade pacts cannot subject our decisions about who should operate U.S. ports to attacks in international tribunals or demands for compensation. Yet although the Dubai Ports World operates Peru's ports and thus would have the right to such a claim, you included the ``landslide port activities'' in the Peru and Colombian agreements. That has to come out. Democrats believe in reducing poverty in the developing world. We believe in providing farmers in the Andean nations opportunities to earn a living without resorting to illegal drugs that will end up on our streets here in the United States. But despite the warnings from Peruvian and Colombian Governments and the record of NAFTA displacing 1.7 million compesinos, the President has insisted on zeroing out corn, rice and bean tariffs in those things. That has to come out. Democrats believe consumers have a right to safe food. But the administration included provisions allowing food imports that don't meet our standards. That needs to come out. Democrats believe that when governments spend tax dollars, they must do so in the best interest of the taxpayers. But the administration included language in these FTA procurement texts that could expose Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws, renewable energy standards and more to challenge. That must come out. It would only require striking a sentence here or a word there to remove the FTA terms that directly conflict with these core Democratic Party values and goals. And then there is what is missing, the enforceable labor and environmental standards in the core of the text of the agreement equal to the commercial provisions. Regarding the Colombia FTA, there is no fix to that and there is nothing that can make this agreement acceptable in my view. It is highly offensive that the Bush administration would exploit the enormous discretion fast track provides even to initiate negotiations with a country infamous and, unfortunately, famous for having the highest rate of trade union assassinations. More than 2,000 labor activists have been murdered in Colombia since 1990. Sixty were assassinated in 2006 alone; one per week. The Colombian Army is implicated in many of these murders, but few have been prosecuted. Until the Colombian Government changes its situation, the United States should not offer any enhanced trade relations to Colombia. Mr. Michaud, thank you for your excellent work and leadership. The American people deserve fair trade agreements. The American Congress must take back its constitutional authority to make sure that any agreement that the United States engages in is an agreement that is in the best interest of the American working people.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, let me say in these final few moments tonight, I want to say there have been over 91 hearings on Iraq alone. But we have also had oversight hearings on Hurricane Katrina. Several of them, in fact. Subcommittee Chair Waters went down to New Orleans to get the real story from people who are living it. On the Committee on Financial Services, we are going to be talking about predatory lending. Today we talked about executive pay and shining some light on that issue. On the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee Chairman Nadler held a hearing on civil rights enforcement, what is the Attorney General's civil rights division doing in the area of civil rights enforcement. I have participated in hearings on the increase in immigration fees and how those fees are going up in a precipitous manner and questions were asked and officials were made to answer. So as I said before, this is a time of accountability. We are slowly trying to restore the public's faith in government. They have a right to believe that their government is honest, fair dealing, accountable and transparent. I couldn't have been prouder in the committee hearings I personally have been a part of on issues from the National Security Letters and the FBI executive pay, civil rights enforcement, immigration; there has been a whole range. I think the story is not necessarily one thing like the Valerie Plame incident or Walter Reed or the U.S. Attorneys; but there is a prevailing, systematic reexamination of how government does business. I am proud to be associated with it.

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleagues, the gentlemen from Florida and New Hampshire, both for their eloquent remarks. I am looking to my colleague, Congressman Welch and his remarks, but I would like to say that the bedrock idea behind accountability in government is trust in government. If somebody is not accountable, if they are not answerable, if they don't have to tell you whatever you want to know, if they can tell you to take a hike, take a walk and they don't have to listen to you and they are not answerable to you and not accountable to you, as the public, then what you cannot have is trust. Trust goes away when accountability goes away. Trust leaves the room when there is no one to answer the question about what happened. Trust leaves the room when you cannot have a public official look you in the eye and say here is what happened, the good, the bad and the ugly. Accountability is not about perfection because when you have a human endeavor, there is no such thing. But accountability is about being able to say, you know what, those folks up there on Capitol Hill, I believe that they are doing the best they can because when I asked my question, they gave me an answer. When I came forward with my concerns, they gave me a reply. They had the documents. They were able to say, here is what is going on. But when government, Madam Speaker, will not answer, we have problems, we have a lack of trust, and unfortunately sometimes people disengage. But this Congress is here to turn that around. This Congress is here to say, no, there will be accountability. You can trust your government. You can expect that your government is going to be operating on your behalf. Let me turn to an example. One example is that for the last several years we have had prosecutors, United States Attorneys, trying to do the best they could in many instances at ferreting out corruption in government. We saw prosecutions go on, former Congressman Cunningham and others, and we saw prosecutors who were appointed by a Republican administration to essentially do their job. As you know, Madam Speaker, prosecutors are not like other attorneys. Their job is to seek justice, find the truth. They are ministers of justice, whereas other attorneys, very correctly, have, within the rules, no other obligation than to zealously represent their client. But prosecutors have a higher calling than that, and that is because it is their job to protect the public. But what we found out recently is that eight of them have been fired, and it appears very clearly that the reasons were entirely political. Eight of them have been fired, and the evidence that has been unearthed so far in only 3 months of this ``accountability Congress,'' as the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire is calling the phrase, in this accountability Congress, the first 3 months we have seen getting to the bottom of this question of justice being undermined. The Democrats have brought back accountability. And what we have seen that is unfolding right now is that the Justice Department has released thousands of pages of e-mails based on the demands of the accountability Congress, and internal documents as well, related to this U.S. Attorney scandal. These documents would not be in the public domain. They wouldn't be in front of the people. They wouldn't be available for questions to get to be asked and answered but for this accountability Congress. I am so proud to be associated with this accountability Congress because what it means is that the U.S. Attorneys, whether they be U.S. Attorneys or food inspectors or people who work at the hospitals taking care of our veterans, they now can know that there is not going to be an intolerable condition that exists for too long before some inquiring person in Congress says, what is going on over there. Thank heavens for it. And I just want to point out, and I will get back to this in a little while, I just want to point out that even Patrick Fitzgerald, who was a prosecutor in a recent case that you may have heard of, the Scooter Libby trial, in which he obtained four convictions out of five counts, he himself was rated as ``not distinguished.'' He was not distinguished in the eyes of the Bush administration officials. And I can see why they would find such a gentleman as ``not distinguished,'' because he did not evidence enough loyalty and obedience to the administration, but he certainly did bring forth some real accountability in government. I am going to yield back now, but I am going to be sticking around because I have more to say about this. I am going to yield back now; but before I do, I just want to say that accountability breeds trust in government and trust in government promotes an active, engaged citizenry which is fundamental to democracy.

Mr. ELLISON. If a prosecutor, a minister of justice, is required to make sure he doesn't step on any toes of the administration or a particular political power or to make sure that he is not supposed to offend a particular party and if such a prosecutor were to do so, they might lose their job, could that have a chilling effect on the zealous prosecution of anybody who might violate the law?

Mr. ELLISON. Are you familiar with the terminology ``a chilling effect''?

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to see if the gentleman from New Hampshire would yield to a question.

Mr. ELLISON. I also want to add my voice to great things to our leadership, which includes Mr. Larson from the great State of Connecticut. He is an able and well-qualified leader, and it is just great to see him setting the proper tone for our class. My question was this. We have several Members of the bar who are now in Congress, and I just wanted to throw a question out. The President has offered to make a deal, and the deal is that the Democrats could interview, not under oath, not on the record, certain White House aides about this scandal regarding the firing of the U.S. attorneys who have been, it appears, perhaps fired for prosecutions they did do and for prosecutions that in their discretion they did not do that could somehow benefit somebody who was running on the other side. My question is, how does this deal stand in the light of this new spirit of accountability? This deal that would say, yes, White House aides can come in, no going on the record, no under oath, no transcript, behind closed doors, how does that deal stand in the light of this new spirit of accountability?

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me throw my whole-hearted support behind this amendment. I think it is a clear expression of the generosity, the common sense and the decency of our country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment. The fact is that until we see the people of the gulf coast as our people, as opposed to those people, we will not be the kind of America we need to be. We will be less than we ought to be. So I just want to say that extending housing to people who need it, victims of a disaster, not a human failing but a disaster, a natural disaster, is the just, right thing to do, and we should not allow what was a natural disaster to be a political disaster.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, the appalling conditions at Walter Reed captured the Nation's attention this month and finally spurred this administration to begin taking action. But reports on the poor conditions at Walter Reed date back 2 years ago. The President and the Congressional Republicans did nothing. In fact, Lieutenant General Kiley, former head of Walter Reed, knew for years about the horrible conditions at the facility, but he claimed the problems ``weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them.'' We now know that that was not true, thanks to The Washington Post and hearings held by the Democratic House. Oversight by the former Republican Congress could have stopped these problems long ago. But lack of oversight didn't begin or end with Walter Reed. Republicans also failed to look at the President's policies in Iraq, the administration's actions during Hurricane Katrina, or the firing of numerous U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. Madam Speaker, this Democratic Congress has already held 91 oversight hearings on these issues and others, and we will continue to uphold our legislative duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congresswoman Sutton, it is a great honor to be here with you tonight together with our other colleagues in the freshman class who will be speaking in just a moment because I think it is important that the American people know that the freshman members of the Democratic Caucus came to this Congress, not to occupy space, not to warm a seat, but to create positive change for the American people, to project a vision, a vision of inclusion, of a generosity of fairness, a vision that says that this economy should be one where everybody can be successful. This government should be one where everyone has access, not just lobbyists and the privileged few, a system of government that people can feel proud of and not have to be worried that privileged individuals might be lining their pockets at the expense of the American people. We came here on November 7. We were elected here by the American people because the American people, the finest people, have the right to feel good about their government, not cynical, not despondent, not despairing, but good and positive, who would say, Do you know what? I trust my government. I feel that my government is doing the right thing. We can do no less than to take up that charge. We have to say the American people have a right to feel that their government is operating for the public good and in their best interests. And to that end, I am proud to be associated with this Democratic majority that from the very beginning began to signal change with the 100 hours program. The 100 hours program is not all that we are going to do, but, Mr. Speaker, we had to tell the American people that we are about business from the very beginning. We had to signal change from the very beginning. We had to let them know that we care about the affordability of a college education by cutting student loan interest rates; we care about our seniors by making sure that we get a prescription drug benefit that actually helps our seniors by allowing Medicare to negotiate. We did a 100 hours program that said, we are going to raise the minimum wage; we are going to stop the oil and gas subsidies and put the money into renewable energy. We had to signal change. That is not all we are going to do. We are just getting started. But we had to do something soon, something quick, something early, in the very beginning, so that the American people will know that we are putting money on the table. This is an earnest commitment to the American people to do real government, real change that they can feel good about. So what I want to talk about very briefly tonight is how important it is and how happy I am that the Democratic Congress has taken steps regarding this scandal about the U.S. attorneys. The United States attorneys are members of our government under the executive branch whose job it is to do good, to promote justice. They are ministers of justice. They are not just lawyers who are entitled to advocate for their clients. Their job is higher. Their job is to do the right thing. Neither fear nor favor should influence them. Neither concern about their job nor worry about who is not going to like it should influence their behavior. They should enforce the law and protect the American people. So when it came to light that U.S. attorneys that had had good recommendations, eight of them, were summarily fired with no explanation, and then when the explanations did come, their reputations were besmirched--they said that they were not good workers, that they were not good employees of the State, not carrying out an excellent mission for the people of the districts that they were charged to represent--I think people started getting a little nervous. Wait a minute. Why besmirch these people? Why put them down? What have they done that was wrong? And what we began to find as the common thread between these U.S. attorneys is that these individuals, though Republican appointees, took their charge to promote respect for law and took their charge to protect the American people seriously. And some of them prosecuted corruption cases, and that brought them into disfavor with the administration. As the facts just keep on leaking out, they don't look good. They don't look good. It appears, it appears that political decisions were brought to bear in this scandal with regard to the U.S. Attorneys. In fact, one of the U.S. Attorneys was one of the people who prosecuted Mr. Duke Cunningham, and somehow ended up getting fired. My goodness. Don't we want to get rid of corruption in government? Don't we want a clean government? Why would you bring the hammer on somebody who did that, unless you didn't necessarily want the even hand of the law to be applied, you wanted it to be tilted one way or another. Justice must be blind, Mr. Speaker. Then what else did we see? One of the calls that was made from as high as the White House was that these folks are not going after immigration cases or going after voter fraud cases enough. Wait a minute. Doesn't the prosecutor make decisions? Isn't prosecutorial discretion a hallmark of our legal system? Wait a minute. These people are charged with protecting us from drug dealers, killers, bank robbers and people who commit acts of terrorism. These people are charged with protecting us from defrauders, stealers, thieves, embezzlers, and yet somebody on a political basis is trying to force them to focus in one area or another? They have finite resources to prosecute the cases and protect the people. They have to make a determination as to what is most important to protect our seniors from identity thieves, to protect our neighborhoods from drug dealers and meth makers. And yet they were put under scrutiny and fired, it appears, and the evidence is still coming in, because they wouldn't play ball with people in the administration. This is scary business. This is not a good thing. And it goes to the very heart of restoring accountability to Washington. It goes to the very soul of whether we have a fair justice system and whether justice is blind. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about that, and I want to urge the American people to continue to insist that all the facts come out. We have to know. Justice must be served, and it must be served with these U.S. Attorneys, because if the people whose job it is, the ministers of justice, cannot be comfortable in doing their work, then what can the rest of us who need their services expect? Let me just make one point, and this has to do with the questions around the prosecution of Mr. Scooter Libby. He was found guilty of four out of five counts just last week, and we hear there are linkages to the Vice President. We hear many people are calling him a ``fall guy,'' signaling there may be more people involved. I think that it is very important that if we are going to insist upon accountability in Washington, that there be no pardons. I am very concerned that there could be a pardon in this situation that would render him not willing to tell all that he knows. We need to know how bad this thing is. In the U.S. Attorney issue we found out it was Harriet Miers, the very person the President wanted to be on the United States Supreme Court, who said fire them all. It is very important we get to the bottom of this, because, as I started with, the American people have every right to know what their government is doing and to trust in and feel good about their government. It is not a question of public relations, it is a matter of substance. So I will yield back to my colleague, Congresswoman Betty Sutton, who has been leading us in so many excellent ways, who has been doing such a fine job, and with whom I am so honored to be associated in this Congress. We have other excellent Members joining us tonight and they are going to tell the story. I just want to say I am proud to be associated with these majority makers, these difference makers, these people who believe that the American people have a right to believe in their government, and the only way to do it is to restore accountability to Washington.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 133, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Emanuel. The following brave soldiers are from North Carolina: Lance Corporal Jeriad P. Jacobs; Chief Warrant Officer Mitchell K. Carver, Jr.; Corporal Felipe C. Barbosa; Staff Sergeant Darrell P. Clay; Specialist Shawn R. Creighton; Staff Sergeant Jason C. Ramseyer; Specialist Clifton J. Yazzie; Specialist Matthew C. Frantz; Technical Sergeant Jason L. Norton; Staff Sergeant Brian McElroy; Sergeant Matthew D. Hunter; Private Lewis T. D. Calapini; Staff Sergeant Lance M. Chase; Private First Class Peter D. Wagler; Sergeant Sean H. Miles; Staff Sergeant Jerry M. ``Michael'' Durbin, Jr.; Sergeant Joshua Allen Johnson; Lance Corporal Billy D. Brixey, Jr.; First Lieutenant Garrison C. Avery; Specialist Marlon A. Bustamante; Private Travis C. Zimmerman; Corporal Eric R. Lueken; Corporal Jason B. Daniel; Corporal Shawn Thomas Lasswell, Jr.; Sergeant Robert W. Ehney; Corporal William B. Fulks; Staff Sergeant Christian Longsworth; Lance Corporal Benito A. Ramirez; and Sergeant David Christoff, Jr.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Dallas Sams of Staples, Minnesota, former state senator, father and dedicated advocate for Minnesota's environment. He passed away last Monday after a hard fight against cancer. During his sixteen years in the Minnesota State Senate, Dallas never forgot who he was or where he came from. A tireless advocate for rural Minnesota, he never passed up an opportunity to talk about the beauty of the lakes and fields that surrounded his home. In the last few years it was hard to have a discussion with him without discussing his most recent addition or renovation to his beloved cabin, his love for which was second only to his love for his children Seth, Stacia, Jordan, Mitchell and Michael, as well as his wife Mary Beth. Dallas nurtured his passion for the land and the environment throughout his life. As a dairy farmer and agriculture management teacher he developed a hands-on knowledge and appreciation of our state's natural environment. His understanding of the vital importance of a clean and healthy ecosystem was clear in his work at the state legislature. One of his greatest accomplishments as the foremost advocate for ethanol in the state was the passage of his legislation mandating the Nation's highest ethanol and gasoline blend standard in 2005. He supported efforts to involve more young people in family farms in order to guarantee the success of the next generation in farming as well as made sure that summer youth employment programs in Minneapolis got adequately funded. His most sought after goal and one which was sadly never accomplished during his lifetime was the successful passage of legislation dedicating a portion of Minnesota's sales tax toward maintaining and protecting the environment that he loved so much. Perhaps this year will be the year his dream will finally be accomplished. While history will record his accomplishments in terms of legislation passed and projects funded, those who knew him, whether for a lifetime or just for a few moments, will remember the passing of a man universally known for his humor, humility and honor. The true measure of our love and admiration for Dallas will not be found in the laws he passed but in the lives he touched through his good-humored nature, ready laugh and mischievous smile.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a jury here in Washington convicted Scooter Libby, the Vice President's former chief of staff, of obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the FBI and perjury. Libby's attorneys say they will appeal. Meanwhile, the White House remains silent about whether or not the President will pardon Mr. Libby. From the very beginning, this case has been about more than just Libby's attempts to lie to a Federal prosecutor. As egregious as that is, and Mr. Libby should be punished for it, perhaps even worse are the revelations that came out during this trial of how the Bush administration operated when it came to issues of national security. Testimony from Libby's trial shows the great lengths the Bush administration was willing to go to silence opponents of the war. In the case of Valerie Plame, the administration was more than willing to out an intelligence operative. It did not matter that they may have been jeopardizing her life or the lives of other intelligence agents that she may have been working with. All the administration cared about was silencing a critic of the war. President Bush should realize how serious this case is and should state for the record today that he will not pardon Mr. Libby.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Member from Maine for his excellent leadership, looking out for the hard-working people of this whole United States. It is true, I am honored to come from the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, but as I stand before you tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to associate myself with the Member from Maine, with the Member from Ohio and Pennsylvania, because working people all over America need a fair trade and balanced trade situation. We can no longer abide doing trade deals which essentially support environmental policies that degrade other nations, that degrade workers in other nations, and that degrade human rights in other nations, and then thereby give other nations a competitive advantage over us because of the exploitation and ignoring important environmental regulations. And it is all very important because we need leadership tonight, Mr. Speaker, leadership which is willing to stand up and be counted for the American people, leadership which will not go with the wind but will actually change the wind. That is the leadership we need at this time. Let me say that we need a trade policy that does three things, basically: respects workers' rights and their dignity; protects our fragile environment; and upholds basic human rights. Today's trade policies in America do only a few of those things but very little of what we need. What we see is a continual erosion at the very heart of America: the middle class. It started first with the elimination of our manufacturing jobs. And I now represent Minnesota, the Fifth District of Minnesota, but I started life out in Detroit, where I saw plants closing on a daily, weekly basis, and I saw jobs outsourced on a weekly basis. But now what we see is a situation in Minnesota where that has taken hold and we see jobs leaving left, right and center, and it has got to stop. The global economy has evolved to a large extent and is reminiscent today of the Robber Baron era, where huge transnational companies scour the planet for the cheapest, most exploitable labor and the most lax environmental standards. We have the opportunity to change that in Congress, and we must change it. But what kind of global economy do we want? The answer to that question must be determined and will be determined to a large extent by the rules incorporated in free trade agreements that define so much of the global economy. By what we decide in this Chamber, we will determine the shape of the global economy. If we want sweatshops in the global economy and the continued erosion of our middle class, we could continue negotiating and passing trade deals with no protection for workers or the environment. Trade deals that threaten the prevailing wage laws. Trade deals that could force us to privatize public services. But if we truly believe in a global economy that lifts the living standards at home and around the globe, one that seriously values the environment on which all life depends, then what we must do is we must do better. If we want a better global economy that lifts standards everywhere, we need to change our approach to trade agreements as we enter into this fast-track arena coming up. First, we need to put an end to the fast-track trade negotiating procedure which previous Congresses have ceded to the Executive branch. The Founding Fathers wisely delegated that role exclusively to the branch of government closest to the people: the Congress. And we have the perfect opportunity to take back our constitutional responsibility by allowing fast-track promotion authority to expire in June. We can and will put forward a different, more humane method of negotiating international trade agreements, but it is time for fast track to die a rightful death. Secondly, we must stop passing more trade deals designed to spread the sweatshop model of the global economy. It has become clear that NAFTA, after 13 years of real-life experience, has not worked. It has cost us a million manufacturing jobs, left Mexican workers without rights and still working for wages far below the Mexican poverty level. It has displaced more than 1.5 million Mexican farm families, leaving many with no alternative but to migrate north for a better life. The same applies to CAFTA and the pending Peru and Colombia ``free'' trade agreements. Colombia is distinguished by being a country where trade unionists are assassinated more than in any other nation in the world. Instead, we can construct a new global economy built on generosity and inclusivity; one that raises living standards and supports the vast and growing global middle class. But we can only do it by casting off the failed policies of recent decades and by building the middle class. The choice is ours. The choice is clear. It is time to reclaim Congress's free trade authority and our country's, and the world's future.

Mr. ELLISON. Fair trade.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Congressman Hodes, I just want to agree with you there. The fact is that this Employee Free Choice Act actually provides more opportunity, more choice, not less. It is critical to understand that. Again, I want to recognize good employers who work cooperatively with their unions, but I also don't want to turn my eyes to the fact that there has been intimidation, but by and large, not on behalf of the union. In fact, I have a whole stack of horror stories that go along with workers trying to organize. But I wanted to just talk a little bit, before we begin to wind up, about how important the Employee Free Choice Act is for working-class and middle-class prosperity. I want to start out my comments just by pointing out that over the last 6 years of this administration we have seen poverty increase by about 1 million people every year. Right now we have got about 39 million Americans who live below what the government calls the poverty line, 39 million. That is a lot of people, and that is unacceptable in America. Now, you might say we are not talking about poor folks, we are talking about workers. Well, let me tell you what a worker is. A worker is a person who works hard every day and makes a decent salary. Let me tell you what a poor person is, a worker who lost their job and hasn't gotten their paychecks for a little while. So the ranks of the poor and the ranks of the working and middle class are tied together. So many people are only a few paychecks away, if not one paycheck away, from disaster. So we cannot ignore the rise in poverty during the Bush administration and say that it is not connected to workers' rights. It is directly connected. We also have to talk about how the ranks of the uninsured have increased every year during the Bush administration. This, again, is tightly tied to the fortunes of the working class people, our folks. We have to be clear that if we have an Employee Free Choice Act in which people can organize and people can form together, build a union, what they can do is they can parlay that organizational power into greater benefits for American people. We can now begin to form the basis of a real universal health care system, a system in which everybody can have health care in our society. We can parlay it into a real credit reform system where people are not subject to the vicissitudes of what some creditor lending institution wants to do with regard to lending practices, payday loans, all these kinds of things that sort of eat away at what working-class people are doing. They can pull up, they can build a little fence around the fortunes of the working class, which I think are so important, and really sort of redirect the focus of our country towards the common good, which is where it should be. So let me just say that the myths are important to address and I am glad we have done that. But I just want to say that this Employee Free Choice Act is giving working people a hedge, a fence, a wall, a protection in order to improve the lives of everyday people. And I just want to turn our attention to this chart I have to my left which shows real median household income. For those of you who don't know the difference between real and unreal, it just means adjusted for inflation. When we take inflation into account, we see that the median household income of Americans has dipped between 2000 and now and has gone down precipitously, dramatically, and we cannot allow it to continue. If you have unionized workers, they don't need us to go pass a minimum wage law. They don't need us to think about some of these basic things. They do it for themselves. They have the power in their own hands when they can organize.

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Congressman, I want to thank you for that question. It is an excellent question. Labor rights are human rights. I think it is important to know that Martin Luther King, who lost his life in Memphis, Tennessee, April 4, 1968, was actually helping sanitation workers gain their rights in an effort to unionize and have collective bargaining. That union, which was mostly African American membership, received help from their main-stream headquarters union, which was in New York, but got a lot of help that way. It is important to remember that when Martin Luther King lost his life that the union drive and the strike did not end. It continued on, and the strike was successful. It is important to know that the right of human dignity, human rights and labor rights, are inextricably linked together. One of the first things that my father and mother would tell me as a child is that Woodward Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, is a place where Walter Reuther of the UAW and Martin Luther King of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference walked down the street arm in arm with Reverend C.L. Franklin demanding labor rights, human rights, civil rights. It is all one thing, and that is what we have all got to be about.

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congressman Hodes. I am looking forward to correcting some of those myths, too. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that the public knows the truth from the myths. But before we go back to correcting the Record and making everything clear, I just want to tell another story, if I may, because I think it is important again for us to root our presentation in real-life experience. In 2003, employees of Walker Methodist Health Center in Minneapolis voted 61 percent to unionize. They did so in part because of their disgust with the health center that punished them for taking time off to be with ill family members. Quite ironic for a health center. Anyway, the employees were immediately harassed and intimidated; they had all kinds of problems that they had to deal with because of their effort to unionize. And today, management continues to appeal the 2003 election, despite losing every appeal with the National Labor Relations Board. But their appeals have prevented the will of the workers to have their union recognized. And I think again, it is very important that we focus on what real people are dealing with. Meanwhile, employees acting on behalf of their union have been harassed and disciplined, as I said, even fired for their union activity even though they voted and have gotten the union by a 2-1 margin. And I think it is time for companies like the ones we have talked about to step up to the plate and recognize the union. It is time to have something like the Employee Free Choice Act to make there be a vehicle to have a contract. And I just want to associate myself with the comments of Congressman Yarmuth. It is absolutely right that there are many employers who understand the importance of respecting the right to organize. We don't want to demonize them. What we are looking for is all Americans, workers and employees, to do well. The great Senator Paul Wellstone is known for saying, ``We all do better when we all do better.'' So when the employers do better, workers should also do better, and, all around, Americans should say the common good is a good idea and we should continue to focus on it.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for kicking it to me because, I just want to elaborate on one of those stories you just told. I think it is very important to tell the stories, and for the freshmen who come to this Congress as the difference makers, we have to tell the stories of the people because it is from the stories of the people that we make the difference. We have to remember that the difference that we are sitting here to make is rooted in the real life experiences of the people who sent us here to act, which is why I was so overjoyed to cast that ``yes'' vote. We saw a vote of 241-185. That is not close. We are here to send a message and to make a difference, and the Employee Free Choice Act is just that. But let me share this with you. Ten employees of the Brink's Home Security, Minneapolis branch, met in secret in 2004 to discuss problems with their employer. They feared for their jobs if the talk about the union became public, but they decided that a life with a living wage, some health care and a pension plan was worth the risk. They signed authorization cards to have the IBEW represent them. This was back in January 2005. The National Labor Relations Board certified the IBEW as the employees' bargaining agent, and that was in March 16, 2005. Contract negotiations began with Brink's that April and have dragged on for nearly 2 years now with no contract. This is a company whose average monthly income is $27 million. The employees have a simple question for their employer: Why should they work for a company who insists on contracts with its customers but not with their own employees? That is a question I think needs to be answered, and the answer lies in the Employee Free Choice Act because dragging it on, taking employees down a slow dance, dragging it out, not getting down to a real contract is something that the Employee Free Choice Act is going to remedy. But I am going to tell you all why it is that some employers resist the union, even after one has been authorized, and I think the answer lies in this simple chart. The Union Advantage, Median Weekly Earnings, what we see is unionized employees make an average of more than $800 a week, and yet nonunion are down here just above $600. That is quite a bit of difference, 200 bucks a week. That is the difference between fixing the window that is broken, fixing the garage door, patching the roof, sending your child to school with good, decent clothing. That is the difference between a nice meal or, you know, spaghetti every single night. It is the difference between a quality of life and not. I just want to tell you all that I am proud to stand here with you. We are the difference makers. Therefore, we should make a difference, and I would like to recognize my good friend from Iowa, Congressman Braley.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the leadership for bringing forth this very important human rights act. Human rights are labor rights; labor rights are human rights. And for the last several years, the only intimidation that has been going on has not been by labor unions but by employers. Ten employees of the Brinks Home Security Minnesota branch met in secret in 2004 to discuss problems with their employer. They feared for their jobs if talk about a union became public. But they decided a life with a living wage, some health care, and a pension plan was worth the risk. They signed authorization cards to have the IBEW represent them. This was in January of 2005. The National Labor Relations Board certified the IBEW as the employees' bargaining agent. That was on March 16, 2005. Contract negotiations began with Brinks in April, and they have dragged on for nearly 2 years now with no contract in sight. This is a company with an average monthly income of $27 million. Why should they work for a company who insists on contracts with their customers but not with their own employees? We need the Employee Free Choice Act to make sure we can get a contract. Thank you, leadership. Thank you very much.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, it is with a good deal of sadness, and a great deal of respect and admiration, that I recognize the passing of the influential gay rights activist Barbara Gittings. I submit the following celebration of her life published in The Washington Post into the Congressional Record. I draw attention to Barbara's life and work as one of our country's finest civil rights advocates. Ms. Gittings exhibited an amazing amount of courage, tenacity, resiliency, and generosity in her fight for equal rights spanning a remarkable 50-year career. I am tremendously thankful for her efforts on behalf of all Americans, and hope the occasion of her passing provides a small moment of reflection on our collective fight for equal rights. A gay activist long before people were even calling themselves ``gay,'' Barbara provided the first face for the burgeoning gay rights movement in the 1960s when she took an active part in protesting federal employment discrimination. She was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973 and worked tirelessly within the American Library Association to make materials with GLBT content more accessible to the reading public. When told she was the Rosa Parks of the gay rights movement, this modest activist stated that any success she enjoyed was always the result of a collaborative effort. I think Barbara's lifelong accomplishments provide an important measure of how far we've come in the fight for equal rights for all Americans. To be sure, Madam Speaker, her death also serves to remind us that there is work yet to be done in ensuring all citizens can live lives free of discrimination, prejudice, fear, and the threat of violence. Sadly, today there is one less champion to do it. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2007] Gay Rights Pioneer Barbara Gittings, 75 (By Adam Satariano) Barbara Gittings, 75, one of the earliest activists to push the U.S. government to provide gay men and lesbians with equal rights, died Feb. 18 at an assisted living center in Kennett Square, Pa. She had breast cancer. In 1965, Ms. Gittings and several gay men and lesbians were the first to hold demonstrations outside the White House for equal rights for homosexuals. She later played a key role in the American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. ``Gay people didn't have a face until Barbara started demonstrating in 1965,'' said Mark Segal, publisher of Philadelphia Gay News. ``Up until that point, no gay face had been seen in the newspaper, on television or in the movies.'' Her involvement in the gay rights movement started in the 1950s, when she helped form the New York City chapter of the early lesbian organization Daughters of Bilitis. Around the same time, Ms. Gittings became estranged from her family, which did not approve of her championing of gay rights, Segal said. Ms. Gittings headed the American Library Association's Gay Task Force to attract more attention to gay literature and urge libraries to provide more information on sexuality and gay issues. William Kelley, a Chicago lawyer who first attended a national gay rights gathering with Ms. Gittings in the 1960s, said he remembered her saying that when she was young, she had to look in the encyclopedia to find out more about her sexuality. ``It was her thought that libraries should be encouraged to offer more information to people about sexuality,'' he said. Ms. Gittings also was an editor of the lesbian journal the Ladder in the mid-1960s. In Ms. Gittings's lifetime, she saw a change in the perception of the gay rights movement. In the 1960s, she picketed in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the Fourth of July. In 2005, she attended a ceremony at which the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission placed a historical marker recognizing the gay rights struggle across the street from Independence Hall. Ms. Gittings was born in Vienna, Austria, where her father worked as a U.S. diplomat. She was raised in Delaware. Survivors include her partner of 46 years, Kay Lahusen, and a sister.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, the change that took place in this body over the course of November 7 is directly related to this war in Iraq. And the presence of a number of people who are here now is directly related to the will of the American people to end this war, which never should have been started. The fact is, the strategy to escalate the troops is not new, it has been tried at least four other times. It won't work this time, it didn't work those times. The thing to do now is to engage diplomatically and politically. That is what this situation calls for and that is the only thing that will bring success in this conflict at this time. Support the troops? Of course. Of course, support the troops. Always we support the troops. But there comes a time when you cannot get the success that you seek at the barrel of a gun, you have to talk it out, you have to engage diplomatically, you have to engage politically. There is no substitute for that. Support the troops, but bring them home. Support the troops, redeploy them, and allow the Iraqi people to seize and protect their country at this time. I carry a message here today on behalf of people like Phil Steger and the Friends For a Nonviolent World, on behalf of Chapter 27 of Veterans For Peace, on behalf of every patriot who stands for peace, in the frigid cold, every Wednesday night on Lake Street Bridge in Minneapolis. On behalf of the 3,100 Americans killed, including Minnesotans, I carry that message. On behalf of 24,000 scarred and wounded young Americans, including 372 Minnesotans, I carry the message. On behalf of the families and the loved ones of the damaged and deceased, I carry the message that the American soldier has done what has been asked, and it is time for politicians to step forward and do their job, which is to seek a political and diplomatic solution to this conflict, something that this latest escalation cannot do. On behalf of the $8 billion we send to Iraq each month, hard-working American tax dollars that could be used to enrich the lives of the 86,000 uninsured children of Minnesota, or for nearly the 700,000 Minnesota Medicare patients, I carry the message that we need peace. We need to pursue it vigorously, unwaveringly, and urgently. On behalf of the Americans who purposefully misled repeatedly, including the administration as related to these weapons of mass destruction where none existed, on behalf of the people who claim falsely of the collusion between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein where none existed, on behalf of the people who said that regime change would be welcomed with flowers instead of IEDs, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth. On behalf of the people who say that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this war instead of draining the American Treasury of over $400 billion, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth. On behalf of those Americans who told us, repeatedly, facts which got us into this war in the first place, and which they are trying to sustain us in this war now, I say stop the deception. Stop the killing. Stop the carnage. Support our troops, do not support this escalation. Send a clear signal to the President that this is the wrong way to go. For 6 years now, while the deception has deepened, we were told to shut up, bite your tongues, you are not as patriotic as me, you don't love America as much as I do. None of that is true. We have to stop this polarizing language and really focus on the best way out of this. Even people who support the escalation can't claim that we are going to be in Iraq forever. What is your plan for eventually getting out of this thing? We say let's start the withdrawal now, let's start the diplomatic solution now, let's start the political solution now. I want to say, on behalf of those who really thirst for peace, who believe that peace really is the answer, that we need to look at the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. He said, ``There comes a time when silence is betrayal.'' And so it is. And so, in keeping in line with the legacy of Dr. King, I want to talk about peace today. To those people who believe in the principles of peace and that peaceful dissent that guided Dr. King, those people should know that for you to raise your voice on behalf of peace is a patriotic act, it is a good thing. To those people who say they believe in peace and believe peace is the right way to go, let me wrap up my remarks by just reminding you that Marine General Peter Pace, somebody who knows a little bit about warfare, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just last week said, There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy, period. He added, Potential enemies of the United States, they may take comfort in rancor, but they do not know anything about how democracy works. The fact is that peace is patriotic. Dissenting from an ill-fated policy of the President is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is our obligation. So please continue to stand up for peace and never forget that peace is the answer, and peace is going to prevail.

Mr. ELLISON

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the days of this House rubber-stamping President Bush's failed war policies have ended. So far this year, House and Senate committees have held over 52 hearings on Iraq. And now this week, over a 4-day period here on the House floor, we will be debating the President's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan bill is simple. It states that the House will continue to support our troops, but that we oppose the President's troop increase plan. Some of my Republican colleagues say that if you really support the troops, you must support the President's plan. But this makes no sense. Do my colleagues not realize that our troops in Iraq were polled on the President's plan? Only 41 percent of them supported it. Not even a majority of our troops say that this plan of the President's is a good plan. What about our generals? Both retired and active duty military leaders have said that the President's plan will not reverse the devastating civil war that is now taking place in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we listen to those military leaders and our troops and voice our opposition to the President's plan.