Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats are so sure that we will win back the Congress in 2006 on the Social Security issue that many have stopped challenging the administration on the war on Iraq: Let us take the war off the table as an issue and focus on other issues.

It is not a new strategy. It was pursued by congressional Democrats in 2002 when our leadership supported the war in Iraq. We lost. It was furthered in 2004 when our nominee supported the war. We lost. We lost a chance to regain the Congress and take back the White House, and the American people lost a chance for a new start. Why? Because we did not challenge the central vulnerability of the administration that led this country into war, into a

war based on lies and misrepresentations.

Democrats' failure to challenge the war represents a failure of the two-party system. For the Democrats to become politically viable in 2006 and 2008, we must take on this administration on the War on Iraq, not giving them more money to keep the war going. We must move to cut off funds, to bring our troops home, to get out of Iraq, to make those who lied to us to get us into war accountable, to hold them accountable in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the gentleman from Florida that the American people are worried about many things including health care. And that is why I stand to ask the House for support on H.R. 676, a bill that will establish a U.S. national health insurance.

A Kaiser Foundation poll found that 64 percent of Americans favor expanding Medicare to all. The Deans of Harvard and Stanford Medical Schools, 13,000 doctors, including the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and two former Surgeons General now support Medicare for All.

By expanding Medicare to all, we will contain costs. Medicare boasts 3 percent overhead. In contrast, the Medicare HMOs, 15 to 30 percent overhead. Medicare also has a much lower rate of spending increase than private health plans.

Medicare for All will make the U.S. more competitive. GM and Ford are losing money in competitive advantage because other developed countries have universal health care. Ontario now makes more cars than Detroit. Canadian GM, Ford and other auto manufacturers have sent a letter in support of their single-payer health care system as a result.

All over this country, Americans are looking for some help from the Congress of the United States on health care. It is time for us to come together, Democrats and Republicans alike, in defense of universal health care, Medicare for All.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to say that the people of Ohio are proud of the gentleman and the work that he has done in challenging these unfair trade agreements. For me to have a chance to join the gentleman in this important challenge to CAFTA is a privilege, and I again want to commend the gentleman for the service that he has given to the people.

I want to focus for a moment on one particular impact of CAFTA, and that is the impact on the availability of generic drugs, something that is another issue that the gentleman has worked on.

While the Bush administration says that they understand the need for lower-cost medicines in developing countries, their actions demonstrate greater concern for protecting the extremely high profitability of leading pharmaceutical companies. In the trade talks that resulted in the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, our government pressed for tighter restrictions on generic drugs in the Central American countries. The result will be higher prices for medicines and higher profits for the pharmaceutical industry paid for by some of the poorest people on earth.

CAFTA has been one of the Bush administration's highest priorities in international trade. As we know, it extends the NAFTA agreement to all of the Central American countries that happen to be small and poor. The CAFTA countries include Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. It was formally signed by the administration, and it awaits congressional votes, which is why we are here to appeal to the Members of Congress to think long and hard before they would even consider supporting CAFTA.

The Central American countries that would be affected by CAFTA have significant health problems. AIDS, for instance, is more prevalent in the CAFTA countries taken as a whole than in the United States. According to Dr. Manuel Munoz, the director of Medecins Sans Frontiere's AIDS treatment program in Honduras, ``HIV/AIDS kills one person in Honduras every 2 hours, because the vast majority of people with HIV/AIDS cannot afford lifesaving AIDS medicines.'' Malaria and tuberculosis are also prevalent. As a result, the people of these countries need greater access to essential medicines. Yet, CAFTA will make access more difficult for most residents and impossible for too many of them.

CAFTA accomplishes this by imposing new restrictions on the use of pharmaceutical regulatory data that will have the effect of limiting the availability of generic drugs.

Pharmaceutical regulatory data is the result of studies of patent medicine's efficacy and safety. These studies are performed by the companies seeking approval and are often expensive to undertake. The data are submitted to the drug regulatory agency in the company's application for approval.

When a company seeks to manufacture a generic version of a patent medicine, it must typically show that its product is the chemical equivalent of the patent medicine and that it works in the body in the same way. The generic producer relies upon the drug regulatory agency's prior approval of the patent medicine to make its case of approval of the generic version.

What CAFTA does is it gives extra patent protections to the drug regulatory data, thereby excluding any other user from relying upon them. In other words, not only might a particular medicine be protected by a patent, but, additionally, the drug regulatory data for that medicine is protected by a patent. Even if the medicine's patent expires, generic manufacture could be restricted due to the additional patent on the use of regulatory data. According to Robert Weissman, an attorney specializing in international trade and pharmaceuticals, ``if the generics cannot rely on approvals granted based on the brand-name data, in most cases, they simply will not enter the market. This is especially true in small size markets, as in Central America, where prospective revenues are limited.''

Now, CAFTA was formally signed on May 28, 2004. It will only become law if Congress passes it. In 2002, the pharmaceutical industry gave over $29 million in political contributions; three-quarters of that was donated to the Republicans.

Recently, I am sure the gentleman is aware, the pharmaceutical companies have been expatriating their profits to avoid paying income taxes here in the United States. They really do not want to pay income taxes there, but they want to control the political process here and, by reference, in Central America with the help of these trade agreements. I am glad to join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in urging the Members of Congress to oppose CAFTA. Not only is it bad for workers, not only is it bad for human rights, not only is it bad for the environment, but it is bad for people's health.

Mr. Speaker, when you carry this along to its conclusion, what we have is a condition where the people in the poorest countries cannot protect their health. So we are looking at their life expectancy beginning to decline, and one of the reasons is because they cannot afford the cost of the prescription drugs. And just as people here are held hostage by the pharmaceutical companies with the high cost of prescription drugs, imagine what it is like for these poor people in Central America, who are making a tenth, if that, of what we make in this country, and they are paying a high cost for prescription drugs because the pharmaceutical companies want these trade agreements which protect their patents and will not permit generics to get the help to people that need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, the administration is closing defense bases here at home and building new bases in Iraq. There is no money to maintain some defense installations here, but there is $270 billion and counting for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq. The Armed Forces ranks are depleted. Enlistment is falling off. So the administration is hard at work privatizing the war, having hired about 20,000 so-called contractors, mercenaries, to do work that used to be done by the military.

A member of the new private army in Iraq may make as much as 10 times more than what an enlisted soldier makes, and private companies making billions from the Iraq war will no doubt be quick to make political contributions to make sure the war keeps going. Our Reservist and National Guard units are fortifying a mission to which they should have never been called.

Iraq has turned into a tragedy. What is even more tragic is the thinking that says, Well, we are there; now we need to stay and finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get out. The sooner the better. And we need to hold accountable those whose lies sent our soldiers there at the cost of many American lives and the lives of innocent Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak about this critical public health issue that has affected the entire U.S. The Vioxx case presents us with a valuable opportunity to examine an industry in order to help it improve. The problem is not only that the FDA does not have sufficient regulatory authority to protect the public, though that is certainly true. The problem actually lies with the way pharmaceuticals are priced. I'll explain.

In the Vioxx case, Merck displayed a litany of predatory behavior. Vioxx research teams were stacked with people who had financial associations with Merck. Merck manipulated research protocols. They delayed publication of negative findings about Vioxx. They succeeded in getting people to take Vioxx that did not have a medical need by spending $161 million for direct-to-consumer advertising alone. And direct lobbying to doctors is a well-known practice that has the same result. Lastly, 10 members of a 32-member FDA advisory board in charge of determining whether Vioxx should continue to be allowed on the market, had ties to industry. Had those advisers abstained, the committee would have voted that Vioxx should not return to the market. And these are only the things we know about. More concerns are likely to be uncovered as we dig deeper.

Would Merck be doing all this if Merck was the only maker of Vioxx? Absolutely not. When there is competition in manufacturing, just like there is in most other sectors, the capability to squeeze so much profit from a single drug is gone. But under a monopoly, which is what Merck has with its patented Vioxx, the sky is the limit on profits. Only the patent holder or licensee can sell it, so they control the market. And when a company controls the market, they have considerable leeway to corrupt the process in ways similar to what we have seen with Merck.

The usual justification for patent monopolies is that patents are yielding innovation, which is critical for new pharmaceuticals. But we are not getting that innovation. The number of New Molecular Entities approved by the FDA has been in decline several years running. Copycats or me-too's constitute roughly 70 percent of new FDA approved drugs. In other words, the pipeline is drying up.

If we want to avoid another Vioxx down the road, we need to get to the root of the problem. We need to bring innovation back up, control perverse incentives, and drive drug prices back down to a similar level as other developed nations. We do that by changing the financing of pharmaceuticals.

Put simply, the NIH, which is currently responsible for much of the innovation in pharmaceutical research, should drastically increase its already successful pharmaceutical research program. The innovations that result should be available for any qualified entity to manufacture, which would introduce competition into the market. It would boost innovation, competition would drive down prices as it does in the generics market, and the incentive to engage in Merck-like behavior would be drastically reduced.

Mr. Speaker, instead of bringing our troops home from Iraq, today our majority party is advocating sending billions more to Iraq to keep our troops there indefinitely. Instead of winding down operations in Iraq, today the administration will receive money to help build permanent bases in Iraq. At a time when the American people are waking up to the disaster of the war in Iraq, this House is going to sleep. Wake up.

The administration manufactured intelligence to take us into war in Iraq. Wake up. The flower of America's youth is being sent to battles, spilling their blood to find weapons of mass destruction which did not exist. Wake up.

Mr. Speaker, $270 billion going for a war based on a lie while America's educational systems are crumbling, while 47 million Americans are without health insurance, while our inner cities have high unemployment, while oil companies are gouging Americans for $2 to $3 a gallon for gasoline. Wake up, my friends. Let us get out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, let us bring our troops home. Let us hold the administration accountable for the lies that took us into Iraq. Redeem the faith our Founders had in this House.

Mr. Speaker, as the summer peak driving period begins and as gas prices remain high, I am introducing legislation today to reduce the price of gasoline. The bill, The Gas Price Spike Act of 2005, is co-sponsored by 33 Members of Congress.

The bill will address the spike in price of gasoline by placing a windfall profits tax on oil companies; giving tax credits for the purchase of ultra efficient vehicles; and provide federal grants to reduced mass transit fares.

Consumers are being gouged at the gas pump. And, the only thing rising faster than the price of gasoline right now is the skyrocketing profits of the oil companies.

Washington can no longer ignore this issue. High gas prices are eating away at consumer's disposable income and could lead to a further economic downturn.

The bill will: Institute a windfall profit tax on gasoline and diesel. Such a tax is to be imposed on all industry profits that are above a reasonable profit level. This proposal would not increase the cost of gasoline because this proposal does not tax the price of gasoline. It only taxes excessive profits of refineries and distributors. Any attempt to increase prices to recover the lost revenue in taxes is simply taxed at 100% making the price increase worthless.

Transfer the revenue from the windfall profits tax to Americans who would buy ultra efficient cars, made in America, with a tax credit. These will be made directly available to the purchaser of a car that traveled over 65 miles on a single gallon of gas. Today average cars get less than 30 miles per gallon.

Establishes a broad based, far reaching program to promote mass rail transit inter- an intra-city. The bill makes funding available to regional transit authorities to offset significantly reduced mass transit fares during times of gas price spikes.

The co-sponsors are Reps. Serrano (D-NY), Abercrombie (D-HI), DeFazio (D-OR), Frank (D-MA), McDermott (D-WA), Solis (D-CA), Filner (D-CA), Carson (D-IN), Grijalva (D-AZ), Lantos (D-CA), Lee (D-CA), McGovern (D- MA), McKinney (D-GA), Woolsey (D-CA), Owens (D-NY), Strickland (D-OH), Conyers (D-MI), Davis (D-IL), Sanders (I-VT), Farr (D-CA), Hinchey (D- NY), Evans (D-IL), Nadler (D-NY), Kanjorski (D-PA), Sherman (D-CA), Lewis (D-GA), Gutierrez (D-IL), Visclosky (D-IN), Kildee (D-MI), Slaughter (D-NY), Kaptur (D-OH), Olver (D-MA), Stupak (D-MI).

Mr. Speaker, has Congress gotten use to the idea of the U.S. being in a war, an occupation in Iraq?

Congress endorsed the President's actions over and over again even though those actions were based on misinformation and falsehoods. It has appropriated over $270 billion for the war. It has provided money to build new bases in Iraq. It has not held a single investigative hearing that has made one bit of difference in the administration's conduct of the war.

But if the war cannot be justified, then neither can the occupation. Some are now content to say well, we are there, we have to stay there.

Mr. Speaker, it was wrong to go in and it is wrong to stay in. We attacked a nation that did not attack us. We waged war against a people who did not want war with us. We have killed people who have more quarrel with us. We are occupying a nation that does not want us there.

This Congress has the power to end the war. We should work together to set a day for withdrawal and a cutoff of funds. We acted decisively to get into war, we should act decisively to get out. In doing so, we must begin to develop peacemaking skills superior to our war-making skills or our world will not survive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for yielding, and thank him for his dedication to the workers of the State of Maine and to workers all over this country. All of America appreciates the leadership that you have taken on this issue. I am proud to join you at this moment.

I remember years ago hearing Ross Perot talk about the sucking sound that would be heard once NAFTA passed. We were warned that we would be losing millions of jobs. Well, all of these prophecies have come true. We now seem to have learned nothing, because we have a new trade agreement that is being delivered to this Congress that promises to do exactly the same thing that NAFTA has done to our country.

And that is the so-called negotiated Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA for short. This legislation, which I will refer to here as CAFTA, will be harmful to all of the people of the signed nations. CAFTA will benefit a few and hurt the many.

Governments will have little or no control over the investment of foreign companies. As a matter of fact, the power of legislatures is effectively nullified once these trade agreements are passed. National development needs and the rights of citizens and local governments will come secondary to the rights of foreign investors.

Moreover, investors will not have to comply with international labor organization standards, workers rights will be undermined, especially for women workers, for farmers, and Maquila workers. The labor rights abuses that are currently prevalent throughout the CAFTA countries will run rampant under this new legislation's weak labor provisions.

Countries will enjoy greater tariff benefits for goods made by workers whose rights have been denied. Family farms in Central America and the United States will fall victim to CAFTA, which will threaten locally-grown produce and undermine food security. Basic public goods and services, such as education, health care and water will become privatized as governments lose the flexibility to subsidize these services.

Think about this. Privatization of education, privatization of health care. We have a private health care system, which is wrecking this country's ability to be able to meet the needs of its people. We are going to cause it to proliferate across Central America. The attempt to privatize water constitutes a challenge to human dignity. We are going to help facilitate the privatization of water with this legislation.

Expensive brand name drugs will have expanded patents, and inexpensive generic medicines will have greater restrictions. Poor people will not have access to lifesaving pharmaceuticals, because what are these trade agreements about? They are about lifting of corporate rights and dashing the rights of the common people.

The rules of trade, as first developed in NAFTA and now expanded in CAFTA, will increase the suffering of people in all signed countries. When CAFTA comes before Congress for a vote, I will urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair agreement. Trade between nations does not and should not have to lead to such negative consequences.

Trade should lift up the human condition, not degrade it. Trade should celebrate workers rights, not destroy those rights. Trade should take into account environmental quality principles and appreciate the quality of our air and our water. We have new goals to set in this country with respect to trade agreements; workers rights, human rights, environmental quality principles must be included in all trade agreements. We have to challenge the prevailing consensus which delivered NAFTA to this Congress.

We have to challenge the prevailing consensus which brought the World Trade Organization into being without any respect for the rights of national legislative bodies or for the people that we represent.

So I want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for leading the way on this issue. I am proud to join with you, and I look forward to continuing to work with you as we take a stand here on behalf of workers not just in this country, but all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of my dear friend, Mr. Norbert `Whitey' Priebe--beloved husband, father, stepfather, grandfather, brother, and friend to many. His passing marks a great loss for his family and friends, and also for the people of Slavic Village and Newburgh Heights.

Throughout his entire life, Mr. Priebe's caring heart and concern for others reflected along Fleet Avenue. He was born in Cleveland, grew up in Newburgh Heights, and graduated from St. Stanislaus High School. Although he was of Polish heritage, Mr. Priebe became an honorary son of Cleveland's Czech community. His forty year involvement with the heart and soul of Fleet Avenue, Ceska Sin Karlin Hall, served to uplift every aspect of this significant cultural organization--an organization that bridges modern life and antiquity, and connects the people of America to their traditions and customs of their Eastern European origins.

Mr. Priebe maintained an unwavering focus on family, community and country. During the Korean War, he served with honor and courage as an infantryman in the United States Army. Following his discharge, he remained an active member of the VFW From the military to his professional career, Mr. Priebe reflected an unwavering level of integrity and diligence. He worked as an auditor with the state's auditor's office, until he retired 10 years ago. Throughout his retirement, he remained an active and vital part of our community. At Karlin Hall, Mr. Priebe took on any task that needed tackling, including bartender, floor sweeper, and President.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Norbert `Whitey' Priebe. His caring nature, quick wit, and concern for others, framed his life and served to light the lives of countless individuals and families along Fleet Avenue and beyond. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, children, grandchildren, and to his many friends. The legacy of his life, lived with joy and energy, will live forever within the hearts of all who knew and loved him well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, as we join them in celebrating 100 years of outstanding service in advocating for the legal rights of our most vulnerable citizens, our poor. The Legal Aid Society was formed in May 1905, as a beacon of protection and hope in assisting low-income individuals in matters of legal concern. Isador Grossman was its sole attorney until 1912. He served thousands of immigrants in desperate need of a trusted legal advocate.

Over the past century, the Legal Aid Society has grown and evolved, yet its core mission has remained constant and unwavering--to provide compassionate support to those unable to afford legal representation, and also to advocate on behalf of critical issues facing our community. The work of the Legal Aid counselors is far-reaching. During the early part of the nineteenth century, Legal Aid attorneys helped establish the Cleveland Municipal Court and Small Claims Court that served to replace corrupted judicial officials. In 1966, C. Lyonel Jones was appointed the Legal Aid Society's executive director, a position he has today. His passion for social justice and compassion for the people of our community is reflected throughout his tenure. Mr. Jones has led his legal team with integrity, heart, conviction and an unwavering focus on numerous human rights issues, from advocating for the restoration of the Hough neighborhood in the 60's, winning cases to improve the lives of those living in psychiatric facilities and nursing homes, advocating on behalf of battered women, and forcing Republic Steel to comply with the EPA's Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and celebration of every staff member and volunteer of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, whose individual and collective work over the past century has offered solutions, hope and peace for countless individuals and families. For the past four decades, the outstanding work of the entire staff, led by Executive Director, C. Lyonel Jones, has served to offer many people hope and has brought critical social issues into the light of day. Their advocacy continues to strengthen the foundation of humanity throughout our entire community, one phone call at a time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to today in tribute and remembrance of Mayor Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr., as the U.S. Post Office in the City of Strongsville is renamed in honor of his outstanding legacy. Mayor Ehrnfelt was a devoted family man, accomplished community leader, and admired friend and mentor. His vision, integrity and love for his community led the City of Strongsville through an amazing journey that extended over a quarter of a century, leading this quiet, rural village through the evolution of inevitable progress, without compromising the City's historical significance or rustic charm.

Members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate came together to pay official tribute to the life and legacy of Mayor Ehrnfelt. The United States House of Representatives unanimously adopted House Resolution 3300, co-sponsored by Congressman Steven LaTourette, and myself, in November 2003. In June 2004, the United States Senate adopted the Resolution.

Mayor Ehrnfelt did not seek a path of public leadership--it sought him. In 1973, Mayor Ehrnfelt's neighbors and friends urged him to run for a District School Board seat, against a divisive member who was leading an effort to ban books and fire teachers. He won that race, and again at the urging of those around him, reluctantly ran for a Council seat and won. Just five years later, Mayor Ehrnfelt was appointed Mayor. In 1979 he won his first mayoral race by a landslide, and served as Mayor for 25 years. He quickly became the most popular and beloved Mayor in the history of Strongsville.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor, gratitude and remembrance of Mayor Walter F. Ehrnfelt--an exceptional man and caring leader whose life profoundly impacted the lives of thousands. His passing marks a deep loss for countless people who called him friend including me. The power of his kindness, grace, tenacity and heart served to uplift every level of the Strongsville community, and his memory and legacy will never be forgotten.

With all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have been doing right for the American people on social security. We have been holding town hall meetings all over this country. We know and the American people ought to know that Social Security is not going bankrupt, that the President misspoke when he said that there is no Social Security trust fund.

As a matter of fact, the Social Security trustees released a report recently that says that right now the Social Security trust fund has $1.68 trillion in it; that trust fund will grow to $6 trillion by the year 2028 without any changes whatsoever; that Social Security is rock solid through the year 2041, according to the Social Security Administration's own actuaries; that Social Security is rock solid through the year 2052, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Yes, both parties ought to come together; but we ought to come together in truth, and we ought to have the President let go about this masquerade about social Security going bankrupt.

What is going bankrupt is a legislative process that fails to stand up for the retirement security of the American people. Forty-seven million Americans rely on Social Security. They have a right to expect that the money is going to be there, and we Democrats will make sure that money will be there for them for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Jim and Betty Newman, as they celebrate fifty years of devotion to each other, to their family, extended family and many close friends. This unbreakable union represents a deep and abiding love, not only for each other, but also for their children, grandchildren and for their community.

Jim Newman and Betty Wadden were both born and raised on Cleveland's Westside. They were married at St. Colman's Catholic Church on May 7, 1955. They moved a few miles west to Lakewood, where together they raised six children: Barbara, Timothy, Dennis, William, Daniel and James. They remain a loving, guiding force in the lives of their children, and also in the lives of their eighteen grandchildren, all of whom remain in the Cleveland area. Jim and Betty instilled a strong sense of kindness, humor and integrity into the hearts and minds of their children. They taught by example, interspersed by Jim's quick wit and Betty's caring nature, offering lessons that reflected their own lives--lives framed by hard work, patience, laughter and enduring strength during difficult moments. Besides commitment to family and community, both Jim and Betty share concern for our country and our world. Jim is a United States Veteran, having honorably served in the United States Army during the Korean War.

Jim and Betty were able to effectively balance the demands of family, work and community, with family as the main focus. Jim is now retired from CEI, following more than thirty years of service. Betty is also retired after working for many years as a member of the Baker's Union with Fisher-Fazio and Rini-Rego's. Today, they remain active within the lives of their family, parish and community. When winter finally breaks, Jim and Betty spend peaceful summer days along the shores of Lake Erie, where they gather with family and friends at their Marblehead cottage.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Jim and Betty Newman, as we join them in celebration of this joyous occasion--their 50th wedding anniversary. Jim and Betty continue to inspire those around them to live life with love, caring and humor, to give back to the community, and to hold family closest to their hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Ottilie Markholt, loving mother, grandmother, author, dedicated union advocate, community activist, and dear friend to many. Her passing marks a great loss for her family and friends, and also for every member of our American workforce. It was Ms. Markholt's focus, drive and vision, directed at improving and securing worker's rights that brought the plight of the American worker and the labor movement into the light of day.

Ms. Markholt was born and raised in the great northwest, an only child of modest beginnings. As a young child, her family moved from the wild frontier of Alaska to Seattle, Washington. Ms. Markholt, exceptionally intelligent and well-read, rejected the socially conservative ideology present in higher education at the time, opting to quit college and focus on changing the world for the better-- especially for the working class. Armed with a passion for social justice, an agile mind, a gift for writing and an unwavering commitment to the cause, Ms. Markholt set off on a lifetime journey of advocating for the struggling working class of America.

Ms. Markholt was no stranger to struggle herself. As a single mother of two young boys, Ms. Markholt survived on meager office wages by becoming an expert gardener and seamstress. She kept her boys well-fed and well-clothed by baking homemade bread, canning fruits and vegetables, making her own butter and cottage cheese, and making their own clothes. Despite adversity, she remained emotionally and physically strong, and her energy and focus served to propel the labor movement forward. From writing critically acclaimed books and articles, to knocking on doors and soliciting membership, to organizing strikes, Ms. Markholt's energy and commitment helped set the labor movement ablaze in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of the remarkable and exceptional life of Ottilie Markholt. The infinite measure of her heart, combined with her courage, vision and integrity, defined her life and served to lift the lives of countless individuals and families throughout our community,

especially those who serve as the foundation of our nation--the American laborer. Her kindness, energy, compassion and unwavering focus on making our world a better place--one union member at a time, will be remembered always. I extend my deepest condolences to her friends and family members, and especially to her sons, Bob and Lee; her grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchild.

Ottilie Markholt lived her life with joy, energy and in complete harmony with her principals and values. Her eternal faith in humanity and in the notion that together, we can make a positive difference, will continue to serve as an unending force of hope and possibility for every member of America's labor force, and her memory and legacy will forever live on within the hearts of all who knew and loved her well.