Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And an economy in the worst recession in 70 years. I urge my colleagues to vote in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative as an important step on the road to economic recovery and prosperity for all for the future.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Progressive Caucus budget alternative. Budgets are about goals, aspirations, values and vision. This budget sets the right priorities for the future of this Nation, cutting Cold War weapons systems and investing in the future, investing in our veterans, investing in their families and children and in workers and de-investing in the things that don't work. Investment number one. The lack of affordable health care is the number one drain on our economy, and it must be fixed immediately. The Progressive budget steps up the President's commitment by investing nearly $120 billion a year to ensure that every American can have affordable, high-quality health care. Investment number two. We need a national commitment to accelerate the development and commercialization of clean, renewable energy sources to get serious about our dependence on fossil fuels. And any climate change policy must recognize that we have to protect the most vulnerable by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that supports economic security and the health of low- and moderate-income families and communities of color. The Progressive budget spends $30 billion a year for the next decade to create 3 million clean energy jobs dedicated to increasing our energy independence and protecting our environment. This is about the future, and the budget takes unprecedented steps to eliminate outdated and Cold War weapons systems, repeal the Bush tax cuts and make much-needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure, including wastewater and energy-efficient transportation systems. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressional budget alternative to build on the President's commitment for a comprehensive approach to meet our current and future fiscal priorities.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Democrats' budget resolution. At long last, we have an honest budget that will mark another significant step forward on the road to recovery. This budget reverses 8 years of absolutely failed policies under the Bush administration which led to record deficits, a doubling of the national debt, and loss of 4.4 million jobs since the end of 2007. Mr. Speaker, this budget makes necessary investments to lead the country toward a future of economic prosperity, creating good-paying American jobs by investing to reform our health care system, developing and manufacturing clean energy economy, and upgrading our educational system so our children can compete in the 21st century global economy. The budget returns fairness and fiscal responsibility by cutting taxes for the middle class. Now, Mr. Speaker, this budget is clear. It is a clear choice to invest in our country's future, and I urge my colleagues this week to vote ``yes'' on this budget resolution to support House Democrats and to end 8 years of failed Bush policy.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I want to applaud President Obama for extending DED until March 31, 2010, enabling many Liberian families to remain together in the United States for 12 months beyond the original March 31, 2009 expiration of DED. However, I urge the Administration to create a permanent path to citizenship for Liberians who have called the United States home for over a decade. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was established in 1991 to allow Liberians fleeing political turmoil to stay in the United States without fear of deportation. Since arriving in the United States in the early 1990s, Liberians under TPS have built lives in this country; they have established careers, paid taxes, and bought property. TPS ended in 2007 and President Bush deferred the enforced departure of Liberians who were originally granted TPS. TPS is meant to provide a temporary safe haven in times of political turmoil or natural disaster. It was not contemplated that the political turmoil in Liberia would persist for so many years, but it did. Since coming to this country, many Liberians have married and had American-born children. Many have attained United States citizenship themselves. However, according to The New York Times, many of the approximately 3,600 Liberians residing lawfully under DED have applied for legal citizenship, including one of my constituents, Janvier Richards, but the process has been delayed for well over ten years for her and many others. If DED expires before Ms. Richards and other Liberians under DED are granted citizenship, their only legal option is to return to Liberia, which many no longer consider home. Tremendous strides have been made by Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and I commend her leadership. Unfortunately, Liberia still has many political and economic challenges to overcome. Liberia has an unemployment rate of about 85 percent and, if Liberians under DED are forced to return to Liberia before economic and political stability are fully established, they may be unable to support themselves and their families. Again, I applaud President Obama for extending DED for Liberians until 2010, averting the separation of families and the splintering of communities that surely would have occurred had departure been enforced on March 31, 2009. I am hopeful that we will be able to reverse the policies of earlier Administrations and forge a permanent path to citizenship for Liberians under DED.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus about the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act. First, I want to thank Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva for their leadership as cochairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Each week we come to the floor to speak to the American people about important progressive values that we share. I want to thank also Chairman George Miller for his strong leadership on the Employee Free Choice Act and for being a stalwart champion for working people throughout his impressive career. I feel fortunate to consider Chairman Miller both a friend and a mentor, and especially when it comes to workers rights. It's time for us to set the record straight about the Employee Free Choice Act. Due to the well-funded opposition campaign by corporate interests, a lot of misinformation about the Employee Free Choice Act has filled our airways, our newspapers, and public discourse. Well, it's time for that to stop. Let's set aside the myths and talk about reality. First, to fully understand the importance of the Employee Free Choice Act, an appreciation of the history and context of organized labor in America is a prerequisite. In 1935, the Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. The purpose of the legislation, as stated in the text, was to protect ``the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.'' Now I know a little bit, but not a lot, about organized labor. What I do know is that for my grandfather, for his father, for my mother, the importance of organized labor and the labor movement was actually to move people into the workforce, into good-paying jobs with great benefits and to be able to work into the middle class. This was important for my family and it's important to families all across this country. As a direct result of the act, many decades went by where workers successfully formed unions without interference by employers. Now, to be sure, let's celebrate the tremendous courage of workers across this country and throughout history who stood up for their rights--stood up for their rights to good benefits, stood up for their rights for good wage, stood up for their rights for working conditions that were safe in the work place. Over the last decade, the National Labor Relations Board elections have fallen by 50 percent. For instance, in 2007, only 30,000 workers actually gained collective bargaining through the National Labor Relations Board certification. This precipitous decline is due to many companies fighting the National Labor Relations Act at every turn and the unfair labor practices of many businesses. The instances of businesses taking or threatening to take punitive actions against employees who attempt to organize have, once again, Mr. Speaker, become all too common. In fact, in a recent survey report, 79 percent of workers were likely or very likely or at least somewhat likely to be fired for trying to organize a union. Fired for trying to organize a union. Fired for trying to organize collectively to fight for themselves and working families in this country. In 25 percent of organizing drives, at least one worker is lawfully fired for a union activity. Can you believe it--in America you can be fired for trying to organize collectively for good benefits and strong wages and safe working conditions in your workplace? Yet, this is exactly what is happening to workers across this country right here in the United States. As you can tell in the current business climate that is rife with fear and intimidation, workers are rightfully afraid to engage in union organizing--afraid to engage in working with their fellow employees to fight for their rights as workers. Recently, over 150 historians wrote a letter to all of us in Congress expressing their support for the Employee Free Choice Act. As they note--and I want to emphasize--the Employee Free Choice Act is necessary as a direct result of the erosion of good faith actions of employers against their employees organizing and forming a union. It is a public policy response to those who have been fought against in the workplace. It's a public policy response on behalf of workers in support of their right to organize and form a union. This climate of fear hasn't existed in our Nation for many years. Unfair labor practices were originally mitigated by the National Labor Relations Act. But, once again, our Nation's workers need our help. We must pass the Employee Free Choice Act in order to break down the barriers to organizing created by far too many employers. Now, not all employers are working against workers. In fact, there are many employers who are working with workers who are organizing collectively to bargain for their rights. But there are some really bad actors in the system, and the Employee Free Choice Act aims to clear up the bad actors. Mr. Speaker, next I believe it is important to address the myths that have been perpetrated by businesses determined to deprive workers of fundamental rights, and there is a lot of mythology out there. The most widely repeated and factually inaccurate statement about the Employee Free Choice Act is that it would abolish the secret ballot election. You have heard it on the news, you have seen it in the television advertising, but it is nothing more than a public relations stunt to turn the American workforce against organized labor. So let's clear it up. The fallacy was actually originated by public relations campaigns financed by corporations determined to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. And even more frustrating, it has been widely reported as the impetus behind former supporters flip-flopping on their Employee Free Choice Act position; that is, against workers. This myth is repeated daily by the media outlets, opponents, and former supporters, and it is just plain wrong. The process these critics are referring to is the National Labor Relations Board Election. But the reality is, is that it is about the employees' choice about what kind of election, what kind of choice they want to make. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, the election process is preserved. The mythology is wrong. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it would enable the workers simply to access a different method, an alternative method to form a union, through majorities signing up saying that they want a union and that they would prefer that kind of process. Under current law, workers can only use the majority signing up on a card process if the employer agrees. Now, this is a fundamental worker's right to choose what kind of election they want. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act is; it is about freedom of choice on behalf of the workers to choose the kind of process they want to form a union or not. So it doesn't destroy the ballot process. In fact, workers could elect still, under the Employee Free Choice Act, for a secret ballot, or they could elect to sign up with a majority signing up for a union. The difference is that they can't be coerced by employers. So there are many myths that have permeated the recent dialogue. I want to take a moment to address each of these individually. First, the first myth is that the secret ballot election protects workers' democratic rights. The fact is that the National Labor Relations Board election process currently fails to satisfy the most basic standards for a free and fair election. In these processes, the employer has total access to the employee. The employer can coerce, can show videotape, can do all kinds of things to keep employees from signing up to form a union. The workers, on the other hand, have very little access to their fellow employees to help to organize them. Secret ballots in themselves don't guarantee fair elections. We have all seen that. There is nothing that is so sacred about that secret ballot process when it comes to a union election. So we want to create a process by which employees can choose how they want to form a union, employees can choose how they want to organize collectively for their own benefit. So the standard procedure in the National Labor Relations Board--and I will just yield for a minute to my colleague who organizes our Progressive Hour. I will yield to my colleague from the great State of Minnesota to have some dialogue about the Employee Free Choice Act and about the benefits to organizing for workers.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You raise a good point. And I know that my colleague from Minnesota, a real leader in the Progressive Caucus, is set to depart. But I will just say this as you're leaving, that this fight for the Employee Free Choice Act is really a fight for justice for the American worker. And it's a fight to set the American worker back on course for productivity and for growth and for success. And so I think that it's time for those of us who believe in the capacity of the American worker to stand up for workers by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. And you know, Mr. Speaker, the Employee Free Choice Act was just introduced into Congress just a week or so ago, and so it is time now for Members of Congress to really hear, Mr. Speaker, from constituents about their support of the Employee Free Choice Act, and to say to the United States Congress that it is time for workers to get a fair deal. When I hear you describe, and we read across the papers the excesses of CEO executives in the financial industry, and that ordinary workers have to bear the burden of paying the cost for straightening this system out, it makes me cringe. And the reason that it does, Mr. Speaker, is because it's unfair to workers. You know, when the auto industry came to the United States Congress and said, we're going to need help, otherwise the auto industry may not survive, you know, many Members of the United States Congress said to auto workers, well, you have to go back and renegotiate your contracts and your deal, talking to workers and telling workers that they to renegotiate their deals. But we haven't been willing really to say to CEOs, I'm sorry but you got quite a deal too. You need to go back and renegotiate that with the American public. And so I think it's time for us to actually close that gap from CEO pay to worker pay, because it's the workers that prop up, that build this country. And yet, year after year, decade after decade, workers are losing. And the Employee Free Choice Act is yet another tool that we have that we will provide to workers so that it enables them to organize, to bargain collectively and fairly, as partners at a table, with employers and to say to employers, once again, we don't have anything against your making money, making a profit, building your business. But you cannot do that at the expense of and on the backs of workers. And I think it's a fairly simple proposition, and I think it is one, Mr. Speaker, that the American public feels very strongly about, that somehow, all of us who get up every day and go to work for a living ought to have good wages, good benefits and safe working conditions, just three simple things. Because the American worker is not asking anyone, really, for a handout. The American worker is not asking for an easy deal or for a bonus. They are saying fair wages, good and safe working conditions and good benefits. I think that the American worker deserves the opportunity to sit at a bargaining table to decide: I want to have a union; I want to easily sign up and let my coworkers know that I want a union; I want the choice to be able to do that, and then I want to bargain fairly at the bargaining table with the employer. I think that that, Mr. Speaker, is a good deal for the American people. So I am excited about the prospects. I think it is important for us to destroy the mythology that is taking place from some who don't really believe in the American worker, and I think it is important for us to destroy the mythology of those who believe that just because a worker gets a good wage and good benefits and good working conditions it means that that is the end of the American economy. It is not true. It never has been true, and it will not be true tomorrow. So I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for joining me this evening to speak up on behalf of the American worker and to speak up and say that the Employee Free Choice Act is about choice. It is not my choice. It is not your choice. Mr. Speaker, it is not your choice. It is the choice of the American worker to choose a union, to bargain fairly, to get a good deal, and to go to work the next morning to take care of themselves and their families. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And if I could make an inquiry of the Speaker how much time remains.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And reclaiming my time from the gentleman, I would say this as well; that, you know, people ask me all the time, even as a Member of Congress, and certainly as a worker, why do you support workers' rights to organize? And it's a pretty simple answer. I support workers' rights to organize because I recognize the benefit that that pays to all of us in our communities. And you know, our small businesses out there want to be able to provide, for example, health care for their employees. And it's really tough for a small business to do that because health care costs have so skyrocketed, and it cuts deeply into even marginal profit lines. On the other hand, the unions are out there fighting for health care for all of us, for a system that would actually provide health care at a lower cost, affordable and accessible for all of us. What does that mean for small business? It means it takes it off of your, you know, out of your pot. And so that's an important benefit from small business that will only come because we are working together with members of organized labor to fight for health care for all of us. Let's talk about what it means to have workers in our community who are able to go out and purchase the services of our small businesses and the products produced by all of our businesses. Well, we certainly cannot do that on stagnant wages. And so, when the unions are out there able to organize workers to negotiate contracts with their employers, creating certainty in the workplace, then employers and businesses can work on productivity, can work on efficiency and can work on growth. And this benefits all of us, from those of us who want to go out into the consumer marketplace and purchase a television made by a worker, or those of us who want to go and get the services supported by union workers. And so it's, again, a win-win situation for all of us. And I'd like to say, as well for our brothers and sisters in organized labor, Mr. Speaker, there are no harder workers than people who get up every day and do the tough jobs, some of them jobs that many of us don't want to do, but need to be done. And so, this notion that somehow we should deprive them of wages and benefits and safe working conditions really goes against our gut, goes against who we are as Americans, and because we know that from the beginnings of the last century, the hard-fought benefits that you pointed out, of Social Security, of the 8-hour work day, of the 40-hour work week, of setting a minimum scale for a standard for wages and for working conditions, ensuring protections if that thumb was cut off on the production line, these are all things that, because union workers stood on the line and fought the hard, tough, courageous battles for all of us, that whether you're a union worker or not, you get the benefit of that. Even those of us who are Members of Congress have the benefit of workers having organized. The mere fact that we can put into a retirement system is about workers having organized and fought for those benefits in their workplace. And so the benefits are tremendous for all of us. And that is why, in all of our communities, as we're talking about spending stimulus dollars to the billions of dollars throughout the States on transportation projects and water and sewer infrastructure and all of the energy infrastructure that we need for the 21st century, what we really need are skilled union workers getting highly paid, you know, wages and benefits and safe working conditions to rebuild our infrastructure for the 21st century. And you can only get that when workers are able to organize. And so I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time. I would like to point out to the gentleman as well, and, Mr. Speaker, you know this, that, in fact, what has been good for unions and for union workers has been good for all workers. Now I have never been a member of a union. But I do know that when I was working in the low- wage workforce that precisely because union workers had gained benefits, increased wages and working standards, that there was a payoff for me as a worker who was not a union member. It meant that over time my wages went up because the union workers were the ones who fought the most for an increase in the minimum wage, not because union workers were receiving minimum wages, but because their fight and struggle for a good-paying union job was a fight and a struggle for ordinary workers, even those who were working at the minimum wage. So the payoff for the union worker and for the organized workforce is that there is a benefit, then, to all of us. I remember when I was working, Mr. Speaker, as a waitress and scrubbing by on tips that it was precisely because union workers fought for an increase in wages that that benefited me as a nonunion worker. And so there are great benefits. We know that the fight for union wages that are good wages, good benefits and safe working conditions is a fight that pays off both here in the United States and around the world. After all, when employers are allowed to close down union factories here in this country, relocate them to another country where they pay depressed wages, that has a benefit around the world, and it has a direct benefit, a negative consequence to American workers. And so the strength of being able to organize unions and to bargain collectively for benefits and wages and safe working conditions is one that pays off to all workers in this country, and indeed, pays off to workers around the world. And let me just throw out another one of these myths, because some have said that if we implement the Employee Free Choice Act, then that's going to result in labor unions engaging in intimidating and harassing behavior towards employees. This seems rather ridiculous Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, when labor unions and workers want to organize, it is not in their interest to harass and intimidate workers. The goal is to bring workers along. And so this is a myth also that has to be destroyed and that indeed, in the present system, the coercion occurs in the other way, the coercion occurs from employers who don't want to see a union workplace. And look what happens in communities. I happen to live in a district in Maryland in which we have one hotel on a project where the work force is organizing, where there will be good wages and benefits for the service employees at that hotel. And that's a good thing, and I fought for it too. But in the other hotels, that's not happening. And so you can imagine that if we actually lift up workers in one work site, that we have the possibility then of lifting up workers in another work site. And as you've pointed out, the gentleman from Minnesota has pointed out that, in fact, Mr. Speaker, that means that all workers benefit from the ability to organize to form a union. And I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman. This notion that somehow I think that these CEOs are looking out for the workers, they want to protect the workers, let's destroy that myth as well. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, what we have with the Employee Free Choice Act is a pretty simple and perhaps even old battle. You have employers who don't want a union because they know that union workers organized collectively will bargain for good wages, good benefits and safe working conditions. And on other hand, you have employees who want to form a union precisely because they don't have good wages, they don't have good benefits, and they don't have safe working conditions. The reality is that it is cheaper not to provide good wages, it is cheaper not to provide good benefits, and it is cheaper not to have safe working conditions. And so employers can't both want to produce a product or a service and make a lot of profit on that at the expense of workers. So, all we are asking, and it is a pretty simple prospect, we are asking simply for workers to be able to organize themselves, decide who represents them, and sit down as an equal bargaining partner at the bargaining table with their employer. And in the end, it is a win-win for employers and for workers. And I would yield to the gentleman.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Minnesota. What I would like to say is that we have all heard, many of us across the country have heard the story and the plight of our air traffic controllers who after the de-establishment of their union have then re- established and have been trying to get a contract and are put off time and time and time again. And so that the process from the time one decides one wants a union, that workers decide they want a union, to the time they actually get a contract that they can work under can be sorely delayed under the current process. And so what we would like to say in the Employee Free Choice Act is, do you know what? Once workers have decided that they want to form a union, sit down at the bargaining table, come up with a negotiation, negotiate a contract that is fairly bargained with the employer on one side of the table and the workers on the other side of the table, come up with an agreement, and then get to work. And that is all the Employee Free Choice Act does. It is actually pretty simple, bargain one, come up with a contract, and get to work. So I'm actually excited about the prospect both for workers and for their employers to have certainty in the workplace about what the rules are, about what the game plan is. And the Employee Free Choice Act gives the employees the freedom to choose to have a union, then to negotiate an agreement and then to get to work being productive both for the employer, but also for themselves and their families. To me that seems like a really fair deal. There are a lot of myths surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act. And some of those have been played out, of course, on television, in the newspapers and in the back-and-forth dialogue. But I just want to talk about what is important for workers. It is important for workers to be protected against pressure. Now some people say, why can't workers form a union just like you get into the United States Congress? You go and cast your secret ballot, and then you're a Member of Congress. Well, the fact of the matter is that when I go and cast my ballot for President or for Congress, there is no employer standing next to me, there is no employer looking over my shoulder to see what I will do or potentially threatening my job. I can cast my ballot and do it in relative quiet and safety and under my own guidance. This is not true for elections that take place in the workplace. This is why it is really important for workers to be able to organize, to go around and talk with their colleagues about the importance of forming a union and then to get their accord to do so. Now it doesn't say that if employees decide that they want to have a secret ballot election that that can still take place. The point is, there is a choice. And it is not the employer's choice. It is not Congress' choice. It is the employees' choice about what they want to do. And so we have to really destroy this mythology. Before we go on, I would like to talk about another myth because there are a lot of myths surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that what happens in a workplace can sometimes be a little innocuous. And so it may not be a direct threat. But if your employer is sitting with you, next to you while you're reading a union flier about organizing a union in your workplace, that is a little intimidating. If a decision by the employer about handing out raises is coming along and you're one of the workers trying to organize a union, you might believe that in doing that you may not get a raise, very intimidating, or that you may be under threat of losing your job entirely. These are not stories that are made up. These are cases that came before the National Labor Relations Board every single day. They are stories that come from our organizers out in the field across the country who are trying to organize in work places. Indeed this last summer I had the real privilege of standing with the workers of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union trying to get a union at the Smithfield Tar Heel produce processing plant in North Carolina. And the intimidation that those workers described in their quest over many years to gain recognition in that work place was really tremendous. It is unfair. That is the key. It is unfair. Workers ought to be able to freely decide with their colleagues and with their co-workers, do I want a union representing me or not? Which union do I want to represent me? And who is the leadership of that union representing me? These are choices that workers ought to be able to freely and independently make. And under the current process, that is not happening. I would yield to my colleague.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. I will in just one minute. But we want to know that we want workers able to attend meetings where they can discuss the values and the value of organizing in a union, where they could discuss the prospects for them ahead in wages and benefits and working conditions. And this can only take place in a context where those trying to organize a union have as much access to workers as the employer does. And I would yield to the gentleman.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. And to my colleague from Minnesota, first, thank you for your leadership and organizing this time when we can speak to the American people about important progressive values. You know, in the days that exist currently, in the old days, these standard Union Labor Relations Board elections have included a lot of practices that really that are hard-felt and hit workers in a very unfair way. For example, employees have no right to free speech in the process. Employees can't access media in the process. Employees don't have protection against intimidation and one-on-one interviews with their supervisors where they could believe that in choosing a union it would jeopardize their jobs. Workers are regularly forced to attend anti- union meetings. Well, the union doesn't and the workers trying to form a union don't get that same kind of access to employees. So it is really an unfair process that exists currently. So what Chairman Miller and all of us in Congress who really want to see employees with the free choice, the right to choose a union do so because we are interested in workers freely making their own choice about their workplace.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Certainly.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. You know, I come from a family of union workers. My grandfather and my great grandfather worked in the coal mines of West Virginia, where they didn't enjoy the greatest protections in that coal mine. My grandfather in fact ended up dying of a respiratory disease. And I think that today, the reason that our mine workers enjoy protection, the reason that our auto workers enjoy protection on those assembly lines, the reason that workers like my mother many years ago in a cannery in California enjoyed protection for safety considerations and for wages and benefits was precisely because they were enabled to organize as a union. So companies that have unions that are organized in their workplace actually do enjoy profits, unlike others. There are incentives for employees to stay at a workplace and to develop loyalty to that employer precisely because they struck a deal. So workers are not just a good benefit for organizing and unions aren't just a good benefit for workers. As my colleague knows, organizing and unions are actually good for employers, they are good for economic growth, they are good for productivity. And that is why here in the United States over this last decade, as we have seen this really precipitous decline in union membership, we have also seen a real flat-lining of wages, a flat-lining of benefits. In fact, the American workers has lost so much in wages and benefits over this last decade that one might argue in fact that it is precisely because they are not organized together to form a union to lobby and negotiate on their own behalf for benefits that we have seen this decline. And I would yield to my colleague.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the gentleman from Minnesota that in fact if we study what has just happened recently with the auto industry--and many Americans have been looking at the business pages and the front pages about the trouble that American auto workers and the industry face right now. Those employees and employers sat down and bargained in an agreement about benefits, about wages, about working conditions. They came to an agreement. And it wasn't as though it wasn't a hard-fought agreement. Some of these are difficult-to-win agreements. But they did. Then, when it came time that the auto industry was facing troubles, the auto industry and the union appeared together before the United States Congress, and workers sat down at a bargaining table again and were willing to make the kinds of concessions that you actually might not have gotten if you had to coerce them; but, in fact, they had to come together to work on an agreement that would help preserve the industry. This is the benefit of collective bargaining. This is the benefit of having an equal voice for workers as we have for employers.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Employees, actually, in a number of countries around the world that have unions that organize, workers who organize to form unions in fact use this process, and it would not be an anomaly to the United States to use a majority signup process. Indeed, here in this country workers have done that as well. So what we are doing with the Employee Free Choice Act is we are actually codifying the ability of workers to decide how they want to organize.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Yes.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Marylander in honor of another Marylander, Christine Sarbanes, and in honor of her service and of her legacy to the State of Maryland and to the people of the Fourth Congressional District, which I represent. I did not know Christine Sarbanes in the way that you know a person. I knew her as a public person. I first met Christine Sarbanes at an elementary school at an event, and she didn't even know I was at the back of the school, but what I observed of Christine Sarbanes was her gentleness and tenacity and her love of education and her love of children. I think, in some ways, you know a person sometimes by the people around them--by their children, by their spouses--and so we know Christine Sarbanes by her husband, our beloved Senator Paul Sarbanes, by her son and our colleague--John Sarbanes--and her other children. We see in them the gentleness and the smarts and the tenacity and the passion that was Christine Sarbanes. So it is with a heavy heart that we celebrate Christine Sarbanes' legacy. I said to John Sarbanes yesterday, as he mentioned that it is difficult to know how much you miss a person until they are gone, that when one loses a parent--and I know about the loss of a parent--that the sadness of today becomes a joy of tomorrow when you remember a smile, when you remember something that happened when you were growing up, and it touches your heart in a different way. So I wish for former Senator Paul Sarbanes, for John Sarbanes and for the entire Sarbanes family that there will be days down the line when they will remember Christine Sarbanes with that joy and with a little bit more lightness of their hearts than they are experiencing today.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. From the beginning, our great Nation has been generous, and it has been a safe harbor for immigrants, providing asylum to individuals fleeing political turmoil and humanitarian crisis. But that philosophy has been challenged very seriously, forcing people who have resided lawfully in the United States for over 15 years to return to their country of origin that is no longer their home. And so today, I rise to urge President Obama to reverse former President Bush's executive order forcing Liberian refugees back to their country. I ask the President to extend lawful status to these persons who have been law-abiding and tax paying citizens for years. These are people who have built lives in this country, who have children who are U.S. citizens, and who do not want to tear their families apart. Families like Janvier Richard, who lives in my congressional district in Maryland. She fled Liberia for America in 1991 after she and her family were threatened during the Liberian civil war. Janvier has spent 18 years in America, a generation, a lifetime in America. And yet, today, Janvier Richards, and her family, after they were granted Temporary Protected Status by the United States because of the political turmoil and atrocities being committed in Liberia, have now built a home here in these United States for 18 years. But in 2007, President Bush effectively ended Temporary Protected Status for Liberians by signing a memorandum authorizing Deferred Enforced Departure. What does that mean? That means that President Bush ordered all Liberians who had been granted TPS, temporary protected status, to leave the United States by March 31, 2009. Now, to be sure, Liberians have made tremendous progress, back on the road to democracy under the able leadership of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. But today, the question before us and the justice challenge is really about those who came to this country, like Janvier, from Liberia, started families and businesses, worked hard, paid taxes. Their children are now United States citizens and grew up in America. Janvier Richards wrote me a letter saying: ``I am being told to return home to a country that has no place for me. I have a 5-year-old son born at Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Maryland, and should be starting school this fall as a new kindergarten student. I have been working and paying taxes since I was 16, and I am happy contribute to American society by all means. This has been my home for 18 years,'' Janvier writes. Richard has followed the proper procedures to become a U.S. citizen. She fled here to the United States with her father, who was a U.S. citizen, who filed for citizenship on her behalf. But since he passed away in 2002, immigration officials have continuously ignored Janvier Richard's inquiry about the status of her application, and now she faces deportation. This is not about people wanting to take advantage of the United States or use Social Services. Janvier has been working and paying taxes since she was 18 years old and has never received government assistance. This Congress and this administration must work to allow Liberians like Richards and her family to remain lawfully in this country as contributors, as taxpayers, and as citizens. We need to support these families that have become integral parts of our communities. In closing her letter, Janvier Richards writes, and I quote, ``Immigrants started this country. Immigrants are needed in this country. It shouldn't take up to 10 to 15 years before someone can get their green card or citizenship papers. We are working,'' she continues to write, ``we are helping the country succeed. We are needed.'' Ms. Richards and her son, the 5-year-old born at Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, others like her who have come to this country and started new productive lives, have done nothing to deserve deportation. And they came here under the spirit in which we have granted asylum status to millions around the world for the generations of this country. And I, therefore, ask President Obama to stand with Janvier Richards and other Liberians like her and reverse the current executive order. I thank you, gentlelady, and I yield back.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 887) to designate the United States courthouse located at 131 East 4th Street in Davenport, Iowa, as the ``James A. Leach United States Courthouse''.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 869) to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ``Scott Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.