Floor Statements

Well, at the time I think the message that I told myself was, we can't be holier than His Holiness. If it is okay with him, it was okay with me.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all of his leadership and assistance in bringing this important legislation to the floor. And I also commend Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership, not only on bringing the legislation, but her work on this important issue. Tom Lantos, Frank Wolf have just been relentless for His Holiness; and in the Senate, Senator Dianne Feinstein who represents California in the U.S. Senate but is a close personal friend also of His Holiness.

The Congressional Gold Medal is the most distinguished award bestowed by the United States Congress. It is reserved for the most heroic, most courageous, most outstanding individuals who have made lasting contributions to society, individuals such as John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Elie Wiesel, and Nelson Mandela.

Today, by honoring His Holiness the Dalai Lama, we not only honor him, but we add luster to this Congressional Gold Medal. We honor our Nation and the American people by awarding it to His Holiness. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

His Holiness often described himself in the following way: ``I am just a simple monk, no more, no less.'' But he represents much more to people throughout the world.

Tibetan Buddhists believe that the Dalai Lama is the earthly manifestation of the living Buddha. On the world stage, he is seen as the head of state and the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. For millions, he is seen as a source of spiritual refuge and a connection to inner peace and harmony, that my colleague Mr. Kucinich was discussing.

His Holiness has traveled the world, building bridges between and among the different faiths. He has used his position to promote wisdom, compassion and nonviolence as a solution, not only in Tibet, but to other world conflicts.

His leadership is not only in the area of faith and harmony among people, but also in protecting the environment. I remember it was a great joy seeing him speak at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

The Dalai Lama has made the human rights situation in Tibet an issue of international concern. Indeed, the situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. Under Chinese occupation, hundreds of thousands of Tibetans have died. Freedom to practice their religion and political expression have been severely curtailed. So powerful is the image of the Dalai Lama that Tibetans are imprisoned for simply owning a picture of him.

As a new Member of Congress in 1987, I was in attendance, at the invitation of my colleague from San Francisco Tom Lantos, when the Dalai Lama proposed the historic Five-Point Peace Plan toward resolving the future status of Tibet. The Dalai Lama proposed a ``Middle Way Approach'' that seeks genuine autonomy for Tibetans within the framework of the People's Republic of China. Autonomy, not independence.

In recent years, Tibetan envoys have traveled to China for five rounds of discussions on the status of Tibet. While open dialogue is a first step, it is clear that the Chinese government has been stalling all along.

The Chinese are missing an historic opportunity to negotiate with a partner who has the authority and the legitimacy to implement a comprehensive agreement. The Chinese are missing an opportunity for a solution that would ensure internal stability in Tibet and bolster China's reputation in the world.

The Dalai Lama has asked for international support for his efforts to engage the Chinese government. I am proud to say that the U.S. Congress has been a bedrock of support for the Tibetan cause. By awarding the gold medal to the Dalai Lama, Congress is sending an important signal of support for going further.

This is not the first gift our country has given to His Holiness. Of course, for many years and decades, we have given the gift of respect, of reverence and appreciation for all that His Holiness is and does. But when he was a little boy, the special relationship he had with America was demonstrated when Franklin Roosevelt, as President of the United States, gave His Holiness one of his favorite gifts which was a gold watch which had the phases of the Moon on the watch. It was a wonderful thing, a gift from the President to this little boy who had been named the Dalai Lama.

When His Holiness was driven out of Tibet by the Chinese invasion, it was one of the few things that he carried with him. So he had the gold watch, and now all these many years later, out of respect and reverence for him, he will have the Congressional Goeld Medal.

I urge my colleagues to support it and look forward to the day when we can present it to him in the halls of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary A. Bain, who recently passed away. Longtime Chief of Staff to Congressman Sidney Yates, Mary was beloved by many of us on Capitol Hill, including me.

It is hard to believe that Mary began her political career in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Administration--as the Illinois director of the National Youth Administration. She was a dedicated public servant for many years to come, particularly devoted to our dear colleague and my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Yates, whom she served in many capacities for almost 50 years. I am sure if Congressman Yates was here with us, he would say it was almost as if they served as co-Members.

As I said when she received the Heritage Defender Award, ``Not only did Mary Bain save national treasures, she is a national treasure.'' She applied her considerable political savvy to preserving America's cultural heritage, and she was always a stalwart for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Gallery, the Smithsonian Institution, among many others.

Mary Bain helped to break the marble ceiling for all women--she was one of the first women to serve as a Congressional Chief of Staff. She talked about how much she looked forward to seeing a woman become our nation's first Speaker. I am hopeful that next January we can make that dream a reality--and I know that when we do, Mary will be smiling down on us.

When Mary retired in 1998, she was the last of the New Dealers in government, having remained committed to the principles of Roosevelt her entire life. And though she can never be replaced on Capitol Hill, we continue her work to expand opportunity and prosperity to all Americans.

As we pay tribute to Mary, we remember the many people who loved her--particularly her husband Herbert, who preceded her in death, and her daughter Mary Ellen and two grandsons. I hope they can draw comfort from the fact that so many are praying for them and grieving Mary's loss with them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding.

I am honored to join our colleagues Mr. Murphy and Mr. Doyle to pay tribute to a great American. I thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen also for her work for bringing this important legislation to the floor, important because we are honoring a person who made a contribution to every aspect of American life, who served as mayor for a very short time, a matter of months, not a full year, but although the time was short, the mark was a deep and a great one.

I had the privilege of meeting the mayor at the invitation of Congressman Doyle in Pittsburgh earlier this year, really the beginning of the summer, and at that time we had no knowledge of the diagnosis. In fact, the opportunity to be welcomed to Pittsburgh was one that I appreciated enormously. And the mayor made an impression from the start. As a mother of five children myself, I started to talk about my children; he started talking about his. He told me how proud he was of all of his children, of Heidy and of Father Terrence and of Corey, and he said, My son is a priest, my wife is Jewish. We have a mixed marriage, and you figure that out. But it showed the building of bridges, the love and warmth of a family and the support that they gave this very special man.

Bob O'Connor, Mr. Mayor, understood the private sector. He understood the public sector, and he understood everything in between. Community service, the nonprofit sector, where he was so active. So as the House Democratic leader, I want to rise and join Mr. Murphy and Mr. Doyle in a bipartisan way and associate myself with the wonderful remarks they both made about their mayor, the mayor of their city, and to extend condolences to Judy, whom obviously he had enormous respect, affection, and love for. He talked about her the entire lunch when he wasn't talking about Heidy, Father Terrence, and Corey, and about the great City of Pittsburgh, which he loved. He was so excited about the All- Star game, just talked about the All-Star game and, as Congressman Murphy said, how the city was ``redding up'' for the All-Star game. How I wished he could have attended it in the glory of the new mayor of the city. Instead, God decided that his mark would be a short one but, again, a great one.

And I am so pleased that the House of Representatives brings honor to this House in honoring Mayor Bob O'Connor. And I thank my colleagues for giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to him, to extend our condolences to Judy, Corey, Father Terrence, and Heidy, and to all who love and respected Mayor Bob O'Connor.

Mr. Speaker, with great sorrow I rise to pay tribute to a beloved San Francisco political and civic leader, Sue Bierman, who died on August 7, 2006. I join my constituents in honoring five decades of tireless service to the people of San Francisco. Sue Bierman leaves a great legacy of compassion, courage and conviction. For those of us involved in San Francisco politics, her passing is a personal as well as a civic loss to our city.

Sue Bierman was a leader who challenged the conscience of our community every day. As a relentless advocate for poor people, for social and economic justice, and for protecting our neighborhoods and our environment, the affectionate name `Susie' instilled fear and love at the same time. She brought wisdom and compassion to all the causes she undertook.

As a private citizen in the 1950's and 1960's, she became a neighborhood leader who fought to stop the central freeway from destroying her neighborhood--Haight Ashbury, the Pan Handle and Golden Gate Park. For the next forty years she continued to defend the rights, the character and the beauty of San Francisco's neighborhoods.

In 1980 Mayor George Moscone appointed her to the Planning Commission, where she was the sole voice opposing unrestricted downtown development and demanded that developers provide affordable housing, day care and parks.

In 1992 she was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors where she served two terms. She earned the respect and affection of her colleagues. She became a leading advocate for San Francisco's tenants and continued to champion our neighborhoods. After being forced out of office by term limits, she became active in Senior Action Network and continued her participation in Democratic politics.

She took great pride in her family and great interest in the well being of all San Francisco families. Everyone who cares about our children's future is deeply in her debt.

I hope it is a comfort to her beautiful family, whom she loved so dearly, that so many people are mourning her passing and will hold her in their hearts forever.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding and thank all who were responsible for bringing this important tribute to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with very mixed emotions about this. I am absolutely delighted that Bob Tisch is receiving the recognition that he deserves, and he deserves even more, but sad that it has come at a time when he has passed on.

I rise proudly to pay tribute to Preston Robert Tisch, known to all of us fortunate enough to call him ``friend'' as Bob. My friendship with him goes back to 1976; that would be 30 years, Mr. Speaker, a long, long time. It was at the time when he was the chair of the host committee for the Democratic National Convention in New York.

I later became the chair of its host committee for the convention in San Francisco and, as such, went to visit him to get some advice on how to make our city shine when all of that attention was focused on us. His advice was always excellent, professional and, in fact, nonpartisan. It was very important, he said, for this to be about your community. It isn't about the Democrats. It is about your city, your State and your welcome to a convention that is part of the democratic process. But your role is not a political one.

He was bipartisan in so much of what he did. He was a mentor to many, and I was very honored to receive advice from him now for the past 30 years.

Bob Tisch and his family, his brother Larry, are well-known to many of us on both sides of the aisle, and there wasn't anything that was wonderful in our community and our society and our economy that they weren't part of, whether it was the arts, the media, education, sports, again, very important factors in the economy.

But I guess the last note I received from Bob Tisch, he was on his way home from a football game, and I guess dictated it or something, but football was such a love for him. He found a way to combine his love for football with his philanthropic spirit by founding the Take the Field program. This is a wonderful, wonderful venture, a nonprofit organization dedicated to renovating and rebuilding the athletic fields at New York City's public high schools.

Bob believed in giving back to New York City public high schools, the public high schools that educated him, giving student athletes fields of play and single-handedly raising more than $147 million to do so.

Across the country, there is other evidence of Bob Tisch's generosity. His name graces both a medical center and an arts school at New York University, a gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Children's Zoo at Central Park.

Bob helped found Meals on Wheels and served as its president for 20 years. He delivered many meals personally to elderly patrons.

I wanted to just mention football, because he loved it so much. Many know Bob Tisch realized his lifelong dream in 1991 when he became chairman and co-CEO of the New York Giants. The Giants brought him great joy. He attended every game, both home and away, and spent as much time working in his stadium office as possible.

Bob was a tremendously talented businessman, as we discussed, a dedicated public servant who served as our Nation's Postmaster General, again, under a Republican President, a Democratic Postmaster General, and one of the most generous philanthropists our country has known.

As we pay tribute to Bob, we must remember the many people who loved him and grieve his death, especially his wife of 57 years, Joan Tisch; his children, Steven, Laurie and Jonathan; and his nine grandchildren.

The last time I saw Bob Tisch, he was having brunch, Sunday brunch, at the Regency Hotel with his family and some of his grandchildren. He held court there. Many of us would see him when we were in New York. He held court there, and it was just always a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful experience to see him. He was always so full of optimism and hope, even though, at some point, we didn't know how long he would be with us.

I think the former mayor of New York City, David Dinkins said it best of Bob: When you think of Bob Tisch, you smile. Though we grieve the loss of Bob today, we smile as we remember his brilliant life.

Again, I hope it is a comfort to Joan, to Jonathan, to Steven and to Laurie, my friend, that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them. He has been gone for a number of months, but we continue to pray for them and to sing the praises of this great man, Bob Tisch.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on these very important issues before us that affect the lives of America's working families, the minimum wage, the pension bill, that are part of this rule. I also thank him for meaning what he says on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this evening is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. It is also an insult to the over 7 million Americans who depend on an increase in the minimum wage to live from paycheck to paycheck. It is a political stunt. It isn't a sincere effort to give an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans boast that they have held out for 9 years to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. That is their proud boast. Don't take it from me. Look at the public record. And so for them to come to this floor to try to give the illusion that they are sincerely trying to raise the minimum wage when they know that this bill is dead on arrival at the United States Senate is, again, an insult to the intelligence of the American people and the hard work of the American people as well.

Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum-wage workers, we'll raise your minimum wage, but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America. This isn't about wealth. This is about super, superwealth. The only way you will get an increase in the minimum wage is if they can get a tax cut.

If there has ever been a values debate on the floor of the Congress, this certainly must be it. This should be part of the values agenda of Congress, to reward work, to pay a decent wage to people so that they can raise their families.

Democrats have a better idea. In our new direction for America, a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few, we make raising the minimum wage a key part of that. In addition to that, we also repeal what the Republicans have in place, which is an incentive for companies to send jobs overseas.

But back to the minimum wage. A working family, two wage-earners working full time making $5.15 an hour bring home the sum total of $20,000 a year. They are below the poverty line. I almost hope that no children are listening to this tonight, because we tell children about the work ethic, that it is important to work hard, it is important in their lives, it is important to our country's competitiveness, it is an important strength, that the middle class is a part of our democracy in our country and that the middle class must grow and be expanded instead of having a lid on what some people can aspire to in our country.

Our better idea also includes what the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) offered a few weeks ago on the floor of the House. He wasn't allowed to put it in motion here, they wouldn't even allow it to be heard, but we insisted on some of the debate, anyway. And that was a cut in the estate tax that affected 99.7 percent of all Americans who file the estate tax; 99.7 percent of all filers. This .3 percent, the 7,500 wealthiest families in America, must have done something quite wonderful for the Republicans that they wouldn't even allow that to be debated on the floor and that they hook it on to this increase in the minimum wage.

Again, it is a political ploy. It's a joke. It's a hoax. It's a sham. It doesn't even rise to the level of that, so low is it in its intention.

A couple of times in the past couple of months, I have quoted from the latest papal encyclical, ``God is Love.'' It was released April 2006 by Pope Benedict. I am just drawn to it all of the time because it talks about justice, and it talks about justice in a way that affects elected officials.

In this encyclical, Pope Benedict says: ``St. Augustine wrote, `A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.''' That is a pope quoting a saint. A saint: ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.''

The Pope goes on to write, and in this part of the encyclical he is talking about the responsibility of elected officials and those responsible for governing, he says, ``How do you define justice? What is justice?'' He warns of the danger, this is the Pope, warns of the danger of the ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests. The dazzling effect of power and special interests and the ethical blindness that that causes.

Does that sound familiar, my colleagues? Can you relate to that in this body? Is that not at work here tonight? One of our colleagues said, this is about truth. I think many of our colleagues have. Yes, this is a moment of truth. With all of these votes of this kind, we define ourselves as a Congress. We define ourselves as a country. When the American people listen in to this debate, we are either relevant to their lives or we are not. And I think no place, well, the competition for this honor is so keen that it is hard to tell which is the worst piece of legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but this certainly ranks right up there, to prove how out of touch the Republicans are with the American people, how out of touch they are with people, the middle class, who are sweating it out this summer in more ways than one.

Sweating out the price of gasoline at the pump, a bill born of corruption in this body.

Seniors sweating it out in terms of paying for prescription drugs at the pharmacy where middle-income seniors are paying more for their prescription drugs.

Sweating it out in terms of the college tuition that they are going to have to paste together to send their children to college while the Republicans pass legislation that gives tax breaks to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America and freezes Pell Grants and also cuts billions of dollars out of the student loan program. Paycheck to paycheck, trying to make ends meet, to make the future better for their children. But this Congress proves over and over again it has no relationship to that challenge. None.

And so I hope my colleagues in this moment of truth will remember the words of His Holiness when he quoted a saint, St. Augustine, who many years ago said: ``Unless government promotes justice, you're just a bunch of thieves.'' I can't think of a more appropriate analogy than that for what is happening here today. We are robbing the future of America's families who are struggling for a better future for their children in order to give a tax cut of $800 billion. Not only is this a burden to these low-income families; they are saying to them, your children and future generations and everyone alive and paying taxes today will be paying for $800 billion added to our national debt.

Values? Foisting that onto our children and onto the American taxpayer. Values? Putting a sham bill together to give political cover for the cowards who won't stand up and bring a clean bill to this floor to see where the choice would be? I have no doubt that there are some right-thinking Republicans who would support a clean increase in the minimum wage. But we will soon find out when the motion to recommit is brought to the floor later this evening which will have a clean increase in the minimum wage and will also have the extenders.

Interesting about the extenders. The Republicans are using them as an excuse to get votes for their political ploy they have here tonight. They have been expired for 6 months. They have needed to be extended for 6 months. But the Republicans always want to wheel them out so they can attract votes to, as Mr. Rangel called, their stinkeroo of a bill.

But, my colleagues, this is deadly serious. We are here to get the job done for the American people. We are not here to give money, a transfer of wealth, a transfer of wealth, to the wealthiest people in America. And who pays the price? The middle class. Well, if we are going to survive as a democracy, a healthy democracy which is a model to the world, it is about time we understood that central to that democracy is a thriving, expanding middle class whose job we are here to do. Let us have tax cuts for them, not for the wealthiest people in the country and send the tax bill to the middle class.

Let us remember the words of His Holiness, ``promote justice.'' Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. And let us get serious about helping the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding, for his tremendous leadership in making our country strong and respected throughout the world.

I am pleased to join him in paying tribute to the chairman of the committee, Henry Hyde. What a wonderful honor that this bill is named for him. He, too, has been a champion to promote a values-based diplomacy for our country. We have all fought many years with him in support of human rights throughout the world. This is probably one of the last bills that will be completed on issues that relate to national security and the respect with which we are held in the world. So appropriately, it is named for Mr. Hyde.

Both Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos have presented the House with legislation that is a vast improvement, frankly, over the bill that the President requested earlier this year, and it is a tribute to their leadership that we can all come together on this legislation this evening.

The bill before us establishes a two-step process for the India nuclear agreement. It is a process and legislation, which I support, that allows Congress to reserve final judgment on the agreement until the specifics are known. It requires that before Congress votes on the agreement, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency will have had to establish a process through which IAEA safeguards will be applied forever to India's civilian nuclear facilities, programs and materials.

Therefore, if an agreement is ultimately approved, Congress will retain the ability to monitor it through the required annual reports on U.S. nonproliferation policies in South Asia and on the implementation of the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

This legislation is important because it recognizes that the prospect of greater nuclear cooperation with a nation that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty raises serious concerns. As one who came to Congress intent on improving international nonproliferation regimes, I appreciate those concerns. One of the most significant, the issue of the production by India of fissile material, is addressed by an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

The Berman amendment, which I support, conditions the provision of nuclear fuel by the U.S. on a presidential determination that India has halted fissile material production. But even if the Berman amendment is not adopted, I hope that the agreement that will be presented to Congress for approval when negotiations are concluded contains a promise by India to halt the production of fissile material. Such a promise would improve the agreement and go a long way to convincing those who cannot support today's legislation that their concerns have been heard and that the Bush administration and the government of India has sought to respond to them.

The legislation before us clearly endorses the philosophy behind India's nuclear initiative; a judgment that security would be promoted by bringing India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream. On balance, I believe that judgment to be correct, and I thank you, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde, for putting that balance here.

Although not bound by the NPT, India has a strong record of supporting nonproliferation goals. They have never ever violated the NPT. India has demonstrated by its actions a commitment to safeguarding nuclear technology. That commitment will be strengthened by India's adherence to the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines and the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines as required by the nuclear initiative.

A close relationship with the democratic India is critical for the United States. There is a wide range of significant issues on which our shared values and shared interests will enable productive collaboration for the betterment of the world. This legislation reflects the strength of our current relationship with India and our hopes for its future. It is an expression of trust on matters relating to nuclear technology based on 3 decades of experience.

I urge my colleagues to support it. Even though there may be some questions and some amendments which may pass or not prevail today, on balance, I believe this legislation as presented here is worthy of our support.

I hope that the agreement that comes back to us is one that will be without controversy and will again be a reflection of the close bond between India and America. It was but a week ago when we were all gathered here to extend our sympathy to the people and the government of India because of the tragedy at Mumbai. Many of us expressed the love that we have for India and appreciation for the gifts that India has given to America, a vibrant dynamic Indo-American community which has contributed enormously to the economic success of our country and to our competitiveness in the world.

They have also contributed much to us in terms of our own social justice. We owe much to India as the source of nonviolence as a philosophy, espoused and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi. I said last week that when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King went to India to study nonviolence, they received a gift from India that would serve our country well and be important and fundamental to our own civil rights movement; that nonviolence was a strength that again improved America, and for which we all should be indebted to India and we should never forget.

I also personally join Mr. Lantos, because I know of his history on the subject in expressing appreciation to India for its hospitality to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a great leader in the world. And I am enormously appreciative of the fact that his, I don't want to call it government in exile, but whatever the term of art is, in Darussalam in India.

The list goes on and on, we can name them over and over, again whether it is again the contributions of the Indo-American community, the philosophy that sprang from India that is so important to us, or the support for human rights. But on target for today is India's commitment, which it has never violated, to support the principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which although it is not a party to that treaty, has been a supporter of its principles.

Again, for that reason, I hope that all of our colleagues will vote in support of this legislation so that we can go to the next step and that we can go into the future continuing a long and beneficial relationship with India for us all.

Mr. Speaker, on July 19th of this year, Tim Friedman achieved a milestone that Members ever reach: 30 years of service in the United States House of Representatives.

Since he first arrived in Washington in 1976, Tim has been a denizen of the House. In his first position, as Doorkeeper, he worked to keep the House floor and its Members secure. He also served the House Sergeant at Arms, until his formidable talents were recognized by Tip O'Neill in 1985, and he was appointed Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom in 1985.

Tim Friedman has become part of the history of this institution: he was the last ever Democratic pair clerk--a position that was discontinued in 1995. He has served under five Speakers--and spent 19 years in the majority and nearly 12 years in the loyal opposition.

Tim has seen many Members come and ago, and been both a colleague and friend to all. His skills in the cloakroom are only matched by his skills on the golf course: I know that members of my caucus will be particularly relieved that because of his retirement, Tim will not be competing in any more House golf tournaments.

But he will have time to hone his game; Tim is retiring to Wallace, North Carolina, where he will live on a 36-hole golf course.

As we salute Tim, we must also recognize his wife Colleen. Colleen is also part of the House of Representatives family--she is the daughter of Congressman Joe Early. As we all know, it is hard to balance a job here with a life at home, and today as we salute Tim for his dedication, we are appreciative of the sacrifice Colleen has made.

Upon his retirement, George Washington said, ``I am once more seated under my own vine and fig tree . . . and hope to spend the remainder of my days in peaceful retirement, making political pursuits yield to the more rational amusement of cultivating the earth.''

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to wish Tim Friedman and Colleen a similarly peaceful retirement.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the members of the New York delegation have risen today with great sadness and with great pride in the life and service and leadership of our former colleague, Tom Manton.

When Mr. Rangel announced to the body earlier this evening the sad news of Mr. Manton's passing, which, of course, has been heralded in the press because he was a big figure in New York, it brought back many memories for those of us who served with him. A big, strong Democrat, he served with great pride in this body as a way to serve the people of his district, which he loved and took great pride in. He worked in a very bipartisan way to get the job done for them. I had been a former Chair of the California Democratic Party over 20 years ago, so we shared that commitment to removing obstacles of participation in the political process through the Democratic Party organization which he led with great pride for so much of his political life.

His policy contributions for his district are legendary, and that is why he was unbeatable until he just decided he wasn't going to run again, and we all know of the legacy that he sent us in the great service of Mr. Crowley in the Congress.

Every person in America who cares about the environment in our country owes Mr. Manton a debt of gratitude. During seven terms in Congress, Mr. Manton was an important figure on the reauthorization of the Superfund program, which promotes the cleanup of uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is very, very important pioneer work that he did there.

It might be of interest to some to know that when he came to Congress, he came to replace Geraldine Ferraro, who was designated to be the Vice Presidential candidate. So there is a proud tradition from this district for many years; and that tradition, of course, continues with Mr. Crowley.

Tommy Manton was a proud Democrat and a proud Irishman, in his personal life as well as his public service. He did a great deal as the cochairman of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs. He helped persuade President Clinton to meet with Gerry Adams, the president of the Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican Army. That was really a step forward in bridge building, trying to find solutions and getting the job done.

He served as a flight navigator in the Marine Corps. He was, again, a very patriotic American, who served our country in so many arenas, in local government, in the Congress of the United States, as a Marine, as a community leader, and in the Democratic Party.

On behalf of all of the Democrats, I know everyone in the Congress extends their deepest sympathy to his family, of whom I know he was very, very proud; to Diane, his wife, his widow now, and to their children, Cathy, Thomas, Jr., John and Jeanne. I hope it is a comfort to you that so many people mourn your loss and are praying for you at this sad time, and that it is a comfort to you that these New Yorkers take such pride in the life, leadership and service of Tom Manton, who himself was a proud New Yorker, a proud Irishman, a proud American.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for his just relentless championing of the rights of American workers. Who are we here for, after all?

Mr. Cardin has been a supporter of free trade agreements for a long time, and that doesn't mean that you can't do that and also be here to be the voice of American workers. If any of them tune in and listen to this debate on the floor, they know clearly who speaks for them. Thank you, Mr. Cardin, for championing this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Rangel, for your incredible leadership, time and time again to say, yes, we are open, we understand the benefits of free and fair trade. We want them, though, to emphasize the fairness of it to American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement, and it is with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Virginia that I respectfully disagree with his comments. And as Mr. Cardin has said, the Sultan, with all due respect to the Sultan, his decree has not done what we need to have done in this trade agreement.

Democrats realize that our economic future rests upon our ability to open new markets for U.S. goods and services so that we can continue to capitalize upon the innovative spirit that has long distinguished America. New markets translate into new, high-paying jobs and opportunities for American workers, businesses, and farmers.

In the past, trade policy has been a bipartisan endeavor, a common effort to expand opportunity for America's businesses, again workers and farmers. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has veered in the opposite direction, and so has the Republican leadership in this Congress, and a bipartisan agenda has now become a lofty goal rather than an indisputable reality, which it should be. The Bush administration has failed to enforce fundamental worker rights and failed to open large markets for U.S. goods. Once again America's middle class is paying the price for misplaced Republican priorities.

In addition to that failure, in terms of the global economy, this administration and the Republicans in Congress support incentives to businesses to take jobs offshore. How is that a good idea for America's workers? We are going to engage in these trade agreements that do not have core labor principles in them that lift the standards of the workers in the country; for example, Oman; or, of course, lift the living standard of American workers here, which is our primary responsibility.

And at the same time, these same people who brought you these free trade agreements which do not enforce core labor principles and are unfair to American workers, these same people advocate incentives for companies to take jobs offshore. That is why on the first day of Congress, Mr. Rangel will come to the floor, God willing, if the Democrats take power, he will come to the floor on the first day and repeal those incentives to companies to take jobs offshore. One small step for American workers.

Democrats have a long history of supporting free and fair trade. Enforceable labor rights that follow basic core principles are a crucial part of ensuring that American companies and workers will not be disadvantaged by unfair competition from countries that do not adhere to the core standards.

Core ILO, International Labor Organization, standards ensure that our trading partners abide by the most fundamental standards of common decency and fairness. Not only are core labor rights a matter of decency and fairness, but they are also in our national economic interest. Basic enforceable, with the emphasis on enforceable, labor protections are critical to building a strong middle class in Oman, raising the disposable incomes so that they can buy American products.

Our trade deficit is likely to exceed last year's recordbreaking deficit of $717 billion. Every day we have $2 billion more in goods coming into the country than going out. This is unbelievable. Over $2 billion more a day in goods and services coming in than going out. I do not know what is free and fair about that. I do know America's middle class is paying the price.

The Republican trade agenda has failed to break new ground by opening large markets for U.S. goods. Instead, they have these little tiny agreements that establish a precedent and erode core labor principles, and they have not opened the large markets that are crucial to creating new jobs for American workers.

Despite a record trade deficit, the Bush administration has focused on negotiating trade agreements with countries where the opportunities for U.S. companies are limited.

The Oman Free Trade Agreement will have negligible impact on our balance of trade, and that is why it can wait. It is just not a big deal. It can wait until these core principles are in the treaty and not just by decree, which they are not, but if they were, could be changed tomorrow. This year U.S. trade with Oman will be about $1 billion, just .04 percent of the total U.S. trade.

Democrats recognize the importance of engaging Oman, but we must do much more in terms of fairness. Democrats are committed to addressing the challenges of increasingly competitive global markets. Our success depends on our ability to innovate new products and to create new markets, new markets, overseas for those goods and services. That is why Democrats have put forth our innovation agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. We will secure America's continued leadership and innovation and unleash the next generation of discovery, invention, and growth. And in that way, we will be preeminent in the world's markets; but not, but not, if our hands are tied by the precedent established by these little agreements.

Again, in addition to our innovation agenda and fairness to American workers, businesses and farmers, on that very first day, in addition to raising the minimum wage, Mr. Rangel will call for the repeal of incentives of jobs to go overseas.

Just think of it. If you are a middle-income person in middle America, our technological base, our manufacturing base, our industrial base in those parts of the country are eroding. Jobs and services are going overseas with the help of tax incentives of this Republican administration and this Republican Congress, and then we engage in free trade agreements that do not even pay the respect due to American workers to have core labor principles, a minimal standard, the ILO standard. A minimal standard. This is not anything big.

And by the way, we are not asking for anything different for labor, for America's workers. This is not special treatment. What Democrats are asking for is the same thing that the Bush administration is giving to other industries: the right to enforce the provisions. Businesses have that right in the

deal, but workers do not. It is just not fair. It is just not fair.

So we want to take our country in a new direction, passing free trade agreements that do expand our markets, spur economic growth, raise the living standard of the United States and abroad, and have enforceable provisions that are fair to American workers.

Unfortunately, this trade agreement fails on all of these counts, and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this important issue, and for his eloquence on it as well.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have really good news for you. The pledge to the flag and the words ``under

God'' are not in trouble. They are very safely ensconced in the Pledge of Allegiance, which, as our colleague mentioned, we pledge every single day that this body comes to order, school children across the country, the beginning of meetings all over our country. The profession of our pledge to the flag, and one Nation under God, is safe and it is sound.

That is why it is hard to understand why you would take up the time of this Congress to bring something to the floor that is so out of touch with the concerns of America's middle class. We are talking about democracy here and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Essential to a democracy is a strong, thriving and growing middle class.

The policies of this Congress, this Republican Congress, undermined the security and the size of that middle class. That is why, if you are at home with someone who is sick, or a child home from school, and you happen to turn on the TV, and you see the proceedings of Congress, what would an American think? What they are doing is totally irrelevant to my life, totally irrelevant to my life, whether it is the health of my family, the education of my children, the economic security of our family and the safety of my neighborhoods.

Why isn't Congress addressing the concerns of America's great middle class? Why, indeed, are the Republicans taking up the time, day in and day out, with their proposals which have no prospect of success, which have no basis in reality, and which, in fact, undermine the Constitution of the United States which each one of us takes an oath of office to support and defend.

Why, instead of having this conversation, which as Mr. Hastings and others have said, this is not at risk. We all agree. One Nation under God. What a beautiful pledge. We all agree.

So rather than addressing the concerns of the American people, we are making here an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States, which, thank God, will fail. Court-stripping. Court-stripping.

Fundamental to our democracy is the separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, but this Republican Congress says that Congress should strip the courts of the power to be a check and a balance to the other branches of government.

They have said in their meetings that Marbury v. Madison, which established precedent of judicial review, was wrongly decided. Over 200 years of precedent on judicial review they say was wrongly decided, and therefore, they can strip the courts of the ability to review the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That means by a simple majority, and if the other body were willing and the President were to sign, by a simple majority they can amend the Constitution with bills that are not constitutional but have no court to judge that constitutionality.

It is absolutely wrong, and Justice O'Connor said recently on this subject that this was brought up at the time of desegregation. They tried to use it then. Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they failed. Thank God they failed.

What we should be talking about today is what is important, the issues that are important to America's middle class. Again, when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress I say the same thing: our children, our children, our children; their health, their education, the economic security of their families, which includes the pension security of their grandparents, the healthy environment and safety of the neighborhoods in which they live, a world at peace in which they can thrive.

But turn on the television and tune in to C-SPAN and see what is going on in Congress, and what do you see? The politics of divide and distract. It is really sad, as Mr. Kennedy said. It would be almost a joke but it is just really not that funny.

So let us instead vote, when we have a chance to vote on this rule, against the previous question; and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage. That is relevant to the lives of the American people. In fact, it is relevant to the lives of millions of American people, many of them single moms. Many of them single moms.

Right now, minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. If you work full time at the minimum wage you make about $10,000. If you are two wage earners in a family and you both work full time and make the minimum wage, you make $20,000. You are below the poverty line for a family of four. Imagine two wage earners working full time. Is that fair? Is that just? I do not think so.

This Congress had no hesitation to give itself a raise over the past 9 years, $30,000 in raises. That $30,000 would take a minimum wage worker 3 years to earn just the increase in salaries that Congress gave itself. So there is no justice in what we are talking about here.

I quoted another debate on this subject, the recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI. This is a quote from Cardinal McCarrick, quoting the Pope quoting a saint. In his encyclical, ``God is Love,'' Pope Benedict talks about the responsibilities of politicians, people in government, and he quotes Saint Augustine who said that unless politicians, people who are in the public domain, are there to promote justice, they are just a bunch of thieves. Saint Augustine said, unless politicians were there in office to promote justice, they were just a gang of thieves. The Pope quoted Saint Augustine and the cardinal quoted the Pope in his farewell address to us.

It is true, it is true, how can we be talking about justice, how can we be talking about our Constitution, how can we be talking about under God if we do not even meet the simple test of fairness to America's middle class, which is central to our democracy? How can we be talking about that here when people are suffering in our country? They do not know how they are going to pay for their health bills, and millions of them do not have health insurance. In fact, 6 million more people in America do not have health insurance since President Bush became President, a 70 percent increase in the cost of health insurance since President Bush and this Republican Congress went to work on the American people.

So the injustices are there. The opportunity is here, and it is being ignored because the priority of the Republicans in Congress is to distract and divide the country. It is time for the politics as usual to end. It is time for this House to be the marketplace of ideas that our Founders intended, where we come to do the work of the American people, where they tell us to make laws to grow our economy, to make our country strong militarily, and then the health and well-being of the American people, make our country strong in the unity and the reputation that we have in the world.

Instead, we have this freak show one day after another of a rollout of distractions and divisions that is unworthy of this House, unworthy of the American people and certainly does not honor the vision of our Founding Fathers, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform or the aspirations of our children.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage, which is, again, $5.15 an hour. It has not been increased in 9 years. While the price of gas, food, health care and everything else has gone up, the purchasing power has gone down.

Let us not be a bunch of thieves. Let us be a deliberative body that is here to promote justice. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this court-stripping bill which dishonors the oath of office that we all take.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, thank him for his extraordinary leadership in making foreign policy for our country that is values based, and it makes us safer.

My compliments, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Leach, for your leadership on this as well. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.

I wish this resolution expressing the condolences of yet another terrorist attack was not necessary. The people of the United States know only too well the shock and sorrow experienced by the people of India on July 11. We grieve with them and share their resolve to defeat the forces of evil who would perpetrate such heinous and, yes, cowardly acts.

We also salute the bravery of the millions of residents of Mumbai, who got back on those commuter trains the day after the attacks, refusing to alter their lives and thereby concede even a little to the terrorists.

At a time like this, when we are commending the people of India for their courage and expressing the sympathy and condolences of our constituents to the people and the Government of India, it gives us pause to think about how much we owe India. We in the United States came through, a generation ago, a civil rights movement that was inspired by the spirit of nonviolence which was led in India by Mahatma Gandhi. Our own Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King visited India to learn about nonviolence, and we all know what a tremendous impact it had on succeeding in advancing civil rights in our own country. We will be forever in the debt of India for that magnificent contribution to our own social progress in the United States.

And nobody knows better than Mr. Lantos the debt of gratitude we owe India for its hospital to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. When I was a brand new Member of Congress, one of the first meetings I was invited to was by Mr. Lantos to meet His Holiness. He talked about his plan for Tibet. And it has been rough sledding since then, but the Government of India has been a friend to all who are concerned about human rights and respect for the dignity and worth of every person and in the person of His Holiness, a man of peace, a man of balance, a man who would condemn this kind of violence. So India has certainly taken the lead in the nonviolence that influenced our own civil rights movement and the hospitality extended to His Holiness in so many ways as the largest democracy in the world. It is just that democracy and that freedom of movement that, of course, made them a target of these cowards.

So, again, I express the love of freedom and commitment to a democracy that the United States and India share. We will stand together against those who value neither and whose disdain for human life is evidence of the shallowness of the agenda they seek to advance.

The resolution before us is a strong testament to the shared values and the friendship which binds the United States and India. I urge its overwhelming adoption by this House, and again, thank Mr. Crowley for his leadership in bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I salute her for her outstanding leadership and stewardship of this bill and her leadership on this issue so important to America's families. I also commend Congressman Castle of Delaware for his courage and his leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, every family in America, indeed every person in this room and in this gallery, is just one diagnosis or one phone call away from needing the benefits of the embryonic stem cell research. Today with his veto, President Bush dashed the hopes of so many Americans who were praying for this legislation and the cures that it can bring. Imagine, the first veto of this President, and it is for a bill vetoing a bill that has the miraculous power to cure.

The Latin root of veto, the Latin translation of veto means ``I forbid.'' President Bush has said today, I forbid allowing the best and brightest minds

to pursue the science that they believe has the most promise and potential to cure.

President Bush says, I forbid bringing embryonic stem cell research under NIH, ensuring the strict controls and stringent ethical guidelines that only NIH can ensure and impose. President Bush says, I forbid giving our scientists the opportunities they need to ensure that our Nation remains preeminent in science.

Today, I am hoping that the people's House will reflect the American people's will and overturn this short-sighted action, and instead of saying ``I forbid,'' say ``yes'' to the American people.

The opponents of this legislation believe that this is a struggle between faith and science. I believe that faith and science have at least one thing in common: Both are searches for truth. America has room for both faith and science, and thank God for that.

The Episcopal Church, in its letter in support of this legislation says, ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical research, and this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease and disability.'' It is our duty here in Congress to bring hope to the sick and the disabled, not to bind the hands of those who can bring them hope.

I believe, as Representative Emanuel Cleaver has said, I believe that God guided our researchers to discover the stem cell's power to heal. Overturning the President's cruel veto will enable science to live up to its potential to answer the prayers of America's families.

According to many scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments and cures to numerous diseases, and we have spoken about them all day, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer and spinal cord injuries, to name a few.

Many of our colleagues both here on the floor and other venues, have shared their personal stories, whether it is a condition of their children or an affliction of their parents. Their generosity of spirit and generosity to share those stories gives us testimony as to the need for this embryonic stem cell research, and it fills a void in science that we know can be filled. I believe that if we know a scientific opportunity for cure, we have a moral responsibility to support it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will save lives and help us find the cures for diseases in a shorter time span. It is all about time, after all, how much time people have, the quality of their lives in that time frame.

This bill will enable science to live up to the biblical power to cure. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the override and override the President's cruel veto.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Lantos, it is very hard to capture the words to express the difficulty that Israel is facing now for all of us. But for you, it must be particularly difficult. I know that you are an idealist, I know that you are a realist. I thank you for your leadership. We could not be better served than by having you here at this very difficult time for the world really, especially difficult time for Israel. Thank you for your leadership.

And at this very difficult time for the State of Israel, this resolution reaffirms our unwavering support and commitment to Israel, and condemns the attacks by Hezbollah.

I support this resolution because I believe that the seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists was an unprovoked attack, and Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to respond.

Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to the destruction of Israel. What more do you need to know? It is clear that Iran and Syria aid have helped the effort to achieve that goal.

The United Nations Security Council has already spoken on the issue of dismantling Hezbollah. The Security Council's resolution must be enforced by the international community. Syria has repeatedly demonstrated it is a rogue state, which is why we passed Mr. Rangel's Syria Accountability Act more than 2 years ago. However, we must now fully implement all sanctions spelled out in that legislation.

In order to address the Iranian support of the terrorists, I urge the passage of the Iran Freedom Support Act.

We must ensure that Iran and Syria understand the depth of commitment of the United States to the State of Israel by using every diplomatic tool at our disposal. For a time in recent years, there was a hope that a corner had been turned in the Middle East. The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the emergence of a democratic process in Lebanon, and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza were hopeful signs that the future could be different from the past.

Those indications of progress, however, were seen as threats by Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that have a greater interest in maintaining a state of hostility with Israel than improving the lives of the people they claim to represent. Now, the lives of those people and tens of thousands of others in the Middle East, including thousands of American citizens in Israel and Lebanon, have been put at risk by the aggression of Hamas and Hezbollah.

As the fighting rages, it is imperative that the combatants take whatever steps they can to lessen the risk to innocent civilians. The world knows too well the horrors of war. It also knows that there are ways to offer some degree of protection to civilians, and it is right to insist that those ways be chosen. Using civilians as shields by concealing weapons in civilian areas, as done by Hezbollah, is inconsistent with affording those protections. The resolution we are considering properly condemns that action.

Protecting civilians also means getting our citizens out of harm's way as quickly as possible. I urge the administration to expedite its efforts to bring to safety those Americans who want to leave Lebanon.

When the fighting ends, and I hope that that will be soon, the United States must engage in a concerted, sustained effort with other nations seeking a joint resolution of the differences between Israel and its neighbors. Israel's right to exist is the nonnegotiable starting point for that effort.

I thank again those who were responsible for bringing the resolution to the floor, and again commend Mr. Lantos for his leadership, for his compassion, and for his wisdom.

I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding and for his great leadership in defending the Constitution of the United States which is, of course, our oath of office.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Mr. Conyers, the gentleman from Michigan, for his leadership on this important issue, and to say to Congresswoman Baldwin and to Congressman Frank what an honor it is to serve with you in the Congress. It is a privilege to call you colleague.

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in the Middle East reminds us that it is our responsibility as a Congress to address the urgent priorities of the American people. Yet today it is painfully obvious that instead of tackling the challenges facing our Nation and our world, Republicans want to persist in their agenda to distract and to divide.

That is why the American people are demanding a new direction. That is why they say in great numbers that our country is going in the wrong direction. The challenges that our country face are too great for the Republican politics as usual. The constitutional amendment that we are debating today has been brought to this floor with full knowledge that it has no prospect for success either now or in the near future, the foreseeable future.

This is a partisan exercise by Republicans to divide the American people rather than forge consensus to solve our urgent problems. Our Constitution, which we all take an oath to support and defend, is an enduring and living document that has throughout our history expanded rights, not diminished them.

Though the Federal marriage amendment claims to protect marriage, it benefits no one and actually limits the rights of millions of Americans. In September, I am happy to say, my husband and I will be celebrating our 43rd wedding anniversary. I am a mother of five, we have five children and five grandchildren, expecting our sixth grandchild in October. And we certainly appreciate the value of family.

We see family in our community as a source of strength and a source of comfort to people. What constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision. But for all, it is a place where people find love, comfort and support. As we consider this amendment, we must understand we are talking about our fellow citizens, equal under the law, who are lesbian and gay, and what it means to them. They are members of our communities with dreams and aspirations, including their right to find comfort, love and support on equal terms.

They have every right and every expectation of any American that they are entitled to the very purposes for which this country was founded, that

we are all created equal by our Creator, and endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Let me tell you about two extraordinary constituents of mine, I have talked about them on the floor before. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, both in their eighties, and they have lived together for more than 50 years. They are grandparents, by the way, they are grandmothers. Their commitment, their love and their happiness are a source of strength to all who know them.

They are leaders in our community and are held in high esteem by all who know them. Why should they not have the full protection of the law to be able to share each other's health and bereavement benefits, to be able to share all of the protections and rights accruing to financial relationships, inheritance and immigration?

Why should Phyllis and Del and millions of gay and lesbian citizens not be treated equally and not be afforded the legal protections conferred by marriage? I will again vote against this amendment, as I have in the past, because it is counter to the noble ideas of liberty, freedom and equality for which this Nation stands.

This amendment defiles our cherished Constitution by saying that some members of our society are not equal under the law. This is blatant discrimination. It is wrong. It does not belong in our Constitution. It is contrary again to the noble purpose for which this Nation was founded, and it is contrary to the principle of ending discrimination, unifying our country, and fostering equality for all.

The American people demand that this Congress address their priorities: creation of jobs, creating a minimum wage that has not been raised in 9 years, gas prices that are over $3 a gallon, and the skyrocketing cost of higher education. That is what they want us to be doing here.

Mr. Speaker, let us strive to do the work of the American people. Let us strive to unite our country, take our country in a whole new direction, let us honor our Constitution, let us honor all of God's children and let us reject this amendment.