Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the heels of President Bush's failed trade trip to Latin America to discuss our Nation's trade policy, a policy that continues to ship out American jobs, a policy that opens our doors to imports while other markets remain closed to us. Markets like Japan, markets like China, they keep their doors shut tight. This is a policy that is hurting our country, not just today, but for tomorrow. It hurts our workers. It hurts our farmers; and, indeed, it truly hurts our future. Our latest trade deficit numbers released last month for the month of August show yet another increase in America's trade deficit. The trade deficit for the month of August alone was $59 billion. For every billion dollars of deficit, we incur another 20,000 lost jobs. In a year, the loss to us is over three-quarters of a trillion dollars of more imports coming in than exports going out. Last year our trade deficit was $668 billion; and in the first half of this year, this number clearly was increasing. This chart summarizes what has been happening with the rise in imports over exports over the last 20 years. Every single year, after every single one of these trade agreements gets signed, the red ink gets deeper and deeper. It will not take long to reach a trillion dollars, which lops real economic growth off our gross domestic product. According to one report, the higher price of oil this year alone could add an estimated 60 to $90 billion more to the trade deficit of 2006. The deficit represents jobs lost in our communities, lives changed forever, as well as a very real threat to the economic security of our country. Trade agreements like, and Members know the names, NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, normal trade relations with China. I do not know what is normal about having hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit with any country where our jobs have been shipped elsewhere. We can see the cashing out of America. The latest company that tells us they are ready to leave is Delphi, based in Flint, Michigan, a corporation that employs over 50,000 people nationwide, telling workers they have to take a two-thirds cut in wages, pensions gone, health benefit gone. And what they are basically doing, they are following their major customer, which is General Motors, which has cashed out to Mexico, and now the suppliers are following suit. Here is how the trade model works: half of Delphi's sales go to General Motors. Therefore, if General Motors outsources, so will Delphi. If General Motors goes to Mexico, which is has, it is the largest employer in Mexico after the government of Mexico and the oil industry, so will Delphi go. How destructive this trend is to our future as we see our workers work for lower wages and our families shopping now at Wal-Mart to get bargain prices. Imagine, Wal-Mart, the largest employer in the United States of America. We are becoming a distributor not a manufacturer, and our people are not earning enough to shop at the department stores that they used to. Many of those have closed in the major metropolitan areas of our country. What we find are the Wall Street investors, who have a global reach and love to get richer than any of us could ever imagine, are taking production around the world. Franklin Roosevelt had it right: he called them the malefactors of great wealth. They do great damage in their path. Today I do not want to just draw attention to what has been happening to our economy and working people, but I want to draw attention to what we can do. Sadly, President Bush appears to be trying to expand NAFTA with his recent trip down to Latin America, and the people down there have awakened to what these trade agreements really mean to them. The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas appears to be dying a slow death. But I have a different idea, and so do some of my colleagues. This week we are introducing a bill, the Balancing Trade Act of 2005, which will require action on the part of the President when America faces deficits like we see today. It would require the President to take action to correct these imbalanced trading relationships with any nation where our deficit with them would equal $10 billion in any 3- year period, in other words, where that $10 billion would exist for 3 consecutive years. Our trade balance, for example, with both of our NAFTA trading partners has been more than $10 billion in deficit for the last 3 years. NAFTA has basically been a great sucking sound of jobs out of this country. Our trade deficit with China has been greater than $100 billion this year and over the last 3 years, and rising every single year. It is more lost jobs, and this bill says it is time to stop the music; it is time to start doing something about this. In order to correct accounts that are seriously in the red, someone has to go back and look at the books. It is a responsible approach, one that the executive branch should be taking and one that is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to look at the Balancing Trade Act of 2005 and join us as cosponsors to right America's very imbalanced trading relations with the world.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this past week, America laid to rest Ms. Rosa Parks, preeminent civil rights leader of the 20th century. Ms. Parks embodied the clarion call of Sojourner Truth to champion the rights of those dispossessed and marginalized. Through her acts of courage and inspiration, she, as woman, awakened the conscience of a nation and moved us to be better than we had been, indeed to form a more perfect union. In her memory, a homegoing memorial service was held in Detroit, Michigan, her adopted hometown, on Nov. 2, during which the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, rendered these words of comfort. It is my privilege to enter them in the Congressional Record as a living testimony to her life and the world and nation she helped transform. Rosa Parks: Words of Comfort We are here this morning for serious business. On so many occasions, negros have been intimidated and humiliated and oppressed because of the sheer fact that they were negros. Just the other day, just last Thursday to be exact, one of the finest citizens in Montgomery--not one of the finest negro citizens, but one of the finest citizens in Montgomery--was taken from a bus and carried to jail and arrested because she refused to get up to give her seat to a white person. When the history books are written in the future, somebody will have to say, ``There lived a race of people--, a black people, a people who had the moral courage to stand up for their rights!.''--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Montgomery, Alabama, December 1955 rosa parks: freedom fighter--liberator The Book of Esther. Chapter IV, Verses 12-16: 12: And they told to Mordecai Esther's words. 13: Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. 14: For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall their enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou in thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? 15: Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer. 16: Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day: I and also my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. Isaiah, 40 chapter, 31st verse, ``but they shall wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint.'' The 2005 freedom bound train is full of giants. John Johnson, Johnson Publishing, who illuminated our way. Vivian Malone Jones who opened up closed doors at the University of Alabama; C. Delores Tucker, first African American Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, a pacesetter. Judge Constance Baker Motley along with justice Thurgood helped to brake backbone of legal segregation. And now Rosa Parks, our morning star, the star that led us by night; when it's real dark, one light will challenge all of the darkness, and give us hope and direction. For such an awesome force in history, we wrestle with the countless ways, ``how do we express ourselves, our thanks, her meaning, her impact. The question was once raised in Micah, how do you worship? Do you give the Lord fatted calves and rams and rivers of oil? Meaningless sacrifices. The answer was, ``O man, you know what is good; you know what matters. Do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? Perhaps for Sister Parks, a statue in the great Hall of Congress as projected in a legislative bill by Congressman Jackson, as a founding mother of the new America. Surely if Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, leaders of the Confederacy who led the drive for secession, sedition, segregation and slavery and treason, could be there, why not have the guardian angel there to keep an eye on them, and to protect the true character of the American Dream. Perhaps the extension of the voting rights with enforcement powers, 50 years later. Perhaps a White House conference on civil rights. 50 years later--post Rosa Parks and hurricane Katrina, a White House conference on civil rights is needed. We must say to Mrs. Parks, your legacy is secure, your sacrifice is not in vain, but your work is unfinished and under attack. You lifted us up; we will not let you down. We often reference her qualifications for this huge role in history--her vocation as a seamstress, her civil rights membership, her humility and temperament. But her biggest quality is she was available. One of the outstanding attributes of Mrs. Parks is that she was available. Her humility, her steeled courage, her non- negotiable dignity, speaks to us in the fullness of time, after 336 years of struggle--from the hull of ships to the back of the bus--in the fullness of time, she said, here am I, send me. I am available. God uses the strength of the available. He is not bound by the credentialed and the unavailable. Each time I go back across the bloodstained Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma, Alabama--the battlefield of our modern day voting rights act--I recall the struggle led by Hosea Williams, a shot up war veteran, and Congressman John Lewis, a student, on that Sunday. There were no pastors of major churches, no convention presidents, no bishops, no doctors or lawyers, no political party leaders, no scholars, no elected officials, judges or business leaders. Just ordinary people. Mrs. Boynton, Mrs. Foster, Sunshine, Lester Hankerson, Cottonreader from Mississippi. Ordinary people, available to do God's will. Ordinary people. They upended the Congress, the White House, and the world. They captured the imagination of the world by absorbing the blows and suffering us into a new day. Your success and reputation and status are not bargaining chips with God. Calvary teaches, suffering breeds character, character breeds faith, and in the end, faith will prevail. Who are the available? (a) It may be some teenage boy, a great underdog with a slingshot, taking on some giant Goliath. He emerges the winner, an unlikely hero. He was available. (b) It may be some rescued baby, Moses, avoiding a death warrant by the King, an edict of genocide, aided by some ingenuous prayer warrior mother, who grew up in the King's household but comes unto his highest self and says. ``Let My People Go.'' (c) It may be some Esther, some orphan, after prodding by her uncle, moving beyond the political law and risking personal comfort for the common good, who rises up realizing her people are in jeopardy, declaring if I perish, let me perish. I am going to meet the King. God uses the available. (d) It may be some freedom fighting seamstress, unarmed without guns or bullets, but with a breastplate of righteousness in the heart of the confederacy which says ``Like a Tree Planted by the Rivers of Water, I Will Not be Moved.'' I will defy the unjust state law that defies federal law. You may fire me, you may jail me, and you may kill me. But like Esther, if I perish, let me perish. Enough is enough! If you need somebody, I am available. Here am I, send me. Rosa Parks: It is not her passing, but in her living, the timeliness of her actions, that bring us here today. It has captured the attention of the world. I was in South Africa meeting with President Mandela last week when the news broke. He acknowledged her impact and sends his condolences. Apartheid ended in 1954 in North America. And in South Africa in 1994. He understands the connections. An NAACP freedom fighter, she offered her body as a living sacrifice. She embodied the hope, the longing and the anguish of three centuries of prayers. Her light in darkness illuminated the path of the majestic leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Together they were part of a team. A season. That changed the course of America and world history for the better. Ms. Parks was in the historical rocking chair between the legal triumphs of Thurgood Marshall and the prophetic utterance of Dr. King. It is our burden to put her in context of our struggle. And not allow wolves in sheep's clothing to mis-interpret her legacy, or our struggle. So when children ask of us, who was Rosa Parks? We shall tell them how she helped get us across the rough waters. Why was she arrested? Is it relevant today? Or is this some sentimental journey that we are on, with all of these services and celebrations. She was arrested for defying State's rights laws-- segregation--a hangover from the Confederacy. The South would not honor the dream of a more perfect union. And the red states still resist. The relevance of her living legacy is no sentimental journey. So today, as the courts are stacked with States' rights judges, and New Orleans' people float face down in the waters, and civil rights are suspended, prevailing wages suspended, affirmative action suspended, environmental laws suspended, veterans preferences suspended . . . As FEMA will not give the addresses of the people exiled in 41 states. The addresses that will allow the State Board of Elections to communicate with them so they might vote in February. New Orleans is being de-populated with its people stranded in exile. While Louisiana is being demographically re-configured. Is this struggle relevant today or is this service a sentimental journey? For our sister beloved Rosa, we must adore, admire and love her. But we must not romanticize her mission. Hers is an act of defiance, challenging the prevailing right wing political, legal and religious order. She challenged state's rights in the heart of the Confederacy. Her mission was to even the playing field, to afford all Americans equal protection under the law, to gain and defend civil rights--she sought a more perfect union. Many of her former adversaries have changed stripes or parties, but not their anti-civil rights, anti-labor, anti- gender equality, and anti-poor agenda. To be on her freedom train requires the courage and the vision to defy unjust law, take the risk and live with the consequences. After 58 years of legal racist segregationist apartheid law, upon continuous charges by the NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, Charles Hamilton Houston, Dr. John Hope Franklin, Dr. Kenneth Clark, the court reversed itself from the 1896 apartheid decision which succeeded slavery. May 17, 1954 was the biggest legal victory we had known since the abolishment of slavery in 1865 and the broken promises of 1877 and the end of reconstruction. But it had no immediate impact on the ground. States continued to defy the law and vilify the court as legislating and engineering change and of not being ``strict conservative constructionists.'' Racial segregation remained in our schools, transportation, trains, public housing, work place, voting. We lived without the umbrella of protection of the law. Emmett Till was lynched, August 28, 1955, (eight years to the day before the March on Washington, 1963). The lynch mob was not prosecuted and the FBI did not investigate. His mother brought his bloodied, watermarked body back to Chicago. 100,000 people demonstrated passed his body . . . afterwards they were never the same. Jet and the Black Press told his story. There was an emotional uprising. I once asked Ms. Rosa Parks, why did she not go to the back of the bus, given the risks? She said I thought about Emmett Till and I could not go back. She said, ``My legs and feet were not tired, that is a stereotype, and I felt violated. I paid the same fare as others, I was not going back.'' She stood with Emmett Till's mother until the very end, reaffirming that kindship. Her dominant feature was not that she was a seamstress; she was not arrested for sewing. She was a dignified, resisting freedom fighter. An NAACP officer at a time when the NAACP was banished from most parts of the south. Most teachers could not join and keep their jobs. The states defied federal law, and she defied the state law. She took the test, paid the price and the law failed. She was arrested for defiant behavior. She went counter- culture. She resented the sign above the drivers head that read, ``colored seat from the rear, whites from the front. Violators will be prosecuted.'' She chose with resolve and courage to fearlessly face the option of being fired, jailed or killed to test the law, December 1, 1955. An immediate after effect was the emergence of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A one year boycott, his house bombed--they were threatened. She won the legal case after 13 months. It took 10 years of testing to get from the back of the bus to the right to vote. Sitting down, we hear over and over again was a simple act by a dignified woman. The act was simple, but the reaction was violent, relentless, led by the State. Arrests, loss of jobs, death threats. Governors blocking school doors, state terror. And the resistance of her challenge for a more perfect union is still under attack by the devotees of State's rights, undermining a more perfect union for all Americans. It was the first of many courageous tests: 1957, Daisy Bates and the Little Rock Nine; the sit-in's of the 1960's; the assassination of Medgar Evars and others; the killing of Jimmie Lee Jackson that triggererd the Selma March; the killings of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney; The Birmingham bombings; the march from Selma to Montgomery to end the reign of legal state sponsored terror. There was a long bloody road ahead after December 1, 1955. Of course, by extension today, abandoned cities, flourishing suburbs, second class schools and first class jails. Three strikes and you're out . . . even if you don't have a bat, rather than four balls and you're on, because we really intend to leave no child behind. We, with a narrow view, say Rosa Parks would not get up and let the white man have her seat. It was not about ``A'' black woman, and ``A'' white man. It was a dilemma of all blacks and all whites. Victims of a system with all losers. The white bus driver would not drive off, the white police arrested her, but they were all victims of racist, state's rights law as well. They were following the legal, political, religious edict of their day. She was following the moral law. She chose Calvary over convenience. The white rider, out of cultural expectation and the law, had a right to ask her to get up. The bus driver had a legal obligation to demand that she move, or the bus would go no further. The police had a legal obligation to arrest her. Those men must now feel awful, and their children ashamed. History has condemned them. But their political leaders placed them there. If they had not done their jobs, they would have lost their jobs, and if she had gotten up, she would have lost her dignity. The legal changes of 64' and 65' allowed both to have dignity and decency. Now Alabama and Auburn can play black and white together. We can choose uniform color over skin color in that game, because the new law protects our shared dignity. Unfortunately 50 years later many still are trapped in the system that chooses racial insecurity and cultural identity over their economic interests and life options. If Rosa Parks were not successful, blacks would have remained at the back of the bus and in a ditch. Southern whites would have remained in the ditch with us. No southerner could have gone to the White House from the south, because of the stigma, just as no white South African could leave South Africa without stigma. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore, President Bush, all owe their presidencies to a new freed South, not hampered by racial stigma. Her act helped to free the whole south. Changing the laws and the culture did not take place automatically or inevitably. It took demonstrations, sacrifice and martyrs. But now with affirmative action and Pell Grant and no more political mileage for governors blocking school doors, we can sit in the front of buses, class rooms, live in a neighborhood of our choice. Auburn could be number 1 last year. Alabama could be undefeated this year and not face the predicament that Bear Bryant faced playing USC and Nebraska without the best talent in the State, and being humiliated by Sam Cunningham of USC and Johnny Rogers of Nebraska. Oh what a morning Rosa Parks ushered in. There are those who will honor her during this season, but who will seek to reverse the course she took and not enforce the laws for which she was arrested and struggled. She is their trophy but she is our morning star. Our 1955 liberation Christmas present. Oh what a morning this noble woman has helped to usher in. This is a time to mourn and celebrate, where we must watch as well as pray. For those on the Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Schwerner, Goodman Chaney, A. Phillip Randolph, Constance Baker Motley, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King side of history, we must be a ware of wolves in sheep's clothing who try unrelentingly to defeat her purpose. While we have gone from the back of the bus in Montgomery, burnished in our memory is the back of the rescue in New Orleans. Like Esther, you counted the costs, took the risks and paid the price. But our God offered you a comfort level ultimately that defied your enemies and surpasses our understanding. Sister Rosa, you are our eagle bird of hope, a gift sent from up above. Like the eagle--a bird of strength. and power and resolve--you looked in the noon day sun and didn't flinch. You looked at the little ones whose wings were less strong and not as long. You inspired us out of our fears, and allowed a rebirth of hope. You stirred your nest, and gave us comfort and protection. You showed us how to fly. Fly fearlessly, no matter the weather. When we failed in our efforts, God allowed you to be close enough and live long enough to pick us up again. We know we fall down sometimes. We got back up again. Again and again. Because you reminded us nothing is too hard for God. You showed us the power of right over might, the power of moral authority, the power stronger than guns and wealth, just by being available to do God's will. You have been the wind beneath our wings. The Lord promised that they who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not feint. The writer promised this morning this great morning, one glad morning, we can fly away. You are faithful over a few things. Now He has called you up higher. Keep looking up to those stars, in their silver sockets of glory, to that place in the sky. Now, Mother Eagle, God today has called you back to the big nest in the sky. This morning, Sweet Angel, take your rest, take your rest. Take your heavenly flight. You made your reservations. You prepaid your ticket. Now you can sit where you choose to sit. You have a reserved seat at the welcome table. When you get tired of sitting, you can just walk around heaven all day. By the way, stop by and give Dr. King our highest regards. Tell Fannie Lou Hamer, howdy. Pluck those bullets out of Medgar Evars' back. Tell Emmett Till what he meant to you. Sit down with Daisy Bates. Stop by and see Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney. By the way, thank John Johnson for telling our story. Tell Mahalia. We are all moving up a little higher. And don't forget to tell Rev. C.L. Franklin thanks for teaching us how eagles stir their nests. Make room for us. It won't be long now. We are too close to turn around now. We've wept bitter tears, but joy keeps coming. Sit where you want to now. There will be no arresting officers. No signs of disrespect. No more handcuffs. We thank you for your hope. We thank you for your healing. We thank you for being available. Good night, Sweet Angel. We will see you in the morning. You served us well. You've done God's will.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening during this 40th anniversary year of Medicare as a strong supporter of this critical health insurance lifeline to all of America's families. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law, the most important and successful family insurance program our Nation has ever known. Medicare was created to provide health insurance to the elderly and disabled in part because only about half of our Nation's elderly and almost all of the disabled actually never had had health insurance. Medicare also played a fundamental role, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in desegregating the American health insurance system by assuring access to care regardless of race or age. Medicare began with 19 million beneficiaries, and since then it has served a total of approximately 105 million people over the last 40 years. Medicare has evolved over time to help beneficiaries maintain health, prevent disease and injury and provide better benefits, including more preventive care, even as inflation pushed the cost of health care higher and higher. Medicare, which covered about 42 percent of expenditures for the elderly in 1968, covered about 55 percent by 1997. Without it, citizens simply could not cope financially as private companies reneged on their promised health and pension benefit to retirees. Today, Medicare provides comprehensive health insurance for nearly 42 million Americans, which includes more than 35 million senior citizens and 6 million people under 65 years of age who are permanently disabled. It continues to achieve its purpose of improving health and financial security for beneficiaries by assuring access to affordable health care and contributing to the significant decrease in poverty among the elderly, which has fallen from nearly 30 percent in 1966 to approximately 10 percent in 2002. What a profound accomplishment we have achieved as a people to make the golden years livable, not threatening. Most recently, however, in 2003, this Congress moved to add a prescription drug benefit coverage program to Medicare. While I have always supported Medicare as an important lifeline for seniors and the disabled, I could not support this particular legislation championed by the current Republican Party and the pharmaceutical industry. It did nothing to lower the exorbitant prices of prescription drugs, and yet it provides windfall profits to these very drug companies. The bill is known as the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act, and it was passed in this Chamber only after the Republican leadership bent their own rules during an all-night session to hold open the vote past the normal 15 minutes to nearly 3 hours as they twisted arms to get the bill passed. I supported the Democratic plan that would have really provided an affordable drug plan for our seniors. Among the shortcomings of the law that seniors are now dealing with is that our government is not permitted to negotiate with the drug companies for the best price. I tried to get that amendment included in the bill and waited up in the Rules Committee until 4:30 in the morning and was denied my ability to offer that particular amendment. I shall never forget that moment. The current program also prohibits seniors in America from buying reimported drugs from countries like Canada. Does that make any sense? Well, it makes lots of ``cents,'' in fact, millions and millions of dollars for the drug companies that want to bar our seniors, particularly those in the North and in the South who can go to other places to buy the very same drugs that are for sale in this country at exorbitant prices. The plan that passed here in the Congress was jerry-rigged in that it requires seniors to pay thousands of dollars for prescription drugs before they reach the $5,000 cap. How are they going to get those thousands of dollars? The bill that passed has a big hole right in the middle that is going to come out of the pockets of our seniors in additional premium costs. The Bush plan also intends to phase out the traditional Medicare program starting in 2010 for almost 7 million seniors, saying that they would no longer need to have a defined benefit plan, but they would get a voucher and could go on to the private market and try to get affordable prescription drugs. Well, tell me now, how affordable do you think that can be? The Republican law, in essence, fails to provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit plan through the traditional Medicare program that is affordable. Until such full coverage is possible, I would urge my colleagues to support the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005, H.R. 328, which would allow reimportation. Finally, in closing, let me say, H.R. 376 would permit the Government of the United States to negotiate the best price for our seniors, and I would urge our seniors to call their area Office on Aging to get advice on what to do in the current situation until we can improve this bill. Seniors Try To Decipher Drug Options (By Luke Shockman) Bob Cain speaks for many senior citizens when the subject is Medicare's new prescription drug plan. ``It's confusing,'' he said as he stood outside a senior center in Toledo's Uptown neighborhood. ``I got the big book [from Medicare], and I looked on the Internet. But I'm a college graduate, and I couldn't understand it.'' Over and over, in senior centers, nursing homes, assisted- living complexes, and around kitchen tables nationwide, senior citizens and their family members are trying to make sense of Medicare's drug plan. It hasn't been pretty. ``I don't think I've met any seniors who are [happy] with it,'' said Julie Dangelo, executive director of Senior Centers Inc., the senior center where Mr. Cain frequents. ``Everybody is confused.'' That said, Ms. Dangelo and other senior advocates have a message for the 43 million Americans on Medicare: Yes, this is confusing, and you are certainly free to complain about it. But ready or not, the clock on the decision-making process will begin ticking Nov. 15. By May 15, seniors will have to decide whether to sign up for Medicare's drug program. If they participate, they must determine which drug-plan option is best for them. Despite all the hassle, the federal government expects seniors who take part in the program could end up saving quite a bit on their prescription-drug costs. Those with low income or on Medicaid likely will have all or most of their drug costs covered by Medicare--above and beyond the standard financial help available through the new program. In an effort to alleviate confusion for seniors and their family members facing this important decision, The Blade has gone to experts and senior advocates to answer some basic questions. So, what should you do first? Relax. ``You don't need to make a decision right now. There's no rush,'' said Kathy Keller, a spokesman for AARP Ohio. ``Don't jump and say, `It's Nov. 15 and I have to make a decision.' Collect all the information, and get your questions answered before doing anything.'' The deadline for taking action and picking a plan is not Nov. 15 but May 15. However, seniors who wait until after May 15 likely will face penalties and have to pay higher premiums and other costs. The first thing seniors need to decide is whether they should even join a Medicare prescription-drug plan. If seniors get their drug benefits through a retirement plan from their union or former employer, they already might be receiving a better deal than what Medicare will provide. By law, those former employers or unions have to send a letter telling seniors whether that's the case. Veterans eligible to receive drug benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs get a better deal through the VA, for example, so they should stick with that. If Medicare's drug plan does sound like it might be a good option, the most important thing seniors will need to have available when picking a plan--or when talking to someone who will be assisting in selecting a plan--is a list of all the drugs they are taking, the dosage amounts, and how often they take the drug. That's a list that doctors say seniors should have handy whether they choose to go with a Medicare drug plan or not. Another key piece of information for seniors to know is whether they qualify for extra financial assistance. The Medicare drug program, in its standard form, doesn't cover all expenses. However, for many low-income seniors, including those on Medicaid, there is extra financial help available. Medicaid recipients automatically qualify. Those not on Medicaid will need to apply for the help, which is available to those making less than $14,355 annually ($19,245 as a couple). The Social Security Administration handles applications, and seniors can call 1-800-772-1213 to learn if they qualify. And remember, there are many people and places with resources available to help seniors in need of help in making these decisions. Use them. While insurance companies will have a vested interest in the plans that seniors choose, area senior centers and many pharmacies and doctors offices are offering assistance, and there's a host of toll-free phone numbers available. Perhaps the best advice for seniors right now: Take your time in making a decision.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this month, most Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving, and we always look forward to being with our families. On our minds this year, however, are the thousands and thousands of Americans who have been uprooted as a result of the hurricanes in the Gulf region who really need a Thanksgiving; and, as we celebrate, we ought to remember them. We ought to ask ourselves how we can really have a Plymouth Rock weekend and find a way to extend a helping hand to our fellow citizens in the South. Today, the newspaper USA Today had a lead story talking about the lack of help that these Americans are receiving from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and thousands and thousands scattered across over 18,700 zip codes in all 50 States, people whose footing will not be firm come Thanksgiving this November. It talks about how the lack of FEMA support has hindered the local groups, the church groups, the not-for-profits, that are trying to help these Americans, our fellow citizens, reposition. They talk about how relief groups have been stymied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's failure to provide basic information about the evacuees. I would like to place on the record this evening efforts our office has been making to try to connect housing from the North in communities that we represent, whether that housing is inspected mobile homes, manufactured homes and trailers, to move those units south, to move that excess supply south to the Gulf to people who need the help. Do you know FEMA does not even have a central Web site yet where we can offer these available units? I represent the longest coastal district in Ohio. We have mobile home courts, manufactured housing, fishing trailers, we have all kinds of units that are sitting empty now that are on the list for sale. They could be easily inspected by Ohio inspectors or taken down to Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, places where people have been displaced. FEMA cannot even create a central records system. The article this morning talks about the National Low Income Housing Coalition and all the trouble they are having getting basic information about who needs help, who needs shelter as we approach Thanksgiving, how many people have been displaced, where are they living. How is it possible this many months after these tragedies we do not have this information? FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said she could not explain why at least three relief groups did not get the data. And, by the way, even our government's Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are waiting to receive this basic information. Douglas Culkin of the National Apartment Association, one of the most recognized organizations in our country, says that his association, anxious to be helpful, cannot get information on where evacuees are staying; and at an October 17 meeting here in Washington, Mr. Culkin said he was told someone would get him the information. Guess what? He still does not have it. He says it is unconscionable, and I agree. What could be so hard about linking supply from the North, for example, with people who need help in the South? Why do I have to come down here to the floor of the Congress and let the country know that, again, FEMA just cannot seem to get its act together? I had to call the office of the new director of FEMA, R. David Paulison, who did return my phone call, and I appreciate it very much, simply to let him know that I wanted somebody in that agency who knew something about housing, or I said, lacking that, get us somebody from the Department of Defense who is used to putting up field housing. Let's get an interagency transfer and someone who can work with us to move supply, excess supply from the North to those who need supply in the South. Even if it is temporary, it is better than nothing as we approach Thanksgiving season. Why should this be so hard? All you have to do is talk to the people who run the manufactured housing parks, the mobile home parks, the trailer parks. Let us get those units inspected. We can even put them on trains. I represent a major rail center. We can get them down into Memphis and take them right into Gulfport, Mississippi. What is the problem? Why cannot FEMA help us? Plenty of stories have been written about Mississippi. The Manufactured Home Association down there says they have sent notices to FEMA offering housing, never receiving a reply. That is from people inside of Mississippi. Then they found out that Mississippi's government, the government of Mississippi, made purchases from outside Mississippi rather than inside Mississippi. So, Mr. Speaker, I will place this article in the Record this evening; and, please, we are begging FEMA, let all Americans have a blessed Thanksgiving this year. [From USA Today, Nov. 1, 2005] Lack of FEMA Data Slows Relief (By Mimi Hall) Relief groups trying to help Hurricane Katrina evacuees find new homes and reunite with families say they have been stymied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's failure to provide information about evacuees. ``It's scandalous,'' said Sheila Crowley of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. ``Congress should have hearings about the lack of information that's available.'' Crowley said her organization has been trying for weeks to get information that FEMA collected on how many people were displaced from low-income housing and where they are living. She said the group needs the information to ``understand the various situations that evacuees find themselves in.'' FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews said she couldn't explain why at least three relief groups didn't get the data. She said FEMA is ``happy to share'' the information except with groups trying to profit from the evacuees. Most groups that have complained are non-profits. Others that requested but didn't immediately receive the data were the government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The complaints have sparked the latest wave of discontent against the beleaguered disaster-relief agency. Since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, FEMA has been widely assailed for its response. PICO National Network, a coalition of 1,000 churches, including 100 in New Orleans, also has been trying to collect information about evacuees' whereabouts to help pastors find parishioners and help them contact relatives and friends. ``It's critical that we rebuild all these social networks,'' PICO's Gordon Whitman said. Many of the groups are seeking updates to data that FEMA had given to USA TODAY. On Sept. 29, the newspaper published a map showing that tens of thousands of evacuees were scattered across 18,700 ZIP codes in all 50 states. Douglas Culkin of the National Apartment Association said he wants the information so his association can determine how much apartment stock is available in towns and cities where evacuees are staying. At an Oct. 17 meeting with FEMA officials in Washington, D.C., Culkin said he was told someone would get him the information. He still doesn't have it. ``It's unconscionable,'' Culkin said.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to place on the Record the extraordinary profits of one corporation registered with the New York Stock Exchange by the name of Exxon. Today, news reports indicate that Exxon, the world's largest publicly traded company, has posted the largest U.S. corporate profit in world history: nearly $10 billion. That is $10 billion in just 3 months. We know where that money came from. It came from all of us. It came from the American people. Quarterly profits for Exxon are up 75 percent since last year. The revenue of this company alone will ring in at over $100 billion this year. Now how big is $100 billion? Well, $100 billion is about one-quarter of what the U.S. Department of Defense spends in 1 year. But $100 billion is more than all of the following U.S. Departments spend in a year combined. The whole U.S. Department of Education, all of the student loans, all of the help for our school children around the country, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the profits of Exxon. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that is small potatoes compared to what Exxon earns. The Department of Transportation, with all of those bridges across the United States that have to be fixed, some in rural areas, certainly in the big cities, crumbling infrastructure, well, Exxon's profits are a lot larger than the Department of Transportation spends in a year. NASA, poor NASA, they only have about $16 billion a year to explore outerspace and the heavens beyond us. If you add them all up: Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and NASA, they do not equal the revenues of Exxon. Now the interesting thing about Exxon, it is the world's largest publicly traded company, but it has a special deal. Guess where most of its oil comes from? Saudi Arabia. Have no doubt, with the special licensing agreement signed with that company, a lot of that money drawn off of this marketplace will not go to education of our children, it will not go to fix up our roads, it is not going to help clean up our environment, and it certainly will not take us as far as Saturn. No, a lot of those dollars will be used to hire mercenaries to protect the Saudi oil interests, which is one of the major places this country imports petroleum from because we cannot figure out how to get it right here at home. Mr. Speaker, $9.9 billion in one quarter. Think of what those funds could do if you did not put them in Exxon's pockets. Think what they could do in your community. Take a program, a teeny program like the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, which spends not $9.9 billion, but $15 million a year. That is pocket change to Exxon. It gives little coupons to senior citizens across our country who cannot afford to pay these rising gas prices and cannot afford to pay for their heating bills this winter. It gives them $20 a month in the summer to go to farmers' markets in their communities to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables. We cannot put it in all of the States. Only 28 States even have this program, and not in every county. But if you ever watch one of these senior citizens take one of those farmers' market coupons and stand in front of fresh fruits and vegetables and struggle with the decision of whether they are going to buy raspberries for the first time in 25 years, what is more important, Mr. Speaker, more profits for Exxon or a little bit to help the senior citizens of America who want to buy fresh fruits and vegetables? Seniors need that food so much that they literally buy it at the end of the day when the farmers reduce their price, and they turn it into soups and stews and put it in their freezers or their friends' freezers so they can have soups during the winter time made out of fresh vegetables that have been frozen. Mr. Speaker, $9.9 billion. I am going to write a letter to the president of Exxon. I do not even know who the person is. I am going to ask if they would take $15 million out of the $9.9 billion in profits they just made to double the senior farmers' market nutrition program in our country. Would they even really miss it? How does Saudi Arabia use all of that money? And why do they need all of those mercenaries to protect their oil wells? Why is that country so unstable? Why do they have to take money out of our pockets through Exxon every single day? It is really unbelievable that one corporation could make that much money off this marketplace in one quarter and this Congress does nothing.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America's economy has an internal rot that threatens our actual independence as a republic. I want to talk about that tonight, and I rise to draw attention to the astronomical and growing current account deficit that grows every day. This is a chart that shows the trade deficit that has been getting worse and more and more red ink every year. In the year 2004, that deficit rose to $668 billion of more foreign imports coming into our country than our exports going out. This red ink drags down economic growth, results in job loss, wage stagnation and actual cuts now in people's benefits for health and retirement and, indeed, wages themselves. This deficit has been clearly increasing. Again, just in the first half of this year, by almost 20 percent more at $394 billion. This represents the equivalent of 2 billion more dollars per day or $1.5 million more per minute in foreign debt. We are literally cashing out America. The tourniquet gets tighter each year, and Americans can feel it. Wages do not go up, your health benefits are more expensive, everything costs more, and you seem not just to be running in place, but running and falling behind. Given the rising cost of oil imports, a significant increase over last year's record high figure is an absolute certainty this year. According to one report, the higher price of oil could add an estimated $60- to $90 billion more to the Nation's trade deficit in 2005. Unbelievable. America, wake up. America's independence is at stake. This deficit not only represents lost jobs in our communities, more and more each day, it is a very real threat to the economic security of our country for the future. The fundamentals are seriously out of whack. Curiously, our sky high and growing trade deficit results in a growing U.S. debt held by foreigners. These foreign investors now hold over half of the publicly traded U.S. securities, and that number has been growing in recent years to the highest in American history. If you look, this is just a listing of some of the countries that own a piece of the rock, a piece of America: Japan, with holdings of nearly $700 billion. Europe, $427 billion. China, Hong Kong, nearly $300 billion this year. That is the fastest growing. That number is going up astronomically. The oil exporting countries own over $134 billion of us, all down the list. If a large number of those investors decided to sell off those public securities at the same time for any reason, or even a portion of them, whether it was due to a sudden lack of confidence in our economy or to a coordinated political offensive, America would face a widespread financial crisis. We are in uncharted waters. In addition to this insecurity, job losses due to increased imports are a reality in every one of our communities. One estimate suggests for $1 billion of trade deficit, we lose 20,000 more jobs in this country. Delphi, and its struggles, are not a fairy tale. In my community in Ohio, workers and businesses are losing out as we struggle to save production. Companies like La-Z-Boy, companies like Clay, reforming firms, Delphi most recently, Ford Thunderbird, so many companies are literally struggling or have closed their doors. As Princeton economist Paul Krugman noted last week, when corporate executives say they have to cut wages to meet foreign competition, workers have every right to ask, why do we not cut the foreign competition instead. During prior decades, America held a surplus in automotive parts. But last year, we had turned that surplus into a trade deficit of over $24 billion, and that deficit grows even more this year. That is why I am now drafting a bill, the Balancing Trade Act of 2005. It would require the President to renegotiate trading relations with a country, if America's trade deficit with that country reaches more than $10 billion for 3 consecutive years. This initiative would require action on the $45 billion deficit we already have with Mexico, a country we enjoyed a small trade surplus with when NAFTA passed in 1993. It would require the President to take action in the face of deficits, like our current $162 billion deficit and growing deficit with China, which has almost doubled since PNTR was passed in 2000, just a short 5 years ago. Each new trade agreement, while expanding U.S. markets so slightly, has brought in a flood of new imports that cancels any gains we make. Not only cancels, but pushes us further behind, resulting in the ownership of the rock by foreign investors. The only action we have seen so far in this administration's efforts to expand the flawed NAFTA in two more countries in this hemisphere was through CAFTA. Look at their effort to muscle that through just about a month ago by one vote here in this chamber, and it was not on the legit. They had to wring arms for every single vote. If the American people were inside these chambers, that never would have passed. Mr. Speaker, I say to the American people, wake up, America's independence really is at stake.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's allies in this Congress are making another truly astounding foreign policy blunder, one that jeopardizes decades of painstaking effort toward peacemaking in the Middle East. Bush allies are proposing to sever our established U.S. military relationship with Egypt at a time when diplomatic ties in the region are more vital than ever. At great sacrifice, Egypt has forged a leadership role in the region and remains committed to peace and progress. Yet rather than stemming terrorism, Bush congressional allies are doing, with their retrograde proposal, just what they did with Iraq: Miscalculating, failing to shape robust diplomatic initiatives, and setting the region up for more terrorism, more bloodletting, and more instability. They want to act tough first rather than smart first. They are hastening more instability as antagonism to the United States grows. Does anybody in the White House recognize that Middle East terrorism is going up, not down? Does anybody notice that polls across the Middle East show a majority of Arabs are now opposed to U.S. policy? Zogby International polls indicate that Arab public attitudes towards the United States are declining. And according to the Pew Research Center, solid majorities in many predominantly Muslim countries surveyed still express unfavorable views of the United States. At a time like this, cutting foreign military assistance to a strong ally risks a vital blow to our relationship with this most populous Arab nation and friend in the region. Ultimately, our troops cannot win militarily when the Iraqi war is being lost politically and diplomatically across that region. The Bush administration's allies in this House are truly ill-advised and ill-timed to sever America's 25-year military commitment with Egypt. Let us remember it was Egypt's valiant President Anwar Sadat who in 1979 stood shoulder to shoulder in peace efforts with President Jimmy Carter and President Menachem Begin of Israel on the White House lawn. I was there as a witness to that majestic day when the most important peace accord of that era was signed, the Camp David Accords. Yes, Egypt's President walked toward peace, and a few months later was assassinated for his vision. We should honor and remember that sacrifice. Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and the most influential in the region, strategically positioned adjacent to the Suez Canal on the borders of Gaza, Israel, Libya and Sudan. Egypt is the nation that has sent 750 troops to safeguard the Gaza withdrawal of Israelis to begin historic resettlement of Palestinians. The Bush allies are not only dead wrong but absolutely wrong; wrong historically, wrong diplomatically, dangerously wrong. Egypt has been a strong ally to the United States and the Middle East for 25 years. Egypt has provided support in the Middle East peace process. The peace between Egypt and Israel is a template for which peace between Israel and other Arab countries can be achieved. Egypt provided troops and facilitated transportation in the region during Desert Storm, and they continue to provide support in Iraq and Afghanistan today. They stand ready and willing to provide needed training for Afghan and Iraqi troops to aid in the stabilization of those countries at no cost, though neither country has taken them up on this offer yet. And Egypt has facilitated diplomatic relations among Arab governments and the Iraqi interim government. Not only are they a politically strategic ally; they are also an important economic ally. U.S.-Egypt trade totals almost $4.5 billion, and last year we had a trade surplus with that country of $1.8 billion. Funds that we offer in aid to Egypt come back to this country in trade. Former President Anwar Sadat had the ultimate vision and courage in 1979. He knew peace required courage. It requires international cooperation as well and mutual support. He understood peace assures human progress, and he gave peace a chance. Let us not be unwise and turn our back on America's military relationship with Egypt, an alliance he helped establish, an alliance that has endured, an alliance that has broadened, an alliance that has made peace across that region possible. Possible in our time. I would hope that the President's allies in this Congress would remove the proposal they have on the table to sever our foreign military assistance and our relationship with Egypt. It could not be more wrong and more poorly timed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that one of the biggest concerns that we hear from our constituents is the unjustified increase in the price of fuels. Just in Ohio today, gasoline is over $3 a gallon. People cannot afford to take their families for weekend drives or vacations because the cost of gasoline prohibits it. Farmers and other small businessmen face higher fuel costs that are making it nearly impossible for them to make a profit. Individuals are concerned about the cost of home heating this year as heating oil and natural gas prices go up faster than windchill blowing across the Great Lakes, and programs like heating assistance for those that cannot afford to pay their bills, like senior citizens, are facing flatlining by the Republican majority in this House when it is eminently clear that the need will be greater this year than ever in the past. We always seem to be able to find money to send to other countries, but we cannot take care of the people right here at home. What a shame. So what does this Congress do about all of this? Tomorrow we are supposed to be debating the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, H.R. 2360. The wordsmiths have been busy little elves with this one because not only does it have the right words to make the public believe that this body is really doing something about the problem, but it really is not. They have tucked away goodies for their friends in the oil industry who thought that the energy bill that some people voted here a few weeks ago was not enough for them. In the words of former President Reagan, ``There they go again.'' They give new regulatory subsidies to the refining industry when those industries' profits are at breaking records. If we look, just in this past year of 2004, the five major U.S. oil companies, Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron and Conoco, have almost tripled their profits, taking in more than $50 billion, $50 billion, more than they did just 2 years before. How much more do they want when so many in our society are living right at the edge? In 2005, after months of suspected price gouging, these five major oil companies are on target to pocket over $100 billion more, nearly $40 billion more than Congress has appropriated so far to rebuild the entirety of our devastated gulf coast, think about that, which has taken generations to build. That is how much money just those companies are taking in. The bill rolls back authority currently given to our Federal Trade Commission to deal with price gouging. It seems to target smaller retailers while limiting the areas that can be investigated for price gouging. According to a September 1 Wall Street Journal article, after Hurricane Katrina, unleaded gas prices surged 36 percent in just 3 days, pushing the wholesale price average up 132 percent above a year ago. And this massive increase occurred despite the fact that in the same 3-day period, the price of crude oil went up just 4.25 percent. Over the past year, crude oil prices have gone up 64 percent, so that means that the wholesale price of gasoline jumped nine times as fast as the price of crude in 3 days and is running more than double the increase of crude over the past year. And these companies are just swimming in the windfall benefits. So instead of renewing our vows to imported oil, we need to be developing new renewable energy sources here at home: wind power, solar, biofuels, fuel cells, hydrogen, clean coal. We consume 25 percent of the world's oil production, spending tens of billions of dollars to import oil from some of the most unstable and undemocratic regions of the world. At the same time, we have only 3 percent of known reserves. According to a study done for the National Resources Defense Council, if we were to follow an aggressive plan to develop cellulosic biofuels over the next 10 years, we could produce the equivalent of nearly 7.9 million barrels of oil per day. That is equal to more than 50 percent of our current oil use for transportation and more than three times what we import from the Persian Gulf alone. We have more than 5 million vehicles on the road right now that will run on 85 percent ethanol and a growing number that run on biodiesel blends of 5 percent or higher. The people who drive these cars in many cases do not even know it, and if they do, they cannot find the fuel in their home communities because we have not done enough to make these renewable and less costly fuels available to our own constituents. What a shame. Some want us to keep drilling. They do not care where. It could be in a critical water area like the Great Lakes. Perish the thought. In my view, we do not need to drill any more holes in our own heads. What we really need is an energy plan that develops self-sufficiency from renewable sources and a plan that not only calls for renewable fuel standards but provides support for the infrastructure and public education campaign to get there. A country that could land a man on the moon can do this as well. We need resolve right here in this Congress. I urge this Congress to take a giant dose of Beano and cast a resounding ``no'' vote on the Gas Act of 2005 that will come up tomorrow. We can and surely must do better for our children.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that tomorrow, Wednesday, September 28, 2005, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation will celebrate its 25th anniversary here in Washington. LISC certainly has a lot to celebrate. This national organization was born out of the foresight of Mike Svirdoff and the Ford Foundation, with just $10 million and the goal of identifying 50 to 100 local economic development organizations worthy of support. Even Mr. Svirdoff himself might not have envisioned that, within a quarter of a century, LISC would grow into an organization that has raised more than $6 billion dollars in grants, loans and equity for more than 1,700 community development corporations nationwide. These funds support projects in 38 cities and rural areas in 37 states. LISC's mission is to help ``resident-led, community-based development organizations transform distressed communities and neighborhoods into healthy ones--good places to live, do business, work and raise families.'' It works toward these ends by providing comprehensive services to the CDCs it serves, from capital to technical expertise, training, and information. In addition, LISC supports the development of local leadership and the creation of affordable housing, commercial development, industrial and community facilities, and jobs. In short, it helps residents build and strengthen their own communities. LISC is an intermediary for more than 900 corporations and foundations, providing technical and financial resources to help CDCs become fiscally sound institutions capable of carrying out a range of community revitalization activities. LISC's second focus is in improving local community development environments. The strength of the organization lies in its abilities to forge partnerships among local LISC programs, community organizations, foundations, commercial interests, and state and local governments. In addition, LISC branches beyond its local focus by advocating for neighborhood-based development and informing related public policy decisions at the federal level. I have witnessed the value of LISC's work first hand, as our local branch has revitalized many of the most distressed communities in Toledo, OH. Toledo LISC currently funds one dozen of our community development corporations, and over its 15-year presence has funded nearly two dozen. As of December 31, 2004, contributions from corporations, individuals, small businesses and foundations totaling $3.6 million had leveraged nearly $60 million for Toledo CDCs. As a result of these investments, redevelopment projects have replaced deteriorated homes and buildings with sought-after housing and commercial real estate. One such project was the creation of Toledo's newest sub-division of market-rate single-family homes. Of the ten new homes constructed thus far, nine have already been sold. This development was possible in part because of a pre-development loan from LISC to the Organized Neighbors Yielding eXcellence (ONYX) CDC. Another of LISC's successes is a result of its alliance with the Toledo Warehouse District Association. The Association developed a mixed-use property with 11 lofts and 10 commercial spaces within walking distance of a variety of entertainment venues. This project cost $2.9 million and included Historic Tax Credits, Lucas County Linked Deposit, a city of Toledo Economic Development Loan, a Congressional special purposes grant, and financing through Fifth Third and Sky Bank. Again, the project was possible because of start-up funds from LISC. Since welcoming LISC into my neighborhood in 1989, it has been my honor to be associated with an organization so important to both our communities and the nation at large. I congratulate LISC on its past successes and encourage corporations, foundations, and individuals alike to continue to support LISC and its worthy mission of converting blighted neighborhoods into vibrant communities.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), for yielding me the remaining time and thank our colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), for participating in this great tribute to the Coast Guard, which we on the Great Lakes know so well. I am honored to add these words this evening as we close the House. That is, Mr. Speaker, summer's end has ushered in the end of an era to the region I represent of northwest Ohio. Our community's elder statesman, Barney Quilter, passed from this life on August 17, 2005, and he had achieved 86 years young. As husband, father, father figure for our community, kind and generous spirit, and political leader, he built a legacy that spanned more than 3 decades of service, even after his 1994 retirement from Ohio's General Assembly. His achievements were stellar. He championed the Maumee Bay State Park on Lake Erie as a lasting legacy to the future, the largest State park in Ohio. He sponsored worker protection laws, guiding into place in our State cornerstones to working men and women's rights. Barney Quilter left so much to all of us. His quiet diligence brought so many efforts to fruition. Improvements throughout our State may be laid to his credit. Former colleague Patrick Sweeney of Cleveland explained that Representative Quilter's legacy can really be found in all of the accomplishments that do not carry his name. He noted, it just got done. You never saw Barney's fingerprints on a news release; it was just the way he was. His influence is, and will be for many years, enormous. Born in 1919 to James and Helen Marie Quilter, James Barney Quilter grew up on Toledo's famous East Side. A boxer, his career ended when he was called into service in World War II where he served in the Army's 167th Combat Engineering Battalion. In 1967, he was persuaded to run for State representative. Reluctant, he finally agreed, but only for one term. Toledo's voters decided differently and reelected him to successive 2-year terms until he retired at the end of his 14th term. Truly a statesman in the best sense of the word, Barney Quilter rose to power and prominence in the Ohio legislature, serving as its speaker pro tempore, leading the Ohio House in tandem with Speaker Riffe for 20 years, an acclaimed and effective, powerful team. Partisanship was not Barney's goal. He worked side by side with legislators to move forward initiatives which benefited all the people of Ohio. Henry Clay said: ``Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.'' This creed expressed by the 19th century giant was exemplified in the tenure of Representative Barney Quilter. His example should be emulated by all of us in public life. A noble public servant, Barney shared his expertise and wisdom with any and all who asked. He was a real mentor to many, including myself; to his own son Bernie who also followed a path into public service. His daughter Mary Ann has devoted herself to her family and to educating the next generation. Barney and Mary's family are living testimonials to the dedication to others their stellar family exemplifies. Despite his legislative career, Barney Quilter never lost sight of his true happiness: his wife and his children. He and his wife Mary shared 52 loving years together until Mary's passing in 1996. For nearly 2 decades, Barney faithfully would minister to her, even reading to her regularly, as she bore gracefully a debilitating illness that made it impossible to communicate with her family. He loved her so much. Barney's own passing leaves his son Bernie and daughter Mary Ann and six grandchildren with our heartfelt condolences. We mourn the passing of this great American. We can celebrate his life and his service. May his strength and goodness guide us all as we seek to follow in his footsteps, always moving forward, no matter how steep the hill. Thank you, Barney Quilter. Onward.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a milestone anniversary in the life of a school in our district. St. Francis de Sales Catholic High School is a college preparatory school operated by the Oblates of St. Francis which has been educating young men since 1955. On Sunday, September 18, 2005, the school, alumni, friends, and our community will celebrate the school's 50th anniversary. St. Francis was the first college preparatory high school in Toledo and is well known for its academic excellence. Nearly all of its students go on to higher education. The school offers advanced placement courses so that more than half of graduating seniors complete their high school education with college course credit. As a result of this coursework, St. Francis has been named a College Board School. In addition to academic excellence, the school fosters a spirit of involvement that encourages participation in extra-curricular activities. St. Francis boasts champion athletic teams as well as a wide array of clubs in addition to a fine music department. Religious instruction is required all four years and students can regularly be found volunteering their time and talents in service to our community. Though the majority of students are Catholic, St. Francis' student body is comprised of students from all Christian faiths, Muslim and Jewish, Hindu, and all socio-economic backgrounds. This is a feature which makes the school uniquely different from others, and truly one of the school's strengths. St. Francis de Sales, the gentleman saint, taught his flock ``The person who possesses Christian meekness, is affectionate and tender toward everyone; he is disposed to forgive and excuse the frailties of others; the goodness of his heart appears in a sweet affability that influences his words and actions, and presents every object to his view in the most charitable and pleasing light; he never admits in his discourse any harsh expression, much less any term that is haughty or rude. An amiable serenity is always painted on his countenance. . . .'' The school which bears his name in Ohio's Ninth District and which we today celebrate strives to imbue this same teaching in its students. It is echoed in the motto of the school: Suaviter et Fortiter, mildly and firmly. Today we recognize over a half century of the spiritual, intellectual, and social guidance of thousands of young men, known in our community as the Knights of St. Francis de Sales. Godspeed, Knights! Onward to another 50 years of excellence.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and I wish to just add that many times people find their families breaking apart and experience a sense of hopelessness because of the pressures that come to bear. It is not that they necessarily have bad character, but, in fact, very bad things happen to them. And in fact, Hurricane Katrina showed us in another way how America's overdependence on imported petroleum leaves our families more economically vulnerable and leaves America strategically more vulnerable to shortages or other market disruptions. If we look in the past year of 2004, the five major U.S. oil companies, Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron, and Conoco, have almost tripled their profits from 2002, taking in over $50 billion more than they did just 2 years before. And guess where those dollars came from? Right out of our pockets, putting greater pressures on family life. In 2005, after months of suspected price gouging, these five major oil companies are on target to pocket over $100 billion more, nearly $40 billion more than Congress has appropriated so far to rebuild the entirety of our devastated Gulf Coast, which has taken generations to build. That is how much money these big companies are making. According to the September 1 Wall Street Journal article, unleaded gasoline prices surged 36 percent in just 3 days, pushing the wholesale price to 132 percent above 1 year ago. This massive increase occurred despite the fact that in the same 3-day period, the price of crude oil went up just 4.25 percent. Over the past year, crude oil prices have gone up 64 percent. So that means the wholesale price of gasoline jumped nine times as fast as the price of crude in 3 days and is running more than double the increase of crude over the past year; and these companies are gaining a windfall benefit. According to information provided by the Congressional Research Service, we suffered a gasoline shortage of 13 percent as a result of Hurricane Katrina. But in 2004, according to a Congressional Research study, 2.5 percent of motor fuel usage in our country came from ethanol, a fuel produced here at home. If we had moved to providing 10 percent of our fuel from ethanol, as some States like Minnesota do, we would have been able to replace more than half of this shortfall with ethanol and put the money in the pockets of our own farmers rather than dictators and kings over whom we have almost no control. As of today, there are about 5 million vehicles on the road that will run on 85 percent ethanol, but most people do not know it, and it is very difficult to find the fuel because these companies do not want to really bring it on line. We need to change this situation. The 2002 farm bill provided the first-ever energy title as part of a farm bill in American history, promoting the production and usage of ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable energy sources. But in recent years, instead of moving to aggressively implement these provisions, the Bush administration has consistently proposed reducing funding for these energy programs. And this is after his own energy plan failed to provide a single one of its 103 recommendations directed at programs offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We have agriculture waiting, a lady in waiting, that this administration refuses to see to help America move toward energy independence. The recently passed energy bill makes additional moves in that direction, but fails to take America in the direction fast enough to counter these massive price increases. Think about it. Oil shortages in the 1970s. Wars in the Middle East in the early 1990s and again now have the supply of oil looming as a prime motivator. Domestic shortages due to national disasters such as Katrina push up gasoline prices to a national average of more than $3 a gallon and local prices as high as $6 a gallon. When will we learn? When will we take control of our own fate? I have sponsored the Biofuels Energy Independence Act of 2005, H.R. 388, to advance research, development, production, and marketing of biofuels produced from renewable sources like corn, soybeans, cellulose, and other biomass supplies. I want to again urge my colleagues to break America's addiction to imported oil right now by taking advantage of technology that is available today. Literally, we could displace one third of imported petroleum with these renewable fuels that could be produced inside our borders. All it takes is leadership. Is it not time?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue a discussion I began last evening about who is responsible for much of the human destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. The Bush administration has been in charge of relief efforts, and it is clear they have failed the American people. Why were relief efforts so painfully slow to get started and, in fact, FEMA not on the ground after 4 days? Meanwhile, trying to fill the gap of a failed Federal administration, our thousands of first responders, volunteers, members of the National Guard and active duty military personnel and religious and committed Americans who are performing exemplary service and deserve the highest praise. President Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said, ``The buck stops here.'' Truly, the buck in this instance stops with the President of the United States. It is he who appointed the Cabinet and subcabinet level individuals tasked with organizing and implementing the plan to deliver timely relief to those in need, and they failed to do that. Yes, the President holds responsibility. His appointees hold responsibility. Specifically, these include the Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and the Federal Emergency Management Director, Mike Brown, and several other individuals. And it has been quite painful for me, as a Member of Congress who served on the FEMA Oversight Committee for a number of years, to witness the constant failures of judgment by this team, starting with the President himself when he took office, and importantly, early on in his administration, hollowed out FEMA, taking away its Cabinet status, saying that it should no longer be an independent agency that reported directly to the President, instead rolling it into the gargantuan Department of Homeland Security and tasking that with eliminating terrorism. FEMA is tucked three levels down in this lumbering massive bureaucracy of 170,000 people which still cannot figure out how to answer a letter. I voted ``no'' on that reorganization; was on the losing side when the President tried to pass that through Congress and was successful, and have now joined with my dear colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), to call for the removal of FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security in order to restore it as a fully independent agency headed by an actual professional with direct reporting to the President of the United States. Now, the first person that the President appointed to head FEMA was his campaign director from Texas who ran the Bush campaign in the year 2000. His name is Joe Albaugh, and he accepted the FEMA position in 2001. And here is what he said back then. He characterized the organization as an oversized entitlement program, and counseled States and cities to rely instead on faith-based organizations like the Salvation Army and the Mennonites Disaster Service. As important as they are, those organizations are not equipped to handle a national disaster. Thank God we have them, but even they know they are not up to the task fully. So the tone was set back in the first Bush administration. And it is instructive to see how the President's appointees have been locked in over at FEMA. We know that Mr. Chertoff, who heads the Department of Homeland Security, is an attorney. He has spent more time in courtrooms prosecuting the Mafia than managing large-scale crises like these. Under him is Michael Brown, the Director of FEMA, who has absolutely no experience in national disasters or emergencies. In the last 10 years before being appointed by President Bush as head of FEMA, he earned about $100,000 a year in a position with the International Arabian Horse Association, where his job was to ensure that judges followed rules and to investigate allegations of cheating in horse races. Most frightening is, after he got his position, and when Katrina hit, he waited 5 hours after Katrina actually reached land to officially request help and legal authority to send rescue workers and supplies into the affected regions. What was he doing during those 5 hours, and why was he not more active ahead of time in evacuating people? As noted by the Center for American Progress, those under Mr. Brown, his deputies, make him look qualified. The number two at FEMA is Chief of Staff Patrick Rhode, who was an event planner or advance man for the Bush Presidential campaign. He had absolutely no emergency management experience before joining FEMA. And under him, the number three person at FEMA, Deputy Chief of Staff Scott Morris, was a press flak at the Bush campaign. He previously worked for Maverick Media, the firm that produced TV supports for Bush's campaigns. I say, who holds responsibility? The President of the United States holds responsibility. The buck stops with him. God bless the people who have suffered and God bless this country. On CNN, just his second day in Louisiana, Brown placed blame on the victims for not evacuating. Most frightening, though, is the fact that Mike Brown waited until five hours after Katrina reached land to officially request help and legal authority to send rescue workers supplies into the affected regions. Despite three to four days of constant alarms that Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane poised to strike Louisiana, Brown did practically nothing to prepare for the devastation that was predicted in the event of just such an occurrence. In spite of the dire warnings of what would happen should a Category 4 or 5 Hurricane strike New Orleans (and the Gulf Coast in General) Mike Brown sat patiently by while the Hurricane delivered 100+ mph winds and a 25-foot storm surge into the region--obliterating towns, killing thousands of Americans and causing what will be hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Mike Brown is not the only FEMA official with little to no experience, though. As noted by the Center for American Progress, ``Brown's top deputies, however, make him look qualified. The number two at FEMA, Chief of Staff Patrick Rhode, was an event planner (``advance man'') for Bush's presidential campaign. He had absolutely no emergency management experience before joining FEMA. The number three at FEMA, Deputy Chief of Staff Scott Morris, was a press flak at the Bush campaign. He previously worked for Maverick Media, the firm that produced TV spots for Bush's campaigns. Morris also has no emergency management experience. In contrast, the top deputies of Clinton-era FEMA Director James Lee Witt ran regional FEMA offices for at least 3 years before assuming senior positions in Washington. FEMA spokesperson Natalie Rule said the absence of direct managing emergencies is irrelevant because top managers need ``the ability to keep the organization running.'' That's all well and good, except for the fact that this Administration cut more than six hundred million dollars last year from funding for local administrators and offices--diverting it to other accounts. Effectively, poor planning and management has created a vacuum of leadership anywhere in this agency that Congress and former President Clinton worked so hard to ``fix'' in the early to mid-1990's. As former chief-of-staff at FEMA Jane Bullock said yesterday, ``We knew that about 120,000 of the people who needed to be evacuated did not have cars, so we would have to position buses. The buses were not there. We knew that the levees would be under heavy stress and so we should position barges with pumps up the Mississippi in preparation for flooding. This was not done. We knew that the Superdome would be used as a refuge of last resort so we should pre-position food and medical supplies. They were not there. There was a lack of leadership.'' [From the New York Post, Sept. 7, 2005] FEMA Fool Sat on His Hands (By Douglas Simpson, Ted Bridis and Ian Bishop) The head of FEMA waited a mind-boggling five hours after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf before even contacting his boss about sending personnel to the area--then suggested workers be allowed two days to get to the ravaged region, shocking internal documents reveal. One stunning Aug. 29 memo--sent from embattled Federal Emergency Management chief Michael Brown to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff--called killer Katrina a ``near- catastrophic event,'' but otherwise lacked any other urgent language underlining the potential magnitude of the disaster. Brown then politely ended his memo with: ``Thank you for your consideration in helping us to meet our responsibilities.'' In another note sent later to FEMA workers, Brown said one of their duties would essentially be to make the agency look good. ``Convey a positive image of disaster operations to government officials, community organizations and the general public,'' he wrote. In Brown's memo to Chertoff, he proposed sending 1,000 Homeland Security workers within 48 hours and then another 2,000 within seven days. In explaining the two-day period that workers had to arrive in the disaster area, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said it was to ensure they had adequate training before going down. The same day Brown wrote his memo to Chertoff, he also urged local fire and rescue departments outside Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi not to send trucks or emergency workers into disaster areas without an explicit request for help from state or local governments. Brown said it was vital to coordinate fire and rescue efforts. Several congressmen have already called for Brown's resignation. In other developments yesterday: President Bush and Congress pledged separate probes into the feds' response to Katrina. The airline industry said the government's request for help evacuating storm victims didn't come until late Thursday afternoon--three days after Katrina made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane. A Long Island congressman ripped into New Orleans officials, who he said did a woefully inadequate job of responding to the hurricane, compared with how New York handled 9/11. ``All New Orleans has to worry about is a hurricane. They don't have to worry about terrorist attacks,'' Republican Representative Peter King said. ``They've seen this coming for 200 years.'' As the Army Corps of Engineers battled to pump out flooded New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin warned that the receding water will reveal horrors. ``It's going to be awful and it's going to wake the nation up again,'' he warned. Late last night, Nagin authorized law enforcement and the military to forcibly evacuate residents who have refused to obey orders to leave. A refugee from the devastated city attempted suicide aboard a commercial flight bound for Washington, D.C., causing the plane to be diverted.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we here in the Congress have just returned to conduct the Nation's business, and our hearts are with the families and individuals who have lost loved ones and are scattered across this country as a result of the terrible, terrible devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The House of Representatives this evening met with the President's Cabinet for nearly 3 hours, and this evening I would like to address concerns regarding how the institutions of this Nation failed the American people and what can be done about it as we try to heal as a Nation and thank those who are extending their compassion and assistance and to try to give strength to those who have suffered so much. There is not a single American who does not feel just horrible about what has happened, and we in the Congress bear responsibility, as does this administration, for the response and its shortcomings. There is a story today in the Wall Street Journal entitled: ``Behind Poor Katrina Response, a Long Chain of Weak Links.'' I would like to enter that into the Record and read from a key section of that article that talks about what went wrong. Number one, the absorption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the gargantuan and terrorism-focused Department of Homeland Security, which I voted against as a Member of this Congress over 2 years ago; I served on the Committee on Appropriations where FEMA came before us. We had an agency that finally worked after 10 years of reform in the Clinton administration, and James Lee Witt, the director of that agency, did such a terrific job. All of that changed as FEMA was subsumed under this gargantuan Department of Homeland Security, which in essence had a very different kind of mission. Just 2 weeks ago, as the Wall Street Journal article recounts, five State emergency managers brought a tough message here to Washington, this was before Katrina, and met with Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary. And these emergency directors told them straight out that the administration was weakening emergency management with potentially dangerous consequences. In fact, Dave Liebersback, the Director of Alaska's Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, said that the Department's focus on terrorism was undermining its readiness here at home. The article goes on to say that there were not firm procedures in place, for example, for directing people and materials when a national emergency such as Katrina would strike. And this article, along with other information that I choose to enter into the record this evening, shows that the appropriations for the funding of FEMA, as part of this major new department, were actually cut by over $600 million in the area of regional operations. These are bad decisions that need to be reversed. The American people and we here in this Congress must do this. A few years ago, when the Department of Homeland Security was being debated here in the Congress, I stated, and reread for the record tonight, ``I do not want FEMA put in the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because FEMA worked. It took us 10 years to fix FEMA back during the decades of the 1990s, so why do we want to stick FEMA into this big new department that will have 170,000 people in it, and we cannot even get direct communications up to the top? The United States fought World War II, and we did not need a Department of Homeland Security. We defeated the Communists during the Cold War, and we didn't need a 170,000-person Department of Homeland Security. We fought the Persian Gulf War, and we did not need it.'' But our words were not successful here in the Congress. And we ended up with a majority of Members of Congress passing a Department of Homeland Security that buried FEMA far underneath this mammoth administrative structure. I hate to call it a management structure because it became a mismanagement structure. And then funding for local responses was cut by over $600 million. Interestingly, the Web site of the current Committee on Homeland Security here in the U.S. House of Representatives indicates a vacancy in the chairmanship, with the movement of Mr. Cox of California to the Securities and Exchange Commission. So even one of the key committees here in the House lacks the key chair as we move into this difficult period. But the point is that there has been very bad decision making here in the Congress that relegated FEMA in terms of domestic affairs, and also, those put in charge over the last 5 years have had absolutely no hands-on experience with emergency management. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, the articles I referred to earlier are submitted hereafter for inclusion in the Record. What Went Wrong? Some reasons why the U.S. didn't adequately protect and rescue its citizens from a natural disaster. The absorption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the gargantuan--and terrorism-focused--Department of Homeland Security. A military stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which made commanders reluctant to commit some active-duty units nearby. A total breakdown of communications systems. Missteps at the local level, including a rudimentary plan to deal with hurricanes. A failure to plan for the possibility that New Orleans's levee system would fail.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the esteemed Ranking Member from New York (Mr. Rangel) for granting me this time. I want to begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that DR-CAFTA will give us more of the great sucking sound that we said NAFTA would accelerate, and, indeed, it did; 1 million more lost U.S. jobs, worsening squalor in Mexico, huge trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, as we predicted would happen. I urge those who have been offered a deal tonight for your vote not to trade your conscience for a deal. If you think about this, American icon companies leaving our country are--just a month ago, Brunswick Bowling Balls left Muskegon, Michigan, adding to this trade deficit, taking 115 more jobs; and then last week from Nashville, Louisville Ladder Group, 110 more lost jobs; and then this week a Kansas radiator company leaving announced it was leaving for Mexico. These jobs go to places where working conditions are abominable, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) has so well documented tonight. Sweatshops rule the day. CAFTA will fuel more such trade deficits as with Mexico, more illegal immigration as people, desperate, try to find some type of refuge north. We know illegal immigration has doubled just since NAFTA passed. We know CAFTA will increase drug trafficking, sexual harassment of women in the workplace. Environmental conditions will worsen. CAFTA will keep Central American workers in sweatshop conditions by rolling back enforcement provisions of the Caribean Basin Initiative, CBI. Indeed, the administration has cut the U.S. contribution to the International Labor Organization for child labor enforcement by 87 percent. What kind of commitment is that? CAFTA will regress democratic reform in the countries where our Central American neighbors live. Your conscience should not allow you to vote for this flawed approach that will bring lower wages and benefits, exploitation and hardship to individuals in our country and our sister nations, where full liberties do not exist. Our policy should be free trade among free people.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the English bill, which will only create more red ink with Red China in our global trade. Our job and trade deficit with China is exploding with more jobs being lost every day. Our red ink in jobs and trade give new meaning to the name ``Red China.'' We need strong and effective laws to make China follow the rules to which we hold everyone else responsible. This bill does not give us those strong and effective rules. Instead of demanding action, the Republican bill calls for more reports, more studies, and more dialogue. It fails to include real solutions proposed by members on both sides of aisle. These include strengthening remedies for American industries hurt by export surges caused by Chinese imports and requiring the administration to take action to bring down China's trade barriers. Further, the English bill actually adds new loopholes that gut the effect of the bill. The bill would harm U.S. trade laws by giving direct effect to the World Trade Organization to impose its decisions against U.S. laws and would create harmful precedents on U.S. sovereignty. I support subjecting China and other non-market economies to our subsidy laws. But this bill actually places restrictions on the Department of Commerce's ability to go after those very illegal government subsidies. In fact, this bill may give China an advantage in this situation. This bill places a greater burden on the U.S. Department of Commerce than current U.S. law or WTO rules to protect the U.S. against unfair competition from China's subsidies. By further limiting counting of subsidies, this places China in a special category above all other trading partners. It also places such a burden on the agency that the costs of doing this far outweigh the gains. There is a provision in this bill that says that DoC must ensure that trade law is implemented consistent with U.S. international trade obligations. This hasn't appeared in U.S. trade law before and could give the WTO special influence over U.S. law. Are we an independent Nation or are we but a client State for multinational giants? This bill fails to address the real problem of our growing deficit with China. In fact, sadly, it appears that this bill is simply a cover for some Members to vote for CAFTA later today. They can say they spoke out about our widening trade deficits, but actually then make them worse by voting for CAFTA. I ask Members to consider their conscience. Why use this fig leaf of a bill that will lead to more job loss, poorer working conditions and more misery for working people in the U.S. and in China, and ultimately with Central America.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, as those listening might recall, the 2004 Presidential election was decided in Ohio, my home State, and the margin in the Presidential race was razor thin. But if you have been paying attention to Ohio newspapers of late, you know that there is a broad and widening major political scandal in Ohio that relates to the last election. People who have paid attention to Ohio or live in Ohio can read about it on the Web site of our local newspaper; the toledoblade.com is the site. But what this concerns is that the highest elected officials in Ohio, starting with the Governor of Ohio, the Attorney General of Ohio, the auditor of Ohio, the Secretary of State of Ohio, were all in receipt of campaign contributions from an individual who is now charged with diverting millions of dollars from the State of Ohio's Workers' Compensation trust fund for personal use and for political use. There is a grand jury that has been empaneled in Ohio now involving the northern and southern districts of Ohio, looking at the diversion of some of these dollars to the Bush campaign. It is a broad and widening scandal, as I have said. Then, today, the Secretary of State of Ohio is mentioned in articles that were published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer and by the Columbus Dispatch in our capital city, and I will just read a couple of the lines: The Board of Elections of our capital city, and that, of course, is Columbus, Ohio, the Franklin County Board docked its executive director a month's pay for accepting $10,000 in his office last year from a consultant from the voting machine company Diebold, with which we have had so many fights over the last 2 years, trying to get verified, auditable paper trails in those voting machines. Now, it appears that that company, through its consultant, actually walked into the office of the director of the Board of Elections and wrote a check for $10,000, which the director of the board was a little reluctant to accept, but said, well, why don't you write it out to the local political party, the Republican Party of Columbus Ohio, Franklin County, which was done. Well, now, this has been all discovered, and the investigation of what has transpired with the Secretary of State's office and Diebold and this County Board of Elections is being investigated. One of our State senators from Ohio, Senator Teresa Fedor, has sent a letter to the Office of the United States Attorney in northern Ohio requesting a formal investigation of Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell regarding possible violations of Federal law, including, but not limited to, the Hobbs Act, regarding improper dealings between the Secretary of State's office and Diebold Election Systems, or their agents. She goes on, and I will place the full letter in the Record, to ask the Inspector General to look at a series of conflict of interest questions here and the gravity of pay-to-play allegations, to determine whether Mr. Blackwell, the Secretary of State, violated Federal law by accepting campaign contributions in exchange for official acts. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has been happening in Ohio, there has absolutely been a preference for the Diebold machines; there have been delays, there have been all kinds of efforts made to advantage one company over other companies. I want to place some of these news articles in the Record tonight. Also, there is a huge court case pending between a company called ESS, which is another company that has voting machines, and Diebold Corporation. That is in the courts. Our Secretary of State is saying, oh, you have to pick these machines, you have to pick the Diebold machines; they are the only machines that we have certified without giving other machines an equal chance. What is interesting about this is that Ohio has received $136,552,794 over the last 2 years to purchase these machines, so there is Federal taxpayer dollars involved, and another $44,616,967 for training of election officials. None of those training dollars have been spent, but $136 million has gone out for hardware in a very narrow process where one company has been so very advantaged. So I just wanted to draw people's attention to what is going on in the State of Ohio, to the ongoing court case, to the false deadlines set by our Secretary of State, now by the investigation that has been requested by our very high-ranking senators of the U.S. Attorney in Ohio, and I commend listeners to the toledoblade.com Web site to the developing political scandal in the State of Ohio. [From the Blade Columbus Bureau, July 19, 2005] Elections Chief Punished For Taking Check Franklin County official accepted $10,000 on behalf of GOP from diebold consultant (By Jim Provance) Columbus.--The Franklin County Board of Elections yesterday docked its executive director a month's pay for accepting a 10,000 check in his office last year from a Diebold Inc. consultant seeking county business. Matt Damschroder accepted the check on behalf of the county Republican Party. He came forward after a Diebold competitor, Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software, sought to depose him as part of a lawsuit alleging special treatment for Diebold on the part of Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Mr. Blackwell plans to seek the GOP nomination for governor in 2006. His office denied any connection between campaign contributions and his decisions affecting Diebold. Diebold's device has the only computerized touch-screen machine so far to win state certificatlon for its paper- receipt backup system. Such a system was mandated last year by the Ohio General Assembly. Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien had suggested that Mr. Damschroder be fired. He would not confirm yesterday that an investigation was under way. According to Mr. Damschroder, political consultant Pasquale ``Pat'' Gallina, who works for consultants Celebrezze & Associates, walked uninvited into his office in January, 2004, on the day the board was considering a contract for voter-registration software. He offered to make out a check to him on the spot. Mr. Damschroder said he instead accepted a ``voluntary'' contribution to the county GOP. A former executive director for the party, Mr. Damschroder accepted the check even though the law prohibits using government property for political business. ``I don't believe I committed a crime,'' he said. ``I think I did something that would best be described as a lapse of judgment and clearly in the gray area . . . The biggest thing I wish I had done was throw the guy out on that day he came in and certainly not have taken physical receipt of the contribution.'' The county has joined the ES&S lawsuit, which seeks to break Diebold's monopoly on touch-screen machines available to counties. Celebrezze & Associates is on a monthly retainer for Diebold. ``Any contribution he made was on behalf of Celebrezze & Associates and of his own volition,'' said Diebold spokesman Mike Jacobsen. ``Diebold had no knowledge of any such contribution. ``Diebold does not condone any political contributions made on its behalf, implied or otherwise,'' he said. ``In particular, our company's ethics policy restricts political contributions since June, 2004.'' That policy was, in part, a reaction to a letter authored by Walden O'Dell. chief executive officer of Diebold, Inc., of North Canton, Ohio. In the letter, Mr. O'Dell promised to help deliver Ohio to President George Bush, triggering a firestorm during the presidential election campaign. The Lucas County Board of Elections has selected Diebold to supply its touch-screen machines. A review of filings with the county elections bureau by the county Republican and Democratic parties revealed no contributions from Mr. Gallina. In a phone conversation that took place a year after the contribution to the party, Mr. Damschroder said Mr. Gallina bragged that he had been given $50,000 to Blackwell interests and worked with Blackwell campaign adviser Norm Cummings to position Diehold for state business. ``I have never asked, accepted, received, or was offered any money [from Mr. Gallina], period,'' Mr. Cummings said. Mr. Gallina, of Reynoldsburg, could not be reached for comment, but he told the Associated Press there was no $50,000 contribution for Mr. Blackwell and that the $10,000 to the county party was his own money. Mr. Gallina has given a total of $8,000 to Mr. Blackwell's campaigns since 1998, according to records filed with the secretary of state. Also in January, 2004, he gave $10,000 to Citizens for Tax Reform, a Blackwell-backed group that unsuccessfully sought to force repeal of a temporary penny- on-the-dollar sales-tax surcharge enacted in 2003. Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said Mr. Blackwell made several decisions adverse to Diebold, negotiating contracts at first with four manufacturers of touch-screen and optical- scan voting machines to give counties a menu from which to choose. Later, after lawmakers enacted the requirement for the voter-verified paper audit trail, Mr. Blackwell took all touch-screen devices, including Diebold's, off the table because none had been certified as meeting the new mandate. Mr. Blackwell later reversed position when Diebold's receipt-equipped machine won federal and state approval. ``It wasn't the secretary of state who forwarded the VVPAT requirement,'' Mr. LoParo said. ``It wasn't the secretary of state who prevented vendors from meeting that requirement. From the beginning, this process has been transparent and fair.'' Sen. Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo) yesterday urged U.S. Attorney Gregory White to investigate Mr. Blackwell's dealing with Diebold. ``We need to get to the bottom of this,'' she said. ``I don't care if it was $50,000 or $5, you're not supposed to be able to buy influence in America.'' Mr. Damschroder said the loss of 30 days' pay will cost him $11,220. William Anthony, Jr., chairman of the Franklin County elections board and that county's Democratic Party, said the board believes there was no criminal intent on Mr. Damschroder's part. As for Mr. Gallina, Mr. Anthony said, ``If somebody gives you a check for $10,000, I guess they would want something.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to enter into the Record the compelling story of one of our soldiers from Iraq. This is a soldier who voluntarily joined our Army in February 2002; trained as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia; sent to Fort Riley; participated in the opening stages of the war, fighting all the way to Baghdad where he would remain for the next year and was promoted to the rank of sergeant during his service to the United States and was honorably discharged. He is 27 years old. His writings include this: A view of Iraq from a soldier dated this July 2005. He says, ``I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I can offer some firsthand experience of the war on Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. ``My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American people are being told by the Bush administration. My opinion on this matter comes from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.'' He talks about members of the Bush administration creating an image of wine and roses in terms of the aftermath of the war. And Vice President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as liberators. But he goes on to say, ``I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward. What I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his administration stated to the American people. The invasion was very confusing,'' this soldier says, ``and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterwards. At first it did seem that all the people of Iraq were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but that was only for a short period of time. ``Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in the country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that read, `No Saddam, No America.'' ' ``These were people that Saddam oppressed. They were his enemies. To me it seemed they hated us more than him. At that moment I knew it was going to be a long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I would never be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. ``As a soldier this concerned me because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt they viewed me as a foreign occupier of their land. That lead me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands. ``During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called insurgency. I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush administration, the media, and the supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. ``But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country. I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of al Qaeda, leftover Baath party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country. ``On October 31, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protestors were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. ``My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising. So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. ``During the violence that day, I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him I was still alive. ``A few months earlier President Bush made the statement `Bring it on' when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive. ``I did my job well in Iraq. My superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out our missions. My time as a team leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the Green Zone in Baghdad to train the Iraqi Army. And I was more than happy to do it because we were being told in order for us to get out of Iraq completely, the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. ``The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremonies such as marching and saluting.'' Mr. Speaker, I will continue this Special Order later this week, and I thank this soldier so much for his courage to tell what he personally lived in Iraq.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone at the Department of Veterans Affairs from the time of Abraham Lincoln has read: ``To care for them who shall have borne the battle, their widows, and their orphans.'' Why can this administration not keep that promise? Veterans who have served our country and are now coming home, and the World War II, Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf War vets who are aging, are lined up, over 50,000 currently waiting to get into the system. Our doctors and nurses are stressed out. We know we need $1 billion additional funds for veterans health care. We seem to be able to find money for everything else in the world, but the administration cannot get it right, or does not want to get it right on veterans care. A couple of weeks ago they said they did not need any more money. Then, yesterday, they said, oh, wait, maybe we need $300 million, when their own chairman that they took off the committee 2 years ago, robbing him of his distinguished career here in public service to veterans, told us we needed $1 billion, and they ripped him off the committee. That is really wrong. It is not meeting our commitments to those on whom our freedom rests. And do my colleagues know what? It is having a major impact on our ability to recruit in our Guard, Reserve and Army, because they do not believe that this country will keep the promise that we have had enshrined since Lincoln . . . to care for those who have borne the battle.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to talk about a cultural change occurring in the U.S. military that is very troubling to me. For those people who have served our country and continue to serve our country in the military service, the words honor, duty, God, and country mean everything. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of our patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States military over the decades, and they inspire a calling to rise above one's own self-interest for the betterment of our Nation and her highest principles: Liberty, equality and justice. Those high principles are in stark contrast to what the World Book Dictionary defines as a soldier of fortune, ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, for adventure or for pleasure.'' I could not help but think about this and read and reread that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel engaged in the Iraqi war dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military. Guards for private security firms on average are earning $400 to $600 a day or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year, and they are earning it tax free. That is right. These salaries and tax-free dollars are provided so long as the men remain in-country for more than a year. The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly a thousand dollars a day for an astronomical salary of $365,000 a year. Let us compare that to what we provide the men and women who have served in our military for 6 years, not even the 1 or 2 years that most personnel in Iraq are at. A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day, for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 a year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments and are in the most danger and need the most support, earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous. General Omar Bradley, the GI general himself said, ``Leadership in the democratic Army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.'' I thought a lot about those words as I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crash commercialism. The utter mismanagement of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of the honor code and the diminishment of the meaning of the words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception. Let me be clear. For those soldiers, both enlisted personnel and officers serving under the time-tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable, their will resolute. No, my apprehension lies with the architects of war. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned is with the actions of the President and his role as commander in chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Together, they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size in the history of this Nation. Never before have so many private contractors, an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors, been utilized in such a function to perform critical security and military needs in theater, duties that heretofore had been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command beginning with the commander in chief and his joint chiefs of staff. Mr. Speaker, no one in Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of our colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel back then, including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third country nationals. No additional information, no specifics on the contracts awarded, just a list. And so we watch the news, and we try to figure out what is actually happening over there. According to an excellent journalistic expose' on Frontline, and I quote, ``Beforehand handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established Memorandum 17, a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.'' Mr. Speaker, what on earth is going on in Iraq? How do we distinguish between soldiers of fortune and those of our own military who are committed to honor, duty, God, and country? Why can this Congress not get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors, including some from third countries, to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war, and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions, and Members can rest assured I will refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers to those responsible. What really bothered me was when I saw that Paul Bremer at the beginning had guards around him that did not have military-issued uniforms nor U.S. Department of Defense weapons. I began to ask questions. I will continue to raise them, and I include for the Record some additional materials. Honor, duty, God, country. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States Military over the decades. These words inspire a calling to rise above ones own self for the betterment of our nation and her highest principals--liberty, equality, justice. General Omar Bradley (the GI General himself) said that ``Leadership in the democratic army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.'' / General George Marshall, the architect of the Marshall Plan and one of the foremost General officers of his day is oft quoted as saying, ``Morale is the state of mind. It is steadfastness and courage and hope. It is confidence and zeal and loyalty. It is elan, esprit de corps and determination.'' If only we were to heed the words of these two incredible men as we continue to engage in a costly and unpredictable war in Iraq. Instead, I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crass commercialism. The utter mis- management of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of the honor code--and the diminishment of the meaning of words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception. Let me be clear. For those soldiers (both enlisted personnel and officers) serving under the time tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable. Their will resolute. No, my apprehension lies with the architects of the War. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned, is with the actions of this President in his role as Commander and Chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Together they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size. Never before have so many private contractors (an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors) been utilized in such a fashion--to perform critical security and military needs in theatre. Duties that had heretofore been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command--beginning with the Commander in Chief and Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Speaker, no one in this Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel (including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third-country nationals). No additional information. No specifics on the contracts that were awarded. Just a list. My colleagues and I are forced to rely on the tabulation of news articles and press releases to keep on top of what companies are operating in theater, what duties they may or may not be performing and just how much money the United States government is paying them. According to an excellent journalistic expose on the PBS program Frontline, ``before handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established ``Memorandum 17'' a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and at least 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.'' Mr. Speaker--What on earth is going on in Iraq? Why can't this Congress get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war--and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions Mr. Speaker, and you can be assured that I refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers from those responsible. Perhaps the problem is the constant replacement of theater commanders during an already tumultuous occupation. After the ground victory, the U.S. watched the architect of the rapid sprint to Baghdad--General Tommy Franks--retire early. When his photo appeared like a 12 inch high pin up on the cover of Cigar Aficionado Magazine in December of 2003, just months into the occupation, I wondered what Generals Joe Stillwell and Omar Bradley would think. In that interview, General Franks discussed the over-reliance on Reserve troops, and the types of jobs that U.S. military personnel were asked to handle. He said ``We need to get people out of those jobs, get civilians in them, and get our military into the jobs that are the highest payoff in terms of the military skills.'' I thought to myself: ``This is coming from a general who has left nearly 150,000 of his troops in theater, while at the same time feels that we are not allocating our resources in the best way possible.'' I couldn't think of a single precedent for such an action-- to leave before relative calm was restored. Before the peace was won. General Franks had it half right. We are getting civilians into thousands of jobs in Iraq with ease, but we're doing it in exactly the wrong way. We are filling critical slots with civilians who are paid far more money than regular U.S. troops, who have a much more cavalier attitude toward duty, justice and honor and who are simply wrong for the job. My concerns grew exponentially during the first year of the occupation. It was quite a shock to see Ambassador Paul Bremmer on the front page of the New York Times guarded not by U.S. soldiers (in regular military uniform and carrying military issue weapons), but by private contractors in civilian clothing looking like something out of the NYPD undercover squad. To then learn their salaries were 5 to 10 times as high as our soldiers--who by the way still can't get adequate body or vehicle armor--riveted my attention. Then, on March 31, 2004, four Blackwater USA guards (again, private military/security forces) were ambushed by Iraqi insurgents while on escort-duty west of Fallujah. As recounted, ``The guards were killed; a mob of Iraqis set their cars on fire and hung two of the bodies from a bridge. The families of the guards are suing Blackwater for wrongful death: They claim the company did not meet its contractual obligation to supply two SUVs with three guards per vehicle.'' Those men went into Fallujah without notifying or seeking the approval of the U.S. Marine Corps, then responsible for the security of that sector. Tragically those men lost their lives and it is a miracle that our own military servicemen--who were ordered in to recover their remains--escaped uninjured. More importantly, the regional Marine commander was forced to alter his strategy for quelling the insurgency to not only recover the remains of the men, but deal with the heightened tensions caused by the incident. Mr. Speaker, the World Book Dictionary defines a soldier of fortune as: ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, adventure, or pleasure.'' I cannot help but read and re-read that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military. Guards for private security firms on average, earn $400 to $600 per day--or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year. Tax-free. That's right Mr. Speaker, these salaries are tax-free providing that these men remain in-country for more than one year. The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly $1000 a day for an astronomical $365,000 yearly salary. Let's compare that to what we provide the men and women who'' have served in our military for six years (not even the one or two years that most personnel are in Iraq). A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day--for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 each year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments, are in the most danger and need the most support might earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker. In my hand I hold a solicitation sent to a police officer in my Congressional District in Toledo, Ohio. It is from DynCorp International LLC and promises an annual compensation of over $120,000 to perform an ``armed, plainclothes mission'' to ``help the Iraqi judicial system organize effective civilian law enforcement agencies.'' This is what we are dealing with on a daily basis Mr. Speaker. As the U.S. attempts to secure the peace in Iraq, thousands of individuals are flooding into the country to perform armed, dangerous and complex tasks, often with little to no formal or military training. A constituent of mine reports that her husband of more than 20 years, who moved to Kuwait last year to take a very high-paying job ferrying security personnel into (and out of) Iraq, is earning a huge salary and may not return to the U.S. He has decided to divorce her for a much younger Asian woman who has moved to Kuwait. Both intend to remain in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, this is not honor. It is not duty. It is not God. And it certainly is not country. It is money. It is adventure. It is pleasure. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: what is a soldier and what is a mercenary? Why are we short-changing, under- supplying and selling out our own U.S. troops to pay private military companies hundreds of millions of dollars so that their professional warriors can earn exorbitant salaries? I will be in the well of this House (every day if I must) asking these questions until they are answered in a satisfactory manner. Mission Iraq annual compensation $120,632.00 Foreign Income Tax Exemption Applies

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this opportunity and take great privilege in coming to the floor today to place into the public realm a concern that is deep-seated in the city of Toledo and the State of Ohio which I am so honored to represent. It in fact deals with corporate manslaughter. I stand today to oppose any weakening of OSHA statutes, and support the Owens bill to strengthen worker safety and protection. For, in fact, if those protections had been in place, the men I am going to tell Members about today would not be dead. Our community would not be in mourning. Their families would not be in mourning. We have all observed with awe the marvelous photos of construction workers sitting on I-beams swinging above some of our Nation's major cities. High above New York City is one photo that comes to mind, as we admire the skill and the daring of these Americans who put their lives on the line every single day. These tradespeople indeed build America. I cannot think of a citizen in our country that does not respect their prowess and their skill. Well, the worst construction accident in the history of the State of Ohio occurred in our city on February 16 of last year. It occurred on a Federal project, a Federal project that I had authorized and that has been being built now for several years. I was so proud when we passed that legislation. I said this is going to be a Federal project which is going to be built without one death, and we worked for almost 2\1/2\ years to sign a safety agreement with each of the trades involved in this project and with the major company and the State of Ohio. It was difficult to bring them all to the table. I said I did not want this to be another Mackinaw. I did not want dead men at the base of another river. Instead, I hoped we would build this project and demonstrate respect for those doing the work. Well, on February 16, 2004, these four men lost their lives. Several others were seriously injured on this job. Crushed to death on this job were ironworkers Mike Phillips, age 42; Arden Clark, age 47; Mike Moreau, age 30; and Robert Lipinski, Jr., age 44. I cannot tell Members what it was like to go to the funeral of each of these men. How poignant, how unforgettable to be with those families following an accident I know could have been prevented. But, yes, there were people in this city, people in our capital of Columbus, people in that company who did not care, who simply did not care. One of the men who lost his life, his nickname was Bubba, Bubba Lipinski, he was such a magnificent man. He weighed about 320 pounds. He was not heavy-set; he was just strong. He was about 6 feet 6. When I walked into the funeral home, his casket was the size of a child's casket, a mountain of a man, crushed to death. Joe Blaze, the President of the Local Ironworkers observed, ``What happened will affect our community for generations.'' The local paper, The Toledo Blade, reported, ``Workers told investigators the crane's rear legs,'' this is, the crane that fell, ``were held up with 14 inches of shims and no anchors in the footers while each front leg had shims in only one of only two anchors.'' The workers were literally crushed when this million-ton crane moved, and it just could not hold itself. And it fell, crushing them to death in the process. The question really is, why did it fall? Incredibly, its feet were not tied down. And people knew that. People in the company knew that. There are internal memos that show that they knew that. But though the accident occurred over a year ago, the State of Ohio, that I view as an accomplice in this willful manslaughter, will not release inspection records. OSHA will not permit its inspector general at the Department of Labor to give us the pre-accident inspection reports. So, who was on site? Who was not on site? Who should have inspected? Who did not? Moreover, there seems to be an issue of whether the Federal Government had responsibility to inspect a ``launching Gantry crane'', which is a specialized type of crane, that is, whether OSHA really had responsibility for inspecting launching Gantry cranes as opposed to other types of cranes. Another major wrinkle, is that this particular crane, and there were two of them, was made in Italy, not the United States. The crane was imported. The men were a little uncomfortable with that. They generally build their own cranes and then build bridges using those cranes. Yet the State of Ohio assured the workers that it was of equal measure to any crane built in the United States. But there seems to be a little stickler in the OSHA regulations that OSHA may not equally regulate foreign imported cranes to the same standards expected of U.S. made cranes. They are not held to the same standard. Hmmm, why would that be? I tried last month during the markup of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to include simple report language in that bill, which is never denied to a member of this House, merely asking the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration to gather all records relating to the inspections that should have been done on the job, or lack thereof, prior to the accident and to provide them to the public record as well as to provide any communications that have occurred with the U.S. Department of Justice related to this accident. This was denied to me as an elected representative of the people of my district. It was denied to me by the Republican majority of this House, by the Republican majority of my committee, and by the Republican leader of the committee that is on the floor today. I am angry. I am very angry. They do not want any oversight. They want the weaker OSHA regulations. They do not care about these men. They do not care about their families. I have asked the majority to hold oversight hearings regarding OSHA's action or inaction in this I-280 Federal interstate highway accident. No word yet. No word yet on their willingness to agree for a request for a hearing. Surely the Congress has an oversight responsibility in a matter as serious as this one. OSHA's Midwest office has ruled there was willful negligence on the job. And for reasons not completely understood, although they ruled willful negligence, they had to change the ruling. The ruling has now been changed. We do not know who changed the ruling. We want to know that. Now it has been termed ``unclassified''. It has gone from willful negligence, or corporate manslaughter, to unclassified. What does that mean? It probably means that as the individual court cases move forth locally, somehow civil litigation is going to be affected by a careful dance of words. How absolutely cruel. Cruel. We talk about being pro- life. You are looking at a pro-life Member, and every one of those lives means everything to us. They went to work faithfully. They worked hard. They did magnificent work. I was up on that bridge last winter. It was blasted cold up there and windy. I represent the Saudi Arabia of wind up there on Lake Erie. They went to work in 32 degrees below zero. It was so cold with that wind factor. Now guess how much OSHA is able to fine the company, and this is a $300 million to $400 million project, how much is OSHA able to fine the company and others responsible for this serious loss, a total of $70,000 for each lost life. $70,000 for each lost life? That is travesty. For 4 lost lives, OHSHA will impose a fine totalling $280,000 on a $300 million-plus project. That equals a fine of .0009% . . . almost embarrassing were it not so wrong. And, the money goes to the U.S. Treasury; it does not even go to the victims' families. What kind of country is this? What kind of shop are we running here? Well, in my opinion, in cases of such gross negligence and criminal manslaughter, there should be more than civil damages and OSHA fines. Our chief of police who is a very measured man said these men were murdered. There is criminal wrongdoing here. You know the amazing thing about our law, though this is a $300-plus million transportation project, I cannot even dedicate a few percentage points to give money to our local county prosecutor to investigate the nature of the negligence get to the bottom of this. The Department of Labor does not allow it. The Department of Transportation does not allow it. How do we find out what happened? My questions are, where was OSHA? Who was investigating and who was inspecting on site? Where was the State of Ohio Department of Transportation? Where was their inspection? Why did they sign an acceleration agreement with the company--to make work on the project move even faster when the workers were a year and a half ahead of schedule? Who knew those footers were not tied down, both at the front and back ends of the launching Gantry crane? Did OSHA purposely not inspect what is termed a launching Gantry crane? Did OSHA not inspect nor require equal standards on a foreign made crane similar to one that is made in the United States of America? Why did I have to jump start the negotiation of a safety agreement before construction started? Why did OSHA not do that? Why did the U.S. Department of Transportation not do that? Why did the State of Ohio not do that? The State of Ohio has got their head in the sand. Those in charge are hiding in Columbus somewhere under the sidewalk. You cannot even find them. Here we have the largest transportation project in Ohio history with criminal manslaughter, and they are all taking the duck. Why is this Congress undermining what little authority OSHA ever had? What are we doing here? And who are we doing it for? Fru-Con, the major contractor? They have been responsible for five deaths in the last year at two different project sites. That is quite a record. We have now been told OSHA has not developed a standard or promulgated a rule stating that foreign-manufactured cranes, like this one, must equal or exceed U.S. safety standards. Who is responsible? On whose hands does the blood of these men lie in this House? On whose hands does it lie? I have a pretty good idea. Recommendations for such a standard were made nearly a year ago but not acted upon. Why not? Why not? Why has this Congress not demanded and implemented as soon as possible these regulations? Or made meeting U.S. standards a condition of eligibility for Federal funding? There is a serious abdication of responsibility here. We were always taught in school, there are sins of commission and there are sins of omission. Both sides of the ledger you are accountable for. Here there is a serious abdication of responsibility by the U.S.--an ommission, a purposeful omission. The inept Department of Labor caused the deaths of these men, as well as those in this Congress that would seek to weaken OSHA and gave no value to their lives. These men died, in my view, because of the apparent willful negligence of our U.S. Department of Labor and the office of safety and health within it that was supposed to be set up to protect their lives as well as their allies here in the Congress who are completely undermining worker safety laws, They have abdicated their responsibility not just as lawmakers but as human beings to their fellow men and women to conduct aggressive oversight. The State of Ohio, as the contractural agent for the federal government, fell asleep on its oversight. The fact there are 4 dead men, and a half dozen injured is grim testament to that. I have appealed already to our Committee on Education and the Workforce to hold hearings into this tragedy in Ohio. The hearings ought to be held in Ohio. It is my hope that, in spite of the actions being taken today, there might be some accountability, some conscience out there that asks--no, that demands--that this Congress act on behalf of the mothers and the fathers and the wives and the children and every single person in our community that goes under that bridge every day or looks at that construction project, all the people that still lay wreaths at the site, they are numerous, all the prayers, all the offerings, all the memories that are there forever. I want to say to my colleague from New York, Mr. Owens you have my strongest support on your bill. I am so sorry that I have to come here to the floor today and speak these words that I know, for the families back home, is so very hard to listen to. But I feel it is my responsibility as the only voice they have got here. I want to say to the ironworkers union, if I can hold my composure, you deserve a lot better than this. You serve us with great distinction. We value the lives of your members and the faith that they put in us to protect them. Some of us take this obligation as a sacred obligation. We salute them.