Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from the Rules Committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Ms. Matsui's leadership. Mr. Speaker, this legislation needs to pass. This trade agreement is very much in the interests of the United States. Oman is our ally. It is an example of exactly what we need to help bring about throughout the Arab world.

Now, I do not know if everyone in this body knows where Oman is located. It sits at the Strait of Hormuz and at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is in a critically strategic location. Across that strait lies Iran. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through that strait.

Oman has remained our ally, notwithstanding all of the pressure that it has received over generations. It has been our ally since 1833 when we passed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. It was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States. Today it is the first and only Arab country to have a female Ambassador to the United States.

It is one of the most open, liberal societies in the Arab and Muslim world. They signed a 10-year military access agreement in 1981 with the United States, and they have renewed it twice. They continue to be one of the most important logistical and operational support areas for the present war in Iraq, and were so in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more they can do. They are an active supporter of the United States against terrorism, and as this letter from AIPAC says, they have been willing to take on the Arab world and break the Arab boycott against Israel, the primary, secondary and tertiary boycott. And here we are, we debated all night last night about the resolution in the Middle East.

We know the number of lives that are being lost, the conflagration that is taking place, and we will not reach out to an Arab nation that is our most important ally, that is exactly what we are hoping to achieve in terms of economic and social liberalization.

They have agreed to comply with all of the International Labor Organization's standards. They will have collective bargaining, unionization. They are going to open up their industries to outside review and competition. And what do they want to buy? They want to buy transport equipment and manufactured products, products that generate jobs in the United States.

And what are they going to sell to us? It is primarily oil that does not generate jobs in the Arab world. That is part of the problem. But the Sultan of Oman understands that the vast majority, more than 60 percent of his population, are under the age of 18. He gets it. He understands. He needs to move into the modern world. But he needs American support to do that.

This trade treaty needs to pass.

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

This trade agreement needs to pass. This trade agreement is so clearly in America's interest.

Now, when you look at the total amount of trade between the two countries, it may not seem like a big deal. A billion dollars, what is that? Four one-hundredths of 1 percent of our economy, $500 million each way. That is no big deal.

But that was my daughter calling, and that is what this is really about. This is about the future; whether we engage with the peaceful and progressive Arab world or whether we blow up the bridges that they are trying to build with America and with the modern Western world.

Oman was the first Arab country to send an Ambassador to the United States. Today, they have the first woman and the only Arab woman Ambassador to the United States. They are showing by their actions that they get it. They understand that when 60 percent of their population is under the age of 18, they have got to go forward, not backward to fundamentalism and to the kind of theocracy that has hampered so many of their neighbors. They need to move forward. But they need the help of the United States to move forward.

Now, as I say, the amount of trade is inconsequential. It is not going to affect organized labor here. It is not going to affect any particular industry, although I have to say that it is pretty much a one-way street. What they buy from us is transport equipment, manufactured products that generate jobs in this country. And what we buy from them is largely natural resources, and some textiles, but mostly oil and gas. They want to be able to buy more. They want to make it easier for us to sell by reducing tariffs and quotas.

But, most importantly, is the larger context of this agreement. Oman sits on the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of the world's oil supply goes through that strait. Guess who sits on the other side of that strait? Iran. Oman is right next to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been the instigator and the promoter of an Arab boycott against Israel, and this relatively small country has dedicated itself to breaking that boycott.

We have a letter from AIPAC here supporting this because Oman has been willing to break the tertiary, secondary and primary boycotts of Israel. Here is the letter right here.

Now, when we were attacked on 9/11/2001, we put together a bipartisan commission of very thoughtful and knowledgeable people, and one of the most important recommendations that that commission came up with was that we as a country need to reach out to the modern, progressive Arab world. We have got to do it. We can't isolate ourselves from a billion- and-a-half Muslims, because then that is going to radicalize people in their country. We have got to walk through these doors that they are willing to open up and show what happens when you trade with the United States, when you trade with progressive democracies. This is exactly what that 9/11 Commission recommended.

I am pleased that we overwhelmingly supported the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, but this is an even better trade agreement. It is hard to believe that we are questioning the fact that this is in America's interest. It is so overwhelmingly in America's interest.

A couple of red herrings have been brought up; and as much as I respect and admire my colleagues who have brought up these red herrings, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own set of facts.

The facts are that we asked the Congressional Research Service to look into this. They came up with a report that was compelling and definitive: there is no national security interest involved here, because if we decide there is a national security threat, which we self-define, that trumps everything else, and at any time we can raise the essential security justification. No one else has the authority to second-guess what it takes for us to protect our national security, and there is no precedent for any kind of international panel second- guessing us. There is no national security issue here.

The language, the provisions in this treaty, are the same as have been in all the others. It is the same language as Bahrain, the same language as Central America. There is no change here.

In terms of labor law, and I will address this subsequently after people address it on the Democratic side to lay out their objections, but I have read the communication from the Sultan, as I trust others have. He is willing to agree to the labor rights issues. He wants to abide by the International Labor Organization's standards. He wants to do everything it takes to show that he gets it, that he wants a higher quality of life, a better standard of living and more worker protections in Oman than his people have today.

Now, the democratically elected Advisory Council is not in session right now, but within 3 months he will get them all passed. When the Sultan says he is going to do it, that is it. We may prefer the niceties of a democracy and so on, but the reality is that these laws are going to be changed if the Sultan commits to changing them.

So I really urge my colleagues to support this.

One other aspect that I haven't mentioned, and I will get into it in a greater degree later, Oman has a military access agreement with us. They have had it since 1981. They keep renewing it. We keep putting more and more forces through Oman for the war in Iraq. They were of immense help in the Gulf War.

I don't know what one country can do to be more deserving of a trade agreement with the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Maryland and their colleagues for raising any number of labor issues in their discussion of the markup of the Omani trade agreement. In fact, in large part that resulted in the Sultan issuing a decree that incorporated virtually all of those labor laws that he could decree. And his decree is law.

For example, on July 8, 2006, this decree prohibited forced labor, including coercion by withholding travel documents of foreign employees. It endorsed collective bargaining and the use of strikes as a legitimate tool. It prohibited termination of employment or any other kind of retribution for union activity. It terminated effective immediately the Omani government's representation in union activities. It provided specific enforcement tools for violations of collective bargaining rights, and it provided rights of workers against forced or coerced labor and against child labor.

There are further International Labor Organization standards that the Omani Government intends to pass. It has to wait until its advisory panels meet and puts the implementing regulations into effect. But that will be done in the next 3 months. That is a pretty short period of time. The end of October is when the Sultan committed to implementing all of his labor commitments into effect.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Those provisions are law but a number require regulations.

The Sultan's decree is law. Mr. Levin, the purpose of a trade agreement is to advance progress and communication and economic interdependence, it seems to me. And to the extent we can, to promote social progress.

There is an enormous, profound agreement here on Oman's part that it

will adopt those standards that you and many others in this body have been urging upon countries like that. They are not perfect. I agree they are not perfect.

But Oman is not known in the Arab world or to anybody that knows Oman, as a particular violator of labor rights. I do not know of any of these kinds of forced labor places that have been referenced. I have been to Oman. I have read everything that I could.

They want to get better, but I do not think to suggest that the fact that they are not perfect now is reason to destroy, to vote against an agreement that would substantially advance the cause of labor protections.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. You know as well as I do that it would be better if we could make labor protections a more integral part of many of these trade agreements. But I would also suggest that anybody that looks at this trade agreement with an open and objective mind would come to the conclusion that this is substantial advancement, that this is not only consistent with prior trade agreements, but this is better than prior trade agreements, and that this will create a more prosperous, a more open society in the Middle East, and that Oman is an ally that has always been dependable.

On July 8, the Sultan made these labor protection law.

The Sultan has never said anything with regard to use of troops, with regard to economic agreements, with regard to trade with Israel, which they do conduct despite all of the pressure on them from Saudi Arabia and other countries where he has not kept his word. In every instance, he has kept his word.

It seems to me that is a relevant consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from New Jersey, and also in response to my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who asks about, and makes accusations with regard to, the situation in Oman, I should remind them that there were 33 strikes in 2004, more than 6,000 workers went on strike. Strikes continue to this day with no repressive tactics, no government reprisals.

And the Omani Government has representatives of the International Labor Organization on the ground in Oman working with them to develop more and stronger standards.

I will shortly. I am about out of time. If you can refute that, I will yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Yes, I am, because the fact that a government takes your passport, any number of governments do that. The German Government used to do it. I don't know if they do it now. That doesn't mean that is forced labor. They hold your passport, but that doesn't mean that you can't get it when you want to leave the country.

But the fact is that now the decree has been issued, and that tactic cannot be used.

It is no longer legal to use such a tactic. It is not used. That is the kind of progress we are wanting to achieve, and I thank Mr. Pascrell's help in achieving that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on each side?

Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place it is not some other panel. It is the U.S. and Oman, and we have the right to determine what is in our security, but having said that, I reserve the balance of my time.

And I am reserving because I have so little time left, as the gentleman knows, so I am trying to be strategic with my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, with what little time I have left, to recapitulate what has been said in this debate. In the first place, there is no dis agreement that Oman is located in a highly strategic area, right at the Strait of Hormuz. More than 20 percent of all the world's oil supply goes through there. It is right across the strait from Iran. Very critical position.

It has also been completely agreed that Oman has been a principal ally to the United States. Everything we have asked them to do since 1833, 173 years, Oman has stood up there in a very difficult part of the world and said to the world ``We are America's ally.''

When we asked Oman for a military agreement so we could stage troops and provide logistical support in the Persian Gulf War, and now in the Iraq war, they said, ``Yes, you can do that and we will protect them.'' And they have all been protected. Our troops have never had a problem in using Oman. Oman has come under pressure, but they have protected American troops in every possible way. No disagreement.

We all agree that almost two-thirds of Oman's population is under the age of 18, so we know that Oman is entering a period of unstability unless there is economic opportunity.

We also know that while there isn't a whole lot of trade, what Oman is buying from us generates jobs in the United States. We get oil from Oman in return.

So what is at dispute is whether this is a national security threat and whether this is an issue with regard to labor rights. Well, in the first place, with regard to national security, there is no question, according to the Congressional Research Service, that if there is a national security issue that the United States raises, that that trumps everything else. And these panels that my friends and colleagues have been referring to, these are panels of American and Omani negotiators, and if an American negotiator says, we think this is a security interest, it is dead. The language that is in contention is reciprocal language we wanted because we have U.S. companies who would like possibly to buy port facilities there. That was our doing. But it can be preempted by national security concerns.

So, on national security, the Congressional Research Service tells us that there is not a security threat. CFIUS will determine if foreign investment in U.S. parts is a security threat and can block the purchase if it comes to that. But there is not going to be any international panel second-guessing this determination, let alone overruling it.

Now, in terms of labor, we passed a Bahrain trade agreement a short while ago, almost by voice vote. No discussion. The labor guarantees in that agreement were not nearly as strong as the ones in this agreement. This is the strongest labor agreement we have seen.

Now, it may not be completely to my liking, but, you know, every one of the issues that the Ways and Means Democrats raised have been addressed by the Sultan of Oman, and not like Bahrain, where they said, well, we will put these to Parliament for consideration and pass them. Oman accepted every one of these recommendations, and you can check again with the Omani Ambassador, who happens to be a woman, the only female ambassador from an Arab country. And of course they were the first Arab nation to send an ambassador to the United States, incidentally.

But every Ways and Means Democrat's recommendation the Sultan put in the decree. This is law now. They can continue to collective bargain. They're are going to protect workers' rights. There will be no repercussions. They are going to eliminate any forced labor, if you can find it. And, in fact, they have invited the International Labor Organization personnel, ILO professionals to Oman, and they are working with them on the ground as we speak. And by October 31, they are going to put all these protections into law, anything that hasn't been fully implemented by the decree by the Sultan.

I don't know what more they can do. They have done everything we have asked.

This is a good trade agreement and, it is in the interest of the United States to pass it. I hope this body will.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I was proud to cosponsor and vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the Federal policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research.

Embryonic stem cell research is necessary to discover the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to test new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' essential organs.

President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research limits Federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by August 9, 2001, the date of his policy announcement.

Of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 are available to researchers.

Unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain. According to the majority of scientists, if these stem cell lines were transplanted into people, they would provoke dangerous viruses in humans.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125 new stem cell lines, which are more pristine than the lines currently available on the National Institutes of Health registry, and which are ineligible for Federally-funded research because they were derived after August 9, 2001.

This restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House on May 25, 2005, simply seeks to lift the cutoff date for lines available for research.

H.R. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the Federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization, were in excess of clinical need, would have otherwise been discarded and involved no financial inducement.

Contrary to what opponents have been saying, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will not Federally fund the destruction of embryos.

This measure makes it clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem cell research only by decision of the donor. No Federally-funded research will be supported by this measure on any embryos that had been created solely for research purposes.

In February 2005, the Civil Society Institute conducted a nationwide survey of 1,022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research.

Let public interest triumph over ideological special interests. Public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise its professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life.

I urge the Senate to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with overwhelming support, and for President Bush to sign it into law when it reaches his desk.

Mr. Speaker, there is a conflagration in the Middle East. We are losing the war in Iraq. We are losing ground to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The stock market is crashing, gas prices are skyrocketing. We have raised the debt ceiling four times to $9 trillion, all of which we are going to dump on the backs of our children, who we are inadequately educating, let alone creating a safer world for them.

And what are the Republican congressional leadership's priorities? To ban same-sex marriage, to ban flag burning, to ban stem cell research, to ban child safety locks on guns in the home, to ban abortion here and family planning abroad, to protect the pledge of allegiance, to cut $20 billion from college student loan programs, to cut $9 billion from elementary and secondary education. And, oh, yes, more tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, this has got to be the most clueless Congress in American history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, you know we have a conflagration in the Middle East today as we speak. We have raised the debt ceiling four times to over $9 trillion, and we are going to pass it all on to our kids. And yet this is how the Republican congressional leadership chooses to spend its time.

Nobody's marriage is endangered. What this is really about and what this amendment should be entitled is the ``Gay Discrimination Act.'' That is all it is. And what is its motivation? It is a crass political attempt to divide America in an election year. That is what this is all about. We know it. And I suspect a lot of the American people know it as well.

What every American should find most objectionable is that you are using the Constitution to do this. Our Founding Fathers put together the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect and enhance individual rights and liberties. And this goes directly counter to what our Constitution is all about by prohibiting individual rights and limiting States rights.

They talked about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, yet, all you can think about is ways to make life more difficult for people who do not fall into the mainstream of America. That is not what America is about. This amendment needs to be defeated and we need to stand up for human rights, for civil rights, and for States rights.

We know it is never going to get enacted. But we should not be spending our time talking about it. We should not be spending our time trying to seek political gain at the expense of people who want to live committed lives with each other. That is not endangering anybody. Defeating this amendment is what our Founding Fathers wanted America to be about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I do so for one simple reason--the United States Constitution must never be allowed to expressly authorize, indeed to expressly direct, discrimination against a group of individuals that is based upon their shared personal characteristics

Mr. Speaker, this amendment shouldn't be called the Marriage Protection Amendment. It isn't needed to strengthen or enhance the institution or traditional marriage in this country.

Call it what it is--it's the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, for it is intended to deny gay and lesbian Americans, solely on the basis of their orientation, the ability to maintain the same kind of committed relationships that every other adult in the country is entitled to.

This is discrimination in its rankest form.

The amendment is the first of its kind, for it seeks to change the Constitution, not to prohibit, but to authorize a specific form of discrimination.

And it does this by forever preventing the states from extending the rights and protections of marriage to a certain class of citizens.

States would be denied the right to recognize and afford same sex couples the legal rights and protection that heterosexual couples receive from government, such as the right to receive health benefits and hospital visitations.

Furthermore, those states that have already seen fit to recognize and enact domestic partnership state laws would be preempted by this amendment.

Never, however, has the Constitution, on its face, been amended to deny a specific set of rights to a specific class of citizens.

By approving this measure, the House would be party to act that would stand as an extraordinary affront to the Constitution and, especially, to the Bill of Rights and the fundamental principles and protections it enshrines.

This is not what the Constitution is about; this is not what our country is about. The amendment should be seen for what it is--a crass attempt to politically divide the American public in an election year. It must be soundly defeated, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Government Reform Committee and applaud him for his leadership, as well as Mr. Wolf's, particularly when Mr. Wolf was chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation, Ms. Norton representing the District of Columbia, and Mr. Van Hollen representing the Maryland suburbs.

We are a team. We are a team, but we are representing the interests of the entire Congress. The principal reason why we need the Metro system is to transport our employees, the Federal workforce. If we did not have this Metro system, our Federal Government could not function. We don't have the road capacity to get them to and from work.

Even with Metro, we have the second-worst congestion in the country, and it is the most expensive. We need a better Metro system, and the only way that we can meet today's demands is by having a dedicated source of revenue. That is what this bill does.

But the funding has already been taken care of. It passed the House. The House voted for it. This is not about finding the money for Metro. This is about insuring that it gets used properly.

This is about putting limitations on Metro, providing more Federal oversight for the Metro system, ensuring that local governments in the Washington area contribute their fair share, as should the State governments. The local and the State governments are willing to do that, as long as the Federal Government does; and the Federal Government should, because the principal people it serves are the Federal workforce.

President Eisenhower condemned the land that established the transit system. President Nixon and President Carter both signed legislation to get Metro on track.

Imagine if we did not have a Metro system when we have the Presidential inauguration, when we have these major national events in our Nation's Capital. We could not function. We are primarily dependent upon this transportation system so that this government, the government of the Nation's Capital, the principal government of the entire free world can function.

Everything does not happen here on Capitol Hill. Everyone can't live here. People have to travel to get here. They have to get back home. You have to have a regional economy and a regional population; and in a dense metropolitan area you have got to have a Metro system, so that they can function. And it ought to be a first-class Metro system. This does not even ensure it is going to be first class, but at least it ensures it is going to be able to be adequate to meet the needs of the local, the State and the national governments, and it ensures that there is going to be Federal oversight and that it will serve the needs of our Federal workforce.

Again, I applaud the chairman for bringing it to the floor today and securing its financing last week.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 9 years gas prices have doubled; college prices are up 38 percent; food prices, up 20 percent; housing, up 25 percent; and health care costs, up a whopping 75 percent. But the minimum wage hasn't budged over that period of time.

Over the last 5 years, we have had a singular focus in this House on raising revenue for those families for whom these numbers really don't mean much, because they have so much disposable income. But for people on the minimum wage, it means they have to decide between putting food on the table or insuring their own children. They have to work a week just to fill their tank with gas.

That's not right, and isn't it time that the Republican Party stop blocking the Democrat's attempts to raise the minimum wage and recognize that it is the working class families who are providing the underpinning of this economy? Let's increase the minimum wage. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ryan Miller of Arlington, Virginia, on being awarded the Air Force Association's DW Steele Chapter ``Teacher of the Year Award.''

Mr. Miller teaches Astronomy and International Baccalaureate-level Environmental Science at Washington-Lee High School in Arlington. Mr. Miller opens up the often demanding field of math and the sciences through his challenging, but innovative, lab experiments and lessons. Furthermore, his expertise and exuberance for science has significantly contributed to an improved curriculum for Earth and Space Sciences, as well as the enrollment of more students into his science classes. Also as part of his responsibilities, Mr. Miller assists students in science fair competitions at Washington-Lee and in regional competitions.

Ryan's selfless dedication to public service plays a significant role in shaping our future economy. The United States is facing increasing competition in the workplace from foreign nations that are investing heavily in math and science studies. Science and technology related jobs are among the fastest growing fields in our economy, and studies have indicated that our Nation is falling behind compared to the investment of foreign nations. Mr. Miller's use of the latest technology available to students, his interesting and motivating experiences, and his passion for science have genuinely assisted in helping our Nation narrow this gap.

When he is not dedicating his time to improving the minds of his students, Mr. Miller is spending his spare time on his own education. He is currently enrolled at George Washington University, taking classes for his doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction.

Mr. Miller is truly an asset to the students he inspires and the lives he shapes in the 8th District of Virginia. I congratulate him on being awarded this great honor.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this past weekend was designated by Best Friends Animals Society as Best Friends Kindness Weekend.

Best Friends Animal Society, based outside Kanab, Utah, works with shelters and rescue groups nationwide to bring about a time when there will be no more homeless pets. Best Friends operates the country's largest sanctuary for homeless animals, and provides adoption, spay/ neuter, and educational programs nationwide.

The purpose of Best Friends Weekend was to remind all of us how animals enrich our lives through their companionship, friendship and love. Best Friends Animal Society believes that dedicating one weekend each year to promoting kind acts towards animals can make our communities and our world a better place.

Cruelty to animals often leads to cruelty to people. I've been a strong and outspoken supporter of animal welfare issues since first coming to Congress, and I've authored legislation to help protect animals and promote their welfare. Organizations like Best Friends serve as a conscience to lawmakers and the country in these matters and remind us that our first duty is to protect the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

This past weekend's activities of kindness inspired by Best Friends should serve as a reminder to all of us, that in this increasing fragmented society we need to be ever more compassionate about the animals in our world, whether they are companion pets, service animals such as seeing-eye dogs, livestock, or nature's wildlife. It also serves as a reminder that the bond between humans and animals is a vital one and is capable of bringing joy and healing to people of all ages. Finally, it serves to remind us to be more kind and compassionate to our fellow man. We coexist in this world--human to human and human to animal--and those bonds must be maintained and kept strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.

This legislation will exempt estates up to $5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple; will tax the next $20 million in assets at 15 percent and assets above $25 million at 30 percent. According to the Joint Tax Committee, this measure will cost $279.9 billion in lost revenue between now and 2016, and at least $61 billion per year every year after.

This is unacceptable and is fiscally unsound. Not only will this add to the enormous budget deficits we are now facing, but it will also contribute to the increasing concentration of the Nation's wealth among a very small number of Americans.

Thirty years ago the richest one percent of our population owned less than a fifth of our wealth. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Board, that one percent now owns over a third of the Nation's wealth. Workers today are twenty four percent more productive than they were five years ago, but the median earnings of those workers have not risen in line with this, a distinct change from historical patterns. The average CEO pay is now 400 times that of a typical worker. Forty years ago it was 60 times that of an average worker. We are creating a new upper class, one that our country has not seen since the rise of the robber barons, and this legislation ensures that this gap will grow ever wider.

Right now, a couple can pass on four million dollars to their children tax free. The New York Times attempted to find a farmer who had been affected by the estate tax. It was unable to do so, even with the assistance of the American Farm Bureau.

I agree that we need to ensure that small businesses and family farms are able to be passed on to succeeding generations. This is why during debate on a permanent repeal of the estate tax I was supportive of keeping it at its 2009 level. Doing so would ensure that 997 out of every 1000 people can pass their assets on to their children and pay no estate tax. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center, if this level was in place in 2011, only fifty farms and small businesses would owe any estate tax.

This legislation will not help the vast majority of our constituents. Instead it will help a small group of people maintain their enormous wealth and, in return, it will increase our country's deficit. As Members of Congress, part of our job is to ensure that the Nation's economy is strong for every person in the next generation. We don't do that when we give ourselves hundreds of billions of tax cuts and leave it to our children to find the tax money to pay for them.

Mr. Speaker, the full day's debate yesterday was of no consequence because the premise of the resolution before us is a false one. It suggests that the goal of a secure, stable, and unified Iraq is an achievable one. It is not.

Iraq has always been a failed state because it was created artificially by the British to serve the British interest, not the Iraqi's interest. The fact is, when you have no tradition of civil institutions at the local level, the only way that a country can be governed is by a brutal secular dictator or by a repressive religious theocracy, and neither of those options is going to be in

America's interest, certainly not the pro-American liberal democracy that we have talked about.

Neither of those options, most importantly, will be worth the cost of the thousands more of American men and women who will lose their lives, the tens of thousands who will be seriously wounded or the hundreds of billions of dollars that we will have to borrow to finance this war. This resolution is not in America's interest, and it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for standing up for the last 10

hours in defense of our country and the troops that serve us and, most importantly, throughout his entire life, and I thank him for demanding that the Iraqi people stand up for their own country and responding to the American people who are demanding that this Congress stand up for our Nation's interest. Staying the course in Iraq is not in our Nation's interest.

Several times the proponents of this resolution have cited Winston Churchill. Wonderful, lofty rhetoric, but there's a disconnect. Saddam Hussein did not drop any bombs on the United States. He was not involved in 9/11, didn't harbor any terrorists who were.

It has been argued if we redeployed it might hurt our credibility around the world. As has been said, our approval ratings around the world are the lowest they have ever been. People rank us down with Russia in terms of trust and respect.

It has been argued if we redeploy it might encourage terrorists. Our continued presence is the rallying cry in the recruitment tool for terrorists around the world. It has been argued that it might hurt American troops' morale. Mr. Speaker, 2,500 brave men and women dead, 18,000 seriously wounded and you want to stay the course?

It has been argued that there might be a civil war if we redeploy. There is a civil war today. The fact is the Iraqis are going to have to seize control of their own country. We have to redeploy. We won't leave the region, but we will be there to fight off foreign terrorists. But the Iraqis are going to have to determine their own future.

That's why this resolution is not in America's interest. Defeat this resolution. Changing the course, having a definable objective in Iraq is in America's interest.

Ladies and gentlemen, the American people want a new direction. And Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House Appropriations Committee finally acted on something that the House Republican leadership has refused to address for over a decade.

Finally, yesterday, the full Appropriations Committee passed the amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill that will very gradually increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Do you know that those who were working at the minimum wage in 1968, if today they were getting a comparable compensation, it would be over $9 an hour.

I commend the Appropriations Committee for passing this in a bipartisan fashion, because expanding economic opportunity for over 7 million hard-working wage earners, plus another approximately 9 million members of their family should not be a partisan issue.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has said they do not intend to allow us to vote on the House floor on this critical issue. Today's minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years. Let's change that for America's hardest working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Tom Fox, an American hero who tirelessly gave his life to help bring peace to Iraq but whose life was mercilessly taken from us at the hands of killers on March 9, 2006. I am here to commemorate the life of such a selfless and dedicated individual.

Mr. Fox was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee and graduated with a double degree in music performance and education from George Peabody College for Teachers, which is now part of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. An accomplished musician, he joined the Marine Band and spent twenty years playing his clarinet for them.

His passion gradually shifted from music toward peace activism and he joined the Quaker Church. His views on non-violent social activism strengthened his resolve to fight against the injustices in the world. In 2002, he joined the Christian Peacemakers Team and traveled to one of the most dangerous and violent parts of the world, Iraq.

For two years, he devoted his time and energy to promoting peace and understanding between Christians and Muslims, Iraqis and Americans. In partnership with local Iraqi human-rights organizations, he committed himself to non-violent forms of intervention, such as accompanying young Iraqi refugee children to the Syrian border, and living in the same conditions as ordinary Iraqis in the downtown quarters of a Baghdad neighborhood--without security or protection around his apartment dwelling.

His dedication for helping others was always apparent in everything he did. A quiet, good-natured soul, he insisted on understanding the hearts and minds of every person he met, believing that ``there is part of God in every person''. His complete faith in the goodness and humanity of others allowed him to stand through more violence and hatred than most of us will ever see in our lives.

Despite the roadside bombings that he walked by, despite the mortars that fell above his home, and despite the death threats he received before being kidnapped, Mr. Fox always understood why he was in Iraq. In his own words, he said: ``We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization that exist within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization. We are here to stop people, including ourselves, from dehumanizing any of God's children, no matter how much they dehumanize their own souls.''

His legacy will always serve as a testament that to fight for what you believe in and to understand others is not to use violence or coercion. We preserve the dignity of our humanity and our goodness by each loving action we take on behalf of others.

``Too many are willing to die for war and too few are willing to die for peace.''

[From Connection Editorial, Mar. 16, 2006]

Tom Fox

In the pages of The Connection, since the beginning of the

war in Iraq, we have periodically been called to write

obituaries for men and women who have been killed in the

conflict both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These were people who traveled to Iraq in service to their

country. Losing them has been devastating to family and

friends; their grief is sometimes tempered by knowing that

their loved one died in doing something they believed in.

The war in Iraq also served as a call to service to Tom Fox

of Springfield. It was a call of a different kind, but one

driven by deep conviction and a sense of duty. Fox, a Quaker

and a pacifist, was troubled by the U.S. military response to

terrorism, and traveled to Iraq as part of a Christian

Peacemaker Team.

Fox and other members of his team were taken hostage in

November 2005, and Fox's body was found last week.

The Christian Peacemaker Teams group ``embraces the vision

of unarmed intervention waged by committed peacemakers ready

to risk injury and death in bold attempts to transform lethal

conflict through the nonviolent power of God's truth and

love.''

In a Feb. 16, 2005 interview with the Connection

Newspapers, Fox said he believed peace in Iraq could only be

achieved through non-violence.

``[The Iraqi] people are not being served by violence,''

Fox said. ``It doesn't help anyone. There is always going to

be conflict, but it's a question of how we deal with it. Do

we settle problems with words, or do we bring out the clubs

and act like cavemen?''

Tom Fox's friends and associates say that he would forgive

his kidnappers and his killers, knowing that they acted out

of fear. He would reject any anger or any effort at reprisal.

Fox wrote: ``We reject violence to punish anyone. We ask

that there be no retaliation on relatives or property. We

forgive those who consider us their enemies. We hope that in

loving both friends and enemies and by intervening

nonviolently to aid those who are systematically oppressed,

we can contribute in some small way to transforming this

volatile situation.''

It is remarkable to see fellow human beings who walk in the

path of their convictions. It is heartbreaking to see the

person die as a result.

But his death was not futile--no more than the death 2,000

years ago of the one he followed.