Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. McDermott

Amendment No. 15: Page 52, line 13, strike the close

quotation marks and the period and insert ``and''.

Page 52, after line 13, insert the following:

``(D) provides that the preceding provisions of this

paragraph shall not apply with respect to the placement of a

child with a relative for not more than 60 days while the

State is conducting a records check pursuant to this

paragraph; ''.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me set the stage of this discussion. When it comes to Hurricane Katrina, its impact and aftermath, especially on the poor, disadvantaged and the children, our most vulnerable population, let me sum it up. We do not know what we do not know.

Before us today is the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act. It is a marker, modest at best, meant to buy some time. I hope that is what it is.

We certainly stand with Representatives McCrery and Jefferson, two friends and colleagues who are at ground zero at this tragedy. We want to be as helpful as possible. I know that Mr. Jefferson is working on a comprehensive program for what is necessary in his district, and I think that will come forward as we go down the road a little bit.

It is going to be overwhelming, but in the process, we cannot act like we have done enough. The American people have had their fill of that kind of false rhetoric since this tragedy first roared on shore. As ranking member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, as a medical doctor and child psychiatrist, let me say we had better use the precious few months we are buying today to find out what we do not know and then address the real needs of real people. Band-Aids alone will not heal this wound.

We have more questions than answers, and we must act actively and aggressively to find out what we need to comfort the afflicted, heal the sick and mend the tattered bodies and minds.

First, we ought to add the word ``temporary'' to the title of this legislation. Here is why.

The legislation extends TANF, Temporary Aid for Needy Families, for 3 months. The 7th of December, it goes away. We are not sure we will even have a complete casualty count in the next 90 days.

This bill increases TANF funding for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama by 20 percent in the next fiscal year. The truth is, we do not know what the real cost will be, and 20 percent may well become the proverbial drop in the bucket.

This is a time when people and local governments expect leadership out of the Congress. Arbitrarily increasing funding by 20 percent had better be a sign of our initial commitment, not a cap on our already inadequate leadership.

We are going to completely reimburse neighboring States that provide short-term TANF assistance. Not only is that the least we can do, we should not tell States in this legislation that the meter is running and will run out in 3 months. What about Arkansas, all the people that went up there? There is no mention in here about them. We do not need any more confusion and missed opportunities than we already have.

This legislation waives some TANF requirements and penalties. Let me ask everyone something: Who in the world thinks this is the time to add more bureaucracy? We ought to be waiving every requirement and penalty for the indefinite future. We do not even know where the people are yet; this aid bill could end up hurting, not helping, people who need America more than ever.

We ought to add another word to this legislation, ``incomplete.''

There may be as many as 10,000 foster kids somewhere in the disaster region. Words like ``displaced,'' ``abandoned,'' and ``alone'' come to mind, and that ought to mobilize the conscience of the Nation. We do not know if these kids are safe, we do not know where they are, and we do not know if they are getting the services they need. We do know they have witnessed unspeakable horrors.

As a child psychiatrist, I know something about what these children are going through.

We ought to have a separate piece of legislation before us that focuses on these children. They will need grief counseling. They will need food, shelter, clothing and love. They will need guardians, and we do not even know today where they are.

The sad fact is that the current child welfare program dramatically limits services, including mental health, that these children can receive once they are located. Does anyone think we need another bureaucracy for that?

Early estimates from the Congressional Budget Office tell us that a half million workers will likely qualify for unemployment compensation as a result of the hurricane. The Federal program was short-sighted and underfunded before. What will we tell these people when their benefits run out, their communities have been washed away, what, go look for a job?

This is not a time to wash away the Federal response. Benefits should be there as long as they need to be, period. How long is that? The answer to that is how long it will take to raise and restore these communities. Within 6 weeks, something like 11,000 people are due to lose their unemployment benefits. Let us not compound last week's disastrous Federal response by ignoring another human disaster which we know is on the horizon. Those 11,000 people are out there right now getting their last check in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, we do not know what we do not know, but there is something we had better face up to. The poor, the disadvantaged, and children deserve an America of equal measure to the rest of the population.

For 10 years, the burden of care and compassion has been shifted away from the Federal Government by the Republican majority who wanted to create an ownership society by disowning those who needed us most. Programs like TANF and a host of other Federal programs that address human needs were cut, blocked, and shifted by Republicans who believed it was someone else's responsibility.

For 10 years, the burden of care and compassion has been shifted from the Federal Government by the Republican majority who wanted to create an ownership society by disowning those who need it most. And is owning something more valuable than going to work every day and playing by the rules?

For 10 years, we have aimed to shift the lifeline for all Americans on the local institutions. Therefore, today there are different TANF and unemployment and foster care programs in each one of the 50 States and they provide varying levels of support that are too often inadequate.

I heard from the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) that children brought from Louisiana wind up in Arkansas needing health care because they were in an institution down there, and Medicaid in Louisiana says we will not pay for them when they are in Arkansas. So a Congressman has to intercede on the basis that he has to move the bureaucracy in the middle of this mess. That is what you get when you get 50 programs, all different.

America's poor should be entitled to support no matter where they go in this country. They are an American. They are not a Mississippian or an Alabaman or a Louisianan. They are Americans, and we have got to get back to the principle that these should be national programs that reach the entire country.

We do not know where the next tragedy will be, but for us to stand here and figure we are going to make these little minor adjustments here today, and we are going to vote for it, we will all be for this, but there is a lot more work that needs to be done out there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman seems to think that if somebody is upset by this, they ate lemons for lunch. My belief is when we are dealing with the problems

in the three States with the lowest unemployment insurance rates, the three lowest TANF rates, with a city that had 38 percent of the children living in poverty when this started, we are dealing with a problem which we should have dealt with long ago.

This Band-Aid today is nothing more than that. There should be a comprehensive dealing with this issue, and we should be all ashamed of the fact that that situation exists in this part of the country.

The next issue we are going to have to face, and I have not heard a single person mention it, is the cost of gasoline. If we can give food stamps to people in this country, we ought to begin a gas stamp program so that poor people who have to drive to work can afford to fill the tank and get there.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Tuesday, September 6, 2005. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 360, rollcall vote No. 454, and ``yea'' S.J. Res. 19, rollcall vote No. 455.

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, August 29th, Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi as a Category 4 storm, with winds of over 140 miles per hour. We all know the aftermath of that terrible storm: thousands dead, more than a million refugees, billions of dollars in damage, and a major American city rendered uninhabitable. The greatest tragedy of all is that, for the most part, this could have been avoided.

The President told us that he didn't ``think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees,'' a misinformed statement at best. New Orleans is the only major American city below sea level, and the Federal Government was well aware of the flooding threat to the city in the event of a hurricane. Just last July, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a five-day hurricane exercise simulating the effects that a powerful storm would have on New Orleans. During the apocalyptic simulation, 120 mile per hour wind gusts and 20 inches of rain combined to top the levees, forcing the evacuation of more than one million residents.

Yet despite the lessons learned from that exercise the Bush administration stunningly neglected to heed the threat.

The President slashed funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' project to control flooding in the New Orleans area, to $10.4 million, one-sixth of what local officials had said they needed. Funding for Army Corps projects have been cut across the board for the last few years by this administration and this Congress, whose reckless tax-cutting, combined with funding cuts and National Guard deployments to Iraq, have sharply increased vulnerability to natural disaster in this country. It is worth noting that more than 7,000 soldiers from the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard are stationed in Iraq, including more than 3,000 from the 256th Brigade Combat Team based in New Orleans.

Even as the hurricane was hitting land as a Category 4 storm, the administration failed to mobilize help. Dr. Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center, said that both Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Director Mike Brown were made aware of the storm's potential in the days leading up to its landfall, yet it took until Friday, September 2nd, four days after the storm hit, for any meaningful National Guard presence to arrive to relieve the burden on local Guard units, bring about law and order, and ease suffering. The first 72 hours after a disaster are the most important in terms of saving lives, and this administration completely failed in that regard.

Sadly, the 200,000 or so people who did not evacuate the city in time were overwhelmingly those who were too poor, old, or sick to leave. It is they who have suffered the most from the gross Federal Government incompetence before, during, and after the storm.

Mr. Speaker, a grave threat to America today is our addiction to oil, and voting for the Energy Bill is like franchising drug abuse.

Republicans have written a bill that favors corporate America over Main Street America. This bill does not, and will not, address any of the critical energy issues that threaten our environment, our economy and our middle class.

Sixty dollars for a barrel oil that breaks the backs and the budgets of Mainstream Americans is a scandal. And this legislation serves as a full, free and absolute pardon to those who failed to put America's interests ahead of special interests.

Oil company profits have been driven obscenely high on the backs of American consumers, and this legislation paves an express lane for Big Oil to drive the American consumer into the ground.

At a time when America needs energy vision, Republicans have given us their philosophy: leave no special interest behind.

Big Oil--step right up and fill the tank with the hard earned money of America's middle class.

Big Coal--step right up and pardon that coughing in the background; it's only Americans choking from new pollution spewing into the atmosphere.

This legislation does not address the economic peril Americans face every time they fill up at the pump, but it will give over $14 billions in tax breaks and subsidies to big Republican donors.

This energy legislation represents thinking as old as the dinosaurs, and just as extinct. America needs an energy vision and a commitment to the rapid development of sustainable, renewable, energy resources.

The opportunities and technologies exist today to start us on a road to energy freedom and independence. But we are not going to get there with a bill that encourages predatory dinosaurs like Big Oil to roam the earth and destroy everything and everyone in their path.

I urge my colleagues to vote against an energy legislation that was written as if we lived in 2005--B.C.''

Madam Speaker, the Republicans have another installment in their blame game before us today. The trade deficit is rising higher and faster than the Space Shuttle because of policies blasted through the Congress by the Republicans. But they want to blame someone else. They say it is the fault of the Chinese, failing to remember their massive cuts in education and job training programs. They fail to remember that our trade deficit occurred because foreigners are financing our budget deficit.

When the Republicans took control of the Congress over a decade ago, they came in as the party of free trade and free enterprise and balanced budgets. Well, now we have got companies and workers racing out of this country because of high energy and high health care costs. We have got employers leaving this country because they cannot find better skilled employees in this country than they can find elsewhere. And what do the Republicans do?

They blame the patients and the courts for higher health care costs. They blame environmentalists for the high price of crude oil, and they blame workers when their jobs are outsourced. They blame everyone but themselves for our problems and avoid doing anything that can improve the situation. And that is what this bill is today.

This bill does not really require the administration to do anything to level

the playing field with China. Does this bill invest in the American workforce so they can better compete in the global economy? The answer is no.

Does this bill do something about the explosive energy prices that eat away at our competitiveness? No. Does this bill significantly invest in research and development so that the new services and products consumed around the world are created here at home by Americans? The answer is no.

And does this bill do anything to combat health care costs that are spiraling out of control and force companies to reconsider whether they want to incorporate here or in Canada? The answer is no. Does this bill do anything to improve the security of America's working people? The answer is no.

This is just a mechanism the Republicans would use to point their fingers elsewhere, to China. They will not even put this bill before the Ways and Means Committee for an honest discussion. That is because this bill is not about solving America's problems or supporting America's workers. It is to make the workers believe that they are supporting them.

This bill is about bashing the Chinese in order to divert attention from the fact that the next bill up is CAFTA. The Republicans have ignored making America competitive in the world economy. This is a sop. This bill is out here first for a sop, for those Members who are going to vote for CAFTA, but want something to balance it off when they go home.

I was strong against China, but I did shift some stuff down to Central America; but please do not hold that against me, because I was strong against China. This is a sop. There are no teeth in this. There are no teeth at all. This is simply China bashing. And that does not make us more competitive in the world, and it does not make us deal with our deficit.

We have to deal with the budget in this country if we are going to be serious about the Chinese investing in our bonds. They own big chunks of America, and they are going to continue it as long as the Republicans run the kind of deficits that they seem to think do not make any difference any more.

I remember guys out here talking about, oh, my goodness, we have to have a balanced budget amendment. This country is going to go to the dogs if we do not have a balanced budget amendment. Then they got in charge, and they started spending like there was no end to their credit card. Stop it. Do not bash the Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, a question you might ask tonight is: Why are we passing this Central American Free Trade Agreement?

Today, the President of the United States came up to the Republican caucus and someone reported to me that he made some statement equal to, we have had a marvelous year. Now, if you think about what has gone on in the last 6 months, you would have a hard time finding any marvelous year. I must have missed it somewhere.

Our trade deficit is as big as it has ever been in our history. So is this a fix for that? If we pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, will that fix our problems in trade?

Let me put it in perspective for you. The combined economies of these six countries is $85 million GDP. That is equivalent to Tampa, Florida, and the neighborhood around it. That is what kind of place we are talking about. We are talking about a little bitty place.

Now, what do they have down there? Well, they have lots of poor people. Right? Good workers. Hard workers. A lot of them go to a lot of trouble to try to come up here and get into this country. And people wonder why? Well, it is because they are hard-working people. They are tough, they work hard, and they go through a lot of stress and strain. So if we can keep them down in their own country and keep them working down there where they do not have any laws and move our jobs down there to them, well, who wins in that?

I guess they get a 50-cent-an-hour job. That is a real improvement. With no protections, no guarantees from a union that they are going to have health care or education or worker safety or any of the things that our workers have in this country. But we have got a cheap workforce.

You heard the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) talk about one of the underlying things here. One of the ideas about this bill is if we can keep them down there, they will not be coming in up here. We will stop that immigration. Let me tell you something, folks. It has not stopped it from Mexico. It is not going to stop it from Central America. These people know. They are not stupid. They may be poor, but they can figure it out. And they can figure out working for 50 cents an hour down there is not as good as coming up here and getting involved in even the most menial jobs in this country.

So what we are saying is we have negotiated a treaty. Did we negotiate a trade agreement with the workers? No. If you look at every single one of those countries, they are all the same. They have a very thin elite who control the whole country, and have for centuries. And all we are doing is giving them more power to work on their workers. That, in my view, is not fair to the workers, and it is not an honest way for this country to operate. We are setting no example for the world by keeping poor workers down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the American worker and American business, and the best way I can do that this week is to vote against CAFTA and I urge every I Member to do the same.

We know better, it is as simple as that.

CAFTA is bad public policy that has no place in a 21st century global economy.

Free trade between the United States, and the Dominican Republic and Central America is vitally important, but it has to be fair trade and CAFTA does not measure up. We have known this about CAFTA for some time.

For over a year, the American people kept hearing that CAFTA was coming, but it never arrived. The majority didn't have the votes because they had not earned the votes--even within their own party--by floating a blatantly unfair agreement that fails repeatedly to make real gains and real change.

For over a year, Democrats and many rank-and-file Republicans repeatedly urged the majority to act like statesmen and not henchmen for the administration.

Instead, Republican leaders have chosen destructive confrontation instead of constructive dialogue. If their strong arm tactics succeed, America will have an unfair international trade policy that would not help Central America much and will harm America a lot.

The omissions are glaring in CAFTA--chief among them: environmental protection, worker rights, and fair policies that could benefit every American business, not just a few.

As the largest market in the world, United States international trade policy should be leading the world, not following special interests, which have only their own interests in mind. But that is not the case in CAFTA, which retains protectionist trade policies that benefit U.S. textile interests and no one else.

CAFTA represented a real opportunity for the United States to apply what we have learned--both good and bad--from NAFTA and all the other trade agreements implemented over the last decade.

In CAFTA, we could have supported American jobs and American companies. We could have led the region into creating real family wage jobs instead of any wage employment.

There is so much we could have done but what we have is a Republican majority attempting to export their philosophy of the Haves and Have- nots. ``Greed is good'' should not be the mantra that comes from CAFTA.

The United States and Central America need an honest trade agreement that represents the best of America and CAFTA doesn't come close. Vote to keep America as a beacon of hope and not a bastion of greed.

We need to renegotiate CAFTA and the first step in that process is to vote ``no'' on this hopeless, helpless, and hapless agreement.

Mr. Speaker, since the 12th of June, there has been an embargo on the American press for reporting on a letter written by the Iraqi legislature. For that reason I will read it here today:

``As the National Assembly is the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people and the guardian of its interests, and as the voice of the people, especially with regard to repeated demands for the departure of the occupation, we note that these demands have earlier been made in more than one session but have blatantly been ignored from the Chair. Worse still is the Government's request to the U.N. Security Council to extend the presence of the occupation forces, made without consultation with the people's representative in the National Assembly who hold the right to make such fateful decisions.

``In line with our historic responsibility, we reject the legitimation of the occupation and we repeat our demand for the departure of the occupation forces, especially since our national forces have been able to break the back of terrorism and to notably establish its presence in the Iraqi street and to recover the state's dignity and the citizen's trust in the security forces leading to the noble objectives in an Iraq whose sovereignty is not embellished.

``Peace and God's Mercy and Blessings be Upon You.

``Falah Hasan Shanshal.''

This letter was signed by at least 126 members of the 275-member democratically elected Iraqi parliament and it gets nothing in the American press.

Everyone should know this.

Mr. Speaker, it is hot outside, and we must cool off the rhetoric in this House.

We have had another bombing in London, and yet Members of this House are talking about bombing Muslim holy places. Members are quoted in the press as talking about shooting people in the press who are investigating the Karl Rove incident.

This issue is now on the front page of the Washington Post, just like Watergate was, and there is no place for that kind of inflammatory rhetoric in this House or by the membership of this House.

The Speaker should make it clear that Members have a major impact on the public when they talk in that kind of language. We do not want to be seen to encourage it or in any way say it is all right. Those kinds of things from a Member of Congress are clearly out of place.

I include for printing in the Record a story from the Editor & Publisher of a Member of Congress and what has been said in the press today. This must not continue.

Rep. King Says Russert and Others in Media Should `Be Shot,' Not Karl

Rove

(By E&P Staff)

New York.--From the transcript of an interview on Tuesday

night on MSNBC's ``Scarborough Country,'' between host Joe

Scarborough and Congressman Peter King, a Republican from New

York, on the Plame case and the possible leak of the CIA

agents name by White House aide Karl Rove.

* * *

Scarborough: The last thing you want to do at a time of war

is reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents.

King: No. Joe Wilson, she recommended--his wife recommended

him for this. He said the vice president recommended him. To

me, she took it off the table. Once she allowed him to go

ahead and say that, write his op-ed in ``The New York

Times,'' to have Tim Russert give him a full hour on ``Meet

the Press,'' saying that he was sent there as a

representative of the vice president, when she knew, she knew

herself that she was the one that recommended him for it, she

allowed that lie to go forward involving the vice president

of the United States, the president of the United States,

then to me she should be the last one in the world who has

any right to complain.

And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people

like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a

free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not

Karl Rove.

Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an

imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.

And I really--tell you, Republicans are running for cover.

They should be out attacking Joe Wilson. We should throw this

back at them with all the nonsense that has been said about

George Bush and all the lies that have come out.

Scarborough: Well * * *

King: Let's at least stand by the guy. He was trying to set

the record straight for historical purposes and to save

American lives. And if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she

should have come out and said that her husband was a liar,

when he was.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, the definition of a patriot is someone who

proudly supports and defends his or her country and its way of life. Today we patriots rose to vote against this bill because we want to defend the American way of life. The way to do that is to restore some of the civil liberties taken away during the panic after 9/11.

Freedom in America does not mean granting the government unlimited and unchecked powers to snoop into private lives without any counterbalance. Yet 4 years ago, we were presented with a massive bill in the middle of the night. Fear governed and government suspended basic American freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. A sunset provision was the only thing that kept our American way of life from sunsetting.

Today we need to reclaim liberty and freedom and rename this act the Act of Patriotism. We can defend liberty without destroying freedom. We can make America safer without making America afraid. We can shoulder the burden of security without falling under the yoke of oppression. We cannot and we must not be afraid any longer.

We were afraid not long ago, and it set America on a terrible course where we willingly suspended the rule of law to be governed by the rule of fear: be afraid; be very afraid. And we were. We feared so much that in the PATRIOT Act we embraced national secrecy instead of national security. We granted broad sweeping powers to the government and removed the checks and balances that have made Americans free for 200 years.

At a time like this with the stakes so high, we should look back on history and learn. America has faced grave threats and perilous times before. We did so by defending American values, not by dismantling American principles.

At a time like this we should recall and heed the words expressed by our Founders. The geniuses who envisioned a Nation of free people, free expression and freedom knew that the hard work for America was not in crafting liberty, but in preserving it. What they wrote 200 years ago sounds like it was penned and delivered in this Chamber on this very day. Just listen:

``But a Constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.'' Those are the words of John Adams in a letter on July 17, 1775.

Another quote: ``However weak my country may be, I hope we shall never sacrifice our liberties.'' Alexander Hamilton wrote that on December 13, 1790.

And another quote: ``Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are the only safe depositories.'' Thomas Jefferson was the author in 1781.

You cannot get any advice any better than that written by people who risked torture and death to pursue liberty.

We have our marching orders, and we could not be any clearer. We cannot let fear govern who we are and what we stand for. We cannot let fear become the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. Yet, that is precisely the grave danger facing America today.

The signs are everywhere. Without your knowledge, investigators can search your home or your office, copy records and photographs. Without your knowledge, the government can look at your medical records as if an x-ray will reveal your political ideology.

Without your knowledge, the government can access your library records and listen to roving wiretaps. And the threshold for all of this is unseen and unknown. A nameless, faceless person somewhere in the government can decide you are suspicious. The color of your skin or the accent of your voice could tip the scales.

They say no. But we do not know. How could we know? Everything is secret.

This climate of fear has produced arrogance which has led to an inevitable abuse of power. So a Republican committee chairman thinks nothing of turning off the microphones as if freedom of speech is governed by an off and on switch, as if liberty and justice for all is controlled by one man banging his gavel.

We have gone too far, and it is time to trade in fear and embrace fearlessness because that is what America is. We have gone too far, and it is time to restrain government because in this country the people rule and history teaches that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We have gone too far, and it is time to stop fear-mongering and start protecting liberty. We do not need to destroy America's founding principles in order to defeat America's latest enemy. Do not let fear rule America and distort it into a country we do not even recognize.

Four years ago we put sunset provisions in the PATRIOT Act. It is time to put them back in and restore the checks and balances that keep America free.

Mr. Chairman, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment is a Republican PR stunt that if approved will make Iraq more dangerous for U.S. soldiers than it already is, and that is very, very dangerous. The President's credibility is a well that is fast running dry.

We have the best soldiers and the best military commanders in the world. They do not need an inflammatory amendment by a Republican Party behaving like armchair generals while the fighting and dying and chaos goes on in Iraq.

What we need to today is total commitment to our soldiers, not empty promises, underfunded programs and outright deception by the Republican Party. The best way to support U.S. soldiers in Iraq is to fully fund and provide health care for veterans when they come home. The best way to support them is to stop pretending that everything is going fine.

Hundreds have died since the Vice President categorically denied reality by claiming we were witnessing the ``last throes of the insurgency.'' Reality, like body armor, is in short supply in this administration.

As of today, 126 Members of the democratically elected Iraqi parliament, that is nearly half of 275, have signed a statement calling on the U.S. to leave now. Now. That is what the reality is. That is the environment faced by our brave soldiers.

Our soldiers know that this country believes in them and supports them. Our soldiers do not need the tin sound of another hollow amendment. They need the sound of silence to mark the day when the bombs stop exploding and the guns stop firing.

The best way to support U.S. soldiers in Iraq is to get the United Nations or NATO in, so that we can begin getting our soldiers out now. Vote no on this amendment that does nothing to save or bring them home. They are counting on us to correct the mistake we made by supporting the President in starting this war in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in rising in the defense of America's working poor. Instead of weakening workplace safety and not doing this today as the majority intends to do, we ought to be strengthening the American family by raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service which shows that minimum wage will be at the lowest value as a percentage of poverty in nearly half a century.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 8 years since Congress has increased the minimum wage. In those 8 years, Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven times by $28,500.

In those same 8 years, minimum wage workers have not gotten a single raise. They continue to earn $10,700. We have given raises to Federal employees. We have given tax cuts to the extremely wealthy. We have given tax breaks to oil and a host of other big industries. But we have ignored the needs and the plight of America's working poor. This study proves it, and it is time to change it. The current minimum wage fails to provide enough income to enable minimum workers to afford adequate housing in any area of this country. It is inexcusable that today in America nearly one-fifth of children go to bed hungry at night while their parents work full time at minimum wage. Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, ending child poverty should be central to our domestic agenda. Nearly 3\1/2\ million children have parents who would get an immediate raise if Congress increased the minimum wage.

Hard work is an American value. We teach our children the importance of work and encourage them to do well in

school to achieve a job that rewards it. Despite this, 36 million working Americans live in poverty. Poverty and wage volatility have doubled for full-time, full-year workers since the 1970s. Since President Bush took office, the cost of housing has gone up 33 percent, college tuition has gone up 35 percent, and health insurance has gone up 59 percent. But the working poor have not seen one thin dime.

Leave No Child Behind is a cruel joke. America's future depends on strong families, and if Members believe in values of families, as some say they do, then they would vote this rule down. Every day we prolong raising the minimum wage, we ask families and children to do more with less. It is a bankrupt policy. Instead of rolling back workplace protections or fooling around the edges with that, we should be increasing the minimum wage.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided rule and move on something more important, which is reinvesting in America's people.

July 5, 2005.

Hon. Jim McDermott,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Memorandum: Historical Relationship Between the Minimum Wage and

Poverty, 1959 to 2005

This memorandum is in response to your request about the

historical relationship been the federal minimum wage and

poverty from 1959 to 2005. In particular, you were interested

in the annual income a full-time, full-year worker earning

the minimum wage would earn relative to the poverty level for

a family of three.

Table 1 shows the effective annual minimum wage from 1959

through 2005 for a full-time full-year worker, relative to

the poverty level for a three-person family. The table shows

when statutory changes to the federal minimum wage became

effective. Average effective minimum wage rates for the year

were calculated based on the pro-rated average of effective

wage rates over the course of the year. For example, in 1997,

the minimum wage was $4.75 per hour for the first eight

months of the year (January through August), and $5.15 per

hour for the last four months of the year (September through

December). The average effective minimum wage for the year is

thus: (($4.75 x 8) + ($5.15 x 4))/12, or $4.8833 per hour.

Here, full-time full-year work is assumed to amount to 2,080

hours of work per year (40 hours per week x 52 weeks).

The poverty income level used here is the U.S. Census

Bureau's average weighted poverty thresholds for a family of

three. The earliest year for which official Census Bureau

poverty income thresholds are available is 1959. Census

Bureau poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition

(e.g., the poverty threshold for a family differs by the

number of children in the family). The average weighted

thresholds reflect the average of the individual thresholds

for a given family size by the observed distribution of

families of varying composition in the population, as

measured by the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey

(CPS). Each year the Census Bureau updates the individual

poverty thresholds to reflect changes in prices, and the

average weighted thresholds, to reflect changes in the

composition of the population for families of each size. The

estimate for 2004 is based on the Census Bureau's preliminary

average weighted poverty thresholds, which reflect price

changes for 2004, but reflect the population weighting from

2003, as opposed to 2004. The final average weighted poverty

thresholds for 2004, scheduled for release this fall, may

differ by a few dollars from those shown here. The

projected poverty thresholds for 2005 are based on the

2004 preliminary weighted poverty thresholds adjusted for

average price inflation from January 2005 to May 2005,

compared to the same period in 2004, which amounted to a

3.1 percent increase in the projected 2005 poverty

thresholds, compared to the 2004 preliminary poverty

thresholds. The Census Bureau will issue preliminary

poverty thresholds for 2005 in January 2006, when price

changes for the 2005 calendar year will be available.

Final weighted poverty thresholds for 2005 won't be

available until the fall of 2006.

Figure 1 depicts the basic trends shown in the table. Table

1 and Figure 1 show that the federal minimum wage was highest

relative to poverty in 1968, when it amounted to 118.7

percent of poverty for a full-time full-year worker

supporting three people. Since 1980, the minimum wage has

been below the poverty line for a full-time full-year worker

supporting a family of three. The most recent increase to the

federal minimum wage to $5.15 per hour in September 1997

(from $4.75 per hour) brought full-time full-year minimum

wage earnings for a family of three up to 82.4 percent of

poverty. Since then, the nominal minimum wage of $5.15 per

hour has eroded relative to the poverty level, which is

adjusted each year for changes in prices. In 2005, full-time

full-year earnings for a minimum wage worker amounts to

$10,712, or 68.9 percent of the estimated projected poverty

level for a family of three ($15,536). Based on the

assumptions used, it is projected that the level of the

minimum wage relative to poverty in 2005 will be at the

lowest level seen at any time over the past 47 years.

Tom Gabe,

Specialist in Social Legislation,

Domestic Social Policy Division.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY05.002

Mr. Speaker, America has before it a rare opportunity of historic and humanitarian proportion. The opportunity is so great, and the outcome so important, that we cannot, we must not, we will not see this as a Democrat or Republican issue. When it comes to meeting the challenge to end poverty in Africa, there is only America united.

The President can assume command at the upcoming G-8 Summit in Scotland with bold steps to unite nations in this World of One War-- defeating the global enemy of poverty--which starves, maims and kills tens of thousands, mercilessly and indiscriminately, in Africa every day.

Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized countries will meet in Scotland to discuss making a long-term, multilateral commitment to fight poverty in sub Saharan Africa.

Let America today shine brighter than the torch on the Statue of Liberty. Let America unite mankind to save humankind. Let the President stand up and demand--not discuss--action.

Demand action, not because we are arrogant, but because we see the pain in Africa's faces and rush in compelled to act. Demand action, not because we are bullies, but because we are burdened by the grief of a billion people starving on one dollar a day. Demand action, not because we are the mightiest nation on earth but because the rivers of Africa flow with tears of sorrow over the dead and dying. And no amount of weaponry can stop the pain, only people can.

The President can unify the world to fight this just and noble war against disease, malnutrition, and economic injustice in sub Saharan Africa.

The richest nations on earth, which throughout history placed self interest ahead of Africa's interest cannot undo the past, but can make a bold commitment to the future. In one defining moment of courage and conviction, the President can unite the world to commit the financial and humanitarian resources that can begin to wipe out poverty in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, more and more African oil fuels the engines of our global economy. The industrialized nations have a long history of extracting Africa's natural resources to fulfill our desires. From bauxite to diamonds, and from copper to cocoa, the world has fed off the resources of Africa, even as Africans starved before our eyes.

While the world benefits from raw commodities found in Africa, nations, including the United States, have policies that keep Africans from adding value to these commodities that would benefit their continent and people. Rich nations benefit more from African materials than the Africans themselves do.

For far too long our farm and trade regimes have hindered African development and injured the African people in countless ways. We have made progress improving trade laws in recent years; we are negotiating at the World Trade Organization now for ways to reform our farm programs which currently distort trade and deny opportunities to African farmers struggling to compete in a global economy. We have difficult work ahead on farm reforms, and more to do to provide access to our markets for African farm products. Many of Africa's agricultural products still face steep, insurmountable and unacceptable tariffs.

But reducing tariffs and farm subsidies imposed by rich nations cannot begin to help Africa overcome the magnitude of its economic and humanitarian crisis. Investments in health and infrastructure are vitally necessary. We can help with these investments. And we can help in ways that improve outcomes for Africans.

I am talking about the immediate and critical need for money in the form of assistance and financial aid, and let me say something that may shock some of you. I agree with the Heritage Foundation--not exactly a Democratic organization--when it points to the mis-steps and mishaps of the past. But haven't we learned from those mistakes? Weren't many of those mistakes made within the context of Cold War politics with priorities different than those we seek today?

There were times when the best of intentions by nations, including America, ended up creating greed, not combating poverty. America has learned and so has the rest of the world. Today, there are organizations, systems and people above reproach. You need only look to the extraordinary work of the Gates Foundation in my District in Seattle to see what is possible and effective.

Today, the only thing standing in the way of action is inaction, and we can change that. The need has never been greater and the time is now for America to lead the world to Answer Africa's Call.

That is why, on behalf of Democrat Leaders today, introduce the Answer Africa's Call Act. The Act would create a five-year, $6 billion annual revenue stream that would fund the International Finance Fund, or the IFF. The new money from this legislation would not be subject to annual appropriations and would not increase the national debt This approach is

brand new and it gives the President and the United States the freedom, flexibility and ability to make good on the necessary long-term commitment to combat poverty in Africa.

This war cannot be won in a year and it cannot be held hostage to an annual budget process that may be blind to the ravages of hunger, deaf to the cries for help and immune from the scourge of disease.

Mr. Chairman, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Commission on Africa proposed an agency to channel funds from the G-8 into programs proven effective at reducing poverty. The Commission's idea is a good one and a smart, multi-nation approach in Africa will pay huge dividends down the road.

The Answer Africa's Call Act recognizes America's role and responsibility, and accepts it by giving the President an arsenal of aid and humanitarian weapons to attack poverty in Africa as never before, once and for all.

Africa's poverty and economic desperation is the greatest tragedy of our time. By comparison, the world, and especially the United States, is wealthy on a scale never before been seen in human history.

We live in a world where new medicines and medical techniques have eradicated many diseases and ailments in rich countries, even as Africa weeps while some four million children under the age of five die each year, two-thirds of them from illnesses which can be treated or wiped out for almost nothing.

Malaria is the biggest single killer of Africa's children, and half those deaths could be avoided simply with access to diagnosis and drugs that cost about a $1 per dose.

We live in a world where rich nations invested in successful research and development of drugs to combat and control one of the most devastating diseases ever seen, AIDS. Yet in Africa, where 25 million people are infected with AIDS, anti-retroviral drugs are not made generally available, meaning two million people will die of AIDS this year.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a world where rich nations spend a billion dollars a day subsidizing the unnecessary production of unwanted food, while in Africa a billion people starve trying to survive on a dollar a day. Hunger is responsible for more deaths in Africa than all the continent's infectious diseases put together.

Despite the rhetoric about how the United States has tripled aid for Africa, a Brookings Analysis shows that aid has roughly increased by only 50 percent since 2000. This is a good start, but we must do more. We contribute far less of our national income to foreign assistance than most developed nations. That is not meant as a slap against the President it is meant as a call to action. I am a medical doctor and bound by a sacred oath to act to save lives when I can.

The G-8 meeting provides President Bush an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate our commitment and determination to reduce poverty in Africa. Next week he could make America proud by declaring our unwavering support for the recommendations of the Commission on Africa at the G-8 Summit.

Let America lead the world toward a common destiny: to end poverty across Africa. Let us act before another life is lost, before another child goes hungry, is born with HIV/AIDs, or is orphaned when parents die from hunger, disease or hopeless despair.

Let us walk together on a road that leads to Africa's destiny, a continent where people no longer suffer and die from hunger and poverty. Let us resolve today to take the first of many steps, as one world, to end poverty in Africa, so that Africans may wake each day to a world where the sun shines on their hopes, dreams and future.

Surely, America's compassion can shine across Africa. Unquestionably, America can lead a global fight against poverty in sub Saharan Africa. But we need the courage of our President. I implore him to act.

Mr. Speaker, last night we watched a very sad event. The President of the United States came out here to try and convince the American people to support him yet again.

The problem is that the President did not recognize while he was standing there that nobody trusts his judgment.

Nobody trusts the vice president's judgment, the man who says we are in the last throes of the problems in Baghdad. Even Rumsfeld has come forward and said, ``We are going to be there 12 years.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the President comes and tries to sell us another 12 years and says things are going well, it just does not work. This was ill-conceived. It was ill-prepared for. It has been poorly executed by the management, not by the troops on the ground. They have done the best they could. But they are there because the President of the United States wanted them there.

This is George Bush's war. This is not a war on terrorism; this is a war of conquest by George Bush.