Progress Illinois

Rep. Phil Hare is a national treasure. The former factory worker and UNITE-HERE organizer is a no-nonsense politician and a perfect replacement for former Rep. Lane Evans, the progressive champion sidelined too early by Parkinson's Disease. On the way back from D.C.'s National Airport yesterday, Politico caught up with Hare and got his take on the presidential race, his appearance on The Colbert Report, and the definition of "working American." The whole interview is worth your time, by I particularly enjoyed this excerpt about his Republican colleagues' penchant for inflammatory commentary (specifically, recent remarks by GOP Reps. Steve King and Lynn Westmoreland):

Hare: I’ll tell you, I think what Steve King said about him the other day, it was not just ridiculous, he really did dishonor on this House: talking about (Obama’s) wife and children and patriotism and Muslim stuff. I mean, there’s no place for Steve King’s stuff, honestly, and he ought to apologize. And he won’t because I think – as kooky as it is – I think he actually believes it. That’s what’s scary about it.

Politico: Are members ever inclined to, instead of battling over this in the press, go over and take it up with one another?

Hare: I’m very inclined. I’m having a hard time not doing it. I don’t know what I’m going to do when I see him, because, look, I don’t mind him [GOP Rep. Steve King] saying, ‘Barack Obama would be a terrible president.’ But when he says that Muslims and extremists would be celebrating in the streets [if Obama won] …this guy is way, way, way off. And Westmoreland’s comments about [Obama] being “uppity” and then saying I didn’t know that [was offensive] -- I mean, Lynn, I ain’t buying it, nobody’s buying it, we know what you meant.

On Wednesday, I conducted a brief interview with Rep. Phil Hare following the Illinois delegation breakfast meeting.  We discussed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and how he's known on Capitol Hill as "labor's guy."

(Due to some poor camera placement on my part, this interview features a few cameo appearances.  Among those who walk through the shot: Chicago Ald. George Cardenas, Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin, and Crain's Greg Hinz.)

A day earlier, Hare addressed the delegation and had more to say about the EFCA.  Watch it:

During a trip to Kuwait and Germany last week, Rep. Phil Hare runs into State Sen. Debbie Halvorson's stepson, who was injured while serving in Afghanistan:

At Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, he encountered an Army captain who asked Hare if he is a congressman.

“I said I am,” Hare said Monday at a state Capitol news conference. “I thought, ‘Uh oh, here we go.’ He said, ‘Well, my stepmother’s running for Congress in Illinois. Debbie Halvorson.’”

It turned out the Army captain was Jay Bush. Bush’s father, Jim, is married to Halvorson, a Crete Democrat who is the Illinois Senate majority leader.

Jay Bush, serving in Afghanistan, had been riding in a truck that came under fire at night, according to Hare. Ordered to evacuate, Bush jumped out of the side of the truck. He did not realize the vehicle was parked on a bridge, so he fell 25 feet, landing on rocks and injuring his spine.

“He is a wonderful young man,” Hare said. “And God must have been looking out for him because to fall that far and have something like that happen and be able to probably, in all likelihood, be able to walk and use his arms and legs again, that will be a wonderful day for him.”

When Hare returned to the United States Thursday, he found a message on his cell phone from Halvorson. She was asking him to inquire about her stepson, if possible, and to contact Jim Bush with any information.

Hare called the elder Bush, told him he’d just seen Jay 12 hours earlier and reported that he was in good spirits.

Rep. Phil Hare is all for improving the Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA) by expanding benefits to service-sector workers and those displaced because of trade imbalances with countries like China and India. That's why he's excited the Senate Finance Committee may take up a TAA reform bill tomorrow. He's just not too thrilled that Republican leaders are insisting on pairing the legislation with the proposed Colombian free trade agreement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi tabled indefinitely earlier this year. Here's Hare's response:

Let me be clear. I strongly support modernizing TAA. I voted for the House bill and lobbied for many of the provisions in it. My constituents fully understand the real life consequences when bad trade deals are combined with an inadequate safety net for displaced workers.

But the completely unrelated Colombia FTA should remain dead. Trade unionists are being murdered at a rate of one per week in 2008. Yet few if any of the perpetrators are being brought to justice. America should have zero tolerance for this type of violence.

Passing the Colombia agreement—based on the job-killing NAFTA model—would actually force more Americans into TAA while sending a terrible message about our commitment to basic human rights.

Hare is right to fight the Colombian FTA. As he pointed out in April, 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007 and they're being killed at a rate of over one per week this year. What's more, of 2,500-plus murders in the country since 1986, only 68 cases -- around three percent -- have resulted in convictions. Some trading partner, eh?

Instead of pushing through more lobbyist-ridden legislation, Hare suggests Congress take up the TRADE act, which aims to make American trade deals more just and humane:

What Congress should be moving is the TRADE Act— legislation that mandates a review of existing trade agreements and a renegotiation of those agreements if necessary. It also sets the terms of what must be included in future trade deals—including strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards.

The American people are desperate for a new direction on trade—including a modernized TAA. The Colombia FTA simply continues the failed policies of the past. Tying the two measures together is a bad idea any way you cut it.

This morning, the House passed The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 by a vote of 293-129. Authored by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, it was billed as a bipartisan compromise. The Media Consortium's Brian Beutler writes that while it certainly did garner support from both sides of the aisle, calling it a compromise "is a total farce." Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees. Mark Agrast at the Center for American Progress has more:

Nevertheless, despite these welcome improvements, the bill fails at the most fundamental level to restore the independent judicial check on executive power that the Bush administration has done so much to undermine. Now, instead of determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a surveillance order, the FISA Court will be reduced to reviewing the adequacy of the surveillance procedures established by the Bush administration. Instead of evaluating the sufficiency of the assurances that were given to telecommunications companies to obtain their cooperation, the federal district courts in which the lawsuits against the companies have been filed will be authorized to do little more than determine whether such assurances were in fact provided.

Unfortunately, four members of Illinois' Democratic congressional delegation voted in favor of the measure -- Melissa Bean (8th), Rahm Emanuel (5th), Dan Lipinski (3rd), and Luis Gutierrez (4th).

But praise is in order for Democrats Phil Hare (17th), Jesse Jackson Jr. (2nd), Jan Schakowsky (9th), Danny Davis (7th), Jerry Costello (12th), and newcomer Bill Foster (14th), all of whom voted to ensure the civil liberties of Illinoisans.

East Hannibal, an Illinois farm community located along the Mississippi River, has fought hard this week to prevent rising flood waters from destroying their town. But their efforts could go for naught thanks to the short-sighted decision of a railroad company.

According to MSNBC.com, East Hannibal residents claim that the Norfolk Southern Railroad company reneged on a promise to keep a bridge they control in the upright position during this week’s expected record-high river crest. What problems could the bridge cause?

When the water goes up another four feet to its predicted crest of 31.8 feet late this week, it will slam against the superstructure of the bridge — a series of cantilevered spans that run about 1,000 feet from here to Hannibal on the Missouri side. That will effectively create a dam that will catch logs, propane tanks, wrecked boats and any other debris that comes downriver, which could push the water higher behind the blockage.

The slightest rise in the river’s level could mean the difference between the levee riding it out or failing, said Koeller, 62.

During storms in 1993, the town's levees breached, flooding homes and farms and destroying crops planted in 42,000 acres of some of the nation’s richest farmland. The bridge wasn't raised then either.

A railroad spokesmen said they never made an agreement to raise the bridge. Apparently, after consulting with the Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, company engineers decided the bridge is “more stable in the down position than the up position."

Rep. Phil Hare has been investigating the dispute. Andy Rowe, an aide to the Democratic congressman, confirmed that after the decision was made, “No one [from Norfolk Southern Railroad] thought to get in touch with the levee district.”

(H/T One Man)

When the the jobless rate jumps from 5 percent to 5.5 percent in one month, what's the best way to protect those who've lost their jobs? According to five six GOP members of the Illinois congressional delegation, the answer is: nothing at all.

Reps. Mark Kirk (R-10th), Donald Manzullo (R-16th), Peter Roskam (R-6th), John Shimkus (R-19th), Judy Biggert (R-13th), and Jerry Weller (R-11th) joined 139 of their House colleagues in voting against an extension of unemployment insurance benefits Wednesday night, obstructing a bill that fell just three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a procedural hurdle and override President Bush's promised veto.

The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 would have extended the average $300-a-week benefit check by 13 weeks for all unemployed Americans, a step Bush says is generally reserved for times when the rate jumps considerably higher than its current 5.5 percent. But job statistics are pretty dire: May saw the biggest monthly unemployment rise since 1986 and 8.5 million Americans who want work cannot find it now -- an increase of 1.6 million over the past year, according to the Labor Department. The Washington Post editorial board wrote Tuesday that increasing benefits would have been an more-than-adequate stopgap:

Extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks should have been in the original stimulus package; it is the best arrow left in Congress's quiver. Not only would it help cushion the blow of joblessness to those laid off through no fault of their own, but economic studies suggest that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy because they are quickly spent on goods and services.

Democratic leaders will bring the vote to the floor again Thursday, this time requiring only a majority for passage. For more on the issue, read this recent blog post by Rep. Phil Hare (D-17th).

UPDATE: The bill came up for a vote again in the House today and this time passed with a veto-proof majority. The six GOP members listed above -- Kirk, Manzullo, Roskam, Shimkus, Biggert, and Weller -- all voted against the measure ... again.

In an address to the National Federation of Independent Business yesterday, John McCain issued a rejoinder to Barack Obama's recent criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA):

While Mr. Obama has talked of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, Mr. McCain vowed that “in a time of uncertainty for American workers, we will not undo the gains of years in trade agreements.”

What "gains" does McCain have in mind? Perhaps he means the devastation of the Mexican agricultural economy, which has forced farmers to seek greener pastures further north by any means necessary. Or perhaps the loosened environmental and labor standards that most new trade deals include. Or maybe he just means the increased wage inequality (pdf) that trade necessarily creates and that the U.S. hasn't protected against via our withering safety net.

Back in Illinois, Rep. Phil Hare wasted no time blasting McCain on his comments:

“By every objective account, NAFTA has been an abysmal failure. It sent millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. It increased illegal immigration. It resulted in the importation of unsafe products and food. It lowered the standard of living in Mexico. And most of all, it lined the pockets of multinational corporations at the expense of average American families.

“Despite this failed record, Senator McCain continues to be one of NAFTA’s top cheerleaders. While Senator McCain chides Senator Obama for considering the renegotiation of this failed agreement, the fact is the American people are demanding a new direction on trade.

“Today’s speech makes it clear that a McCain presidency would bring even more hardship for American workers.”

Skeptics of U.S. trade policy are tired of being on the defensive, so they've proposed a forward-thinking piece of legislation called the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act that would make American trade deals more just and humane:

The legislation requires a review of existing trade pacts, including NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and sets forth what must and must not be included in future trade agreements. It also provides for the renegotiation of existing trade agreements and describes the key elements of a new trade negotiating and approval mechanism to replace Fast Track. The replacement of Fast Track would strengthen Congress’ role in developing and modifying trade agreements

Democratic Rep. Phil Hare from the 17th District, a staunch labor supporter, called it "landmark legislation" and believes it could help revive the nation's manufacturing sector:

"We don’t want to be viewed as just obstructionist,” Hare said. “We can have a trade policy and trade deal that works for” both the U.S. and its trading partners.

It's unclear whether the bill has any shot at passing the current Congress. But its chances would surely increase if Barack Obama -- who has criticized NAFTA throughout the campaign and recently voted against a trade deal with Colombia -- is elected president in the fall. The same can't be said for his Republican nominee, who last month called Obama "a tool of organized labor" for opposing the deal with Colombia, a nation whose labor activists live in fear of death ever day.

We at Progress Illinois wanted to send some love to 17th District Congressman Phil Hare, who has consistently and vocally been on the right side of the current debate over the proposed Colombia trade pact, a controversial free trade deal that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is slated to shelve indefinitely today.

President Bush, who sent the deal to the House without first reaching consensus with congressional leaders, is bullying Congress to pass the bill because he thinks Colombia will present opportunities for American businesses, will act as "a buffer" against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and will join the fight against terrorists. But Hare, a former factory worker and union official himself, has repeatedly stressed the most important criticism of the deal: the human rights travesties visited upon Colombian labor organizers. Here's his take, with fellow New York Representative Michael Michaud, at the Huffington Post:

Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.

Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -- around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.

Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Don't believe him? Check out the widely-circulated data from the Economic Policy Institute, which finds that over the past 21 years, more than 2,534 unionists have been assassinated.