Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the vote to override President Bush's veto of SCHIP marks the culmination of the most disingenuous and deliberately misleading debate I have witnessed in my entire political career.

The partisan talking points from the Bush White House have been disputed not only by the independent experts, but by dozens of sensible Republicans like Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts and Senator Hatch. The facts are simple: working families are having great difficulty providing their children with health insurance.

This is not a program about poor kids, most of whom are already eligible for State Medicaid programs. SCHIP provides health care to children of working families who make too much to receive welfare, but can't afford private insurance. Everyone I talk to back home agrees that this is a problem government needs to address and that children of struggling working families shouldn't pay the price for Republican politics.

The President and his Republican defenders say that SCHIP shouldn't go to families who earn $83,000 a year. Well, as Republican Senator Grassley points out, this is why the bill doesn't authorize coverage at that income level.

The White House now opposes the bipartisan bill because it provides coverage for adults. Yet, over the last 6 years, the administration has cheerfully approved numerous waivers to allow States that have requested to extend coverage to some adults; for example, to pregnant women. This bill actually phases out adult coverage over 2 years, coverage the Bush White House used to think was a good idea, before they were against it.

We have heard complaints about the process, how Republicans were shut out of consideration of SCHIP reauthorization. Yet Commerce Committee Republicans wasted hour after hour demanding the bill be read line-by- line, aloud, instead of debating areas of concern and proposing their own amendments. Just because House Republicans chose to squander time with procedural games and stalling tactics is no justification for denying health care to 10 million children.

Nothing is more ludicrous than the argument that SCHIP is a step towards socialized medicine. We have heard them say it time after time. But SCHIP is a block grant program to the States where most SCHIP recipients receive their coverage by private, managed care plans, similar to the private Medicare Advantage plans the Republicans have been promoting for the last 5 years.

The argument that SCHIP is too costly rings hollow. After all, remember, there are 98 Republican opponents of SCHIP who voted for a more expensive unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, which the President happily signed into law.

Five years of SCHIP expansion would cost little more than a month of the Iraq war, and SCHIP is paid for, unlike the President's war that is all borrowed money. The President's opposition, if wrong headed, is at least consistent. His budget proposal for 2008 underfunded SCHIP. It would have cut coverage for 800,000 children currently in the program.

He drug his feet on SCHIP as Governor of Texas, and his home State still has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the country. Of course, his tendency to ignore inconvenient facts or make up his own is well documented.

What I find inexplicable is the decision of House Republicans to follow the President's leadership down this path of denial and deceit. This bill is about more than health care for 10 million children. It could mark a turning point in the future of politics and health care reform in America.

If Bush and his GOP supporters are allowed to kill this bipartisan compromised legislation without severe consequences, meaningful health care reform and progress will be delayed for years. We must lay the foundation for accountability at the ballot box, because the message will be clear.

Progress would be possible only with a new visionary president and a Congress that will listen.

I still hold out hope that this Congress will listen to the support of 70 percent of the American public, the support of 16 Republican governors and the bipartisan support in the Senate, that will convince a sufficient number of House Republicans to overturn this cruel veto and provide 10 million children with needed health care.

I deeply appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this, his kind words, and his leadership in expediting this legislation to come to the floor.

I am honored that Chairman Oberstar and Congressman Duncan are cosponsors of this legislation. And I was privileged to work on the Water Resources Subcommittee for those 6 years that Congressman Duncan chaired it, and it was a valuable and productive time. It was an opportunity for me to learn about this critical area.

And the reason we are introducing this resolution today is because of the history that was recounted by my good friend from Minnesota. There is nothing more critical to our survival than water. It is essential to our survival; it sustains human life. Its patterns have dictated the development of species and ecosystems, and more recently, of the bilky environment. I am pleased that we are celebrating this landmark legislation, and not just a celebration, but an opportunity to reflect upon what has worked and why, as my friend from Tennessee indicated, where we might go. We have an opportunity to understand where there are continuing challenges and what else needs to be done.

We must move beyond commemoration. We must make a commitment not to celebrate another milestone with the Clean Water Act without more demonstrable progress here at home and abroad. And I hope this resolution inspires further action that is both quick and ambitious.

Issues confronting us today and over the next 35 years are even more complex than when the Clean Water Act was enacted. There are still problems with pollution, water supply, infrastructure integrity, and the technical jurisdictional issues. The growth and development we've seen across the country compounds that. And global warming gives these issues a new sense of urgency. We just finished a meeting, and I know the Transportation and Infrastructure team met with officials from the Netherlands, who are dealing with immediate challenges with their water resources as a result of climate change, rising water levels and extreme water events.

Changing climate will have an influence on many aspects of our lives, and it will take many of them in the form

of water; floods, sea levels, drought. This will make water supply and quality issues much harder to deal with.

In the Pacific Northwest, for instance, where we rely heavily on hydroelectric power, where the snowpack in the mountains every year determines the amount of our drinking water, we have a sense of urgency as we watch that snowpack diminish.

Just this last month, there have been two additional reports highlighting the work in front of us. A report by the U.S. PIRG found that thousands of facilities across the United States continue to exceed the limits under their Clean Water Act permits; 57 percent violated those permit limits at least once during the year 2005, many for more than once, and many for more than one pollutant.

A report by Food and Water Watch found that the majority of States are facing current and projected wastewater infrastructure needs that are far out of line with their available funding. At the same time, Federal support for State and community wastewater projects has declined.

When my good friend first came to Congress in the early days of this program, 78 percent of the funding was supplied by the Federal Government in 1978. Now, maybe we don't want to return to those glorious days of yesteryear, but last year it was 3 percent of the funding. It undercuts the potential partnership that we have. And all of this at a time when our decaying water infrastructure was recently given a grade of D minus by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

For these reasons, I believe we need a sustainable, reliable, dedicated revenue source that will help communities address these important needs.

Clean water is critical to environmental and public health. But I think it also, as demonstrated by the action here on this floor, has the potential of bringing people together. Mr. Oberstar mentioned the history back in contentious times when there was an overwhelming vote to sustain a veto, not the easiest thing to do. As was shown by this bipartisan resolution, I found working with the Water Resources Subcommittee that this brings people together and there is common ground.

This bipartisan resolution is evident of recent polling that shows that more than eight in 10 Americans are very concerned about America's water, that it will not be clean or safe enough for their children or grandchildren. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that ``Federal investment to guaranteed clean and safe water is a critical component of our Nation's environmental well-being.''

I hope that, even as we move beyond commemoration and towards addressing some of these critical unresolved issues, that we can keep the same spirit of bipartisanship.

I hope our colleagues will do more than just vote for this resolution. I hope we educate ourselves and our constituents about what it represents, what it represents in terms of the status of water quality and infrastructure in our own State and community, offer our own contributions to practical solutions, and, as I said, a dedicated trust fund and financial resources to do the job right.

Mr. Oberstar gave us 50 years of history in a very short period of time. I hope this commemoration is a point of departure for the next 50 months under the leadership of the chairman, with the work of Mr. Duncan, with a new administration that's coming to town, that we will have, over these next 50 months, a landmark in water quality, and I look forward to working with you all in achieving it.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to join with Representatives Vern Ehlers, James Oberstar, Eddie Bernice Johnson, John Duncan, John Dingell, Wayne Gilchrest, John Hall, and others to introduce a resolution honoring the 35th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

Nothing is more critical than water, which has always been essential to our survival. It sustains human life, and its patterns have dictated the development of species and ecosystems.

Passed in 1972, the Clean Water Act has been one of our nation's most successful environmental laws. Even as the population of the United States has increased by close to 50 percent, our waterways have shown dramatic improvement in water quality. In 1972, only one-third of the country's waters met water quality goals--today two-thirds do.

However, with one-third of the country's waters still not meeting water quality goals, we cannot simply rest on our laurels. The issues confronting us today and over the next 35 years are even more complex. Our demand for water, coupled with its destructive potential, magnifies our past challenges. There are 6.5 billion people already on the planet and the population is expected to reach 9 billion or more by mid- century, with all of the additional population concentrated in metropolitan areas.

In addition, recent studies have documented a declining Federal investment in our Nation's water infrastructure systems, despite growing needs. Over 72,000 miles of pipes in this country were put in the ground over 80 years ago and are increasingly in need of repair. Our decaying water infrastructure was recently given a grade of D- by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I believe we need a sustainable, reliable, and dedicated revenue source that will help communities address these important needs.

Clean water is critical to environmental and public health; but it can also play an important role in bringing people together. As shown by this resolution, clean water is not a partisan issue. Recent polling has shown that more than eight in ten Americans are very or somewhat concerned that America's water will not be clean or safe for their children or grandchildren. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that ``federal investment to guarantee clean and safe water is a critical component of our nation's environmental well-being.''

This is why I am pleased, in recognizing the success of the last 35 years, that we have the opportunity to recommit ourselves to the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act, dedicate ourselves to working toward a sustainable, long-term solution to the Nation's decaying water infrastructure, and encourage the public to do the same.

I hope the House will move quickly on this important statement in support of clean and safe water.

Mr. Speaker, it was important to allow our Republican

colleagues an extra 2 weeks for the veto override vote. It's important for them to get the facts right, important for them to listen to their constituents and actually read the bill, not just accept the President's talking points.

It's ironic that one of his arguments is concern about adults who are covered by SCHIP. Yet the States have been encouraged to experiment to help uninsured working families, and the White House, George Bush, has approved those waivers that allowed them that coverage.

The bill he vetoed was actually more restrictive than current law. It would end coverage for adults after a transition period. It would prohibit the Bush administration, or any administration, from approving more waivers for new States, and parents already enrolled with Bush approval would get reduced matching funds.

It's time to stop making phony arguments; to listen to the Governors and the overwhelming majority of our constituents and override this cruel veto of health care for our children.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership in guiding the committee to deal with issues of affordable housing, the crisis that plagues our country dealing with the mortgage crisis.

If we are serious about providing affordable housing for families, then we need to be serious about building that housing in a sustainable fashion. Energy costs are increasing much faster than family incomes. Green homes are often 30 percent more energy efficient; that can cut utility costs by hundreds of dollars a year from the outset and an amount that is going to compound over time. We need to do well by our environment but we also need to save families' hard-earned money.

There is also strong evidence that green homes are also healthier homes. More than 4 million American children have asthma, and it is estimated that had more than 40 percent of diagnosed asthma is due to residential exposure. Green homes use building practices and materials that minimize moisture, that provide proper ventilation, that prevent infestation and avoid toxic materials.

I had the opportunity last night in Portland, OR, to be part of a celebration for our Oregon's architectural foundation, and these folks are zeroing in on practices that make a difference and add value. Many of the advantages of ``going green'' are based on people just having the fundamental information. There is a great deal of misinformation.

This amendment would provide a ``green housing clearinghouse'' that will provide fundamental information for people who are involved with the industry. It requires grantees to self-certify how many of the total units they build with the grants were green. This will help keep the grantees accountable. It gives HUD important information on how many affordable housing units are, in fact, green. And I think it's going to be an important step, low cost, high impact, that is going to promote the housing in this arena to be of the highest quality and most sustainable practices.

I strongly urge adoption of the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Make no mistake, we're talking about uncollected taxes that are uncollected because of a systematic effort by this Republican administration and a Republican Congress to undermine the ability of the IRS to do its job, cranking up the audits on the poorest of citizens while stopping the IRS from oversight of those who are more wealthy.

As my good friend from North Dakota pointed out, we're talking about a 6 percent rate of return, when the independent officer, who has been set up within the IRS to give the independent judgment, has pointed out that this same $71 million would collect over 1.4 billion uncollected tax dollars. Independent observers know that investing in the IRS and its employees rather than unaccountable private contractors will get more money and will do so in a more humane fashion.

It was shocking for the committee to listen to some of the phone calls, to the abuse that has been subjected to American taxpayers who are caught in the ``Alice in Wonderland'' of these private collectors.

I would urge my colleagues, if they have any doubt, to try an experiment. I have done this at home. I have met with CPAs, tax attorneys and with financial advisers. All of them suggest investing more in the IRS infrastructure to improve customer service, and it will collect more money.

I would strongly suggest that it is time to stop this dark chapter of emasculating the IRS, giving money to private contractors, and instead, do a better job for the taxpayer.

I for one support the notion of the 1-year suspension of the 3 percent contractor withholding. I think it makes sense to try and sort this out. I think it needs more examination. I think we can have a better proposal. This got slipped in in the Senate without any House consideration in the last Congress. I think a delay makes sense. I support it. I support the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, as part of our ongoing efforts to end the war in Iraq, H.R. 400 is an important step in standing up against those who defraud our troops or improperly profit at the expense of our troops. We must be vigilant in prosecuting war profiteers, using every tool available. The President should use his legal authority to cancel contracts with those that defraud the government and be aggressive in seeking to recover lost funds. If he is unwilling to do so, Congress will hold him accountable.

Mr. Speaker, because I was detained by an important event in my district, I was unable to vote on H. Res. 32, regarding human rights and gender-based persecutions, and H.R. 400, the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both bills.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends need some time to reflect on the children's health program; not over the course of the 2 weeks just for pressure, but to get their facts straight, to stop getting their information from the White House talking points and get information from the American people, their Governor, about how the program actually works.

President Bush is worried that it won't go to poor children because some families earning up to $83,000 a year will be eligible.

First of all, this is not a program for poor children, most of whom are already eligible for Medicaid. It is for children of working families, 90 percent of whom earn less than $40,000 a year. No one gets $83,000, because the Bush administration turned down one State's request. A few do have higher incomes because the States requested it and the Bush administration approved it.

The Bush administration, if they don't like families getting it, can stop approving those waivers.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2\1/2\ minutes.

It is not often I find myself disagreeing with my esteemed friend, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to briefly address his concerns.

As our esteemed chairman, Mr. Rangel, pointed out, this is a serious program that all agree needs a serious solution to avoid having people who lose their homes end up having their loss become a taxable event. Our legislation solves this.

Where I take modest exception to the ranking member and, in fact, had a rather spirited debate before the Rules Committee with Ranking Member Dreier that this is somehow a temporary problem and just requires a temporary solution, we are in a situation now where the majority would argue that there is never a good time to have people who lose their homes have that loss be a taxable event. Second, unlike the Bush administration thinks this is going to be solved in the next year or two, the fact is, in 2006, 20 percent of the first-lien mortgages were in the subprime market.

We are going to see exploding adjustable rate mortgages for years. Those people shouldn't have uncertainty if there are people who assume control who think that their loss should be a taxable event.

As it speaks to the pay-for, the Democrats have made a commitment that we are going to pay for our actions. We are not going to add to the deficit. This is an entirely appropriate pay-for. There was never an intent with the $500,000 per couple exclusion from capital gains on the sale of their homes to string these together.

I came to Congress committed to enacting that relief to protect them. But under the provisions that, as it has worked out, some extraordinarily wealthy people can string these together and have a $500,000 tax-free gain three times in 6 years.

Our amendment, our pay-for, gives everybody the protection for their principal home and allows them to get the capital gains exclusion to the extent that a second home is their principal home. It's reasonable, it's balanced, it's paid for. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Trade Subcommittee, and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Select Revenue Measures Committee and a champion of tax fairness, Mr. Neal from Massachusetts.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to clarify that there's no luxury tax on second or third homes. It preserves the tax exemption for the $500,000 capital gain on a residence, and it permits people to claim an additional benefit to the extent to which it is their primary residence in the future.

I would at this point, Mr. Speaker, recognize a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Tubbs Jones from Ohio, whose experience helped shape this legislation, for 2 minutes.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means Committee member, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, a former mayor who has firsthand experience about the significance of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished Ways and Means member from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has represented an area that is facing this problem and has been so generous in sharing with us the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been acknowledged as one of the prime drivers in shaping this legislation.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) for 1 minute.

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

I would like to commend my colleague for the work that he has done on this measure, Mr. McCrery, and our leadership because at core there is bipartisan understanding and support for the elimination of what has been referred to as a phantom and unfair tax on the poor souls who lose their homes and who receive no net increase to them.

Where we have modest disagreement is in two specific areas: one, the bill that is before us recognizes that there is never a good time to tax American homeowners on this phantom benefit of having their loan forgiven on a foreclosed property. There no circumstances under which we could conceive that we wanted to penalize them for something that they didn't receive, so we made it permanent. Unlike the minority, unlike the Bush administration, we don't think there is ever a good reason to tax them on something that they don't receive.

Second, we're paying for the cost that is associated with it because, sadly, even a tax provision that makes no sense carries value, and under our rules, we need to pay for it. And what we did was not to implement any additional tax, but to clarify the benefit that is given to owners of principal residences that they have a $500,000 tax-free gain if they occupy that as their principal residence for 2 out of 5 years. That's something that we broadly agree upon.

Now, we've always agreed that that ought to occur to the homeowner. Now we're hearing that somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle think that an additional tax benefit, so that people could string this together over the course of 6 years and get $500,000 three times as a tax benefit, is somehow, some way a tax increase. It is not. The purpose of that tax provision was never to reward people who could game the system and string together tax increases two or three times over a relatively short period of time.

So we have clarified it: as long as it is their principal home, their principal residence, they can claim the exclusion. And to the extent that a second home, after they've gotten $500,000 tax free, the extent to which they occupy a second home for an additional period of time, they can claim the proportion that it is actually their principal residence. I would dare say that was the intent for the majority people of why that provision was implemented in the first place. It's reasonable, it's sound, and I would strongly suggest that that's why people in this industry, Realtors, mortgage bankers, homebuilders, support the bill that we brought forward.

I suggest that this bill is something that all of us ought to support. I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that, before this housing slump is over, 2 million homeowners will lose their homes due to skyrocketing interest rates on their mortgages.

Increased foreclosures have adverse effects on the values of neighboring properties. For example, research indicates that, for each foreclosed home in a given neighborhood, the prices of nearby homes could fall by 1 percent to 1.5 percent.

Nationally, housing prices have stopped rising. In fact, some measures of home prices have already declined, by more than 3 percent since the beginning of 2007. Some economists predict that real housing prices are likely to decline by more than 15 percent over the next 2 years.

We want to prevent thousands of Americans from getting hit by the double whammy of (1) losing their homes to foreclosure, and (2) getting slapped with a tax bill when the debt on their home is discharged by the lender.

Even taxpayers that restructure their mortgages to avert foreclosure face this risk of triggering large tax bills.

It doesn't seem right for individuals in this circumstance to face a tax bill when they really have no increase in their net worth.

As I see it, their house went down in value, and the individuals couldn't meet their mortgage requirements, resulting in foreclosure. The amount of the income that they would recognize without regard to this bill would be equal to or less than the decline in value of their home. So, absent this legislation, homeowners in this situation would be slapped with a tax liability for no net increase in wealth.

H.R. 3648 would correct that result so that if a person's principal residence lost value, that loss won't give rise to a tax liability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

First of all, as the gentleman mentions, using the term ``promptly'' means that it is kicked back to the committee to an uncertain future.

This has been before the committee for some time. There is broad bipartisan support that we need to solve this problem. And I have listened to my friends, they haven't come forward with any reasonable suggestion about an alternative pay-for. They had an opportunity in the Rules Committee; they had an opportunity before the committee. If we follow their course, we're going to be in limbo, I don't know how long, but unnecessarily.

The minority has been interested in the past in making it temporary. That was the Bush administration's position; that's what Republicans argued before the Rules Committee. We don't want to put it back to an uncertain future.

The one proposal that has come forward today for a pay-for was itself a long-term revenue loser. Using a Roth-style approach to government employee accounts, I think they're 457s, is a long-term revenue drain which uses an accounting gimmick in the short term to have people pay a little tax so they save a whole lot of tax in the future. That will add to the deficit over time.

Now, contrary to what my distinguished friend from Virginia says, it does not disadvantage people. The exclusion for residential property for a prime residence was just that, it was to give people a $500,000 exclusion from capital gain on the sale of the property. It doesn't foreclose other people from stringing it forward to get more than $500,000. It just means the extent to which it's not your primary residence, you don't get a percentage increase above that. If it's your primary residence for one-third of that time, you get one-third of the benefit, in addition to $500,000 that you get with your first bite of the apple. It means you don't get two it means you don't get three in 6 years; you get one full bite, and then you get a percentage on top of that. It's reasonable; it's fiscally responsible.

I strongly urge the rejection of this proposal that puts this legislation in limbo. There is broad bipartisan support for the concept. The permanent support of a permanent nature of it is sound, the pay-for is reasonable. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me time. I do think the admonition is important to focus on the substance of this legislation. The Rules Committee, as she points out, wasn't given an alternative and there is nobody in this Chamber, I think, that has a better, more well-deserved reputation for being a thoughtful, bipartisan Member to try and solve problems than our colleague, the primary sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the legislation with him.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this Chamber to focus on an important area of accountability. We have in the newspapers, not just this week, we have had accounts going on not just for months, but from the outset of this war about the trend to outsource fundamental functions that heretofore have been the province of United States soldiers. It has had significant consequences. We are now finding, as a result of some of the hearings, that there have been repeated instances of violence. We are finding that there is no good remedy currently under the law. There is basically no clear line of authority to get back to be able to exercise the oversight and accountability of the security function that has been outsourced.

What Mr. Price has offered up is a small part of moving in the direction that we should have done from the outset. I would hope that we can get past the discussion on the rule. I plan on supporting it and look forward to a vigorous debate on the floor to open up this question of accountability for a war that is outsourced, for costs that are five times what an American soldier would do to provide exactly the same function. With the American soldier at one fifth the cost of a mercenary there is a clear line of authority. If something goes sideways, we know what is going to happen.

Mr. Price has offered up legislation that gets us started in that direction. It is a thoughtful, bipartisan, narrowly crafted effort. It is not the whole answer, but it moves us in the right direction. I would strongly urge that my colleagues support the rule, support the underlying bill, and get us moving into an important area of debate, accountability and responsibility. Our failure in this area is going to have serious consequences for years to come. We are already seeing this with the Iraqi Government. We are seeing it in terms of problems on the ground. We are seeing questions that are being asked, answers demanded by Americans and Iraqis alike. Working together on this bill is a first step towards remedying that situation.

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing cynical about the delay. My Republican friends need some time to get their facts straight. I really get tired about hearing these phony arguments.

We're going to be covering some adults. Why are we covering some adults? Because the Republican administration granted State waivers for some States to be able to deal with some experiments to add to them, and this legislation stops the ability to grant those waivers that the Bush administration enacted.

We're talking about it should be just poor children, and somehow I heard somebody talk about $200,000 levels. Hogwash. There was one State that requested a waiver, New York, that would have taken it up to $83,000. That was denied. There are a number of States, with the approval of the Bush administration, that have raised the levels. New Jersey at $63,000 still doesn't hit their median income. Only one out of 10 of these children are in family incomes of over $40,000.

You need 2 weeks to get your facts straight.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, his leadership, that of the subcommittee Chair, and, of course, my friend and the lead sponsor of this legislation, the author, Mr. Price. I think there is no more conscientious and thoughtful legislator, and he has approached this in a very nonpartisan, methodical way.

Madam Chairman, I am concerned as I am listening here. I want to say, first of all, that I hope this is the first of a number of provisions that we have that deal with the netherworld of contracting and outsourcing this war. I think there are lots of opportunities to tighten down, to focus, to add accountability. But this is an important essential step. It is simple, and it should not be nearly as controversial as my friend from Virginia appears to make it.

First of all, I have heard him about 10 times talk about how somehow this is narrowing the scope of MEJA. Look at page 2 of the bill. It doesn't take anything away. It adds provisions. It adds provisions.

The notion somehow that we are not dealing with the problem in Germany I think misstates and betrays a lack of understanding about the difference between operations in a stable, established country and one that is in the theater of military operations. If somebody commits a crime in Germany, there will be an opportunity for that government to be able to deal meaningfully with it. That is not the case with a rogue contractor in Iraq, in a field of battle who shoots somebody and there is no established mechanism. It is absolutely apples and oranges.

I find curious an argument from our friends on the minority side that this cost a few million dollars to the FBI and there is no funding attached. This is the same party that for the last 11 years out of this committee, when they were in charge, had a litany of proposals that added costs to the judiciary and the FBI and the corrections system and never blinked an eye over burdening them.

This is a modest adjustment. It is within the scope of their duty. I strongly urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, there is fierce debate and dissension on this floor and in Congress and around the country about the war in Iraq. This disagreement runs deep. It is profound. I believe it to be sincere. But there is one thing that everybody will agree on regardless of whether they think this war is merited or not, regardless of whether they think it has been prosecuted in a reasonable and efficient manner or not. They can acknowledge the debt and obligation that the United States has to over 4 million Iraqis who have been forced to flee their homes. This is a humanitarian crisis that rivals Darfur. It is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis in the world at this point.

Over 2 million Iraqis have fled their country. And while there is debate over the precise numbers these days, whether it is an additional 25,000 a month or 50,000 a month, whether it is going up or going down, no one disputes that they are still fleeing their homes by the thousands.

I first became involved with the problem of the Iraqis who are at risk because they help the United States, guides and translators, when I started working with a group of high school students in Portland, Oregon, at Lincoln High School, who were working in turn with some Oregon National Guard members who had returned to Oregon but were trying desperately to save the life of a young woman who had served as their translator. Because she had helped the Americans, she was targeted. She and her family were targeted by extremists. It took months. Time doesn't permit going through all the hurdles that we encountered. Luckily, that young woman is safely in the United States now going to college and she is no longer at risk, although afraid to show her face or to be identified specifically for fear that her family would in turn be targeted. I made a commitment to those young people in the high school and in the Oregon National Guard that we would work to introduce comprehensive legislation to make it easier to meet the obligation to those who took America at its word, who helped our brave soldiers, and who in turn now have their lives imperiled.

We have introduced comprehensive legislation that would increase the allowable number that could come, that would put somebody in charge of this responsibility, make it possible to actually be processed in country.

It is ironic that we have the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad, and yet the Iraqis have to leave the country to seek refugee status. They can't go to the green zone and this vast embassy. They have to leave the country in order to apply for asylum.

I frankly was encouraged that last week our colleagues in the Senate made important progress by passing an amendment to the Senate defense authorization bill that would start to address the crisis by including some of the elements in the comprehensive legislation that I have introduced. It is an important first step, but it is only a first step. It is time for the United States to do the right thing for these people whose lives are imperiled.

When we started this process at the beginning of the fiscal year, the United States was going to allow 7,000 people in the country. A small number, actually, by comparison to what little Sweden, for example, was willing to do, a country a fraction of our size, and they aren't the country who engineered this war nor are occupying Iraq. Well, in a few months that goal of 7,000 was reduced to 2,000. As the fiscal year ended this last weekend, we fell short even of that reduced goal: Only 1,600 of these Iraqi refugees were brought into this country.

Our failure to step up is having serious operational consequences. Ambassador Crocker in a memo that has been I suppose leaked but widely published, widely disseminated here in Washington, DC, points out that the failure to help these people who are helping us actually undermines the ability to have other guides and interpreters and people working with us. We risk leaving a legacy of despair, undermining our credibility in the Middle East, to say nothing of the thousands of people whose lives are at risk.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing comprehensive legislation that will deal with this humanitarian crisis, at least for the people who are most at risk for having put their trust in the United States as they worked to help us.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution and for the leadership of his Foreign Affairs Committee in bringing this forward.

Madam Speaker, one of the most inspiring events of my life was being able to spend an afternoon with Aung San Suu Kyi in her compound in Burma with my son and daughter. Having a chance to meet this gentle woman, a clarion voice for democracy, for human rights, a strong and steadfast beacon for the 50 million people. Burma, a country that a generation ago was poised to be one of the bedrocks of that area in southeast Asia, a country that is rich in natural resources, with a gentle and sophisticated people have been taken over, as my colleagues have mentioned, by a gang of thugs. The Burmese have suffered untold privation, brutality by the regime as symbolized by their treatment of this gentle woman who was appropriately awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It is time for us not only to speak resolutely but for us to work behind the scenes and overtly with countries like China, India and Thailand that can, in fact, have a significant influence on the behavior of the government in Burma. We must work for the Asean countries and speak with one voice about the intolerable behavior that is being evidenced by this regime.

There are many areas that the United States is involved with internationally where there isn't a consensus, where Members on this floor will debate with themselves and disagree about the best path forward. Yet as it relates to Burma, I think there is no debate. There is no confusion. There is no division. We need to speak as one. We need to work to fashion that international consensus. We need to make sure that we use every resource possible to put the spotlight on the problem, and help save the Burmese people.