Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, there is something every American should remember as we deal with the administration's economic crisis. For almost 8 years, President Bush and the Republican Party have been staging events, issuing press releases, and telling everyone that we have to privatize Social Security and give it to Wall Street to invest.

For almost 8 years, the President and the Republicans have been telling the American people that Wall Street will wave its magic wand and inflate Social Security to Social Nirvana. They want satchels of money dropped off by that statue down on Wall Street of the bull, and they promise that Wall Street will use an incantation, something like ``hocus pocus,'' and they would work out their magic--for a fee, of course.

Democrats and Americans managed to hold their ground and have not taken this greedy plan to grab their Social Security. But the Wall Street Wonders worked their so-called magic in a lot of other places, and their outcome is just this: Now you see it, now you don't.

That describes the administration's bailout plan: Give us $700 billion and, like magic, the problems will go away. Hocus pocus, it's time for the administration to declare the magic wand option is off the table. It is time to recognize government has a responsibility to protect the people.

Madam Speaker, 110 years ago, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, F.O.E., was founded in Seattle, in what is now the seventh Congressional District that I am privileged to represent. Since its founding, the F.O.E. has expanded to become an international organization with nearly 1 million members that raises and contributes more than $100 million annually to charities benefitting children, health research, and the elderly. I rise today to commend the Eagles on their 110th anniversary, to highlight some of their many accomplishments, and to thank the Eagles for their good work over the last 110 years.

The Eagles have a long and proud history of living up to their motto, ``people helping people.'' The Eagles were the first public advocates for establishing the Mother's Day holiday, were a driving force behind establishment of the Social Security System, and work to provide assistance to individuals in need in local communities across the United States and Canada. Just this year, the Eagles have partnered with the University of Iowa and committed to raise $25 million to establish the Fraternal Order of Eagles Diabetes Research Center that will break new ground in efforts to both treat and prevent the spread of this terrible disease.

The Fraternal Order of Eagles was created in 1898 when six competing theater owners held a secret meeting at Moran's shipyard in Seattle to talk about a musicians' strike. By mid-1898, a constitution and by laws for the new organization had been adopted and the Grand Aerie established. Local F.O.E. chapters and the places that they meet are known as ``Aeries.''

Many of the early members of the Eagles were actors, playwrights, and stage hands who spread the word about the new fraternal organization as they toured from town to town across the U.S. and Canada. The incredible spread of the Eagles in the early years is largely attributable to these people. Eagle Aerie #1--the Mother Aerie--was established in Seattle in 1898, but some of the earliest Eagle aeries are located in: #8 San Jose, California, 1899; #11 Butte, Montana, 1899; #25 Skagway, Alaska, 1899; #33 St. Paul, Minnesota, 1899; #48 Galveston, Texas, 1900; and #42 Rochester, New York, 1900. By the end of 1903 just 5 years after the creation of the Eagles, there were nearly 600 Aeries operating in all corners of the U.S. and numerous locations in Canada. Today, Eagle membership totals about one million in about 1,500 individual local Aeries throughout the U.S. and Canada.

In addition to camaraderie the fraternity was established to serve a very important function. In the days before death benefits, workmen's comp, or health insurance, the Eagles offered a death benefit to the families of Eagles killed in the line of work to ensure proper burial, no Eagle has ever been buried in a potter's field, and Aeries had physicians who provided health care to members.

The Fraternal Order of Eagles Grand Auxiliary was adopted at the 1951 international convention in Rochester, NY. However, Auxiliaries date back to March 24, 1927 in Pittsburgh, KS. By March of 1951, 965 local Auxiliaries were in existence and by the end of that year 22 state and provincial Auxiliaries were operating.

The local state/provincial, regional and grand Auxiliaries have continued to grow and provide their importance to the Fraternal Order of Eagles by consistently serving as the strongest fundraising arm in the Organization. The Auxiliary, traditionally consisting of women, is a fully operating arm of the Fraternal Order of Eagles with equal positions of leadership.

In 1944, the Eagles Memorial Foundation was created. The Memorial Foundation supports children of members who die while serving their country, or at work. All Eagle members and their families are automatically protected by this member benefit. With the Memorial Foundation, children of deceased members who die while serving their country or at work are able to attend college or vocational school with grants up to $30,000. They can also receive medical assistance including payments to physicians, dentists, orthodontists and hospitals. The cost of eyeglasses, prescriptions, as well as medical and dental devices is also included.

Over the years, the Eagles have also actively advocated at the national level for laws that help their fellow Americans. In the 1930s, the Eagles very actively organized to push for creation of the Social Security system. When the Social Security Act was signed in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt (himself a lifelong Eagle), presented a pen with which he

signed the Act and wrote to then-Eagle Grand Worthy President John M. Morin:

I am very glad to give you as the representative of the

Fraternal Order of Eagles a pen with which I signed the

Social Security Securities Act . . . I have long observed

with satisfaction the sponsorship by the F.O.E. of social

justice legislation both in the states and in the nation. The

records for more than a quarter of a century bear witness to

the campaigns of education conducted, the literature

distributed, and the addresses delivered by your socially-

minded Order. These efforts have borne, and are bearing

gratifying results. Our countrymen owe the Eagles good will

for their unselfish services.

The pen I am presenting to the Order is a symbol of my

approval of the Fraternity 's vision and courage. May its

possession inspire your 600,000 members to re-dedicate their

own efforts and those of the Fraternity to the insuring of

such economic and political conditions as will bring a

greater degree of happiness to our people.

The Eagles also supported old age pension laws in the 1920s: ``You Eagles have planted this seed . . . If the Eagles of the United States never do anything else, they have more than justified their existence in their advocacy of this great humanitarian movement.''--Gov. Joseph M. Dixon, Governor of Montana, signing into law America's first old age pension law (1923).

Jobs After 40: ``The Eagles started this whole idea. That is why I invited the Eagles to be at this private bill signing, and the reason I am presenting this pen to the Fraternal Order of Eagles.''--President Lyndon B. Johnson, signing the Federal ``Jobs After 40'' bill, outlawing upper age limits in hiring.

And enactment of Medicare legislation: ``For your energetic and dedicated espousal of social justices, and for the generous support you have given to all measures designed to further economic opportunity and the compassionate treatment of the sick and disabled.''--President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a message to the Eagles on the signing of the Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act.

Today, the Eagles advocate for equally important causes. The Eagles support congressional and administration action to ensure the long-term stability of the Social Security system while protecting the fundamental principles on which it was founded and to provide health care coverage to every American child.

The Eagles are also actively advocating for enactment of the Children's Access to Reconstructive Evaluation and Surgeries, CARES Act, H.R. 1655. Evidence suggests that insurance companies are increasingly denying access to the approximately 40,000 American children born annually with birth defects and needing reconstructive surgery. The CARES Act would require all group and individual health insurance coverage and all group health plans to provide coverage for surgery and other outpatient and inpatient medical treatments related to a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity. As a medical doctor and Member of Congress, I am especially proud to be a cosponsor of the CARES Act.

In addition, the Eagles are tremendously generous in providing assistance to a wide variety of very worthy charitable causes. Every year, Eagles across the U.S. and Canada generate more than $100 million for charities supported by the F.O.E. The Eagles provide 100 percent of those funds directly to charities in the form of grants, paying administrative costs from their membership dues.

These charities include: the Max Baer Heart Fund; the Robert W. Hansen Diabetes Fund; D.D. Dunlap Kidney Fund; the Jimmy Durante Children's Fund; support for Children's AIDS Awareness and Medical Research; the Lew Reed Spinal Cord Injury Fund; the Golden Eagle, Golden Age Grants, support for community-oriented programs primarily serving the aged, Alzheimer and Parkinson Funds; and the Disaster Relief Fund, first response program for national disaster situations in Canada and the United States, and the new Fraternal Order of Eagles Diabetes Research Center at the University of Iowa.

In addition, the Eagles also provide educational benefits to graduates of Home on the Range in Sentinel Butte, North Dakota; High Sky Girls Ranch in Midland, Texas; and Bob Hope High School in Port Arthur, Texas. The Eagles also operate Eagle Village, located in Bradenton, Florida, a 26-acre senior community open to any member who has at least 15 years of continuous membership in the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

In addition to large national charitable initiatives, Eagles work at the local level to make their communities better places to live and work. Many activities focus on children and improving their quality of life. Eagles Aeries and Auxiliaries conduct toy drives, send young victims of domestic violence to camp, hold baby showers for needy families, provide Christmas and Thanksgiving baskets, provide backpacks and school supplies, make quilts for nursing homes, and more.

On September 16, 2008, the Fraternal Order of Eagles signed an agreement with the University of lowa to partner in a 5-year fundraising project that will culminate with the Fraternal Order of Eagles Diabetes Research Center at the University of Iowa. The Fraternal Order of Eagles Diabetes Research Center will be a dedicated center for diabetes research within the Institute for Biomedical Discovery Building at the University of Iowa. The Eagles are committing to raise no less than $25 million over the next 5 years to fund this center. Money fundraised by the Fraternal Order of Eagles will go directly to medical research. Currently, an estimated 23.6 million adults and children in the USA--8 percent of the population--have diabetes.

The Eagles' membership is a broad cross-section of America, ranging from blue-collar workers to teachers to doctors and everyone in between. Seven United States Presidents have been Eagles: Theodore R. Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, James Earl ``Jimmy'' Carter, Ronald W. Reagan. In addition, many famous Americans have been active Eagles, including: Arnold Palmer; Bob Hope; Jimmy Durante; Max Baer, boxing heavyweight champion; Tony Stewart, NASCAR driver; Billy Ray Cyrus, musical performer and entertainer; and baseball Hall of Famers Stan Musial and Roger Maris.

One hundred and ten years ago, the Eagles organized with a simple objective, to ``make human life more desirable by lessening its ills and promoting peace, prosperity, gladness, and hope.'' You have succeeded.

Over the last 110 years, the Eagles have been an integral part of the fabric of our country--providing civic leadership, raising funds for children, the elderly and medical research, and improving the country in ways great and small. The Eagles have made the United States an immeasurably better place to live, work, and raise families.

Thank you for all you have done for our communities and our country. Congratulations to the members and leadership of the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Best wishes for the next 110 years and beyond.

Madam Speaker, from those to whom much has been given, much

will be expected. Bill Gates Sr. knows it, and has spent his life ascribing this principle and instilling it in his children. I stand here today to honor this extraordinary civic leader, champion for education, and lion of the causes of the powerless. His commitment to improving the lives of not only the children of our state, but all children no matter the circumstances of their birth, is deserving of our highest recognition. Therefore, I have joined with my colleagues in nominating Bill Gates, Sr. for the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our Nation's highest civilian honor.

As the co-founder and CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of our Nation's leading charities, Bill Gates Sr. has shown dedication to improving the lives of people he has never met. As our Speaker recently quoted, ``It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.'' Bill Gates Sr. shows his compassion increasingly, as he works to bring vaccines to suffering peoples, education and access to underserved communities, medical relief to the sick, and opportunities to the optionless every day. The impact of the Gates Foundation is immense, but its guiding philosophy is simple, and one that Bill Gates, Sr. has always espoused: every life has equal value, and all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life.

As a Seattleite and a Washingtonian I have had the opportunity to see his work in my own backyard. Bill Gates Sr. might have the most visibility as co-chair of the Gates Foundation to the rest of the world, but he also has a long record of leadership in our community. He once remarked, ``Your wealth is a function of being an American'', insisting that businesses and individuals have an obligation to give back to the society that enabled them to prosper. Most recently he led the University of Washington's exceptionally successful Creating Futures capital campaign, which will breathe life into ``The Husky Promise'', ensuring that academically deserving low- and middle-income Washington state students will have their tuition costs covered at the University of Washington. Whether as a lawyer in the 1970's leading the Seattle school levy campaign, in his role as founder of the Technology Alliance, or now as a as regent for the UW, Mr. Gates has a demonstrated record of commitment and passion for giving back to his community.

I am very proud to honor Bill Gates, Sr. for his unstinting commitment to service in communities all across the world. A low-income student from Washington State can attend college because of his dedication to ensuring academic opportunities are available to all; a child in Africa received lifesaving drugs and with them, a life touched by kindness. Libraries in rural towns are connected to the world through information technology donated under Mr. Gates' care, while young students in my own district have the incentive to reach higher and grasp the promised fruit of a college scholarship. He has changed many lives and communities for the better. With my gratitude and great esteem, I commend Bill Gates, Sr. for his lifetime of service.

Mr. Speaker, in my Seventh Congressional District in Washington State, and in towns and cities across the United States, the American people are justifiably outraged and at the same time dumbfounded that the President would send the Treasury Secretary up here to Congress asking for a blank check, declaring the sky will immediately fall if he doesn't get it. With a straight face, but no straight talk, he demanded unchecked, unlimited power to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money any way he sees fit. From the moment this President took office 8 years ago, his administration has done everything possible to roll back the clock to the roaring '20s, and now they want to roll the American people to pay for it.

For the last 8 years, this administration rewarded Wall Street and ignored Main Street. For 8 long years, this administration encouraged practices that have taken America back to the finances of 1929. But now this administration wants the American people to pay $700 billion for Wall Street's ignorance and greed, and what are they going to do with it? The American people are asked to sacrifice, but what about Wall Street? What does the President ask of them? Wall Street lobbyists are here by the busload, trying to cut deals to sweeten the pot for the people who pay them millions. When someone suggested any potential bailout ought to include a provision to refinance some mortgages, the lobbyists declared the sky would fall. And when somebody declared that there would not be golden parachutes for executives who masterminded this mess, we were told that that would be punitive. And then when the White House relented and said they might give a little on golden parachutes, the American people are supposed to be thankful and give in.

In case anybody has forgotten, the golden parachutes originally pegged at $13 million for the chief executives of Freddie and Fannie were cut. They ended up only getting $9 million. Does that sound like sacrifice to you?

Friends and supporters of this administration have had 8 years of unregulated, unfettered access to the wallets of the American people. Their complex derivatives and mathematical formulas were used to create financial products that can best be described in a single phrase: house of cards. This administration permitted, encouraged, and now wants to mortgage this house of cards to the American people. They take no responsibility for their role in the crisis. Instead, they warn the American people that they might suffer mightily if they do not act within a week. Suddenly the administration and the Republican Party that regularly decry government intervention now clamor for it, but only because they can't find $700 billion anywhere else.

How do they propose to pay for it? Does the President offer to reduce the massive tax holidays enjoyed over the last 8 years by the rich? Did they offer something that would benefit the working Americans who don't want to pay for this?

To all the American families where the husband and wife work two, three, four jobs to make ends meet, to all the single moms and dads who play by the rules, the administration has offered you a threat and a share in paying this $700 billion mortgage on a house of cards. This administration has brought America to the brink of national bankruptcy, and they are banking on fear again. They used fear to go to war. They used fear to take away your civil rights and spy on you. And now they are using fear of financial collapse, and they are just trying to scare you into getting them to do whatever they want.

There's a line that aptly describes this situation: ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Don't be fooled.

Mr. Speaker, remember, trust is something that is already bankrupt.

The bank of trust in this administration is absolutely bankrupt. They have misled, lied, misrepresented, whatever word you want to use, on issue after issue. And now they give us 7 days. Come back, take out your wallet, and give them everything that's in it, $700 billion. Well, actually, we don't have to give them anything. We're going to borrow it from the Chinese. Let's borrow our way.

When will they talk about how you pay for the profligacy of this administration?

Mr. Speaker, the people in Washington State are very troubled by the fact that King George has been deposed by King Henry.

We picked up Newsweek magazine today, and we have a King, King Henry. We're supposed to give him $700 billion of our money. He doesn't want any review. He wants to be able to do whatever he wants with it. He doesn't want any congressional oversight. And worst of all, our new King is like the old King: he doesn't want any sacrifice.

He says, Oh, we can't threaten the salaries of these investment bankers that drove us into the ditch. We can't get anybody to pay for this.

This is the third time we've done it with this bunch: first the war that didn't get paid for, and then the tax cuts that didn't get paid for, and now

King Henry takes over to distribute $700 billion. He's going to be there for 4 months. And in 4 months, he will make deals; and then he will go out and he will be able to catch a pass he threw to himself.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2608) to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide, in fiscal years 2008 through 2010, extensions of supplemental security income for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code to collect unemployment compensation debts resulting from fraud.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I think the torch of the Statue of Liberty might just be burning a little brighter today because we are soon going to send to the President a bill that helps the most vulnerable on our shores, refugees coming to America fleeing persecution, injustice, torture and even the threat of death. They are Jews from the former Soviet Union, Kurds from Iraq, Hmong fighters from Vietnam and other oppressed peoples from around the globe.

Refugees often flee their home countries with little more than their clothes on their backs. When they are disabled or elderly, employment can be difficult, which means they face almost complete destitution without assistance. Our Nation's program that is designed to help low- income elderly and disabled individuals, the Supplemental Security Income program, or SSI, now terminates assistance to these refugees after they have been in the United States for 7 years. This cutoff was designed with the expectation that refugees would become citizens within this time frame and would then be eligible for continued benefits. However, a series of obstacles make that transition to citizenship difficult within the 7-year limit of SSI benefits. First, a refugee must live in the United States for at least 5 years before they are even eligible to submit an application for citizenship. A refugee must then confront a lengthy application process which takes up to 3 to 4 years. Backlogs in processing citizenship applications have been caused by a variety of issues, including protracted background checks put in place after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

There are other barriers to citizenship, such as the continuing impact of a recent annual cap on the number of asylees who may become legal permanent residents, a status which asylees must maintain for 4 years before they submit an application for citizenship.

Also, many disabled and elderly refugees encounter difficulties navigating the application process, which includes both an English language test and a U.S. civics test.

We passed bipartisan legislation a year ago in the House to extend SSI benefits for refugees and other humanitarian immigrants. The legislation before us today is that same bill sent back to us with an amendment by the Senate. The most significant modification by the Senate was to require all refugees to sign an affidavit that they are making a good faith effort to become U.S. citizens.

This bill, H.R. 2608, would generally extend SSI benefits for an additional 2 years for disabled and elderly refugees, asylees and other qualified humanitarian immigrants, including those whose benefits have expired in the past. Benefits could be extended for an additional time for those awaiting a decision on the pending application for citizenship. These policies would be in effect through 2011 and would restore SSI benefits for roughly 20,000 refugees.

The legislation completely offsets the cost of this SSI extension for refugees with a provision that would reduce Federal tax refunds to recover fraudulent unemployment insurance payments. This Federal tax revenue offset authority already exists to collect unpaid child support, unpaid State taxes and debts owed to Federal agencies.

Before pursuing a tax offset, a State would be required to notify the individual and provide them with at least 60 days to contest the amount being recovered. By catching and reducing fraud in the unemployment insurance system, this provision not only offsets the cost of SSI extension for refugees, but it also would reduce unemployment taxes on employers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the legislation will cut payroll taxes by $315 million over the next 10 years.

Madam Speaker, refugees come to this country fleeing persecution. They reside in our country legally, and those eligible for SSI are disabled, elderly or both. This legislation extends a modest benefit to help them provide for their most basic essentials. The bill will not add one dime to the Federal deficit, and it will even provide a tax cut. This combination has generated very broad support for the measure, which passed the House unanimously last year and did likewise in the Senate last month. Additionally, the Bush administration has proposed the same policies in the President's budget.

I would like to expressly thank my colleague, Mr. Weller, the ranking member, for working with me to forge this bipartisan bill. Today's action is the last step needed to provide a helping hand to those who need it most.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

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

This bill allows Members to accomplish three objectives with a single vote, help needy refugees, cut taxes and reduce the Federal deficit. That's a trifecta that should draw support from every Member of the House.

But I want to conclude, really, with a story about one of the witnesses who came before our subcommittee. His came was K'Keng, and he fought alongside American forces during the Vietnam War. In fact, he was recruited and trained by our own special forces.

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, he was imprisoned for 6 years as a political prisoner, after which he ultimately made his transfer to the United States as a refugee. He tried working, but the wounds he had suffered during the war made that difficult.

Based on his disability, and the fact that he had almost no source of income, he began receiving supplemental security income, or SSI benefits. For those benefits, he had those benefits, but they were terminated when he reached the 7-year limit on SSI for refugees.

There are thousands of other refugees who have taken different paths to get here, but their basic story is the same. They fled persecution, they now reside legally in the United States, they are disabled or elderly, and they need our help.

This bill will provide them just the assistance, without raising the Federal deficit by a single dime. In fact, the anti-fraud provisions in this bill reduce the debt by nearly $100 million and cut taxes by over $300 million.

I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation, to help the needy, cut taxes and reduce our debt.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6893) to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to connect and support relative caregivers, improve outcomes for children in foster care, provide for tribal foster care and adoption access, improve incentives for adoption, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Children in foster care are sometimes called our forgotten children. We are here to banish that thought forever. We are here to provide children in foster care the same things that all children need, family, support and an equal chance to succeed.

With that goal in mind, the House unanimously passed legislation in June to improve the Nation's child welfare system. The bill we are considering today is a modified version of that legislation, and it reflects an agreement with Senators Baucus, Grassley and Rockefeller, who have been working on similar legislation.

This agreement maintains all the critical provisions in the House- passed bill, such as helping grandparents and other relatives who want to permanently care for children in foster care and extending assistance to thousands of children who now age out of foster care every year on their 18th birthday.

In addition, the legislation now includes a provision that will begin to make sure that all special needs children are eligible for adoption assistance, not just those who come from a family that is eligible for a welfare program that no longer exists.

When a child is removed from his or her home because of abuse or neglect, government, on behalf of society, becomes legally responsible for that child. All of us, therefore, act as parents to children in foster care. But for too many foster care children, we fail to fully live up to our parental responsibilities.

We fail to provide them with permanent homes. We fail to meet their health and education needs, and we fail to help them find their way in the world.

Perhaps the most obvious example of our failure is when foster children are literally pushed out into the streets when they are 18 years old. No parent I know abandons their children at age 18, and yet that is what our Federal policy for foster care does.

It says to kids to have been abused or neglected, who have been removed from their homes, or who have been placed many times in multiple foster homes that we expect more of them than we would expect of anyone else, including our own children. We displace them from their homes and from any meaningful financial support, and tell them, make it on your own, you are on your own.

Another example is our failure and the inconsistent effort to help foster children stay connected to their families. We have a system that tells grandparents that they will be denied any assistance if they become legal guardians for a foster child. This is contrary to the growing base of research illustrating that children do better living with relative guardians than they do living in traditional foster care.

Additionally, siblings are too often split apart at the time of placement. Just when a foster child most needs their brother or sister, they are sometimes separated from them.

Ensuring school stability is yet another area where we too often come up short. Not enough is done to ensure children can stay in their current schools when they are placed in foster care. We rob them of the one place where they may actually feel secure.

We also hear too many stories about foster children not receiving adequate health services, especially for mental health. Furthermore, we have a special duty to ensure the prescription medications foster children are receiving are effective and appropriate, instead of quick and easy.

Finally, we don't provide adequate assistance for Native American children who are removed from their homes and then cared for in the tribal communities.

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act would provide new supports and protections to address many of the concerns I just outlined. The legislation would allow States to extend foster care up to the age of 21, giving young men and women more time to get an education and become truly self-sufficient.

Recognizing that many grandparents and other relatives want to provide loving, permanent homes for children in foster care, this bill would provide Federal payments to relatives who become legal guardians of children for whom they have cared as foster parents. It also requires improved efforts to keep siblings together when they are removed from their homes.

The measure would require increased oversight on health care needs of foster children, focusing on the assessment, the treatment of health conditions, continuity of care, and monitoring the use of prescription drugs. There is also renewed attention paid to ensuring educational stability for children in foster care, including avoiding frequent school changes.

Additionally, this bill gives tribes equal and fair access to Federal resources dedicated to keeping vulnerable children safe. For the first time, a tribal child welfare program would directly receive Federal foster care funding.

The legislation would also provide new resources to ensure all child welfare workers have equal access to training, which ultimately results in better care for children.

This bill extends and improves incentives for States that increase the number of children adopted out of the foster care system. To ensure that we are

adequately helping all families adopting special needs children out of the foster care system, the bill will phase out a requirement that an adopted child's birth parents be eligible for welfare under outdated rules from a program that no longer exists.

The legislation includes two provisions that save money and thereby ensures that the bill is completely budget neutral. The first provision would clarify the uniform definition of a child for tax purposes to ensure that the earned income tax credit and other tax benefits are being provided to the families for which the benefits were intended.

The second provision would allow the Treasury Department to improve its management of the government's short-term operating cash. This language, which has been recommended by the GAO and proposed by the administration, would permit investment of cash in a broader number of institutions, thereby reducing the current concentration of risk and increasing the rate of return.

I want to thank, again, my ranking member, Jerry Weller, who is going to leave us. He has been a real partner in striving to work for and improve the lives of children in the foster care system. His efforts will be missed when he leaves Congress at the end of this session, but enacting this bill will surely send him out on a high note.

Before I yield to Mr. Weller, I would like to talk about another Member of Congress who is not with us today.

The passing of Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a great shock to all of us who worked with her. We were always impressed by her tireless energy and her infectious smile.

Stephanie was a true champion for vulnerable families and children. In fact, her first legislative achievement in Congress was a bill designed to improve training opportunities for caseworkers in the child welfare system.

In recognition of Representative Tubbs Jones' efforts to help vulnerable kids, this bill names the primary source of Federal funding for the Social Security Act for Child Protective Services after her, as well as making several improvements to the program.

The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program will help at-risk children for many years and decades to come, just as she did during her life.

In conclusion, this bill does not address every challenge confronting children in the welfare system, but will take a major step toward correcting many of the system's shortcomings. I only wish Jerry was going to be here to work with me while we put a bigger bill through next year.

This legislation is bipartisan, budget neutral, and good for kids; therefore, it deserves the support of every Member of the House, as it did when it passed unanimously some months ago.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think we are having a discussion today about the tale of two bills, actually. The bill that we have before us here today is really landmark legislation, and as Mr. Weller has said, it is the product of bipartisanship here in the House and actually, bicameral.

I talked to Senator Grassley; we talked about various aspects of the bill so that there was open communication on this issue. And what we've produced from that is landmark legislation that is a significant step forward for children, for foster children, probably the biggest step in more than 10 years. And I think when the Congress works together for the common good, things get done in a very positive way.

Children are America's future, and today we're making an investment in that future, and in our own. We all want our children to be connected to their family, and this bill expects the same for foster children. We want our children to feel like they are in a loving, permanent home, and this legislation expects no less for foster kids. We want our kids to go to a school and have decent medical care, and again, we've done that in this bill, or we've begun the process. Finally, we want our children to have the best chance to succeed in life, a desire that did not end on their 18th birthday. This bill shares in that hope for kids.

This bill says to foster kids, you're not forgotten. There is a future and the future begins today. I want to encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Chairmen get the unique opportunity of kind of borrowing a lot of ideas from other people. I took some from Danny Davis and some from Stephanie Tubbs Jones and some from Mr. Weller, and we put a bill together.

Even chairmen shouldn't get all the credit, because staff people like Nick Gwynn and Sonya Nesbit and Sean Hughes on our side have played a major part in talking our way through this bill.

In contrast, we have the energy bill which was brought out here and we continue to hear people talk about as though there was no hope of working with the Senate.

Now if the Republicans in the Senate would like to work with the Democrats, I think we can put a bill together. We did it on child welfare. Certainly we ought to be able to do it on something as important as energy.

But to write off legislation and say, oh, the only bill that could pass out of here is the only one that could pass through the Senate, that's simply not respecting the legislative process. The Republicans in the Senate really have to make a choice. They either support American taxpayers and consumers and talk about new energy jobs, or they do what the big oil companies want. That's a very simple choice.

I think that it's unfortunate if we in this House give up and say, well, the Senate won't come to their senses; they won't do anything reasonable on energy. They did reasonable things on child welfare because they cared about this country's kids. I think, in the Senate, they care about this country's welfare, and they're going to do something reasonable on energy.

So all this talk about only the House can produce a perfect bill to be rubber-stamped by the Senate, it didn't work in child welfare. They had to make their changes. We will see some

changes in that Senate bill, if they're thinking about the common good, and not about election on the 4th of November. If it's all about elections, we won't get a bill on energy out of the Senate. But if there is a desire to deal with the common good for this country, then we will look at the comprehensive bill that was put together over here. And actually some Republicans voted for it. Now that shows it can be bipartisan, even in the House, on a very contentious issue. I think that the fact that it's over in the Senate bodes well. We have a whole week yet for them to come to their senses and send us a bill back.

I yield back the balance of my time and encourage everyone to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1432) supporting the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by promoting national awareness of adoption and the children in foster care awaiting families, celebrating children and families involved in adoption, recognizing current programs and efforts designed to promote adoption, and encouraging people in the United States to seek improved safety, permanency, and well-being for all children.

Madam Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the resolution's chief sponsor.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, far too many of our Nation's most vulnerable children long for nothing more than a safe and permanent place to call home.

As the de facto parents of foster children, it's our responsibility to ensure that each child who is unable to safely return home to their biological parents has the ability to achieve permanency through adoption. Sadly, too many children are languishing in the foster care system for far too long as they wait to be adopted.

There are currently 129,000 children who are waiting to be adopted out of foster care. These children, on average, will have to wait nearly two-and-a-half years in the foster care system before they are adopted by the family. A minute can be a lifetime in the eyes of a child. Imagine how a child feels as they wait nearly two-and-a-half years for a family to pick them.

Representative Weller and I introduced bipartisan legislation, which just passed the House, which would provide a variety of policy initiatives aimed at increasing the number of children who are adopted from the foster care system. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act extends, expands, and improves the Adoption Incentives Program. This successful program provides financial bonuses to States that increase the number of children adopted out of foster care.

I have to add that, sort of parenthetically, I started the subsidized adoption program in the Washington State legislature in 1971. There has been a very uneven spread of that concept across the States in this United States. So it's important that we at the Federal level set the standard and say to States, here's some money if you will think about doing subsidized adoptions for these kids.

Since the inception of this program, nearly 440,000 children have been adopted out of the foster care system.

The bill also would provide additional incentives for States to continue to increase the number of children who leave the foster care system for permanency through adoption or through guardianship placement with a grandparent or a relative caregiver.

Additionally, the legislation would provide adoption subsidy assistance to all special-needs kids--these are the ones that are the hardest to get adopted--rather than those children whose birth parents were eligible for welfare under rules that were in place in 1996.

The bill expands Federal adoption assistance by delinking eligibility for assistance from the now defunct AFDC program and by phasing in adoption subsidy to children by their age and their length of time in foster care.

And finally, the legislation would provide direct Federal adoption assistance to tribal governments who run their own child welfare programs. Tribal governments would be able to access the same service that is now available to the States. Such services will allow tribal governments to increase the number of Native American children that are adopted out of the tribal foster care systems.

The month of November marks National Adoption Month, and that's what this resolution is really all about.

As we celebrate the countless families who have opened their homes and their hearts to children who are in need of a home, I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the goals and the ideals of National Adoption Month.

Every child deserves nothing less than a safe and loving place to call home. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, we can do our part to ensure permanency and success for all the children.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Weller on these two bills and this resolution through the Congress. And certainly I have enjoyed working with him and have never felt that any courtesy I've extended him has been anything but reciprocal in our dealings. However, there has been on the floor here some discussion of some extraneous material that I struggle to hear how the connection was to adoption subsidies or options or foster kids, but I'm sure there was one someplace there--all the speakers at least mentioned it sort of in passing and then went on to talk about energy.

Now, as these adoptive parents, many of them ordinary folks, want to drive down to get the child at the adoption agency, they're going to have to buy gasoline. And gasoline has gotten out of control. Lots of people want to blame oil companies or speculators or a lot of other things. And the question is, do you really want to help those people?

Now, there is going to be a stimulus package coming out. And if we put gas stamps in it--the average person under 300 percent of poverty will spend $1,000 more a year for gasoline, so if we gave them gas stamps like we give them food stamps for $500, we could cut that price in half. And I hope that all my colleagues on the other side, if that happens to be in the stimulus package, will consider voting for it this time.

There is a question in my mind, however, about the description of what went on last night. It's as though the Democrats didn't propose anything. It's as though we just sort of walked around and fiddled around and looked at the sky. But, in fact, there was a very good proposal here on the floor. There was money for renewable energy standards. There was money for strategic energy reserve to be invested in renewable energy. There was royalty reform. Can you believe that the oil companies never give any money to the Federal Government?

And this bill last night said, look, we want to repeal the tax subsidies and make the oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Now, that's land that belongs to you and me and the foster kids and the children who are being adopted. But the oil companies have some idea that they don't think they should have to pay any royalty when they suck the oil out and then sell it to us at four bucks a gallon. Now, that seems like a good proposal.

We also paid for the bill last night by taking $18 billion that was allowed in a loophole several years ago. We closed that loophole and said we're going to use it to do the future development of renewable energy in this country that needs to be done.

Now, by contrast, the Boehner bill that was brought out here had no payment for anything, just increase the national debt. That is the Republican plan for this country: Do whatever you want, spend whatever you want, drive up the national debt, and leave it for these foster kids and these adopted kids. They're going to pay for it. Most of the Members in here will be dead before we get anywhere near paying for the debt that's been driven up by this Congress. And yesterday's oil bill was just more of the same.

Now, the other part of it that's really sort of interesting, our bill required actually using the leases that they already have, sort of ``use it or lose it.'' They have millions of acres under lease, but they want to get something more out there somewhere, I don't know. If you go out 50 miles off the coast of California and Washington State, you're at about 10,000 feet. If you think you're going to drill for oil out there, you have never been on the West coast of this country and looked at what we have for an ocean.

So, this business about ``drill, drill, drill, oh, good, drill, drill, drill,'' it makes a nice slogan, probably goes on a bumper strip pretty well, but the basic assumption behind that bumper strip is that the American people are stupid. It seems like the Republican Party thinks that the American people are stupid, and if they can just get into chanting, ``drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill,'' that somehow the price of gasoline will come down. I don't know if that is some kind of a mantra, maybe it's some kind of magical thing they got from a witch doctor somewhere. But drilling everywhere is not going to bring down the price of gasoline.

We've seen in the last month gasoline go from $150 a barrel down to wherever it is today, somewhere below $100. And has gasoline dropped by 33 percent? Is gasoline down to $3 or down to $2.70? And why did it come down? Because we drilled? No. Because the speculators got worried. The speculators got worried that Americans were getting smart and they were figuring ways to get around without using gasoline. And so consumption has come down in this country, and suddenly the speculators are really worried.

What if the American people don't do what we expect them to do? What if they don't buy big gas guzzlers anymore? They buy cars that get 35- 40 miles per gallon. I drove from my house in Seattle to Spokane for the State convention, over the Cascade Mountains, over 5,000-foot peaks, and you know what? I got 49.5 miles per gallon.

Now, the oil companies are really worried that a lot of people are going to start doing that, and so the speculation on where the price of oil is going to be started coming down. But it didn't affect anything at the pump--maybe 10 cents, maybe five cents, who knows. But we didn't drill a single bit, and yet the gasoline prices came down. So what is it that makes them go up and what makes them go down?

Nothing in this bill from Mr. Boehner has anything whatsoever to say about speculation or about oil company profits, not one single word. All he says is, open it up, let them drill anywhere they want. Let them go and sink a drill. In fact, we got some votes out of the Republicans because they actually were drilling in places where the military said this kind of creates a problem, please don't drill there; don't let that area be open for drilling.

And so when people come out here and stand out here and say over and over again, ``we have to drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, that's going to fix it all,'' they haven't looked at our bill.

Now, the Senate is over there, and they're going to send us over a bill here shortly to extend the tax credits on wind and on solar and on geothermal because they know that renewable energy is the way this country has to go. We are not going to solve our problem by drilling inside the Continental Shelf of the United States.

If the President wanted to bring gas prices down, all he would have to do is release some of the oil out of the oil reserve. We've got millions of gallons of gasoline sitting out there. And if the market truly is what we say it is, if there is more supply, then the price should come down. Well, dump some of that reserve out onto the market. It was done once before and gasoline dropped about 15 cents a gallon, but not under this President. They want to keep it up there and keep talking about drilling because this administration has been an oil administration from the very first week. When the Vice President of the United States had in his office a great conference with all the oil people in this country and has kept secret for 8 solid years what was decided there, you have to wonder about what's happened to this country and the average taxpayer and the average person in this society.

So we're here today to deal with a few problems of some kids. And I really appreciate the efforts that have gone in by the bipartisan support on the committee. And I don't really like to get out here and talk like this, but you just can't stand here or sit here and listen to that baloney without ultimately saying, do they really care, or is it just about winning an election? Is it looking for a bumper strip that will work and that the American people will hear ``drill, drill, drill''?

They're going to do it all day long. Every single suspension bill has 20 minutes on each side. So on the Republican side, we're going to be treated to the same litany. It will be different people, I hope. I mean, I don't want the same person coming out here. They're probably lined up somewhere back in the cloak room getting ready to come out on the next bill. But the fact is the American people aren't stupid.

I was saying to my staff as we were listening to this, can you imagine grandma or mom or a father who is out of work? I mean, unemployment in this country is now over 6 percent; it's gone up. You've got banks crashing all over the place; you've got the Federal Government putting $85 billion into trying to save AIG, and you're talking about ``drill, drill, drill.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, this is a propitious day. The market dropped 500 points yesterday, the largest drop since 2001. The economic and regulatory policies of this President has certainly taken the ``free'' out of the free enterprise system. Across America, the dominoes are falling.

Bear Stearns fell a few months ago; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, a week ago; a distress sale of Merrill Lynch over the weekend; Lehman Brothers is looking for bankruptcy on Monday morning; and the auto industry is looking for another $25 million in bailout; and AIG wants a $40 billion bridge loan from the Federal Reserve. The stock market, as I say, went down 500 points yesterday. No one really thinks we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Who's next? We can't answer that question of who is next, other than to say an awful lot of people in the financial industry are working nights and weekends to assess their exposure, and do damage control, if possible.

What's next? This is a question we can begin to answer. What's next is that the American people are going to be on the hook for the Bush problem for the next generation, and in so many ways will have to pay much of the financial mess.

The last 8 years of this administration, they did everything they could to eliminate, gut, stymie, and ignore responsibility for regulatory oversight by the Federal Government. This administration worshipped at the altar of the free enterprise system and the market. The President wanted the gold, but without a standard.

Republicans did everything they could to let the financial industry do anything it wanted, regardless of consequence. At the same time, the administration made clear in its Federal appointments they wanted Federal regulatory agencies on the sidelines.

Without government oversight watching out for the interests of the American people, the industry turned free rein into freewheeling, irresponsible policies. When the dominoes began to fall, the administration stepped in to charge billions for bailouts to the American people. And it's not over yet.

The current financial crisis is the worst in decades, and yet the shell game goes on. The administration wants to hide the extent of the damage, the risk, and the burden on the American people.

I would like to enter into the Record the lead Sunday editorial in the New York Times, called: Bailout Hide and Seek.

The Federal budget deficit has swelled to more than $400 billion, and is headed for $500 billion, but the administration wants to keep the cost of the bailouts off the Federal books. They want to hide the magnitude of the crisis and their duplicity in making it possible for the last 8 years of economic abandonment.

Things are so bad that no one can accurately predict what the cost will be or how much the American people have been saddled with. The only thing the administration keeps saying is, Charge it to the American people. Just like the Iraq war, which is adding up to a trillion-dollar tab.

This President misspent the public trust and squandered the full faith and credit of the American people. The bills just keep coming due after the administration leaves office. They say in business: There's no such thing as a free lunch. What they don't say is that the President has arranged for the American people to pick up the tab.

The American financial crisis is the culmination of Republican economic policies. Spend freely, lower taxes, and don't ask anybody to make any kind of sacrifice for a war. Just spend. They got what they wanted, and left the American people holding the bag, and the tab.

The next administration will not only have to rebuild America's moral leadership in the world, we will have to rebuild America's economic system and the confidence here at home. The legacy of this President is clear. He took the ``free'' out of the free enterprise system, and instead billed it to the American people.

Madam Speaker, we can't wait to have the change that Barack Obama will bring for this country.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 2008]

Bailout Hide and Seek

On Friday, less than a week after the government took

control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the White House

announced that there is no reason at this time to account for

the companies in the federal budget. That is great news for

officials who prefer to hide the cost of the bailout since it

is due, in large part, to their failure to adequately

regulate the financial markets and steward the economy. But

it is an insult to taxpayers, whose money is at risk, and it

is a reckless gambit.

The Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that

the government's finances are deteriorating rapidly: the

budget deficit for this year is expected to reach $407

billion, more than double last year's shortfall, and to

exceed $500 billion in 2009. The takeover of Fannie and

Freddie, necessary though it is, will add to the

deterioration. Airbrushing that away will only open the door

to uninformed--or negligent--decisions on spending and tax

cuts.

The White House says that the extent of the government's

control of Fannie and Freddie does not warrant including the

companies' operations in the budget. That is absurd. The

government has seized the companies, firing their executives

and installing new ones, offering to invest up to $200

billion in the companies if necessary, and most significant,

making an ironclad promise to pay their trillions of dollars

in obligations, if need be. The White House also claims that

the risk to taxpayers is not yet serious enough to require

that the costs be shown in the budget. But there is a very

real cost to guaranteeing the obligations of Fannie and

Freddie, even if the government never has to cough up a

penny. The taxpayer is on the hook while the guarantee is

outstanding--and the Treasury says that will last past Dec.

31, 2009, when its bailout authority officially ends.

The Congressional Budget Office has said that it will

calculate the cost of taxpayers' risk and include it in its

version of the budget, which is separate from the White House

version of the budget. Having conflicting budgets is hardly a

good way to restore confidence in the government's financial

management. But the C.B.O. accounting will prevent the White

House from saying, in effect, ``yes, bondholders, your

investments are fully guaranteed, but you, dear taxpayers,

don't worry, it costs you nothing.'' As the government (read:

taxpayers) assumes additional risks, it is more important

than ever to get the accounting right. Accurately reflecting

the budget cost of the Fannie and Freddie bailout would not

lead to an explosion in public debt. Prudent accounting,

accurately applied, would limit the amount that must be

counted against the nation's overall debt ceiling. Accurately

accounting for risk would limit the cost of making good on

the companies' obligations to a figure that reflects the

likelihood of taxpayers actually having to pay up.

No one yet knows the ultimate cost of the bailout, but it

is already more than zero.

Mr. Speaker, with the clock winding down on the President's second term, this seems like a good time to stroll down memory lane, looking back on America then and now.

Under this President the number of Americans without health care has risen from 38 million to 46 million. Under this President the price of gasoline has risen from less than $1.50 a gallon to $4 a gallon. Under this President the unemployment rate has risen to over 6 percent, with millions more Americans out of work and running out of help. Under this President the prices that Americans pay for food, fuel, college, transportation, and medical costs have risen by 25 percent. And let's not forget that mortgage foreclosures are rising while housing prices are falling, like a rock. This President has been willing to bail out Wall Street but never mind Main Street.

Strolling down memory lane can be very educational, especially when you consider the President is running for an unprecedented third term. They talk about change, but only the names will change. The Republican ``wreck-o-nomic'' policies that created this economic disaster will remain exactly the same. That's not nostalgia; that's a promise from this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to H.R. 6532 on the legislative day of Thursday, September 11, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, the sounds we are hearing and the signals we are seeing from the administration remind me of the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. For all those supporters of the President who claimed 6 years ago that military intervention in Iraq would be the U.S.'s last option, we now know the war was the first, preordained and only option of the administration. They just had to cook the books to make the American people believe otherwise.

America has paid a very steep price: America has lost lives; Iraqis have lost lives; $1 trillion lost; American moral leadership in the world lost. And we cannot afford to let this administration do it again with a military strike against Iran before the President and Vice President leave office in January.

The news of late is deeply troubling, and we have a responsibility to remind the Americans of the administration's penchant to conduct diplomacy with bullets and bombs.

I believe the people have the right to know and the right to demand this administration, and the Republican ticket for the Presidency, declare there be no military strike against Iran by U.S. forces or on our behalf by a U.S. ally like Israel unless the Congress votes for it.

My concerns come directly out of the reporting by credible, mainstream international news organizations that have built their reputation on credibility.

I enter into the Record a September 1 story from the Jerusalem Post. The headline is: ``Dutch intel: U.S. to strike Iran in coming weeks.''

[From the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 1, 2008]

Dutch Intel: U.S. To Strike Iran in Coming Weeks

(By JPost.com Staff)

The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an

operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons

industry due to an assessment that a U.S. attack on the

Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to

a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.

The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been

``extremely successful,'' and had been stopped because the

U.S. military was planning to hit targets that were

``connected with the Dutch espionage action.''

The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by

unmanned aircraft ``within weeks,'' the report claimed,

quoting ``well placed'' sources.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf

report.

According to the report, information gleaned from the

AIVD's operation in Iran has provided several of the targets

that are to be attacked in the strike, including ``parts for

missiles and launching equipment.''

``Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in

recent years with the CIA,'' the report said.

On Saturday, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff General Masoud

Jazayeri warned that should the United States or Israel

attack Iran, it would be the start of another World War.

On Friday, Ma'ariv reported that Israel had made a

strategic decision to deny Iran military nuclear capability

and would not hesitate ``to take whatever means necessary''

to prevent Teheran from achieving its nuclear goals.

According to the report, whether the United States and

Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's

nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or

whether a U.S. strike on Iran is eventually decided upon,

Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent

military strike.

I also enter into the Record the August 29 Jerusalem Post story entitled, ``Israel reaches strategic decision not to let Iran go nuclear.''

[From the Jerusalem Post, online edition, Aug. 29, 2008]

Israel Reaches Strategic Decision Not To Let Iran Go Nuclear

(By JPost.com Staff)

Israel will not agree to allow Iran to achieve nuclear

weapons and if the grains start running out in the proverbial

egg timer, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means

necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals,

the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United

States and Western countries will succeed in toppling the

ayatollah regime diplomatically, through sanctions, or

whether an American strike on Iran will eventually be decided

upon, Jerusalem has put preparations for a separate,

independent military strike by Israel in high gear.

So far, Israel has not received American authorization to

use U.S.-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense

establishment been successful in securing the purchase of

advanced U.S.-made warplanes which could facilitate an

Israeli strike.

The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a

global early warning radar system, implying that the U.S. is

pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only.

Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has

consistently warned over the pat years it will not settle for

a `wait and see' approach and retaliate in case of attack,

but rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in

the first place.

Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK which has left the party

recently, has sent a document to both U.S. presidential

candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point

document states that ``there is no government in Jerusalem

that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it

is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons,

an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously

considered.''

According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the

``sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate

bloodshed.'' To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh

wrote, ``real'' sanctions applied in concert by the U.S. and

Europe is necessary. A total

embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total

boycott of Iranian banks will topple, within a short time,

the regime which is already pressured by a sloping economy

and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they would have

outside assistance.

The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a

half to two years, until 2010.

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an

attempt to lobby those two states. Both countries have

announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and

oil fields for the next decade.

``Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security

doesn't impress these guys,'' Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh

replied quietly ``it's a shame, because Ido will light all

this up.'' He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the

recently appointed commander of the Israeli Air Force and the

man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack

on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become the

necessity.

``Investing in Iran in 2008,'' Sneh told his Austrian

hosts, ``is like investing in Krups Steelworks in 1938, it's

a high risk investment.'' The Austrians, according to Sneh,

turned pale.

In related news, Israel Radio reported that Iran has

finished installing an additional 4,000 centrifuges in the

Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The Islamic Republic also

announced it will install an additional 3,000 centrifuges in

coming months.

The pan-Arabic Al Kuds al Arabi reported Friday that Iran

has equipped Hizbullah with longer range missiles than those

it had before the Second Lebanon War and also improved the

terror group's targeting capabilities.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not

verify independently, Hizbullah would begin a massive rocket

onslaught on targets reaching deep into Israel's civilian

underbelly in case the Jewish State would launch an attack on

Iran.

These and other news stories should remind us that this administration remains in office for several months but years ago forfeited their trust with the American people over the Iraq War.

What is especially worrisome to me is that the administration has shifted the Iraq war to the air in an effort to make it an antiseptic war that might be more acceptable to the American people. We're grateful that U.S. casualties in Iraq are down significantly, but when a war should never have been started, every single casualty is a price too high.

And today, the U.S. is an unwelcome occupier, and the administration is ignoring the wishes of the elected Iraqi Government to set a date to leave. Instead, the White House is trying to run their country and continue this war.

Bombs falling from 30,000 feet have the same devastating impact on innocent Iraq civilians as bullets and bombs at street level. We just don't hear about it much in the American news media. But I hear about it from people in the Middle East who wonder if we will ever leave Iraq and worry that an antiseptic aerial war will be used against Iran.

Where once we stood tall on the moral high ground, now decent people the world over question our motives, our resolve, and our moral leadership. They fear, and so do I, that this administration will make the calculation that as long as we drop bombs from 30,000 feet, or fire cruise missiles from 300 miles offshore, the American people can be misled into another war. We must not let that happen.

The current leadership in Iran has few, if any, friends in this House today, and I am not one of them. But we cannot solve every challenge that confronts us with military confrontation. And we cannot meet other challenges when our moral high ground has turned into the shifting sands during this administration.

When Russia invades Georgia, who in the world is going to listen to the rhetoric of a U.S. President who invaded Iraq?

When Iraq says set a timetable to leave and this President says no, who in the world is going to listen to a President who says Iraq is a sovereign Nation?

And when this administration says they aren't planning a military strike against Iran, why would anyone in the world believe it when the fine print says all the options are still on the table?

Instead of occupying Iraq, the U.S. should be occupying the moral high ground, and we can start by stopping any effort to use force against Iran. Let's do it today before it's too late. We need, Mr. Speaker, a vote before we do anything against Iran.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years I have struggled with the issue of whether the House should impeach a sitting President. Next to declaring war, impeachment is the gravest matter the House of Representatives must consider. I fully understand the gut-wrenching consequences of such a national debate that could precipitate.

Yet there is one fact we cannot overlook or escape. America cannot regain its moral leadership in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their actions at home.

The allegations that could warrant impeachment keep growing. They have been illuminated in recent books, including ``The Way of the World'' by Ron Suskind; the book by Vincent Bugliosi; and the new book by Bob Woodward, ``The War Within.''

Over 5 years ago, I tried to place asterisks in the Congressional Record next to the statements about Iraq the President made to Congress. I was attacked for saying the President would mislead us into the war. But the American people ultimately learned the truth. There seems to be no end to the allegations, and we have a responsibility to investigate their authenticity. That's why I am signing onto a resolution to consider impeachment of the President. Without accountability, a democracy will fail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Samuel Snow from Leesburg, Florida. Mr. Snow is a hero and a role model for every American, and especially African-Americans. At a time when most people would have rightly succumbed to anger and bitterness, Samuel Snow stood taller than us all.

Sixty-four years ago, Samuel and other African-American soldiers were accused and convicted of a crime they did not commit at Fort Lawton, in Seattle, one of the communities I represent. Last weekend, Assistant Secretary of the Army Ronald James came to Seattle to deliver an eloquent and heartfelt apology on behalf of the Army, and to honor the soldiers, including Samuel Snow, with honorable discharge plaques.

Mr. Snow's son, Ray, stood in for his father when Samuel was hospitalized unexpectedly. After the ceremony in which I was honored to participate, Ray Snow took the honorable discharge plaque to a Seattle hospital, where he showed it to his father and read Samuel the inscription. According to Ray, his father smiled broadly as he held the plaque. A few hours later, Samuel Snow died with his family at his side. His son Ray would say: ``My dad has been standing in formation all these years waiting to have his name cleared. With the Army's honorable discharge he was at ease. He now has his discharge papers and he went home.''

I am very proud to have had the honor and privilege of meeting and getting to know Samuel Snow, his family, and the families of the other soldiers whose fathers and grandfathers were falsely accused and convicted, and needlessly paid a heavy price for this racial injustice throughout their lives.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: ``An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Samuel Snow lived to lead the fight against a racial injustice that is a stain on our nation's history.''

Samuel Snow was a man full of courage and optimism who had a wonderful sense of humor and a deep well of courage and conviction. He knew what was right and just, and he died knowing that he had finally defeated the racial injustice that had tried, and failed, to strike him down.

Samuel Snow raised a wonderful family and he lived a quiet, humble life working as a janitor, not once complaining about what might have been in life had he not been unfairly deprived of his GI benefits.

Samuel Snow's life will inspire others to fight for what is right and just, and to never give up on the country he loved so much. I was privileged to stand in the company of a giant of a man and I am certain that Samuel Snow, an American hero, will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, a barrel of oil is still more than $120 and the price Americans are paying for a gallon of gas is $4.20 a gallon. Add that to the rising food prices and rising unemployment-- especially long-term unemployment--and the economic climate feels more like the dead of winter than the middle of summer.

Too many Americans are still being forced to choose between food and fuel every day either to get to work or look for work. But we can help those at the bottom of the economic ladder survive by simply passing the Gas Stamps legislation I've introduced. It would provide modest assistance to people who need a helping hand to keep their head above water. It would provide temporary assistance over a relatively short time, a few months, like food stamps, and it would say to the American people that we, in Congress, know the first stimulus package was not enough and we're prepared to act again.

Providing those in need with a few hundred dollars a month for a few months is a small price to pay so that vulnerable Americans can continue to put food on the table and gas in their tank to go to work.

The American people need and deserve some additional help, and we ought to provide it with gas stamps, not the fraud of drilling on the coast.