Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to bring attention, as the gentleman is doing so well, to the natural gas crisis that our country is facing today, and I want to thank the gentleman for the commitment he has shown on this issue, for the clarity with which he articulates the concerns that we all have in this country, that we ought to have anyhow, about the natural gas crisis, and for calling upon the leadership of this Congress to bring this matter to the floor so Members can take a vote on it and people in this country can have the benefit of the wise legislation that the gentleman is proposing.

The price of natural gas is approximately three times the average price from 2000 to 2005, and it is nearly seven times the average price during the 1990s. This natural gas crisis has been building for years, for the last 2 years, and has suddenly erupted as those hurricanes hit the gulf down there and the aftermath has paralyzed much of the gulf natural gas and oil production. No region in the United States provides the United States with more natural gas than the gulf where 10 billion cubic feet are produced each day, representing approximately 20 percent of the gas consumed in the U.S. and 16 percent 16 percent of that is produced. This tight market, as the gentleman points out, is exacerbated by the devastating impact of these hurricanes we have just lived through, Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, and the price has risen dramatically from $3.21 in 1995 to $12.68 per million BTU today, as opposed to other countries.

For example, China pays 4.85, Iran pays $1.21, Russia, 95 cents. I mean, how can we compete with that? How can the American consumer compete with these sorts of prices? According to the Energy Information Agency, the heating costs are expected to increase somewhere between 69 to 77 percent for homeowners in the Midwest, for Southerners, 17 to 18 percent, for Northeasterners, 29 to 33 percent, and people can expect huge heating costs increases. The average family is looking at heating costs of $1,666 this year, which is a $433 increase from last year. These are huge numbers. The expected rise of home energy costs will particularly affect low-income people and fixed-income individuals.

According to a survey on the rising energy costs on poor families conducted by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, 32 percent of families will have to sacrifice medical care, 24 percent will fail to make their rent or mortgage payment, 20 percent will be without food for at least a day, and 44 percent will skip paying or will pay less than their home energy bill in the past years. So these are devastating results.

As others have said and as the gentleman has said tonight, most devastation is going to take place in our economy and the capacity of our businesses that rely on natural gas as a major feedstock to survive. Fertilizer plants, chemical plants, food processing plants, other small businesses, our Nation's 32 million small businesses are going to suffer if we do not do something about these natural gas prices.

That is not the end of the story. Homeland security, national security all are affected here. This is a blue collar, working-family issue. People simply are going to be unable to afford it, and their families are going to have to sacrifice as a result of it. It is something we can do something about. A lot of the time we face these issues and we know the consequences and we do not have any way to get out of it. But this time we do. It is a pretty simple solution: open up the Outer Continental Shelf to gas production. It is as simple as that. If we do that, we can fix the problem for God knows how many years into the future.

I think it is a solution that this Congress cannot afford not to take at this time, and the American people cannot afford to take at this time. And I applaud the gentleman for the efforts he is making to get this brought before the Congress, before the people of this country and have an honest debate about it, and then I believe we can get this bill passed. I think the people of America, once they see it, will push our colleagues to make the right choice, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I can tell my colleagues that this has an effect on the balance of payments on trade deficits that our country is so concerned about. Domestic production is going to mean we will have to import less and less of our fuel for this country's needs, and I just think it makes sense on every score that we look at it. It is a blue collar working issue, it is an economic issue for our economy, it is a national security issue for our country, and it is an issue of global competitiveness for our country. I think it encompasses so many important points that the gentleman has pointed out, and I think it is time for this Congress to face up to the fact that we have to do something about it.

This is a bipartisan issue. We had a press conference a few weeks ago and you had Democrats and Republicans pushing this idea together.

I think it is a welcome, I think, respite for the country to see us come together on an issue, and embracing it in a bipartisan way to try to get the Congress to make the right choice here.

I think you are exactly right. We have encouraged, by national policy, the use of natural gas for the very reason that it burns cleaner; it is better for the environment when we are using it. And as you point out, the production of it has not resulted in a catastrophe that anybody has been able to single out as a reason why we should not produce it in these areas that have been foreclosed so far.

We cannot have it both ways. You cannot encourage the use of natural gas as a cleaner-burning fuel, and at the same time see prices go up, at the same time make it harder for people to get access to that fuel without paying higher prices. It does not make any sense. So if you are going to end up encouraging it, you have got to have a policy that makes it affordable for people.

If I can get back to your environmental point for just a minute. We are relying a lot in the future on the importation of liquified natural gas from other parts of the world. The process to deliquify that and gassify it again is a very problematic environmental question. We are concerned about fisheries that are going to be affected by the heat that is generated by this process in the gulf, in these facilities that are used to gassify the liquified natural gas. We do not have answers to that.

We have people who are objecting to the location of these plants around the country because they worry about this sort of issue. Yet as you point out, there is such an increasing demand in the country for natural gas uses, that means we are going to rely on imported natural gas and suffer the consequences of trying to figure out how to degassify it in a way that does not cause environmental degradation.

If we can produce it ourselves, we would not have that sort of issue. We would have all of the pipelines to distribute from down in Louisiana and the rest of the gulf and other parts of the country. We can move it straight from the point of exploration to the distribution points around the country and solve this whole issue of how we handle the regassification of liquified natural gas for use in this country.

It is very difficult. The ports in the gulf and Texas, Louisiana are trying very hard to work with putting liquified natural gas into a gas form again. But there are many places around the country where this is simply unacceptable technology and, consequently, it means that the supply that is available around the world is still hard to get into this country; but when we do, we do face environmental challenges that we otherwise would not face.

Now, the gentleman makes the point about national security. Our own government estimates that by 2020 half of our energy will be produced by unfriendly and unstable governments. Our reliance on natural gas from these countries is going to get us in the same fix we have been in for all these years with oil. And to go down the roads we are headed in a direction we know does not work for us currently does not make any sense for fuel so valuable for us in the future and where we are placing such reliance on it in the future.

I think for all the reasons we pointed out, for our small businesses, for our own domestic chemical producers, for our own fertilizer producers, for our homeland security concerns, and our national security concerns, and just for the idea that the average consumer needs to have access to energy that is affordable, these just argue very strongly for our working the solution out that has us exploit our own resources and rely on ourselves to bring this vital energy source to our people.

That is absolutely true. Most folks around my way will tell you the best fishing is around these platforms. We look to them as landmarks to get out there and get good fishing in.

I want to give the gentleman the last word on there because it is his bill and it is his passion that has brought it to this point. But I do want to say that we are the only developed nation in the world that has locked up our access to our offshore gas resources. That ought to be a telling point. We have 406 trillion cubic feet of natural gas along the OCS. And currently we produce about 9.5 trillion cubic feet per year, which means we have 50 years at our current usage of natural gas that is locked up just by the fact of our policy having done it. Nobody did it to us. No country forced us to do it. There are not any international treaties or anything that prevents us from doing it. It is our own legislation, our own lack of will to make this decision.

I think it is high time we turned our attention to solving our own problems here at home in this arena. I want to thank the gentleman again for what he has done to bring it to the attention of the country, and I am proud to be associated with the gentleman on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

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

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), my friend and colleague, for joining me in introducing this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for their swift action in bringing this bill to the floor, as well as the members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

I also would be remiss if I failed to thank both the Republican and Democratic staff of the committee for their extraordinary bipartisan effort to put this tax package together in such a timely way.

Madam Speaker, the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 provides much-needed aid and comfort to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the many thousands of good Samaritans who have opened their arms, wallets and homes to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care and other necessities to the thousands of Americans who have been uprooted in the wake of this horrible storm.

As we have all seen, while Hurricane Katrina was indiscriminate in the destruction it wrought, the unprecedented property damage, human toll and economic loss fell disproportionately on the backs of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

A disproportionate share of the damage in my hometown of New Orleans was meted out on parts of our great city that were already extraordinarily economically disadvantaged. The poverty, disability and economic disenfranchisement in these areas in no small way were factors in the extraordinary loss of life and property experienced by my constituents.

For this reason, I am grateful that the bill we consider today provides important relief to these vulnerable families.

First, families who have been displaced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina are held harmless against the loss of critical economic security and benefits. Damage caused by the hurricane has displaced hundreds of thousands of individuals, who are temporarily living with family, friends or good Samaritans.

Under current law, a prolonged change in their living situation could affect their eligibility for various tax benefits. The proposal allows individuals the option of using their 2004 income tax returns to calculate their child credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit on their 2005 tax returns. This special rule applies to individuals who lived in areas eligible for individual assistance from the Federal Government as a result of the disaster as of August 28, 2005.

The proposal also grants the U.S. Treasury Department authority to ensure that taxpayers do not lose dependency exemptions or child credits for 2005 due to temporary relocations.

In many areas of the gulf coast devastated by Hurricane Katrina, including my hometown of New Orleans, the EITC is a vitally important part of many families' economic security. This bill ensures the continuing eligibility of the thousands of families displaced by Katrina.

Second, the legislation ensures that the victims of Hurricane Katrina are able to account fully for the losses they have suffered in the aftermath of the hurricane. Moreover, it exempts the value of forgiven mortgages and other debt from taxable income. These two very important provisions demonstrate compassion by prohibiting the IRS from kicking these families when, for many of them, they are at the lowest points in their lives.

Madam Speaker, this Act also provides an added measure of financial security to the many victims of this storm by providing them with added flexibility to access the savings they have set aside in 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts without the usual penalties. In a time when so many have lost jobs and, consequently, their paychecks, denying or penalizing access to their savings is inappropriate, and this bill recognizes that.

As I have said repeatedly over the past 2 weeks, the recovery, reconstruction and revival of the gulf coast region, and particularly New Orleans, will require an unprecedented Federal commitment.

The bill we will pass today takes two important steps toward that recovery.

First, the bill expands the availability of low-interest mortgages for the building and purchasing of homes in the affected areas. We all understand that the most solid foundation for the economic security of our Nation's families is homeownership. By lifting some of the restrictions on the use of mortgage revenue bonds, this bill will help to build a solid economic foundation for the families whose lives have been turned upside down by Hurricane Katrina.

In addition, the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act also provides targeted incentives for returning businesses and new businesses to employ the thousands of hardworking Americans who have been displaced or lost jobs to Hurricane Katrina. By encouraging businesses to hire workers from the affected areas, this bill takes another very important step toward our uniform goal of rebuilding and resettling New Orleans and other areas tragically struck by the hurricane.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the legislation we consider today recognizes the important contributions that good-hearted and generous Americans have made to the recovery effort. By increasing the value of the charitable deductions and providing relief to the thousands of Americans who have opened their homes to my constituents who have lost theirs, this bill is an important expression of gratitude from this Congress to the American people for rising to the challenge of Hurricane Katrina in truly extraordinary ways.

Madam Speaker, the efforts of my colleagues in providing the relief we need in the gulf coast has been unparalleled to any I have witnessed during my tenure in Congress. For that, I am extraordinarily grateful. However, we still have a long row to hoe before we have achieved the full recovery that I know we all want. I look forward to working with each of you in the coming weeks and months as we rise to the challenge of ensuring that, like the Phoenix of myth and fable, New Orleans rises from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina as a bright, shining model of American ingenuity and opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and whose family has donated generously to our food relief efforts in the affected area.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I again want to thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and others who have worked so carefully on this bill. This has been an important debate, an important discussion about where this Congress is going and how it is helping out and the generosity of this Congress as we tackle these important issues and the difficult issues back home.

To those who say this is not a huge step forward, I should say to them that it is huge for the people who are involved. We take to heart the remarks made by Mr. Emanuel, the bill that he and Mr. Obama are pushing to get this relief out fast. I think it is very important.

This is a huge step, but it simply is not the last step. It is far from the last step in providing relief to our region. We want this Congress to walk along

with us as we make one step after another toward realizing the vision of restoring our area and rebuilding it to a new, better, higher place.

I look forward to this walk with this Congress over the next months and years. I hope that we will stay engaged as fully as we are in these early days throughout this lengthy process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank the chairman and the members of our committee who have brought this legislation forward.

Louisiana and New Orleans, in particular, and the entire Gulf Coast region face a horrific set of challenges. They can all only be met by extraordinary action by this House and by its Members. The compassion that Members have shown, the prayers that have been extended, the helping hands across the country have been absolutely unheard of before; and the level of support that we are getting in New Orleans we are thankful for.

This TANF program is going to provide some flexibility that we need now to help reach the needs of our people for cash assistance and for other assistance, for the flexibility that we will need to take care of our evacuees and some of the areas and families that have been so devastated by the hurricane.

But as the President said, and as I think we all know, this effort, while it is good and while it is necessary and while it is timely, is a down payment of what we have to do here because the devastation has been so extensive.

So everything now that we do we must think outside of the ordinary. We must think outside of the usual set of issues we face in disasters, and we must think differently, more deeply,

more broadly, more innovatively, and more compassionately than we ever have before to make these programs work for people who are living lives they never thought they would have to face, people displaced from home, having no connection to their home place at all. The psychological trauma, the mental stress that they are under, apart from the disconnection from families, all of these are matters which are deeply distressing and disturbing and unusual.

So I thank the Congress for taking the steps it is taking today. I thank Members on this side. I thank the Republicans on the other side. I thank all, without regard to party, for stepping up to work on this matter today. And I look forward to all of us remaining engaged on these issues so that we can find a way to really address the needs of people, many of whom were very disadvantaged starting out and of course are simply disadvantaged beyond all belief now.

So I thank them for what they are doing. We look forward to it, and I hope all will understand that we will have to come forward with a full recovery plan for our area that I hope this Congress will embrace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his fine gesture and for the work they have done on this appropriations matter.

We have all seen the devastation in the news of my home district and my State of Louisiana and the gulf coast, but that is only a pale reflection of the destruction my constituents have experienced. Hundreds of thousands of my constituents have been uprooted from their homes. More than 100,000 businesses have been shuttered. And hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives have been lost due to the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. So words do not describe the damage.

Just last week, this House convened in emergency session and appropriated $10.5 billion to begin the recovery from this natural disaster. And, remarkably, less than a week later, most of that has been spent or committed. Accordingly, we come together today for another $50 billion or so to continue what is a long, hard recovery throughout the gulf coast, but particularly in my hometown of New Orleans.

With the passage of this supplemental appropriation bill, we have committed almost $63 billion to the recovery and reconstruction efforts. But I want to sound the alarm today, lest the House become the victim of Hurricane recovery fatigue.

In normal circumstances, $63 billion would be a lot of money for recovery and reconstruction. But Hurricane Katrina was no normal hurricane, and her effects are unprecedented. So I want to make sure that this House and this Congress understand that these monies are just the beginning, what the President has called a down payment on the long-term commitment to the recovery and revival of the areas decimated by Hurricane Katrina.

Reliable economic estimates suggest that the total Federal cost of the reconstruction and recovery of the affected areas will be in the neighborhood of $225 billion, with $100 billion required to clean up, reconstruct, resettle and revive my hometown of New Orleans. In other words, the almost $52 billion we are allocating today, while needed and wonderful, and we are grateful that we are doing it, and I appreciate everything that is being done here, it is just a down payment.

I wanted to say one other thing today that concerns me, and I hope we can fix it up later. The bill, as it is presently set up, raises the cap on government emergency micropurchases from $15 million to $250 million. This may work to the detriment of small businesses and prevent them from participating in this program. This is something we cannot let happen, and I hope we will fix this up as the bill moves along.

But I am grateful to the House for its quick action on this matter. Our people need it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with a heavy heart that I rise today in this Chamber to support this resolution. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), for his work.

During my 15 years in the people's House, we have confronted many trying circumstances: runaway fires in the West, rolling blackouts across the Northeast, the extraordinary destruction of Hurricane Andrew, the horror of September 11. And the Asian tsunami. But my heart has never been as personally struck and touched as by the tragedy of a disaster as it is now.

Just over a week ago when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, it left wide paths of destruction, unprecedented in American history. The citizens of Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and my home State of Louisiana have suffered unspeakable tragedies. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of homes have been destroyed and shuttered. Thousands of businesses have been closed, at the risk of perhaps never opening again.

The images in the news media shocked the American people, but they are only a pale reflection of the devastation experienced by our friends, families, and neighbors throughout the gulf coast region.

My hometown of New Orleans, my constituents, friends and family, thought they had once again dodged a bullet when Hurricane Katrina changed course at the last minute, making landfall in another place bordering the city.

But we woke Tuesday morning to a heart-wrenching discovery. The levee system that had protected New Orleans for hundreds of years had failed. Our city was inundated, 80 percent of it, with deadly water. Thousands of lives were lost, many drowned, trapped in their homes. Others were lost trying to escape the fury. Others were lost unnecessarily through neglect, and still others have now survived and are spread far and wide throughout the country, have lost their sense of place and their connection to home.

Our neighbors and families are living in shelters, staying with friends or family, benefiting from the hospitality and kindness of caring Americans. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed, churches and businesses at the heart of many of our beloved city's neighborhoods have been flooded and lay in ruins.

In sum, Hurricane Katrina was more than a destructive hurricane. It has dealt a death blow to the very fabric and culture of a grand American city and region. Hurricane Katrina has left most of New Orleans, known for its vibrant spirit and vitality, threadbare and melancholy.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) talked about the people of our city, and I want to say something about that too.

The spirit of the folks in my city, although beaten down, is still vibrant. If you saw the people who were standing and waiting for help, they were orderly. They were a model of orderliness in most cases. When I went down Friday to see folks at the convention center, they simply said to me, Jeff, help us get out of here. When are the buses coming?

The few scenes you have seen of some people taking advantage of people who were there in dire circumstances are few and far between. The image that we want to remember is one of people who endured unnecessary suffering and who stood strongly and in an orderly fashion and dealt with it. I am so proud of our people for having done that.

I also am proud of the outpouring of support that has come from around the country. I want to thank my colleagues for their words of encouragement, for their support, and for their prayers: from the mayor of Detroit, who told us we could bring in 500 families, to just one man from San Diego who offered his small plane to the folks in New Orleans, to pick them up and take them to safety, and one couple from Illinois who called us saying they had just sent their three kids off to college and they had three spare bedrooms for anyone who needed them.

The generosity has been overwhelming. It has reminded us that the human spirit is vibrant and that goodwill is abundant in the American people's hearts.

I want to thank all those who contacted my family, my office, to express concern, those who are now telling us they want to help to reach our constituents, to get our constituent services back together. And I want to thank all of you who have worked with us over the Labor Day weekend. I want to thank my CBC colleagues who have initiated unprecedented efforts to marshal resources to help dislocated Louisianans.

I want to tell you that the most important thing we can do right now is to make sure that people who are displaced are dealt with with dignity, that they are taken care of properly and their needs are met, and that we try as soon as we can and as well as we can to get our people back home, back to the State of Louisiana, back connected to their way of life, back connected to their culture, back connected to their people, and that we commit ourselves for the long haul to rebuild our city, to rebuild our region, and to rebuild the lives of our people. This is our mission now in the Congress.

Also, though we look at all the good things that have happened, it is not inappropriate to ask the question as to whether or not we could not have done a better job. The President himself has said that the response is unacceptable.

So I am one who believes that as we do these other things and as we congratulate each other for the work we have done, and as I congratulate the Red Cross and the FEMA workers that have given a great deal, and our responders, our mayor and our State government, our police and fire people, that we recognize there is a need to do better for our people, and in the future we would make sure that things that did not go right never ever happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for what they have done. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is important the Congressional Black Caucus address these issues tonight because many of the people who are affected by this tragedy are African American and otherwise impoverished or disadvantaged, and they are folks who need to have their concerns given voice tonight.

Many of our Members will talk on different issues. I want to talk about the recovery of that area, of our area, and about an economic recovery package for New Orleans and the other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Hundreds of thousands of my constituents have been uprooted from their homes. More than 100,000 businesses have been shuttered, and possibly thousands of lives have been lost to the wrath of Hurricane Katrina.

The extent of the damage, the human toll, property damage and economic loss is unprecedented in our Nation's history.

Of particular significance, a disproportionate share of the damage in my hometown of New Orleans was meted out to parts of our great city that were already extraordinarily economically disadvantaged.

The poverty and economic depression in these areas in no small way were factors in the extraordinary loss of life and property experienced by my constituents.

For that reason, it is critically important at this time to come together to ensure that all areas affected by Hurricane Katrina receive the necessary resources to rebound from what could be an economically devastating blow all across the gulf coast.

Now, we are talking about an economic package of $40 billion coming up. We just approved $10 billion a few days ago, but I think it is important to put the right number before the Congress. At this time, we do not know what that number is, but we know it is a lot larger than $50 billion.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that through their own analysis they have come up with a figure of $150 to $200 billion. Today, at a press conference, I called on our Congress and our Nation to set aside some $225 billion for this tragedy, $100-plus billion for New Orleans alone.

I believe it is important to talk about a number that is closer to the right number now so that we will not have the rest of the Congress figuring that we have already fixed the problem with 40 or 50 or $60 billion when we know it is going to be four times that number.

So as the Congress moves on various relief packages, I would like to articulate a few principles and policy proposals I believe should guide our efforts and be included in any relief package.

First, the urban poor in New Orleans were dramatically and disproportionately affected, as I have said, by the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, our efforts must include provisions to improve conditions to the point that the magnitude of the damage is never again experienced in our great Nation.

Second, businesses large and small have been shuttered throughout the region, leading to an economic double whammy. Not only is the region cut off from the goods and services provided by these businesses, but the tens of thousands of employees working for these businesses are cut off from their jobs and their paychecks.

Third, the public health effects of Hurricane Katrina are also extraordinary. In response to the health impacts of the hurricane, we must restore health care access, health care quality, health outcomes and the health care worker force because all Americans deserve equal treatment in health care. A proper investment in health care will improve both the health and economic well-being of our region and our country. The legislation we propose ought to address rebuilding the public health infrastructure and ensuring health care coverage. We must, therefore, move to immediately counter these difficult challenges.

On the economic front, I think it is important to propose measures to jump-start the economic recovery throughout the gulf coast, and in the long term to improve the lives of hardworking Americans throughout the region. Because there are a number of Federal tax benefits conditioned on the household living situation of the taxpayer, and in light of the extraordinary displacement of citizens throughout the region, I think we should recommend changes to the Tax Code that ensure that displaced Americans are not disqualified from the tax benefits to which they are otherwise entitled as a result of the hurricane.

Under current law, there are limits on a taxpayer's ability to deduct casualty or disaster losses in ways that would severely affect large numbers of our constituents. Accordingly, I believe we should propose to eliminate any barriers in the Tax Code that would prevent the devastated families from the tax relief to which they are now entitled.

So many of our people who lost their property back home were not home owners; unfortunately, they lived in apartments. They did not have renters insurance or flood insurance. They have lost everything. This has to be taken into account as we go about this.

One of the most extraordinary effects of Hurricane Katrina ever is the unprecedented destruction of housing in New Orleans. One hundred sixty thousand homes in New Orleans alone, and across the area more than 200,000 homes have been affected by this or destroyed by this hurricane. This is going to take some extraordinary action by FEMA and HUD, and some flexibility in the Community Development Block Grant program and the HOME program to get our region back on its feet.

I think we should look at the New Markets Tax Credits program and add $1 billion in 2006 and another $1 billion in 2007 to help with the restructuring there.

With our businesses, of course, there are no jobs, and we ought to ensure that we provide businesses throughout the region the tools necessary to reopen and thrive, as well as incentives to provide jobs to the thousands of displaced Americans throughout the region.

On health care, we ought to have a declaration of emergency to trigger

emergency Medicaid provisions, and we ought to allow our States to therefore simplify the application process and eliminate other barriers to enrollment and participation. We should think about a 100 percent Federal Medicaid match to States directly affected by Hurricane Katrina or States receiving evacuees, and elimination of residency requirements as people are being scattered throughout the country.

On Medicare, we ought to waive the late enrollment penalties for affected residents to sign up for the new prescription drug benefit from October of this year to some other time, if they become newly eligible. We ought to delay transition of the affected dual-eligible to the Medicare program. And we ought to create a health safety net for all people affected by Katrina.

With regard to the health care workforce, we have to redirect our resources there to make sure we have people available to do the work. We ought to establish health empowerment zones, for instance, and freeze budget cuts for safety net and public health programs for two. And, finally, we ought to be concerned about the mental health of our people, because displacement is a terrible mental health issue, and we ought to make sure services are delivered there in the proper way.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his expert handling of this hour to help to bring to the attention of the American people the particular plight of African Americans, the particular plight of people who are impoverished, the particular plight of disadvantaged citizens who have been afflicted by this storm, and the hope and promise that our Nation holds for them and for my great city of New Orleans and the gulf coast region. I want to thank the gentleman for his attention to this matter, and I thank my colleagues for joining us in this very special and important hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed a landmark piece of legislation, a turning point in our Nation's continuing struggle for equality, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I rise today in honor of that momentous occasion.

Aristotle once wrote that ``if liberty and equality . . . are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.'' More than 2,000 years after Aristotle's death, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``all men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.'' In 1965, this Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity, would be able to share in our government, to mutually enjoy the blessings of liberty and democracy.

Nevertheless, despite a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became the law of the land, African Americans and other minority citizens were often forced to take a literacy test, pay a poll tax or overcome other often insurmountable barriers before they could vote. Those who could not pass the tests-- which were, for the most part, absurdly unfair--or were too poor to pay the poll tax were denied the most basic right of all Americans: the right to take part in the selection of their Nation's leaders. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.''

It was the hope of the Johnson administration and this body that the Voting Rights Act would be a solution and bring to an end these and other measures that compromised the legitimacy of our democracy. President Johnson told his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, that he wanted for all citizens ``the right to vote with no ifs, ands, or buts--that's the key.'' It was his dream--and that of American men and women from every walk of life--to unquestionably ensure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship to all Americans.

For the most part, the bill has been successful. Under Section 2 of the Act, for example, Congress prohibited the use of literacy tests throughout the country. They also identified those parts of the Nation with the greatest potential for discriminatory activity and mandated Federal oversight of these locations. With these measures and others, the Voting Rights Act became perhaps the most effective piece of civil rights legislation in history.

In my home state of Louisiana, 31.6 percent of African Americans were registered to vote in 1965, compared to 80.5 percent of whites. A little more than 30 years later, registration rates among African Americans climbed to 77.1 percent in the State, a jump of almost 50 percent and fully 2 percent higher than the rate of registration for whites. Such change in a comparatively short period is remarkable by a number of measures, not only making our democracy more inclusive, but also changing the face of our government.

The legislation also brought to fruition a government that more closely resembles the makeup of our population. The Civil Rights Coalition reports that ``in 1964, there were only approximately 300 African Americans in public office nationwide, including just three in Congress. There are now more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever.''

Despite these encouraging numbers, the VRA remains necessary to the continuing struggle to truly open our great experiment in Democracy to all. The results of the 2000 election proved to our country that we have yet to achieve the equality and democracy necessary, as Dr. King put it, to ``live out the true meaning of our creed.'' Every American citizen who wishes to do so is entitled to have their voice heard and their vote counted--when that right is so blatantly ignored, we appear to regress to a time when the decision making process was reserved for the few and the powerful.

The passage of the Voting Rights Act 40 years ago today was a milestone in legislative history. This Congress defended the civil liberties of every American citizen, regardless of race or ethnicity. However, we cannot let our progress overshadow the very hard work that remains. Forty years on, every election still brings stories of voter intimidation, suppression and discrimination. It is incumbent upon us to secure the franchise, the most fundamental right of every American, and its exercise. Accordingly, we must continue to build on the sacrifices of ordinary men and women who became the heroes of equality and to uphold our promise to guarantee voting rights to every American citizen and ensure that it is carried out to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary, I urge my colleagues to renew our collective commitment to the fundamental American principles that underlie the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5--the so-called HEALTH Act of 2005--is anything but healthy.

If there was even the remotest possibility that H.R. 5 could help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to the American people, it would probably get 435 votes in this House.

However, H.R. 5 does absolutely nothing to achieve the admirable goals embodied in its misleading name. It does absolutely nothing to address the specific problem it is purported to fix: skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am in complete agreement with this bill's supposed and stated purpose: to help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to all Americans. I agree that one of the obstacles to low-cost, accessible health care is outrageous medical malpractice liability insurance premiums charged to physicians and other health care providers throughout our Nation. I also agree that some litigation strategies contribute to the escalating costs of our Nation's health care by encouraging providers to order tests, procedures and treatments that may not be medically necessary. I agree with the supporters of H.R. 5 that high malpractice insurance premiums charged by carriers have led some physicians to abandon high-risk specialties and patients.

I ask you though to look at the legislation before us. H.R. 5 contains about 4,000 words. In those 4,000 words, the word ``premium'' appears only once; the word ``insurance'' appears only 5 times; and the word ``cost'' appears 14 times, the vast majority in the definitions and not the operative clauses of the bill.

I ask you to consider whether H.R. 5 is really about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums as its proponents claim. I have looked very carefully at this bill, and, after much reflection, have reached the only reasonable conclusion: It is not.

I stand here today because someone needs to stand up for American physicians. Someone needs to stand up for the American health care system.

The proponents of H.R. 5 tell us medical malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing out of control. There is no dispute that malpractice insurance premiums are increasing at an alarming rate. We agree on that.

There is no question that medical malpractice premiums are escalating across the country, particularly for physicians in high-risk specialties and certain geographic centers. In some cases, premiums have increased so dramatically that physicians have relocated their practices, reduced their services, or retired early. While there is little doubt that something must be done to alleviate this crisis, H.R. 5 is no solution.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that if you limit the amount that insurance carriers have to pay for legitimate claims, then insurance rates will fall.

But I ask you to consider the fact that the American Insurance Association--the American Insurance Association--has repeatedly and specifically denied that tort reform will result in premium savings. Sherman Joyce, the president of the American Tort Reform Association, has stated, ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.''

So, by the insurance industry's own admission, H.R. 5 will not stem the tide of rising medical malpractice insurance rates. Nevertheless, our friends on the other side would have us believe that limiting the exposure of insurance carriers is a panacea. It is not.

H.R. 5 is a hoax. It is a sham, and our friends on the other side know it. It is a fraud on the American medical establishment by insurance carriers who want to limit their exposure but will not commit to reducing premiums.

Please read the bill. H.R. 5 has absolutely no provision requiring the reduction of medical malpractice premiums, despite the fact that our friends believe that it is these high premiums that are crippling the health care system. Nevertheless, there is not a single word in this bill that directly calls for reductions in premiums: zero, zilch, nada, nothing, and they know it. It is a scam. H.R. 5 is absolutely nothing more than a boon, a windfall for the insurance industry.

Our friends on the other side tell us that damage caps will solve the premium crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the fact that in States that have enacted caps, the medical malpractice insurance premiums are higher than in States that have no caps. The carriers do not want us to know that.

In fact, in California--the State the other side holds up as a shining example of the benefits of legislation like H.R. 5--the average premium is $27,570, fully 8 percent higher than the average of all States that have no caps on noneconomic damages.

Recently, the American Medical Association issued a list of States that it concluded were in crisis due to exploding medical malpractice insurance rates. Five of those States have caps on noneconomic damages like the one proposed in H.R. 5. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they are still in crisis.

One of those States is Florida, where, despite having caps of just the kind proposed by H.R. 5, obstetricians and gynecologists pay the highest premiums in the Nation for medical malpractice insurance, some in excess of $200,000 per year. Florida has caps, and Florida has a crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, damage caps alone are not the solution to the problem.

If you look further at the California example, it becomes clear that damage caps alone are not an effective premium-reduction measure. In the 12 years after California passed MICRA, medical malpractice premiums rose 190 percent. Only after California passed Proposition 103--actual insurance reform--did medical malpractice premiums stabilize. Since California passed insurance reform--not medical malpractice reform--its medical malpractice premiums have been more stable than in most States.

Mr. Speaker, the lesson to be learned from California is that measures like H.R. 5 do not reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums. The facts simply do not bear it out.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side insist that one-size-fits-all approach of H.R. 5 is the last and best cure for the crisis of escalating malpractice insurance rates.

Some of our colleagues are, like me, very deeply concerned about rising malpractice insurance rates. Some of our colleagues have expressed an inclination to vote for this bill in order to get the ball rolling, in order to take a first step toward solving the premium crisis. But I want to be very clear: If H.R. 5 is our first step, as the saying goes, it's a doozy. It is a step on the backs of doctors, hospitals and patients to help out greedy insurance carriers. It is certainly a step in the wrong direction. H.R. 5--as the best evidence proves--is an ill-conceived, ill-advised bill that will not--let me repeat--will not solve the problem. This bill helps insurance companies--period.

Recent articles in newspapers across the country show in clear and compelling ways that this crisis is as complex as it is serious. ``Malpractice litigation is only part of the cause of the huge increases in insurance premiums. The insurance industry's pricing and accounting practices . . . play [at least] as big a role.''

The insurance company patrons of our friends on the other side want to hide behind what they consider out-of-control jury awards. Again, Mr. Speaker, the facts simply do not support this claim.

Over the past few years, many physicians have been hit with medical liability premium increases of 25 to 400 percent. Yet, according to The Journal of Health Affairs, during the past decade, malpractice payouts have grown approximately 6.2 percent per year. That's almost exactly the rate of medical inflation: an average of 6.7 percent between 1990 and 2004.

Moreover, contrary to the claims of proponents of H.R. 5, juries are not overly sympathetic to plaintiffs, as evidenced by the rate at which physicians prevail in medical malpractice suits. Dr. Barry Manuel, chairman and CEO of ProMutual Group, one of the Nation's leading malpractice insurance carriers, reported in 2001 that ``we continue to close 60 percent of all claims without payment, and of those cases we are forced to defend in court, we prevail in 90 percent.'' In addition, many of the leading scholars studying the problem have concluded that despite conventional wisdom, juries in fact often favor physicians.

Neil Vidmar, a professor at Duke University School of Law and a leading scholar in the field, states unequivocally that ``the assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims.''

So, Mr. Speaker, one begins to wonder what has caused such extraordinary increases on medical malpractice insurance premiums during the past few years.

Well, investment losses, like those of average Americans, and a weak economy have made a greater dent in the bottom lines of insurance companies than malpractice payouts.

The difference between insurance companies and average Americans is that most of us can't give ourselves a raise to cover our losses. A medical malpractice insurance company can--and does. It alone controls the premium rates it charges our country's doctors. I think you can guess what malpractice carriers have done in response to the general economic climate in the past few years.

The truth is that medical malpractice insurance carriers are asking doctors, hospitals and patients to pay for underperforming investments. It is as simple as that. They know it. We have asked the insurance carriers to commit to reducing premiums in this bill. They will not do it. They will not even talk about it. That is because they have absolutely no intention of reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

The bottom line is that H.R. 5 is a jackpot for insurance carriers, and it is the doctors, hospitals and patients that are going to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a minute about the cap on noneconomic damages. If H.R. 5 becomes law, we will be speaking with a loud and clear voice that the injuries victims of medical malpractice suffer are valued in direct relation to how much money those victims have. The unfortunate consequence of this legislation is that-- regardless of the severity of your injury, regardless of how long you suffer, regardless of its effect on even the most basic functions of your life, the things we take for granted every day, regardless of whether you can ever play with your children again, regardless of whether you can ever hug your grandchildren again, regardless even whether you or your child or your wife or mother die due to medical malpractice--no one's injury is ever worth more than $250,000.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to equate ``noneconomic damages'' with ``pain and suffering.'' But ``pain and suffering'' is a misleading label. What is capped is recovery for disability and disfigurement, among other things, not just ``pain and suffering.'' H.R. 5 lumps together everything that is not ``economic'' and calls it ``noneconomic''--subject to a $250,000 cap that the bill does not even adjust for inflation.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle go to great lengths to emphasize that H.R. 5 in no way limits economic damages as long as they are objectively quantifiable monetary damages. In other words, if a surgeon loses his hand and is unable to perform surgery again, the injury he will suffer is greater than that suffered by a carpenter who loses his hand due to medical malpractice and is never again able to do his job. Why? Well, under H.R. 5 the answer is simple: The surgeon makes more money, so his economic damages are greater. Not to worry, they tell us, both of them can get up to $250,000 in addition to soothe their wounds.

The same is true in the case of an injury suffered by a working mother when compared to a mother working inside the home. Do our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that those women's husbands or children will understand the difference?

At many jobs, the loss of a leg, for example, may not prevent a worker from earning a living. But it will make it difficult to enjoy ``noneconomic'' pursuits like playing soccer with your kids, or basketball and volleyball with friends, or a multitude of other things that make life enjoyable.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 instructs that the value of life is capped at economic losses plus $250,000. That seems inconsistent with the administration's recent characterization of the value of life as ``immeasurable.'' Remarkably, our friends on the other side of the aisle have taken out their calculators, and they have measured the immeasurable. Perhaps they should call the White House, and let them know.

While the proponents of H.R. 5 appear already to have figured it all out, I want to ask them: How much is hugging your grandchildren worth? How much is kissing your husband or wife worth? How much is the ability to walk or to drive or to play a round of golf worth? How much is your ability to feed, bathe and clothe yourself worth? How much is seeing your children grow up worth? How much is your life worth?

I honestly don't know, and I don't think we should be answering those questions for every American either.

Whether it's losing a limb, or an eye, or just the freedom to be able to go where you want and do what you want, how many of us would trade a lifetime of disability or disfigurement, not to mention pain, for $250,000?

The very real consequence of this legislation is that it punishes the most economically vulnerable members of our society to the benefit of greedy insurance companies. It discriminates against children, against women, against older Americans, against ethnic minorities, against the poor. And for what, Mr. Speaker? History shows us the only winners emerging from H.R. 5 are the medical malpractice insurance carriers-- not the doctors, hospitals and patients our friends on the other side of the aisle purportedly seek to help.

I urge you to vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited legislation.

Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago--on July 26, 1990--our great Nation made a promise to the disabled community that we have a moral obligation to keep. We said no to discrimination. We said no to sanctioned inequality. We said yes to inclusion and equality.

Today marks the 15th Anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act.

I am immensely proud to have been a part of reauthorization efforts of this important legislation, and I will never forget all of the advocates for the disabled at the signing ceremony on the South Lawn at the White House,

This landmark law sent an unmistakable message: It is unacceptable to discriminate against someone simply because they have a disability. Moreover, it is illegal--in employment, in transportation, in public accommodations, and in telecommunications.

The ADA recognized that the disabled belong to the American family; that a disability need not be disabling. Disabled Americans can share in all our Nation has to offer--equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

Over the last 15 years, the ADA has allowed hundreds of thousands of Americans to join the workforce, attend school, travel, or drive a car--many for the first time in their lives. The ramps, curb cuts, Braille signs, and captioned television programs that were once novel are now ubiquitous.

However, the first 15 years of the ADA have not been without challenge. Too often, the intent of the ADA has been misconstrued by our courts, which have given it a narrow construction that its authors never intended.

To date, people with diabetes, heart conditions, cancer and mental illnesses have had their ADA claims kicked out of court because, with improvements in medication, they are considered too functional to be considered disabled.

Together, these decisions represent a dangerous chipping away at the foundation of equality which we poured 15 years ago when the ADA was enacted. And they are a reminder as we commemorate this 15th Anniversary that our work is not done.

This is clearly not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA and the first President Bush signed it into law. We intended the law to be given a broad construction, not a narrow one.

Today, let us renew our commitment to the principles and spirit of the ADA--a law that befits our great Nation, which stands for liberty and freedom. Today, let's commit to keep the promise we made when we enacted the ADA, because while its promise remains unfulfilled, it still is within reach.

Thus, I join my Congressional colleagues and demand that we commit ourselves to expanding opportunities for individuals with disabilities and all Americans. Only then will we live up to the ideals of equality and opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, as a Democrat with a firm commitment to eliminate poverty and to improve the lives of workers both here and abroad, I believe it is important to discuss the policy implications contained in the proposed U.S. FTA with the Dominican Republic and the countries of Central America.

In support of the CAFTA, I support the people of my port city. I have determined that the United States can best promote improvements both to working conditions and labor standards in those countries with the commitment and the supporting capacity-building provisions of this agreement.

I understand that our workers are concerned about our growing trade deficit. But CAFTA will have no negative impact here. Our trade deficit is driven by our own behavior as a Nation: massive consumption, low savings rates, and unwise borrow-and-spend economic policies of our own government, not CAFTA-like trade agreements.

In fact, an ITC study concludes CAFTA will reduce overall U.S. trade deficits by $756 million. And the CAFTA-NAFTA talk is a catchy play on words, but the comparison is really inappropriate.

Unlike the situation with Mexico prior to NAFTA, our market is already nearly completely open to Central American products. More than 80 percent of Central American products imported to the United States are already duty free. CAFTA will simply open their markets to our products leveling the playing field.

For years, Democrats and Republicans have promoted democracy in Central America and have spoken about the need to secure commitments from developing countries on core international labor standards, on labor enforcement, and have sought U.S. commitments to substantive and comprehensive labor-capacity building programs.

We have sought to ensure a role for international labor organizations in these efforts. With this unprecedented agreement, we have concluded and included all of these things. CAFTA promotes economic opportunity for the workers of the region who are facing massive competition from Asia and elsewhere in the most significant formal source of economic livelihood, textile and apparel production. With nearly half the population of these countries living in extreme poverty, with formal employment, the continued competitiveness the textile and apparel industry in our and other CAFTA industries can promote is very, very critical.

I have heard my colleagues suggest that the CAFTA textile and apparel rules remain too strict to really make a difference. But the countries and the companies who invest and purchase from the region believe differently.

Many of us had hoped for more flexibility. But those whose livelihoods depend on these issues believe that the new flexibilities CAFTA provides are critical to support an industry that provides some of the best-paying jobs in the region.

Are we to substitute our judgment for theirs?

CAFTA will also help these countries improve their investment climate through a more permanent relationship with the United States and many other provisions of CAFTA, including increased transparency, curbs on corruption and provisions that promote the rule of law, which could in fact be the single most important driver to improve the lives of our neighbors in Central America and the Dominican Republic.

And there are the agreement's labor provisions. Both the commitments made by each country in the labor chapter to enforce domestic laws and the capacity-building program built into the CAFTA, which each of the six governments recently relied on in undertaking an unprecedented commitment to improve labor standards and enforcement in each of their countries in very concrete ways.

But despite all of these provisions and commitments, it is argued that the CAFTA's labor provisions are a backwards step and that CAFTA should not be supported because of the CAFTA countries' histories of weak labor laws and suppressing worker rights.

The biggest labor issue of the CAFTA countries is in fact the inadequacy of their enforcement of existing laws. Indeed, this is where many of the 20-plus labor problems the critics allege actually fall. They are issues of enforcement, not issues with the substantive existing labor laws; and that is where the CAFTA can do the most good.

In taking a close look at the other recent trade agreements that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, it is difficult to understand why the CAFTA countries are being held to a different standard and therefore a double standard.

The labor laws in the CAFTA countries are similar to those of Jordan and Morocco. For example, foreign nationals cannot lead or administer local labor unions in Morocco. This is the case for all of the CAFTA countries, but Nicaragua. The right to collective bargaining is not recognized in Morocco's constitution, but it is in most of the CAFTA countries. And, finally, Morocco allows minors to work longer per week than all of the CAFTA countries.

If we can vote overwhelmingly for Morocco and Jordan with these labor provisions on the basis that we should engage them economically because they have made progress on liberalizing their economies and on improving their human rights pictures, then why can we not support this FTA with our neighbors in the popularly elected democracies with even better laws on the same grounds?

What all of these countries, Jordan, Morocco and the Centrals, share are the same challenges in enforcement and lack of resources. In fact, the CAFTA provisions are stronger than those in NAFTA, which has labor protections in the signed agreements and did not provide dispute resolutions in the main agreement.

The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that at our door stand our neighbors from Central America literally pleading with us to approve this CAFTA agreement. We are substituting our judgment for theirs, people who are elected by their own people as we are elected by ours.

Mr. Speaker, I think instead of turning a deaf ear to them, we ought to heed them, we ought to hear them. These are our neighbors and our friends. And we ought to support them. I urge adoption of this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 175 and extend my thanks to my friend from New York for bringing this resolution before the House. The dark, sordid history of slavery in this country continues to reverberate throughout society--economically, culturally, socially. What too many in our country do not know is that the enslavement of Africans was a tragedy throughout this hemisphere, not just in the United States. This important resolution shines a bright light on the injustices suffered by the descendants of the transatlantic slave trade throughout the Americas, and particularly in Latin America and Caribbean. The United States must join with the international community to improve the living conditions of and to empower the Afro-Latino communities throughout the Americas.

As a result of the slave trade and immigration, approximately 80,000,000 to 150,000,000 persons of African descent live in Latin America and the Caribbean, representing the largest concentration of persons of African ancestry outside of Africa. Individuals of African descent are a vital part of the population and economy of almost every country in Latin America, including Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. By way of example, Brazil has the largest population of Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean, yet, tragically, only one in three Afro-Brazilians attend secondary schools.

Although Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean have made significant economic, social, and cultural contributions to their respective countries, a large percentage of these Afro-descendants community live in extremely poor conditions, in marginal communities with little or no access to education, healthcare, equal employment. As a result, Afro-descendants have shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality rates, higher incidences of HIV/AIDS, higher rates of illiteracy, and lower incomes than do other populations. Afro- descendants, for instance, account for about 30 percent of the Latin American population, yet make up over 60 percent of its poor. Afro- descendants also have extreme high rates of suicide and homicide.

We, as African-Americans, share similar histories and civil rights struggles and experience similar disparities with Afro-descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean. In recognizing this, we are also recognizing that America shares similar experience with our neighbors in the Hemisphere.

While we have taken strides to address racial and ethnic disparities here in the United States, our struggle continues. Unfortunately, in Latin America and the Caribbean, similar transformations and recognitions of the need to address many of these racial and ethnic disparities have yet to occur.

Today, with this important resolution, we demonstrate our solidarity and we confirm our commitment to help facilitate these transformations in Latin America. Supporting this Resolution is a mutually-beneficial goal for those of us in the United States and those populations residing to our neighboring South. Creating economic opportunities, expanding growth, eliminating racial and ethnic disparities leads to greater stability and democracy in the Hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to again thank my friend and colleague from New York, Mr. Rangel, for his leadership in bringing this

historic resolution to the floor. However imperfect, ours is a nation of laws committed to equal justice for all. That commitment has never ended at the border, and it certainly should extend to our neighbors throughout the Americas. This resolution reminds us to heed the sage words Dr. King wrote from the Birmingham jail 42 years ago: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Let us remember that wisdom as we cast our votes for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Mrs. Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Snyder of Arkansas, and Mr. Boustany of Louisiana, in introducing legislation that corrects an inequity in our Nation's higher education laws.

The foster care system in our country is not perfect. However, for all its flaws, it does provide some very genuine benefits. For example, those youth who graduate high school while still in foster care are afforded every opportunity to attend college and receive full federal financial aid benefits.

Unfortunately, those who are fortunate enough to be adopted into loving homes as teenagers are not given this same consideration. Under current law, children who are adopted and thus leave the foster care system are not considered ``independent students'' and are therefore considered for financial aid based on the income of the adoptive family. This is a barrier for families looking to adopt older children, but may not have saved for college--and it should be changed.

This important legislation would adjust the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who are adopted from the foster care system after their 13th birthday. Accordingly, when the adopted children apply for federal financial aid, they will not be penalized because eligibility would be determined by the adopted student's ability to pay, not the ability of his parents to do so.

Statistics show that older children who are adopted from the foster care system are more likely to attend college, have stable lives and have a permanent family. Conversely, of those who ``aged-out'' of foster care over three years: Only 54% had earned a high school diploma; Only 14:5 had graduated from a four-year college; and Between 25-44% had experienced homelessness.

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 youth ``age out'' of the foster care system each year and, of that number, nearly 30% are incarcerated in the first year. Currently, there are 523,000 children in foster care and nearly half of those children are over the age of ten.

These statistics show that when given the opportunity to move into a loving home, those who are still in the system are more likely to be successful. Making this minor change to current law can do so much to change the lives of these youngsters and the families looking to adopt them. But when these teenagers are forced to choose between adoption and federal financial aid to attend college, the odds are against them.

Families who adopt teenagers are remarkable. But these adoptions are rare. This legislation is designed not only to create greater access to college for those who are adopted but also to encourage adoption of older children by creating an incentive--not a barrier--to parents looking to add to their family by adopting a child out of the foster care system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and my colleagues in supporting and enacting this common sense, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter that a number of us in this House wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to this transaction.

I am one who has supported free trade since I have been in the Congress and I support it today. If it were true that this were a market-based transaction, as the preceding speaker has said, I would not be standing here talking about this issue whatsoever. The fact of this is this is not a free market transaction. This is a transaction by a government-owned company, financed by the government of China, financed with subsidies with the government of China and it puts every other competitor for the assets that they are seeking to acquire at a disadvantage.

There are substantial questions here about the motives of the Chinese as well. I have been dealing with oil and gas issues for a very long time as a representative from Louisiana, and ordinarily one thinks of the oil and gas market as one where free commodities move and oil is a very fungible commodity. But what we have here is a Chinese government with an accelerating demand for oil and gas trying to find a way to corner a market here and to put it to their exclusive use. This is unheard of in the oil and gas commodities market.

No one ever thinks that one explores for oil and then uses the oil only in the place where they have their own demand and not make it available to the rest of the world. That is the scary part of what is happening here.

As China seeks more and more assets that they themselves control and they themselves corner, it makes it much more difficult for us to argue that this is a free economy, a market-based economy. That is the real reason I have come to this microphone tonight.

I think it is important to support this resolution, and I think the actions we are taking today by the Congress were appropriate to be taken. I think the warning signs that are going up from this House about the Chinese government's interest in cornering the market on a strategic asset such as petroleum today, is a dire warning indeed and one we should take heed of.

So I urge the Members of the House and all who are within the sound of our voice to take heed of this warning and to support this important resolution.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.

Hon. John W. Snow,

Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary, Energy security is a matter of

significant and ever increasing importance for the United

States. In particular, we are very concerned about China's

ongoing and proposed acquisition of energy assets around the

world, including assets of U.S.-based energy and oil

companies.

China is now the second largest consumer of energy in the

world, right behind the United States. In order to fulfill

the energy consumption requirements of its growing

population, China has developed an aggressive strategy to

acquire offshore assets to supplement its limited domestice

supply of resources. It will become increasingly difficult

for U.S.-based companies to compete for scarce energy

resoures on the world market against China's state-owned and/

or controlled energy companies.

To that end, we are very concerned to read reports that the

China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)--whose

majority owner is the Chinese government--is planning to make

an offer to acquire one of America's leading independent

natural gas and crude oil exploration and production

companies. Moreover, it is our understanding that two

influential Chinise government agencies have reportedly given

tentative approval to this acquisition by CNOOC.

As you are aware, the Committee on Foreign Investment in

the United States (CFIUS) was established to monitor the

impact of foreign investment in the United States and to

coordinate the implementation of U.S. policy on foreign

investment. In 1988, CFIUS was given additional authority

under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (the

Exon-Florio Amendment) to authorize the President to conduct

investigations to determine the impact of foreign

acquisitions of U.S. companies on national security.

Given what we know about CNOOC to date, we think this

potential transaction should be reviewed immediately by CFIUS

to investigate the implications of the acquisition of U.S.

energy companies and assets by CNOOC and other government

controlled Chinese energy companies. As the official chair of

CIFUS, we would request that the Treasury Department look

into this proposed acquisition to determine whether an

official CFISUS investigation should be undertaken should an

official offer come from CNOOC. Specifically, the CFIUS

should review the following issues, among others:

Whether and to what extent the Chinese government is

involved in financing any potential acquisitions by CNOOC;

Whether such investments by CNOOC are market-based and free

of subsidies;

Whether there are technology transfer implications of these

investments that present national security concerns; and

How CNOOC investments in the U.S. energy sector and

acquisitions of U.S.-based energy and oil companies advance

China's energy agenda to the detriment of U.S. national

security objectives.

Mr. Secretary, we know that you understand well the

critical importance of ensuring U.S. energy security and the

critical need to secure the future availability of energy

resources for American consumers. We ask that you treat this

matter with the utmost urgency and report back to us with

yout findings.

Sincerely,

William J. Jefferson, Al Green, Dana Rohrabacher,

Edolphus Towns, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Roger Wicker, Bobby

Jindal, Kevin Brady, Michael Rogers of Michigan, Joseph

Crowley, Devin Nunes, Ginny Brown-Waite, Richard Baker,

George Radanovich, Ellen Tauscher, Gary Miller.

Gregory Meeks, Gene Green, Darrell Issa, Frank Wolf,

Barbara Cubin, Charlie Melancon, Ted Strickland, Geoff

Davis, Gene Taylor, Ralph Hall, Bill Jenkins, Wally

Herger, Charles Boustany, Walter Jones, John Tanner,

Bart Gordon.

John Shimkus, Michael Burgess, Paul Gillmor, Lincoln

Davis, Ted Poe, J.D. Hayworth, Jim Walsh, Bob

Goodlatte, Donald Manzullo, Roy Blunt, John Sullivan,

Bernard Sanders, Collin C. Peterson, Roscoe G.

Bartlett, John Doolittle, Peter T. King.

John J. Duncan, Jr., Bart Stupak, Dennis Cardoza, Thomas

Reynolds, Eric Cantor, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Darlene

Hooley, Mary Bono, Mark Foley, Robin Hayes, Tom

Tancredo, Ken Calvert, Melissa Hart, Mark Souder, Jo

Ann Davis, Michael Rogers of Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of our country's participation in the World Trade Organization. Right now, it seems this resolution is destined for rejection. But addressing it today does give us a much-needed opportunity to focus on the WTO and how the U.S. can maximize its membership for the benefit of U.S. firms, workers and farmers.

The success of U.S. participation in the WTO should be measured by our ability to liberalize markets and set fair trade rules for all WTO Members. Clearly, the United States has benefited greatly from its WTO membership and plays a leading role in shaping the way the world trades today.

Since the creation of the WTO, U.S. exports and overall trade have expanded significantly, with a $283 billion or 64 percent increase in U.S. manufacturing exports; a $139 billion or a 70 percent increase in U.S. services exports; and an $18 billion or 39 percent increase in U.S. agricultural exports.

Once WTO agreements are set and commitments are made, however, it is crucial that the U.S. ensure that the countries involved live up to their part of the deal. This is where we have fallen short.

Here, the U.S. has several concerns, such as China's failure to follow through with its commitments to ensure that domestic and foreign firms can distribute products within that country as of December 2004; many countries have failed to meet their TRIPS commitments and have not effectively enforced intellectual property rights and the protection of data privacy; there is concern regarding the establishment of standards, licensing and customs barriers, including the EU's customs procedures and its proposed new chemical regulations; and there is concern about the continued proliferation of many agricultural barriers, such as the unscientific barriers to many agricultural products in Europe, China and elsewhere.

The United States should continue to insist that all WTO members implement the WTO agreements in a timely and comprehensive manner.

Like many of my colleagues, I hope the WTO will successfully conclude the Doha Development Round and continue to contribute to the dynamic global marketplace as a growth engine for WTO member economies.

However, in the Doha Development Round, many developing countries expressed concerns regarding implementation of some commitments, and they have sought extensions and delays. Here, technical assistance and support for capacity building are critical tools needed to advance implementation goals.

I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means and in the Congress to ensure that the U.S. provides technical support and capacity building measures to assist developing countries in meeting their WTO commitments.

If trade is to be a tool of development and growth for our developing-country trading partners, we must play a central role in helping the WTO facilitate compliance with member obligations. I stress this today because I want our new USTR Ambassador Portman to know that this is and should always be

a priority for the United States at the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today with my good friend and colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. English, to introduce the ``Affordable Housing Tax Credit Enhancement Act of 2005.'' Mr. English and I share a passion for and commitment to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality housing in which to live, to prosper and to raise their families. I am grateful for his continuing leadership in this area, and I am honored that he joins me today in introducing this important piece of legislation. I also am very pleased that 51 of our colleagues, including members from both sides of the aisle and several from the Committee on Ways and Means, join us today in introducing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, LIHTC, program was created as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Today, the LIHTC program is widely regarded as the nation's most successful housing production program resulting in the construction and rehabilitation of more than 1.3 million housing units for lower income households. As a direct result of the LIHTC program, 130,000 new affordable housing units come online every year.

In addition to producing housing, the LIHTC program is unparalleled in contributing to the revitalization of distressed neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States. LIHTC properties are frequently among the first investments in a concerted revitalization strategy. The credit drives and catalyzes public/private/community partnerships that replace blight with safe, affordable housing, attract private capital, and prime the market for other activities, including increased homeownership and expanded retail development.

The redirection of capital to affordable housing through a tax incentive creates net economic efficiencies, because the housing credit more effectively marshals private sector capital than would be accomplished through any direct spending program. Because it sets up competition among developers for credit allocations and among corporations for access to investment opportunities, the LIHTC is considerably more efficient than a direct spending program.

The success of the LIHTC program is virtually unmatched. However, as a Nation, we still confront a serious affordable housing deficit--a gap that we must bridge to ensure that our most vulnerable families have access to quality, affordable housing and safer neighborhoods in which to live and prosper.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation would make two important changes to current law. Most significantly, the bill would double the current LIHTC from $1.85 per capita to $3.70 per capita beginning in 2006, which would yield twice the number of affordable housing units annually and begin to close the current gap. Second, the legislation would rename the LIHTC the `` Affordable Housing'' tax credit to remove any negative connotation and more accurately describe this effective program.

If this legislation were to pass, we are assured by affordable housing advocates, investors, syndicators, and developers that there is more than enough capacity in the market to effectively use these additional credits. In fact, the need for affordable housing throughout the country virtually assures the continued success of this program.

In addition, this legislation is a jobs creator. According to industry estimates, 112 jobs are created during the first year of construction of every 100 units of affordable housing, 46 of which morph into permanent positions. Based on that estimate, because doubling the current LIHTC would create 130,000 additional units annually, that translates into 145,600 new jobs nationally--59,800 of which would be permanent.

America is confronting an affordable housing crunch, and many hardworking men and women continue to seek employment. This legislation would make significant strides to address both problems. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to support this important measure and to ensure its consideration and passage.