Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me time and for his excellent work in putting together the Obey substitute, the Democratic substitute, which unfortunately cannot come to the floor today but nonetheless would be a brilliant, brilliant way for us to reconstruct Iraq, provide for our troops, and bring them home safely and soon, having stabilized Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his always reasonable approach to challenges that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his great service, and I will say more on that later, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for what they have added to this package.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), that I am glad to hear that exit strategy means something different to him than some of our colleagues on the gentleman's side of the aisle who said exit strategy means cut and run. The gentleman and I know that that is not what that means.

We all know that we must support our troops. We respect their courage, their patriotism, the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. We also know that for their successful completion of their mission, that we must invest in the infrastructure in Iraq; and we know that we cannot come home until that mission is accomplished. So that is not what this debate is. There is no difference about that.

The difference is how we go about doing it, and I think there is a big difference there. I would like to say something about the lack of planning on the part of the administration. It is in the spirit of that context that I rise in opposition to President Bush's request for $87 billion to bail out his failed policy in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we all recognize that we have no greater responsibility than that which is charged to us in the Preamble of the Constitution: to provide for the common defense. We have all take that responsibility seriously on both sides of the aisle and all over the country.

The United States military is the best-trained, best-led, best- equipped fighting force the world has ever known. This excellence is due to the dedication of our courageous military men and women and their commanders. It is also due to the commitment of this and previous Congresses over many years to provide for the common defense, by ensuring that our forces have the tools and technologies that they need to prevail on the battlefield.

Again, we respect our men and women in uniform and we should respect them when they are on the battlefield and when they come home. And out of respect for them, I would have hoped that our colleagues could join us in discharging the petition to eliminate the tax on disabilities that exist in current law on our disabled vets.

Going back to the war, whatever our position was on going to the war, once we went in, we were one team, one fight. Our military performed their duties excellently. It is painfully clear, though, that this administration had no plan to protect our men and women in Iraq against the possibility of a guerilla campaign. The war supplemental last spring is proof enough. The President asked for and the Congress provided $63 billion to ensure that our soldiers could complete their mission successfully and securely. Yet, as revealed by our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a decorated veteran whose defense credentials are beyond question, our military personnel are short of Kevlar inserts for their body armor, short of tracks for their Bradley fighting vehicles, short of jammers to protect them from the detonation of explosive devices, and short of spare parts generally for the equipment on which they rely. Again, our men and women in uniform deserve better.

When the President asked for this $65 billion, we gave it to him. We never got an accounting for it. When the President hit with his bombshell of asking for $87 billion more, we said we would like to see an accounting of the $63 billion that was appropriated for last summer. We want to know why our men and women in uniform do not have the protection they need to fight this war, this postwar period. We want an accounting, a justification for the $87 billion that the White House is asking for now. We want an accountability for this failed policy.

The $87 billion request did not yet even include the funding for the Kevlar and the jammers and the spare parts and the tracks. It really was not until the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) made a big issue of it, and I commend him and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for

putting this in the bill with the help, of course, of the chairman of the committee. But it was not in the President's request.

It was not in the President's request to protect our troops with what they needed. They had a chance to do it and they did not. I find that very, very unacceptable. As General Zinni said, and others have repeated here, the level of sacrifice has not been matched by the level of planning. What he exactly said is this: ``They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for fighting, our generals will take care of that, but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?'' General Zinni.

America wants to know. What was that $63 billion spent on besides the gold-plated, single-source, no-bid contracts for politically connected contractors? We simply do not know. So that is why we take issue with the $87 billion request.

Don't take it from me. General Petraeus, a great general whom many of us have met in our visits to the theater, he has said that U.S. engineers called for $15 million to turn a cement factory into a state- of-the-art factory. Our troops working with the Iraqis got it up and running, not for $15 million, but for $80,000, for $80,000. We were not responsible for a $15 million state-of-the-art factory. It is up and running at $80,000. You hear this over and over again.

Again, to date there has been no accounting for that money, no accountability for the policy. As a result, American soldiers are taking virtually all the risks, and American taxpayers are paying virtually all the bills.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better. The American people deserve better. Make no mistake, the President's supplemental request is an $87 billion bailout for mistakes and miscalculations of this administration. They have miscalculated the risk. We saw and heard General Zinni's statements about that. They misunderstood the challenge, and they misrepresented the cost.

One week into the war, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and their Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, ``We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.''

How wrong was that? And we know that this is not the end of it. The administration has told us that they need 50 to $75 billion more for infrastructure. When we asked them why they did not put this in the President's $87 billion request, they said that they were going to get it from oil revenues and from our allies. Again, a miscalculation. That funding is obviously not happening. So let us be clear, what we were considering today is not a final payment; it is a down payment. It is an installment on more to come.

The American people look to us to ask the difficult questions, to ensure accountability and not to rubber stamp a policy that has failed in terms of its planning and, therefore, endangered our sons and daughters in uniform. We all appreciate what we need to do. We must address the needs of our forces in Iraq. We must bring stability to that country. We must invest in the infrastructure.

The administration wants us to do a gold-plated, no-bid contract version of the story. They want the gold-plated version, and they have a tin ear to what the American people are saying. They say honor our responsibilities, honor our men and women in uniform, but please do not put our children into debt, our grandchildren into debt without some idea of how this is going to be paid for and what the cost will be.

We would have been better off if we had internationalized this from the start, but we did not. So now what we need to do, again, is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has said over and over. We need to energize Iraq, turn on the lights and water so we can proceed with the reconstruction.

To hear the administration tell the tale, this has all been done, but nonetheless, more is required. We must ``Iraqtize'' it by giving the Iraqis more authority and responsibility to do what they need to do for their country. And we must internationalize the effort so our troops once again are not taking all the risks and our taxpayers paying all the bills.

The question before us today is simple, what is the best way to achieve this goal. It is a complicated matter, but the question is what is the best way to go about it. The answer to me is clear, the Obey substitute. It is a more responsible approach, both fiscally and militarily. It does more for our men and women in uniform before, during and after deployments.

The Obey amendment better protects American taxpayers and their children and their grandchildren because it is paid for, and by having the World Bank administer a loan program for a portion of the reconstruction effort, it will stimulate more international financial support.

In short, the Obey amendment does more to support our troops and encourage international participation in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and costs the American taxpayers less. It deserves our support.

Unfortunately, the Obey amendment will not be allowed to be presented and voted on the floor, and I know why. It is brilliant. If it were presented as an alternative to the $87 billion Bush request, it would probably attract Republican support. It would have an impact on this failed policy. So, sadly, we will not have a chance to vote on it. It is really always interesting to me that it is against the rules of the House to make a proposal that is paid for, that makes it out of order.

I think that we ought to see the Obey substitute and the whole debate in the context of where we are as a country. Here we are, the greatest military power that ever was. Our economy, hopefully soon on the upturn, is the greatest engine for economic growth in the world. The power of our ideas have been a source of strength to us and to others in the world forever. So we are strong in every way, and yet never ever have we been more dependent on other countries for the security of our people.

If we are going to succeed in Iraq, we must reach out to others. President Kennedy said it best in his inaugural address. Some of us were in school at the time and heard the inaugural address, and everybody knows the statement ``Citizens of America, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Children learned that in school. Others of us heard it. It is history for some. It was our youth for others of us.

The very next line in that speech--is ``to the citizens of the world, ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind.'' Let that be our clarion call, what we, working together with the people of the world, can do for the freedom of mankind. We must not find ourselves in a situation where there is a tyrant, and good riddance to him, where we have to go in with inadequate intelligence, inadequate international support and, again, have our kids take all of the risk.

Let us show the greatness of our country, as well as the strength of our country. We could do that by supporting the Obey amendment today. In the absence of that, let us hope that we can have our policy recognize once again that the security of our great country has never been more dependent on others.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate my opposition to the $87 billion bailout of the failed Bush policy and support of the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding and for his great leadership as the chair of the Human Rights Caucus and a fighter against terrorism and a person who understands better than any of us America's leadership role in the world.

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor and commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her usual extraordinary leadership on this issue. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for what they have done to make this discussion possible today.

I am pleased to join nearly 300 of our colleagues in cosponsoring this important measure, which is an effort to encourage Syria to cease its support for terrorism and to end its occupation of Lebanon. Syria's assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism in violation of resolutions on that issue by the U.N. Security Council.

The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and a site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.

The people of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East have been the traditional targets of groups led by, and helped by, Syria. But today's attack on the U.S. convoy in Gaza is a reminder that the United States and our interests in the world are foremost on terrorist target lists. Dealing with the problem of terrorism is our top priority.

Rhetoric has thus far not been effective in encouraging the Syrian Government to cease its assistance to terrorists and to remove its forces from Lebanon.

This legislation provides another alternative. The imposition of sanctions that will hopefully convey a stronger message of our seriousness.

As proposed in the bill, sanctions are a flexible tool that the President may weigh against other interests of the United States in fashioning a response to whatever the Syrian Government may do with respect to the presence of terrorist organizations within the territory it controls.

The costs of terrorism are well known in our country and in the countries throughout the world. It behooves us to have a range of options to address the threat terrorism poses. H.R. 1828 adds to our options with respect to terrorism in the Middle East, and I urge its adoption and once again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) on their leadership on this important matter.

Madam Speaker, it is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Mildred, better known as Millie, O'Neill, wife of former Speaker Tip O'Neil, who passed away peacefully yesterday.

She did so in between watching her sports. She was a great sports fan. She enjoyed seeing Tiger Woods win on Sunday and, of course, she was getting ready for the Red Sox game that was to come on last night.

Millie was a true heroine to our party and our country, and we will miss her terribly. As Democratic Leader of the House, I am humbled to occupy the office which was once occupied by the great Democratic Speaker, Tip O'Neil.

Tip loved his country, his party, his church, his family, and, above all, he loved Millie. Millie was Tip's partner in everything that he did. She was a wonderful, wonderful mother to their children and she became the godmother to the Democratic Party.

Always warm, always caring, and, at the same time, very, very strong, Millie was someone in whose presence we all loved to be.

Again, Millie loved her Red Sox. She was thrilled that they were in the playoffs this year and, of course, I think she has a front row seat for the series coming up now. Now, maybe, I would say to my colleagues from Massachusetts, maybe now that Millie has a front row seat from even higher than the Green Monster, she and Tip can break the ``Curse of the Bambino'' and have the Red Sox win the World Series, the first time since 1918. It will probably take that kind of divine intervention. But if anybody can make it happen, it is Millie.

Our thoughts and prayers are with her family, with her children and grandchildren, whom she cherished. I have the privilege of working on a daily basis with one granddaughter, Catlin O'Neill. We honor the legacy of Tip and Millie O'Neill every day we serve here.

I hope it is a comfort to Thomas III, Rosemary, Christopher, better known as Kip, and Susan, that so many people in our country mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.

Millie has joined Tip and her son Michael, who preceded her to heaven, now in praying for us where they have, shall we say, more access. Let us think of them as we undertake our responsibilities, and know the proud tradition that they were a part of and that we have a responsibility to carry on.

With that, Madam Speaker, once again I express condolences, not only my own personal and that of my family, but that of all the Democratic Members of the House in sending our condolences to the O'Neill family.

I am pleased to do this under the leadership of the dean of the Massachusetts delegation (Mr. Markey), and join other members of the delegation in remembering Millie and celebrating her life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of working families in America.

This motion to instruct which he is bringing to the floor and supported by the ranking member on the committee of authorization, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), is a very, very important piece of legislation to support the position that was taken in a bipartisan way in the other body.

Much has been said earlier about the use of profanity on the floor of the House and that it should not be allowed, and we heard the earlier heated debate over that.

What about obscenities, Mr. Speaker? Are obscenities allowed on the floor of the House? Because what is in this legislation as it would come to the floor without the motion to instruct is an obscenity. It is an insult to America's working families.

We expend a great deal of rhetoric around here about how supportive we are of working families in our country. They are important to us. They do our work. They raise our families. Indeed, we are all a part of it. So when we see an initiative from the administration that undermines the ability of parents to provide for their families, I call that an obscenity.

The Bush administration proposal would mean a pay cut for 8 million workers in our country. Millions of workers depend on that overtime pay to make ends meet. Indeed, it triggers their ability to get a mortgage or a car loan or send their children to school. In the year 2000, overtime pay accounted for about 25 percent of the income of workers who worked overtime. Millions of workers who receive time and a half for their overtime work today will be required to work longer hours for less money under the Republican proposal. Millions more who have long depended upon overtime work to help make ends meet will face effective pay cuts as opportunities to work overtime are diminished. Even workers still covered by overtime pay could suffer a pay cut because employers would shift overtime assignments to the millions of workers who would no longer be entitled to overtime pay.

The Bush administration proposal would mean longer hours, effectively undermining the 40-hour workweek. The many millions of workers denied overtime protection under the Department of Labor proposal would no longer be paid anything, anything, for their overtime. More work, less pay. If employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have an incentive to demand longer hours; and workers will have less time to spend with their families.

This ill-advised proposal from the administration comes at a very bad time for our economy. Certainly Democrats and Republicans alike want to modernize the regulations regarding overtime. But we must not use that modernization to undermine pay and working hours for America's families.

But this proposal, as fraught with pain as it is for America's families, comes at a time, in fact, on the day when the new figures were released just today on unemployment claims. They are up nearly 400,000, the place where some economists think that you are at the definition of weakness in our economy in terms of the labor market relationship. This is on top of the 3.3 million jobs that have been lost during the Bush administration, the worst record of job creation of any President. He is in the category of Herbert Hoover.

Every President since Herbert Hoover has created jobs. Some more, some less. Under President Clinton, 22 million new jobs were created. Under President Bush, to date, over 3.3 million jobs have been lost. The figures for first-time people applying for benefits again is in the record-breaking category.

So, in that context, we have a regulation modernization being brought to the floor of this House that is very much needed to be amended; and that is what our distinguished ranking member on the committee is doing, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Median household incomes have already fallen $1,400 since Bush became President. Now he wants workers to be paid even less. Millions of workers who now receive time and a half for their overtime will be required to work longer hours, more hours for less pay. Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay, but the Bush proposal would deny overtime pay to 8 million workers who now earn such pay. It bears repetition.

In times of elections and even just to measure the popularity of a President, there is a question that is asked by pollsters that says, cares about people like me, yes or no. Today, this House of Representatives has the opportunity to say to the American people that we care about people like them. We care about middle-income working families.

This is not a labor issue. These are people who are not organized. Union people have their pay and working conditions and hours established in contracts. These are about other workers in our country.

Again, other speakers have gone into detail about how if you are just seen as supervising other workers, if that responsibility is yours, then you are not eligible for overtime. So the harder you work, the better you do, the less pay you will make. How can that possibly be fair? I think it is not only unfair, I think it is an obscenity.

Due to the remarks made earlier about profanities not being allowed on the floor, I do not think obscenities should be, either. That is why I commend the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for presenting the motion to instruct for this House to agree in conference to the language of the Senate, to the Harkin amendment, if that is allowed to be said on the floor.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the inspirational life and work of Andrea Martin, who died peacefully at her home on August 6. A loving wife, devoted mother, and treasured friend, Andrea was a woman of incomparable courage. A champion in the fight against breast cancer both locally and nationally, she used her resources and creativity to expose a national health crisis and fight a critical battle. She fought for all of us by advocating for safer and earlier detection, less toxic treatments and research into environmental causes. Andrea's memory will be cherished by her friends and loved ones and by those countless women whose lives she touched through her relentless advocacy.

Born in New York City and raised in Memphis, Tennessee, Andrea graduated from Tulane University and received her master's degree in French while on a fellowship at Tufts University. She moved to San Francisco in 1969, where she taught French at a local high school. Six years later, Andrea earned a law degree from Hastings College at a time when few women had the opportunity to attend law school. Five years after she joined the law firm of Crosby, Heafey, Roach, and May, Andrea left the practice to open Hog Heaven, a Memphis-style barbeque restaurant.

In 1989, Andrea was diagnosed with breast cancer and told that she had little chance of survival. Andrea's determination and strength of character motivated her to overcome this challenge. After a difficult year of treatment, she joined Dianne Feinstein's gubernatorial campaign in California and became a top fundraiser for Senator Feinstein.

After being diagnosed with breast cancer for a second time in 1991, Andrea chose to take the offensive. She founded the Breast Cancer Fund in the living room of her San Francisco apartment. Through her dedication and hard work, she transformed the Fund into one of the most influential breast cancer research advocacy group in the nation.

For the rest of her life, she would be an important national leader in the fight against breast cancer. Andrea was a relentless advocate who helped convince elected officials, health officials, and scientists to spend more

time and money discovering and eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer. Her conviction to educate the public on the environmental links to breast cancer inspired the CDC bio-monitoring legislation that I sponsored.

Andrea ``climbed against the odds,'' literally and figuratively. Leading other survivors in the extraordinary mountain-climbing expeditions of Mt. Aconcagua in the Andes, Alaska's Mt. McKinley, and Japan's Mt. Fuji, she helped increase public awareness and raised over a million dollars for breast cancer research. She taught us that ``working together with daring, dedication and determination, we can not only climb mountains one step at a time, but we can move them.''

Andrea helped change how we talk and think about breast cancer--from a private challenge to a public health crisis that must be surmounted. She fought her battles like a fierce warrior, but lived her life with serenity and grace.

To Andrea's husband, Richard Gelernter, her daughter, Mather, her father and stepmother, Irwin and Becky Ravinett, and to all her family and friends, thank you so much for sharing Andrea with us, and with the countless breast cancer survivors who relied on her indomitable spirit. As Andrea's friend and colleague, Wanna Wright, so movingly wrote, ``her vision, like light, illuminated our lives.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time so I can join in praising the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for bringing this important resolution to the floor and for his leadership on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations where he works closely with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and I commend the gentleman from Illinois also for making the issue of Tibet a priority. The gentleman from Illinois learned at the knee of John Porter who worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. He and John Porter founded the Human Rights Caucus 20 years ago. We observed that yesterday, and it was absolutely fitting and appropriate that His Holiness was the special guest speaker yesterday. What an honor it was for all of us. It brought luster to the Congress, and it was again a fitting tribute to the Human Rights Caucus.

I thank the gentleman from California for his extraordinary leadership. When I first came to Congress in 1987, I was invited to a meeting with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and I was overwhelmed to receive such an invitation. He and John Porter were hosting the meeting in a small room. At that meeting His Holiness put forth his five points of autonomy, not independence, of nonviolence, protecting the environment and stopping the resettlement, et cetera, a very peaceful approach to a resolution of the conflict that could have been.

The Chinese regime did not see it that way. They kept saying they say autonomy; they mean independence, and until they reject independence, we cannot have a conversation, and so these many years have gone by without a resolution.

That is why I am pleased to rise in strong support of H. Res. 359, welcoming His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and recognizing his commitment to nonviolence, human rights, freedom and democracy. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Rothman resolution, and I commend the gentleman for bringing this to the floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has a lifetime commitment to human rights, and in his position as co-chair and ranking member, he has spoken out for hundreds of thousands of victims of religious, ethnic, and political oppression all over the world.

In 40 years in exile, His Holiness has used his position and leadership to promote wisdom, compassion, and nonviolence as a solution not only to the present crisis in Tibet, but to other long-standing conflicts around the world. We must heed the guidance of His Holiness. He is a constant reminder that the crisis in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. We have not forgotten the people of Tibet and their struggle. We must and will continue our efforts to improve their lot.

The self-determination for Tibetans must be a priority in the U.S.- China relationship. We know that more than a million Tibetans have died under the Chinese occupation as a result of torture, starvation and execution. More than 6,000 monasteries and irreplaceable jewels of Tibetan culture have been destroyed. Tibetans are routinely imprisoned and tortured for nonviolently expressing their views. Freedom of religion is severely curtailed. China is encouraging the large-scale settlement of nonTibetans into Tibet, which is overwhelming the Tibetan population in many areas and threatening its very culture.

The U.S. Government knows the facts. In March 2003, the U.S. State Department issued its annual Country Report on Human Rights. The report documents continuing human rights abuses by the Chinese government in Tibet and states, ``Chinese authorities continue to commit serious human rights abuses, including instances of torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing their political or religious views.''

The survival of the Tibetan identity is an issue of urgent U.S. and international concern. That concern will not diminish until a negotiated solution is achieved and the rights of the Tibetan people are respected. This is an important time for the Tibetan people. Tibetans urge the world to support the Dalai Lama's proposal for the restoration of peace and human rights in Tibet. There is some reason for optimism, as has been mentioned. Envoys of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, have traveled to China and Tibet twice in the past year to continue discussions with Chinese authorities on a permanent negotiated settlement.

But unless the United States and other countries of the world are committed to meeting that challenge I mentioned that Tibet poses to the conscience of the world, then we cannot be consistent when we talk about human rights in any other part of the world. How can we talk about the violations of human rights and drastic actions we want to take in response to them one place and totally ignore them in Tibet? It undermines our moral authority to talk about human rights any place in the world unless we also talk about them in Tibet and China.

Today we recognize the Dalai Lama for his efforts to peacefully resolve the Tibetan issue and to promote the human rights of the Tibetan people. I talked at the beginning of my remarks when I first met His Holiness as a new Member of Congress 16 years ago. I remember a number of years later when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), Mr. Porter, and Senator George Mitchell and Senator Dole, then the Republican and Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate, we all joined together and we had a speech by His Holiness in the Rotunda of the Capitol. It was a momentous occasion, and we moved from a very small room into the center of the Capitol of the United States.

At that time, His Holiness told us about what was going on in Tibet, but he also was hopeful and optimistic about what could be in the future. I remember a personal story he told us when he was a little boy and he was already the Dalai Lama, he visited the United States. This was before he escaped from Tibet before the Chinese came in, but he came to the United States on a visit and President Franklin Roosevelt gave him a watch and he talked about that watch. It had the setting of the sun.

It was one of those watches that showed it was day time with the sun coming up or going down and what that meant to him. So he has had a connection to our country since he was a child. Since he was a child he has been the Dalai Lama. His presence in the

United States any time is a blessing for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we honor and welcome him as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) has done so magnificently with this resolution. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues a wonderful exhibit, the Rolling Rainforest, as it comes to San Francisco on its maiden journey across America.

The Rolling Rainforest is a classroom on wheels. Inside a 53-foot tractor-trailer, the magic of a rainforest environment is reproduced as a mobile museum, transporting the message of environmental stewardship to underserved schoolchildren.

It has traveled from the nation's capital to the Golden State to participate in the 150th anniversary celebration of the California Academy of Sciences. During its visit to San Francisco, the Rolling Rainforest will reach out to the Leonard R. Flynn Elementary School in San Francisco, Lincoln School in Vallejo, and the Golden Gate Elementary School in Oakland.

Since it was first launched in Washington, D.C. last October, the Rolling Rainforest has had more than 25,000 visitors come to experience the sights, sounds and smells of a rainforest. Inside the exhibit, children are introduced to a sloth hiding in the forest canopy, beautiful butterflies, and exotic birds line the explorer's path to the scientist's hut where experiments are conducted using rainforest products--chocolate, vanilla and coffee. It is an enchanted trail that leads children on a new discovery.

Mr. Speaker, rainforests are a precious gift. About 25 percent of the world's forests are rainforests, and they are home to one half of the earth's plant and animal species. Rainforests possess an ecosystem that is based on a complex interdependence of plants and animals. One of the critical lessons derived from the exhibit is the essential relationship of the rainforest to our surroundings and daily lives.

These lessons are conveyed in the environmental education message from the Rolling Rainforest exhibit, and they are developed and delivered in a manner that reaches younger generations. The exhibit teaches young people the importance of environmental stewardship in their communities and prepares them to be good stewards of the earth's natural environment.

Congratulations to the Discovery Creek Children's Museum on its San Francisco debut of the Rolling Rainforest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Archdiocese of San Francisco on its 150th anniversary. When the Archdiocese was first established on July 29, 1853, it included all of Northern California. Joseph Sadoc Alemany, the first Archbishop of San Francisco, who served from 1853 to 1884, was a Dominican priest who was born in Spain and immigrated to the United States in 1840. Alemany initially was reluctant to come to California, but was told by Pope Pius IX, ``You must go to California--Where others are drawn by gold, you must carry the cross.''

In the first three decades of its history, the Archdiocese built an extensive system of schools, orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the elderly and other institutions of charity. These agencies could not have existed without the heroic efforts of the orders of women religious. By 1884, the Catholic Church was firmly established in San Francisco and Northern California. The Dominican Sisters, Notre Dame de Namur Sisters, Sisters of Charity, Presentation, Sisters, Mercy Sisters, Sisters of the Holy Family and women in other Catholic religious congregations served a significant role in forming the safety net of social services and built a continuing legacy of Catholic education.

In the Teamsters' Strike of 1901, Father Peter Yorke placed the Church of San Francisco firmly on the side of working people, making impassioned speeches to thousands of workers. To those who questioned a priest's involvement in the labor struggle, Yorke answered, ``As a priest my duty is with workingmen, who are struggling for their rights, because that is the historical position of the priesthood and because that is the Lord's command.''

The Archdiocese of San Francisco has served as an anchor for numerous immigrant groups from Europe, Asia and the Philippines and Central and Latin America and the Archdiocese of San Francisco continues to serve the people of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties in parishes and institutions of enormous historical, cultural and social value to the Bay Area like the Mission San Francisco (Dolores) (1776), Mission San Rafael (1817), St. Francis Shrine (first parish in 1849); Mission Dolores School (1852); St. Mary's Hospital (1857); St. Matthew's Parish, San Mateo (1863) St. Vincent's School for Boys (1855); and especially the 93 parishes and missions serving Bay Area Catholics.

The Archdiocese of San Francisco continues its mission of education in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties in its 66 Catholic elementary schools serving 28,266 students, and its fourteen high schools serving 8,262 students.

The parishioners of the many parishes of the Archdiocese make contributions to the economic, cultural and civic life of the San Francisco Bay Area. I commend the leadership of the Archdiocese of San Francisco on this occasion of its 150th Anniversary and offer best wishes for many more years of service.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep personal sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to one of San Francisco's most beloved and admired social activists. Enola Maxwell passed away on June 24th at the age of 83. Enola lived an impassioned life, advocating for freedom and justice on behalf of people of all races, ethnicities, and ages. In living her life, Enola Maxwell changed countless people's lives for the better. I extend my deepest sympathies to Enola's daughters Sophie and Barbara; thank you for sharing your mother with us. She brightened our lives with her strength, her courage and her grace.

Ruth Passen, longtime friend and associate of Enola, wrote a beautiful obituary in The Potrero View, of which she is the editor. She captures Enola's essence and our feelings for her so well that I am privileged to share her words about ``the Heart of Potrero Hill.''

``She was the anchor for a whole neighborhood--the backbone of a community--known as ``mom'' by many, both young and old, and called Miz Maxwell by everybody else. Whoever assumes her role as the Executive Director of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House will be the beneficiary of an extraordinary legacy but will be challenged to follow in her footsteps.

She was born on August 30, 1919 in Baton Rouge, La. to Clemus and Lena Dundy. After separating from Clemus, Lena moved to San Francisco and in 1949 Enola, together with her two children, joined her. They lived in several neighborhoods, including the Haight Ashbury, before moving into the government-owned public housing project on Carolina Street and 18th Street, known as the Carolina Projects, where they were living when Enola's third child, Sophie, was born. (The Potrero Hill Middle School was built on the site in 1971.) Potrero Hill old-timers will remember Enola's mother as the proprietor of the Little Red Door, a popular thrift store on 18th Street.

Enola supported her family by working a variety of jobs; she kept house with one family for several years, and was an employee of the U.S. Postal Service for a time.

Her activism began as a member of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council where she met Sue Bierman and others who have remained lifelong friends. The council was successful in stopping a movement to build a freeway through Golden Gate Park. This first exhilarating venture into community activism changed the course of her life. She got a leave of absence from the Post Office and joined the Civil Rights March on Washington in 1968. After that experience she wanted to

do more. She was ``bitten by the activism bug,'' said daughter Sophie Maxwell.

Enola decided that she could help people from a pulpit, and enrolled at the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo. She made history by being the first woman--and first black person--to be named as lay minister at the Potrero Hill Olivet Presbyterian Church on Missouri Street where she served from 1968 to 1971.

She wanted a church where people could feel comfortable and free. She foresaw a gathering where people and new ministers could talk about activism; she helped coin the name Street Ministers.

Her tenure at the Olivet provided the opportunity to put into action her dream of the Street Ministries, and she established a coffeehouse in the church's basement where ongoing dialogues about activism, and music flourished. In 1972, she was hired to be the Executive Director of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House affectionately know as the Nabe--the first black person hired for any position at the Nabe. The Neighborhood House was established in the early 1920s by the Presbyterian Church.

Her instincts and down-to-earth good sense led her to initiate programs to help the community's youth, as well as to embellish services that the Nabe had offered Potrero Hill residents for more than 50 years. The Potrero Hill Neighborhood House was designated as Historical Landmark No. 86 in 1977 during Enola's tenure.

Enola was a compassionate leader in the civil rights movement, on women's rights issues, and as a peace activist. The walls of her office at the Neighborhood House are covered with plaques and awards honoring her services not only to the Potrero Hill neighborhood, but also to San Francisco residents citywide and to the many organizations in which she played active roles.

Enola was feisty and fiery and caring. At times she was the only black woman in organizations that were primarily white. That didn't matter. What she offered any group with whom she worked was honesty in making sure that justice was the manifest result of their group efforts. She once remarked that ``fear and hate are the most dangerous things because they take away your freedom.''

Besides serving on many civic commissions, Enola was also on the founding committee and longtime member of the annual Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday celebration, and several committees organized through the Mayor's office. She received a Congressional Award from Congressman Phillip Burton, and I appointed her to the Senior Internship Program in Washington, D.C.

In 2001, the Potrero Hill Middle School was renamed the Enola D. Maxwell Middle School for the Arts. Enola had always spent time working with the schoolteachers and administrators. She was deeply honored by the name change and referred to the school as ``my school.''

It is an honor to stand before the House today to celebrate the life of this remarkable woman. The legacy of her service to and compassion for the San Francisco community will endure for generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important motion to instruct conferees. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the excellent work and leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means; the gentlewoman from Connecticut, (Ms. DeLauro), who has taken a very important role of putting this issue of fairness to America's children forward; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, now a member of the Committee on Commerce, for her leadership; representing the freshman class, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, night after night, night after night for the past 2 weeks, Democratic Members have come to the floor to make the case for America's children, the case for the children of America's working families, the children of parents on active duty in the military.

Mr. Speaker, see, this is a copy of the check the President is going around the country posing for pictures with, a check saying that this is a good day because the check is in the mail for so many children in America. The good news is that the check is in the mail for so many children in our country. The bad news is, and the President knows this, that the check is not in the mail for 12 million children, 250,000 of them children of men and women on active duty.

The good news for those children is that their parents work hard, care about them, and are the backbone of our country. The bad news is they do not make enough money to be considered worthy of this tax credit. I ask my Republican colleagues, why not raise the minimum wage if they do not think it is high enough to get a tax credit for these children? They say: Oh, no, we cannot do that.

The good news is that these children are children of men and women on active duty serving their patriotic duty to our country. The bad news is that although we honor their service on this floor of the House on a regular basis, the service of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the same time we dishonor them by saying their children are unworthy of receiving the tax credit because their pay does not count and is not high enough for them to get the tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to our Republican colleague who must have drawn the short straw to come to the floor to defend the indefensible, cutting 12 million children out of the tax credit, when he said that these people who cannot help themselves, well, they want to help them. These people are helping themselves. They are helping themselves. They are helping their children. They are helping our country. They are entry level. They are people with aspirations. They are people with young families. They are the future of our country.

The gentleman from Kentucky also said, well, for them we have the earned income tax credit. That should take care of them. Others have said in the course of these couple of weeks, and on TV and again this morning here, they do not pay taxes. My colleagues have pointed out very clearly that they do pay taxes. I ask anyone who looks at his or her paycheck whenever they get paid, do they not think paying a payroll tax is paying taxes? Or paying sales tax is paying taxes?

The gentleman says, well, they get an earned income tax credit for that. Interesting to note, my colleagues, since we are having a quiet moment here this morning as Members come back to the Chamber after a very late night, the IRS has recently said that they are going to premonitor, premonitor, excuse me, I am using the wrong word, preaudit, preaudit families, low-income families who might wish to claim the earned income tax credit.

I ask my colleagues to think of it. These are people who make the minimum wage. We have said that they will get an earned income tax credit, and that is appropriate. The IRS is now saying they are going to preaudit these poor families before they can make that claim for the earned income tax credit by just listing their income on their income tax and signing that this is what their income is.

At the same time, they have a very, very low audit rate for wealthier individuals in our country. They have said on occasion that it is too difficult and too expensive to fight the lawyers of those with resources in our country, be they wealthy individuals or corporations. But instead, the IRS is using its resources to preaudit poor working families who may wish to claim the earned income tax credit. Just some issues of fairness that I thought it was important to note this morning.

Mr. Speaker, this check which will go out to many families of children in America, and that is a good thing and we all support that, this check for the poor children, though, of working families is delayed. Delayed. Delayed.

The President says he wants this tax credit for poor children. That is what the President said. That is what the President is saying on the road. The Senate has already passed the legislation and sent it to conference with the Republicans. It would take 1 minute for the conferees to meet, to accept the Senate language, put the bill on the President's desk, and remove this terrible embarrassment to the Republican Party. It is no wonder no Republican Members showed up on the floor today, leaving the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) to do all of this heavy lifting by himself, carrying this unfortunate defense of the indefensible.

It has a nice ring to it. It is reminiscent. Delayed by whom? Delayed by DeLay. Delayed by DeLay. The child tax credit is delayed by DeLay.

I think the American people should know that. And if the President is serious about wanting this tax credit for

all children in America, and I believe that he does, then I think he should use his influence, his moral suasion, his leadership with the Members of his own party to say let us end this embarrassment. Let us end this embarrassment. Let us eliminate the delay caused by DeLay.

A couple of other thoughts that I wanted to convey to my colleagues this morning as we get back into the legislative mode after a very late night of debate and voting is that this delay for 12 million Americans takes place within the context of the past few weeks. As recently as yesterday, the Republicans strove to undermine, undermine Head Start. By one vote, this House passed a block grant program under Medicare that contained language that legalizes discrimination, but undermines Head Start, removing standards so important for lifting up children. And within the past couple of weeks, this body voted to underfund Leave No Child Behind by $9 billion, leaving millions of children behind.

No tax credit if a child's parents do not make enough money, $9 billion out of no Child Left Behind leaving millions of children behind. Undermining Head Start, removing the standards, turning it into a block grant, on its way to being unrecognizable. These, sadly, are the same children in many cases who are affected. The same children fall into the categories for education for disadvantaged children, children of parents making between $10,000 and $26,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, that is not disadvantage. That is entry level. But nonetheless they would qualify for some of those educational benefits in Leave No Child Behind. And of course these children would take advantage of Head Start.

So this is all part of a pattern. I call it the trifecta against children that the Republicans have put forth. Actually, it is not my idea. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) calls it the trifecta, that great champion for children in our country.

So let us calm down after all the debates that we have had night after night that we have tried to make the case to the American people. This is almost like a Christmas carol or something where wealthier people are treated better than poor kids. And the children of America are in solidarity. They respect each other. They do not want other children not to have toys at Christmas and food to eat and a home to live in, the dignity of that kind of shelter.

Children are sympathetic to each other. Why can we not, as a Congress, be sympathetic to all children? Because what we are doing here today by saying this to these children, as I said again the context of the Head Start legislation and the Leave No Child Behind legislation, and when these children and some of the older siblings of these children have a bigger struggle affording college and higher education because of what this Congress is doing to Pell grants, this is just not right.

Mr. Speaker, this is America's future. This is America's future. And to every one of those children, how much better if we could say to them: you are important to us. As President Kennedy said, children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. He did not say children of those making over $26,000 are our greatest resource, and if their parents are even wealthier than that, our best hope for the future. He said all children are.

So this is about aspirations. This is about the American Dream. This is about making the future better. And day by day, quickly and surely, the actions of this House, lead by the Republican Majority, are undermining those aspirations.

It is not too late. It is not too late. We can accept the motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate language. We can do it right now.

End the delay. Have our conferees go to conference. Agree to the language. Put the bill on the President's desk. And would it not be a wonderful gift to him who has said, the President who has said over and over again that he wants this for America's children, all of America's children, that when he returns from his trip he can immediately sign the No Child Left Behind bill? In fact, they could probably get the bill to him on the road so that history will never show that on the same day that these checks were being received by some children, that other children were getting nothing. Were getting nothing.

Mr. Speaker, with that I commend all who have worked so hard to make the case for America's children, for America's future. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for her diligence, and all of our colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who I see on the floor has been so much a part of this fight. I could name practically every Member of the Democratic Caucus who has played a major and significant role in making the case on this floor, to the press, and across the country that fairness is a value that Americans hold dear and that we agree with President Kennedy that children are our greatest resource and our best hope for the future. All of America's children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education for their children.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As I approached the podium here, I removed my sticker that said ``Head Start Works,'' but that is where I would like to begin my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of children of America in every aspect of their lives, their health, their education, the economic security of their families, the environment in which they live. Tonight, I particularly want to thank him for his leadership on this Head Start legislation. His amendment to eliminate the block grant segment of this bill is a very important one.

I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for her stewardship of her amendment

through the process, another very important antidiscrimination addition to tonight's debate.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, Head Start Works is the motto of the effort this evening. I first saw Head Start work as a young mother over 30 years ago on the playgrounds of New York. As I wheeled my babies to the playground and played there every day, we saw a Head Start program. My oldest child was born in 1964, the same year Head Start was born, but this would be like a couple of years after that.

We saw the Head Start program right there and the facility next to the program day in and day out. We would see children come, children learn, children thrive and parents participate. It was pretty exciting because it was a new experience for them, made a difference in their lives personally; and it was a new experience for our country, and it made a tremendous difference not only to those children but to all of our children. Lifting up children, all children in America, is good for our entire country.

And so imagine how exciting it was for me over 20 years later to come to Congress, go to the appropriations committee and serve on the Labor- HHS subcommittee which funds Head Start. Year in and year out our committee reviewed the Head Start program, always seeking to improve it, always, always, anything we do, looking at every initiative to make it better, greatly assisted by the superior work of the authorization committees, of course. On both committees, on appropriations and on authorization committees, the work was always bipartisan and in good spirit.

For decades, Head Start worked and for decades Head Start has been helping children arrive at school ready to learn. Head Start children do better in vocabulary, letter writing, letter recognition and social behavior. They are less likely to need special education services, repeat a grade and are more likely to graduate from high school and go on to college. Again, it ensured that children got not only education but nutrition and the medical treatment they needed for a head start.

I saw in the Committee on Appropriations, reviewing not only these issues, but others, that the best way to undermine a program, to really begin the end of it, was to turn it into a block grant. Central to the Head Start successes were its standards. So once you block-granted this and undermined the standards, you were changing the very nature of the program and undermining the excellence of it.

The block grants that are contained in H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start in eight States because it creates new block grants programs for eight States without requiring any of the Head Start performance standards. It would allow States to run Head Start programs with lower educational standards, minimal comprehensive service, less oversight and accountability, no evidence that they do an equally good or better job than Head Start, and relieves States of providing comprehensive services currently provided by Head Start and are proven to improve school readiness, to name but a few of the concerns that I have about the block grants.

So as I said before, I worked on the Committee on Appropriations, which I was pleased to serve with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), others who have spoken here. It was always bipartisan when it came to Head Start and, as I said earlier, not so today. The majority has put forth a bill that dismantles Head Start by eliminating, as I say, the quality standards that are the foundation of its success.

The Republican bill will not strengthen academic standards. Instead, the bill removes minimum standards, and I keep repeating that, on curriculum content, class size and child/staff ratios. The Republican bill eliminates the comprehensive health, nutritional, and social services available both to parents and children through Head Start.

The bottom line is that the Republican bill undermines opportunity. It undermines the aspirations of hard-working parents who want the best for their children, parents who dream of their children making the honor roll, going to college.

Head Start is about giving every child an opportunity to succeed. Head Start is about all Americans having the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will prepare to put my sticker back on that says ``Head Start Works'' and in doing so again commending the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and all of the members on the Democratic side of the committee for the fight that they are making to preserve Head Start.

I urge my colleagues to support the Miller substitute and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is as to when the privileged resolution of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, will be brought up before the House.

Would that be very late at night or would it be during the day when people would have a chance to hear the debate?

Mr. Speaker, my concern springs from the fact that we have a long legislative day today.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 330) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of the Levin amendment and commend the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership in bringing this important amendment to the floor and his important work on behalf of America's working families.

As House Democratic leader, I proudly assert the Democratic Party's commitment to trade and what it does for our economy. That commitment to trade was exemplified in President Kennedy's 1962 State of the Union Address, which I point to with great pride. At that time President Kennedy said: ``For together we face a common challenge: to enlarge the prosperity of free men everywhere, to build in partnership a new trading community in which all free nations may gain from the productive energy of free competitive effort.''

That was his challenge and it was followed up by the Kennedy Round, the most ambitious round of trade negotiations under the aegis of GATT until that time. The Kennedy Round lasted from 1963 to 1967. Its goal was to lift up developing countries of the world, open our markets to their products to help them develop and create markets for U.S. products abroad. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment is in keeping with that proud tradition. I thank the gentleman.

Last night the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished representative of the majority party on this debate and chairman of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee said ``I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for the crafting of this particular amendment. With it I think he has shown a great deal of legislative brilliance and some policy ingenuity as well.'' Then the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) went on to oppose the amendment by saying ``But I have to say the net result is quite mischievous.''

I beg to differ, and I leave it up to my colleagues and am asking them to support the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment. Is it mischievous to ask the Trade Representative in negotiating for a Free Trade Area of the Americas with the Central America Freed Trade Amendment to protect against piracy of copyright? Is it mischievous to say that we should not support a treaty that does not open markets for United States agricultural products, high technology, and other manufactured exports that provide greater rights? Is it mischievous to tell him not to support a trade agreement that provides greater rights for foreign investors than Americans in the United States? And is it mischievous to ask that Trade Representative not to acquire adoption and enforcement of the basic prohibitions on exploitative child labor, forced labor, and discrimination and to guarantee the right to associate and bargain collectively?

A vote for the Levin amendment is a vote for America's workers who see our manufacturing and technological base fading away. American workers are the most productive workers in the world. Let us let them compete. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) amendment does just that. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.