Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Richard Cordray, an outstanding public servant who has recently been named the 2005 County Leader of the Year. In his many years of service he has proven his dedication to the betterment of the constituents he serves, and as Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, he has redefined his post to accommodate the particular needs of the county and the people who belong to it.

A man full of ideas and enthusiasm, Richard is always ready to think outside the box to find a solution that works for everyone, and he never loses touch with the higher goal of improving the quality of life for all whom he serves.

Richard's ingenuity, combined with a sincere and determined desire to help people, has driven him to create numerous programs to help the citizens of Franklin County learn to help themselves. From providing public services to seniors in danger of losing their homes to foreclosures and back taxes to establishing educational programs to help high school students become financially responsible at a young age, Richard finds inventive solutions to many chronic problems faced by the community of Franklin County. With his ability to look beyond what is, to see what could be, Richard is a shining example of the kind of public servants who are really making incredible and lasting changes in their communities.

Richard frequently goes above and beyond the call of duty with programs that seek to improve financial literacy, but even within his conventional job description he shines. In the last year alone, he has collected over $77 million in unpaid back real estate and personal property taxes. Due to his interest in all aspects of county operations, he is able to help on both the micro and macro level and the positive effects of his programs and policies are truly improving the lives of the entire community.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Richard Cordray for his years of outstanding service to his community. His ability to seek out the greatest needs of his community and fill those needs is to be commended and admired. Through his energy and dedication he has had a tangible affect on the lives of many in Franklin County and deserves our sincere appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives made permanent many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act which have caused great concern across this country with respect to undermining basic civil liberties. When we sing the Star Spangled Banner, we ask a question, ``Does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?''

Francis Scott Key when he wrote the Star Spangled Banner understood the connection between freedom and bravery, between democracy and courage. We must work to create a Nation where we encourage the people of America to be free of fear. We must work to create a Nation where we are not afraid to celebrate our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for allowing me to speak. I would also like thank the members of the committee who worked so hard to craft a bill that was strong enough to pass through the committee unanimously.

When most people think about NASA, they think about space exploration, and rightly so, with such a rich history. NASA has given us Projects Mercury and Gemini in the 1960s, followed closely by the Moon landings of Project Apollo. They gave us Skylab in the 1970s, and finally, the Space Shuttle beginning in the 1980s and sunsetting in the coming years. And of course the Hubble telescope has given us decades of groundbreaking information about deep space through its spectacular visual images. Several of those images, I might add, adorn the walls of my own office.

But NASA's contribution to America is far more than space flight alone. Its satellites have allowed NASA to pioneer the science of remote sensing, which enables us to perform incredible analyses of the Earth from space. And its aeronautic research and development has dramatically improved our air safety, our economy, and our environment. National security has especially benefited.

From surveillance systems that monitor aircraft flight paths to the development of secure communications systems, NASA's research has been instrumental in improving our national security. In addition, NASA's recent successful hypersonic flight, clocked at about 7,000 miles per hour, demonstrated that military or civilian aircraft might soon be able to fly anywhere in the world in less than 2 hours. Aeronautics is a substantial and key part of the national defense infrastructure.

NASA's basic research is critical to their success. NASA is able to develop long-term, high-risk enabling technologies that the private sector is unwilling to perform because it is either too risky or too expensive. When the government-sponsored basic research yields information that could lead to a service or product with profit potential, the private sector transitions from research to development in order to bring it to market.

While it is not always as simple as this, it is clear that where there is no basic research there can be no development.

NASA's field centers like the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, in my district, are where the actual basic research is done. There you will find unique research facilities, some of the best scientists and engineers of our time, and a track record of discovery for the public good that is the envy of the world.

One of the secrets to NASA's success has been its dual emphasis on both space and aeronautics. A successful space program is heavily dependent on a strong aeronautics program. Indeed, you cannot get to space without first navigating the atmosphere. Yet the budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 attempted to cut funding for aeronautics research. The result is that recovery would have taken decades and billions of dollars.

That is why I am here on the floor to express my gratitude for the work that my colleagues have put into this bill. It shows that the good people of the committee share my own deep affinity and appreciation for a healthy, balanced NASA. It recognizes that a healthy NASA requires strong field research centers like NASA Glenn. Strong field centers in turn are dependent on their facilities and, most importantly, their talented workforce. The

bill, therefore, protects the jobs and facilities from cuts that are driven by what accountants want instead of what good scientists and engineers in our Nation need.

The bill stands in defense of aeronautics in a nod to the crucial role that it plays in so many facets of our everyday life. The effort to keep NASA healthy is by no means over, but this bill represents a long stride in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I want to also thank my colleagues from other committees such as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and others who have been very supportive of our overall efforts.

Mr. Speaker, today's New York Times states that a London-based group of academics and researchers has released a report on civilian casualties in Iraq for the first 2 years of the war. The report, based on analysis of civilian casualties reported in the news media, states that 24,865 civilians were killed and about 42,500 wounded.

The report goes on to list its findings specifically. We also know that there is another study which was published in October of 2004 in the Lancet, the British medical journal, according to the New York Times, that says that some of the estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range as high as 100,000.

I have stood on this floor many times and bemoaned the loss of our American troops, but I think in the name of humanity we have to start thinking

about the impact that this war is having on the civilians in Iraq. Their lives are being destroyed. Their families are being wiped out.

House Joint Resolution 55 sets the stage for bringing our troops home and ending this tragedy in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Kucinich amendment would require the President to direct the U.S. representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to commence negotiations on an international treaty banning space-based weapons. Though the U.S. and the former Soviet Union long dominated the use of space, currently many states are investing in space assets and have developed or are developing the ability to use space peacefully.

Serious multilateral discussions about rules of the road for space are needed. This is especially important for the United States, as we own and operate the vast majority of satellites orbiting today, and space has become critical to U.S. economic, scientific, and military interests. Continuing the peaceful use of space will require refined international laws for space-faring States. The legal framework addressing the weaponization of space is far from comprehensive.

The international community, including Russia, China, Canada, and the EU, support creating a ban on weapons through a treaty to ban weapons from outer space. The United Nations has called for peace in space.

For nearly a half century, the cooperative and peaceful uses of space have yielded immense benefits to humans worldwide. Despite Cold War tensions and the technical capability to do so, no nation has deployed destructive weapons in space or destroyed the satellites of another nation.

The policy of preserving peace in space has not only been an international policy, Mr. Chairman, it has also been a national policy. The National Aeronautic and Space Act passed in 1958 stated that it ``is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''

Yet despite any amendment to law or consideration by Congress, the policy of preserving peace in space changed significantly, behind closed doors.

Why this policy has changed is a mystery. No other country has taken any steps to develop space-based weapons. Space assets of the United States have received no national security threats. Our national security threats are far from outer space. They are on the ground. Yet, with little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.

The Air Force has recently sought President Bush's approval of a national security directive that could move the U.S. closer to fielding space weapons. This new policy would alienate our friends and mobilize our potential enemies.

Moving forward with plans to weaponize space would create an arms race in space. It would be counterproductive to U.S. national security to give potential adversaries reasons to accelerate development of space weapons technology. Pursuing space weapons would also bankrupt our Nation

with a hefty price tag of up to $1 trillion according to published studies by leading weapons scientists, physicists, and engineers. The financial repercussions of a space-based weapons system would trickle down to every sector of our society: our national security, economy, health care, education, social services, and foreign policy.

It would be very easy to prevent the inevitable catastrophe that would result from an armed race in space. The United States, the only country moving forward with plans to put weapons in space, despite any national security threat, would need to stop in its tracks and work with other nations to negotiate an international legal framework for the peaceful use of space.

Support the Kucinich amendment to commence negotiations for an international treaty banning space-based weapons. This country should not make of the planet Earth a death star. We need to support international cooperation for the peaceful use of technology in space. Support the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If the gentleman had the opportunity to read the amendment, he would see that it has to do with commencing negotiations on an international treaty banning space-based weapons. The U.S. Space Command has a program called Vision 2020 which really is about U.S. domination of space.

Now, the American people ought to know whether their Members of Congress are prepared to spend up to a trillion dollars so we start the next arms race in outer space. This is apart from the issue of protecting our Nation with antiballistic missiles. It is a whole different debate. This is about taking the arms race into outer space. And what I am asking for is for an international treaty where all nations would agree we should not do that.

But some in this Congress want to take weapons to go to outer space so the United States can control the world from outer space. Mr. Chairman, that is simply nuts. And what I am suggesting is that we ought to be talking to other nations about eliminating an arms race in outer space to protect future generations. You know, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away people were not talking about killing each other. We should be talking about a treaty to ban weapons in space.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the author of the amendment, what protects American citizens in this country and around the world is this country's adherence to the rule of law and this country's abiding by international law.

Wherever we have seen violations of international law if they are endorsed by the United States, it jeopardizes the security of American citizens everywhere. I think that is the point of those who are challenging this amendment which would unfortunately seem to gloss over the torture that has occurred at various places of detention.

We certainly have a right to secure this country and to make sure that American citizens are safe. But the only way we can do that effectively is to make sure that we show respect for the law and to make sure that we show condemnation, not just of terrorists, but condemnation of torture.

I think this amendment, while I certainly respect the dedication of the

gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to the American people, I think that we need to challenge the underlying assumption, and that is that torture should not be tolerated.

Mr. Chairman, at a time when we should have an exit strategy for our troops, this amendment provides Members of Congress with an exit strategy for themselves, from responsibility for Iraq.

This amendment states that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq only when the Iraqi forces are able to combat the insurgency and only when the government of Iraq is stable, at peace, and is not a threat to its neighbors.

We all know that we are light years away from both of these requirements. This amendment will keep us in Iraq forever.

Furthermore, this amendment is essentially flawed because it fails to address the correlation between the U.S. presence in Iraq and utter chaos and civil war-like state that country is in. The U.S. presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency and has turned Iraq into a training ground for the insurgents. The insurgency is growing stronger by the day, and attack tactics are becoming more advanced. An article published in New York Times on June 22 described how Iraqi rebels are refining bomb skills and pushing the GI toll even higher. Improvised explosive devices are now sufficiently sophisticated enough to destroy armored Humvees.

This means our soldiers are more vulnerable and casualty rates will go higher than ever.

In May there were 700 attacks against American forces using improvised explosive devices, the highest number since the invasion in 2003. Furthermore, not only is the insurgency in Iraq becoming stronger, but according to a CIA assessment, the insurgency will also spread to other countries in the region.

Another article in the New York Times has described a new classified CIA assessment that the Iraqi war is likely to produce a dangerous legacy by dispersing to other countries this conflict. According to the assessment, Iraq may even prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in al Qaeda's early days.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to face the facts about Iraq. It has been a disaster. We are there for all the wrong reasons. We are there based on lies. It is time for us to get out. This legislation will keep us there. Vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Toronto, where she makes Cleveland her first United States stop on a series of port calls along the Great Lakes on Friday, July 15, 2005.

The HMCS Toronto is a multi-role patrol frigate built in St. John, NB, in 1992 and commissioned in Toronto, ON, in 1993. Certified operational in 1994 and homeported in Halifax, NS, the Toronto has distinguished itself and Canada through its participation in some of the world's most sensitive operations of the last decade.

The Toronto participated in Operation Sharp Guard in 1994, patrolling of the coast of the former Yugoslavia to restrict importation of arms and fuel in an effort to end the civil war in Bosnia-Herzogovina. In 1995, the Toronto joined Operation Victory in Europe, an international flotilla of warships celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Allies' victory in Europe. As part of the Standing Naval Force Atlantic in 1997, the Toronto deployed for North Atlantic operations with the NATO squadron and was involved in a major search and rescue operation off the coast of Spain. In 1998, the Toronto participated in U.N. patrols in the northern Arabian Gulf to affect an embargo against Iraq. In November of that year, the Toronto became the flagship for the Canadian Task Group Atlantic, beginning an intensive year of operation, sailing in every Task Group exercise.

In 1999, the Toronto participated in Exercise El Morro Castle, a series of successful missile engagements against target drones and missiles, confirming the effectiveness of the ship's advanced missile defense system and crew's training. As part of the 2000 Search and Rescue operation at the site of the sinking M/V Leader L, the crew was involved in the rescue of 13 crew members in an accident in which 18 men perished. The following year, the Toronto responded to a distress call of a sinking fishing boat while conducting work-ups off the Nova Scotia coast and rescued three crew members in an accident that claimed one life. In 2001-02, the Toronto deployed in the eastern Mediterranean with NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic, and later to the northern Arabian Sea in international security operations. In 2003, the Toronto participated in Operation Splinter, aiding in the clean-up and restoration of Halifax following the devastation of Hurricane Juan. Last year, the Toronto returned to the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Gulf as Canada's contribution to the global war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am pleased that the officers and crew of the HMCS Toronto chose Cleveland as their first U.S. stop on the 2005 Great Lakes Tour. I welcome the Toronto to Cleveland and wish the Toronto, its officers and crew, and Canada, much success in their endeavors around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of my good friend Edward Rybka, upon his retirement following 20 years of dedicated service as the City Councilman representing the people of Cleveland's Ward 12.

Councilman Rybka was first elected to City Council in 1985. Equipped with a law degree and sincere concern for his richly diverse Slavic Village neighborhood, Councilman Rybka set out to energize the process of restoration and preservation in the place he has always called home. His focus on community activism began nearly thirty years ago, through his involvement with the Slavic Village Development Corporation. He was a founding member who volunteered in every capacity, including Chairperson of the Association, a position he held for several years in the early 1980s.

As the elected City Councilman, his spirited and unified effort to improve the neighborhood created vital bonds with residents, community leaders, and business advocates that still exist today. These bonds of hope and restoration created connections not only among the people of Slavic Village today, but also with the neighborhood's historic roots going back to its original settlement as part of the former Newburgh Township in 1814. His work helped to protect the historic fabric of the neighborhood; enabled new businesses to flourish; brought hundreds of new jobs into the neighborhood;

created safe and quality housing for families and the elderly; led the effort for a multi-million expansion of the Boys and Girls Club; and assisted in preserving green space in Mill Creek Falls and Washington Park.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Councilman Edward Rybka. His vision, integrity, and steadfast devotion to the people of Ward 12 defined his tenure and continues to frame this neighborhood. Councilman Rybka's unending faith in the notion that together, we can make a positive difference, will always exist as a source of possibility and light along Broadway Avenue and far beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Judge Jean Murrell Capers for her significant and groundbreaking accomplishments in the legal profession, and for serving as an inspiration and role model for minority women and men in Cleveland, Ohio, and far beyond.

Judge Caper's unwavering integrity, strong work ethic and the belief in the nobility of service to others were gently woven into her psyche, brought to life by the example and teachings of her parents, Edward and Dolly Murrell. Judge Caper grew up on Cleveland's eastside. She excelled academically as well as athletically at Central High School. She was a citywide tennis champion and basketball star, and was awarded a scholarship to Western Reserve University, where she graduated with a degree in education. As a young adult, Judge Capers became involved in the civil rights movement, and was an active NAACP volunteer. She lobbied local, state and federal legislature on many issues, including civil rights. She was also a significant leader in many local and national campaigns, including that of President Harry Truman, who was vocal in his opposition to racial segregation, and later, with Cleveland Mayor Carl B. Stokes.

Judge Capers enrolled in Cleveland Law School at a time when women, especially minority women, were discouraged from doing so. Focused and determined, she attended night classes and graduated with her law degree in 1945. She was elected to the Cleveland City Council in 1949, and held that office for the next 10 years. She remains active in politics, and even ran for Mayor of Cleveland in the seventies. In 1977, she was appointed by then Governor James Rhodes to a judgeship with the Cleveland Municipal Court; she was reelected and retired from the bench in 1985. She continued her law practice until just recently, reflecting a life-long vocation of professional excellence that focused on social and legal justice.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Judge Jean Murrell Capers, for her 60 year commitment to improving our legal system, carrying out our laws of justice, and inspiring and empowering others to attain their educational and professional dreams. Judge Jean Murrell Caper's professional excellence and accomplishment as a distinguished attorney and judge serves as a beacon of light and possibility for women, and for people of all backgrounds. Her impressive journey from the basketball court at Central High to Council Chambers at City Hall to the Municipal Court Bench, to the picket lines and rallies, has cut a path built on tenacity, integrity, dreams and hope--and she will continue to inspire us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Louis Macon, beloved husband and father, grandfather, great- grandfather, World War II Veteran, and friend and mentor to many.

Mr. Macon's unwavering devotion to his family paralleled his dedication to his community and to his church. With unyielding faith and conviction, he served as a Deacon at Mt. Zion Church of Oakwood, where his son, Dr. Larry L. Macon, is Pastor. He was born with a gift for storytelling, a kind heart and an iron will, and he easily drew others to him. His entire life consistently reflected grace, integrity, hard work and concern for others. In the early sixties, he blazed a trail of courage and enlightenment, piercing the ignorance of racially divided Cincinnati, where he became the first African American to own a gas station.

Family was central to his existence, and Mr. Macon served as a touchstone of stability and security for his family. Together, Mr. Macon and his late wife Delina were married for 56 years before her death in 2002. Together they raised nine children. Despite financial hardship and without hesitation, they adopted five more children--who quickly became integral and inseparable members of the Macon family. With strength, love and kindness, he taught by example--gently challenging, and always encouraging and inspiring.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Louis Macon, an outstanding American citizen and exceptional human being whose integrity, warmth, faith and concern for others has served to forever touch the lives of his family, friends and extended family at Mt. Zion Church of Oakwood. I extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Macon's children; Geraldine, Richard, Walter, Robert, Phillip, Helen, Larry, Raymond, Elmer, Marvin, Denise, Frank and Curtis; his sixty grandchildren and great-grandchildren; and his extended family and many friends. Although he will be deeply missed, the wonderful life and legacy of Louis Macon will live on in the hearts of all whom he loved and inspired--especially his family and closest friends--today, and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Mr. Chung-Cheng ``Michael'' Chen, loving husband, father, grandfather, and dear friend and mentor to many. His passing marks a great loss for his family and friends, yet his strength, love and outreach, extending from Cleveland to Taiwan, serves as a bridge of possibility and goodwill, forever transcending time and distance.

Mr. Chen's wife, Miriam Chen, and their four children were central to his life. Equipped with hope, faith, courageous hearts, and the simple dream of a better life, Mr. and Mrs. Chen and their four young children journeyed the arduous road of the immigrant, leaving behind their beloved Taiwanese homeland to forge a new beginning in America. Despite great sacrifice and struggle, Mr. and Mrs. Chen worked diligently to create a secure and loving life for their family. A highly respected chemist and entrepreneur, Mr. Chen directed numerous successful business ventures and built strong relationships with business owners, developers and government leaders that crisscrossed the globe from Cleveland to Taiwan. Mr. Chen's business savvy equaled his strong sense of diplomacy, and above all, his kind and generous heart.

Proud American citizens, Mr. and Mrs. Chen coveted the democratic ideals of the United States, yet always held the ancient traditions and culture of their Taiwanese homeland close to their hearts, preserving their rich heritage within the hearts and minds of their children. Mr. Chen's love of his homeland reflects throughout the Taiwanese community of Greater Cleveland. His leadership, concern for others and joyous spirit has served to strengthen every facet of communication, commerce and interaction between public and private leaders in the United States and in Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and remembrance of Mr. Chung-Cheng ``Michael'' Chen. Mr. Chen's life was lived with great joy, integrity and concern for others, especially his family. I extend my deepest condolences to his beloved wife, Miriam; his children, Faye, Kim, Kimberly and Bill; his grandchildren, Brandon, Andrea, Nathaniel and Isabella; and his numerous extended family and many friends. His great love for his family, for his community and for the people of Taiwan will forever exist as a powerful legacy of goodness, strength, hope and possibility for all who knew and loved him well--from Cleveland to Taiwan and miles beyond.

Mr. Speaker, America has now lost 1,757 of our brave young men and women in Iraq. H.J. Res. 55, a bipartisan resolution, sets in motion a plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and will spare more families of our troops the ultimate tragedy.

We should know, too, the suffering which this war has visited on the innocent people in Iraq. By some counts, over 100,000 innocent Iraqis have perished in a war that was based on a false premises. Yesterday, 18 Iraqi children were killed by a suicide bomber as the children reached for candy and toys from U.S. troops.

Each day, as new tragedies unfold, it becomes obvious that the presence of our brave U.S. troops will not end the murderous onslaught.

We have done our best to secure the safety of the people of Iraq. Now we need to take steps to bring our troops home safely. We need to begin the end of the war in Iraq. Support House Joint Resolution 55 to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, early this year the President said, ``There's no Social Security trust.'' Lately, some White House supporters in this Congress say they want to establish private accounts with money from the same trust fund which the President says does not exist. That way, when favored Wall Street interests take the money from the administration's private accounts and lose it in stock speculation, they can turn around and tell the American people, ``Hey, the money was never there to begin with.''

There is a line in the Bible which says, ``That which is crooked cannot be made straight.'' Think about that line when you think about Social Security privatization.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership in defense of our economy, workers' rights, and our desire to build on an American economy that can provide opportunity for all.

Mr. Speaker, if the Congress were to take up legislation for the purpose of removing barriers to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, I do not believe, respectfully, it would read like H. Res. 352.

But, it might read something like this: Whereas, U.S. trade with foreign countries is so imbalanced that the U.S. has a trade deficit with every continent in the world except Australia and with nearly every country in the world;

Whereas, before NAFTA, the U.S. exported about an equivalent amount to Mexico as it imported to Mexico. But, after NAFTA, imports from Mexico increased 195 percent, more than double the increase in exports. NAFTA caused a balanced trade scenario with Mexico to become unbalanced, to the disadvantage of the U.S.;

Whereas, exports create jobs; imports destroy jobs. And when imports outpace exports, more jobs are destroyed than created. So while increased exports after NAFTA may have created almost 800,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute in 2003, increased imports due to NAFTA destroyed almost 1.7 million jobs. Every State in the Nation lost jobs due to NAFTA;

Whereas, Congress will soon be compounding the damage with consideration of CAFTA, which is modeled on NAFTA;

Whereas, China's seemingly endless supply of dollars to acquire IBM, Maytag, and now UNOCAL is supplied by America's huge trade deficit with China. In fact, since Congress agreed to admit China to the WTO, granting it permanent Most Favored Nation status, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew by 50 percent in only 2 years.

Now, if Congress was to take up legislation for the purpose of removing barriers to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, it might read like this: Whereas, America needs a new trade policy based on the principle that what the U.S. buys from a country should roughly match what it sells to that country;

Whereas, the cost of private, for-profit health care is a serious impediment to competitiveness;

Whereas, the U.S. paid $5,270 per capita for health care in 2002, and two countries with the closest level of spending were Germany at $2,820 and Canada $2,930, both of which provided universal health care;

Whereas, the CEOs of Ford Motor Company of Canada, GM Canada, DaimlerChrysler Canada wrote in a 2002 letter that ``publicly-funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall labor cost advantage in auto assembly versus the U.S. which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.''

The resolution that we need to hear would say: Whereas, H.R. 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, which has 50 cosponsors, would provide less expensive, high-quality, single-payer health care systems like many U.S. competitors;

Whereas, the current course of U.S. economic and health policy is unsustainable, and a day of reckoning could involve the bursting of the housing price bubble, rise of interest rates, budget austerity and the shredding of the social safety net, mass unemployment, and a loss of economic sovereignty.

Therefore, be it resolved, Congress has once again lost the opportunity to change the course, correct the trade imbalance, lift up living standards in the U.S. and the world, and set the country on a more sustainable economic course. The coming readjustment will be painful indeed while this administration and Congress drive the U.S. economy over a cliff.

Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 352.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his defense of workers rights.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 742 and to any bill that seeks to weaken OSHA at a time when we should be strengthening it. I further want to say that I think the passage of this bill sets a dangerous precedent because what we would be doing effectively is undermining OSHA, not only discouraging it from performing its statutory mission of making sure that the workplace is safe, but also setting the stage for depriving OSHA of any revenues

that it would need to be able to enforce the law.

It also occurs to me that there is a question of the constitutional rights of workers here, that since OSHA is given rather exclusive jurisdiction to protect the rights of workers and to enforce workplace safety standards, that working people would in effect be deprived of due process of law and equal protection of the law. So it seems to me there are constitutional issues here at stake as well.

The core mission of OSHA is to protect workers by enforcing safety standards. This bill will undermine that mission. It will alter OSHA's ability to enforce, and it will leave workers in danger. The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a rise in deaths of American workers on the job. In 2002, 5,524 workers were killed due to injuries on the job. By 2003, that number had risen to 5,575. In 2003, 4.4 million, 4.4 million non-fatal workplace injuries were also reported.

Let us remember what OSHA is: OSHA is the Federal cop on the workplace safety beat. H.R. 742 will discourage OSHA from enforcing the laws against dangerous workplaces. Instead, OSHA will spend its time weighing the odds of winning against the costs to its budget if it loses.

H.R. 742 would require OSHA to pay attorneys fees in any case which it does not prevail. This would discourage settlements which save both time and money and in effect leave businesses with little or no reason to not contest charges.

Imagine if Congress were to consider a bill to require police departments to pay attorneys fees of a criminal defendant charged with reckless endangerment merely because they were acquitted or found guilty of a lesser charge. Would this House support that? The question answers itself.

Why support H.R. 742 which, in effect, does this same thing? The Nation's workplaces will be more dangerous and more lawless if the changes made by this bill are passed. This bill was designed to weaken enforcement of workplace safety laws and to in effect steal from exploited Americans the protection from injury and the justice they deserve. This legislation will severely handicap OSHA, the Federal workplace safety force, by discouraging it from citing employers unless the agency is completely certain it will win.

This legislation will endanger Americans, the vast majority of whom work for others to make a living. They work in factories, in shops, in hospitals. They work in nursing homes and in schools. They are not the bosses who decide if and how businesses will obey the law. Instead, they face the consequences of those decisions, and they live and die by those decisions. They need strong workplace safety laws and vigorous enforcement. They need to have H.R. 742 to feed it.

Current law already permits small businesses to recover litigation costs when the government position was not substantially justified. In the year 2000, 97.7 percent of all private establishments had less than seven employees and such establishments have a higher rate of occupational fatalities than establishments of more than 100 workers.

The fundamental question that faces this House here is, do workers have rights to fair compensation when they are hurt on the job? Because this is not just about workers; it is about the American family. Does a breadwinner have the right to be protected in the workplace? Do we have an obligation as a Congress to ensure a safe workplace? That is really the question that we are deciding here today. We are acting as though the interest of business and the interest of workers is somehow divided. The interest should be the same.

Workplace safety should be the highest criteria. We should not give up on workplace safety because of some odd notion that OSHA should pay if it brings a proceeding that is not upheld in a higher jurisdiction. We as Members of this House will pay a price if we fail to uphold workers' rights, if we fail to uphold the rights of a safe workplace, if we fail to uphold the right to fair compensation if someone is injured on the job, if we fail in our moral obligation to assure that corporations have a responsibility to their workers.

This should not be a matter of Democrat or Republican. It should not be a matter of labor management. This should be an American commitment to safe workplaces. And because of that I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat H.R. 742 and to work in a bipartisan way to assure that the American workplace is going to be safe for all those who toil for a living.

Mr. Speaker, I was testifying before the BRAC Commission on June 27 for the purpose of protecting 1,075 jobs in Cleveland, Ohio, from removal by the BRAC process. Had I been here, I would have cast the following votes: roll call 322, aye; roll call 323, aye.