Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for his generosity in yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the intentions of this Congress and the people of this Nation are turned to the question of war. I would greatly prefer that we take the floor of this People's House tonight to engage the keenest minds and truest hearts of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the difficult and persistent struggles for better health care and financial security for our seniors, economic and social justice for people of color in this Nation, and to begin again to set this country on a course that will revive the prospect of economic growth for our business community and for labor. In fact, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, given a choice, I would rather we wrestle tonight with the issue of how we might as a government meet our obligation to care for our aging and disabled armed service veterans. But instead, tonight we face the prospect of war. And a new generation of good Americans from cities and towns all throughout our districts, who, like their grandparents and parents before them, will be the ones who will answer the call to duty. From my perspective in my district, they will come from neighborhoods like South Boston and Dorchester and Hyde Park and West Roxbury and all across the city of Boston. They will come from the historic blue collar city of Brockton and from the proud communities and historic communities in Braintree and Milton and Norwood and Dedham and Bridgewater, whose streets and town commons are marked row after row with memorials of heroes past, from battles that begin at the birth of our country to the present, and whose grandsons and granddaughters will now be asked to serve in the defense of our freedom. We have been asked tonight to decide whether the President of the United States shall be granted the authority to use military force to eliminate the threat posed by the regime in Iraq led by Saddam Hussein, in the event that all diplomatic efforts fail. This is a question that weighs heavily on me, and it is the gravest question that will confront this Congress. After attending with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle numerous briefings at the White House and with defense officials, as well as independent briefings with foreign policy experts, including the former chief U.N. weapons inspector during the Clinton administration, I have come to the conclusion that the danger to the American people as a result of a failure to act against Iraq is simply too great. In reaching my decision to support this authorization resolution, I have focused on the undisputed facts: Saddam Hussein has developed and deployed chemical and biological weapons. Despite Saddam Hussein's denials, we know that he has actively sought to develop a nuclear weapon since the early 1970s, a pursuit that he accelerated during the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has murdered thousands of his own citizens with chemical weapons, and we know that Saddam Hussein has already given aid and support to terrorist organizations and indeed has engaged in terrorist actions himself as he attempted to assassinate or give directions for the assassination of our former President George Bush in 1993. Saddam Hussein has committed environmental terrorism by setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields and dumping raw crude oil into the ocean during the Gulf War. And he most recently has authorized payments to the families of suicide bombers who would take the lives of innocent civilians, and he has given shelter to terrorists within his own country. As one who shares with my colleagues the responsibility to protect Americans at home and abroad, I cannot and will not stake tens of thousands of American lives or our long-term national security on a hope that Saddam Hussein will reverse 25 years of deceit and aggression. The consequences of a failure to act in this instance will be visited upon our cities and towns. That is the nature of the threat that we face. Unless this man is disarmed, until we know that he no longer has and will not ever develop these devastating weapons, we will not be safe; and international peace will continue to be threatened. Mr. Speaker, we are working with the international community through the United Nations to build a consensus on a course of action that will force Hussein to comply with U.N. mandates. This process is important; and I believe we must continue to try to work with the United Nations, as Saddam Hussein is not just a threat to America, he is a threat to world peace. As well, the consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction are global and the effort to prevent their use should be global as well. I respect the right and the position of my colleagues, especially from my own delegation in Massachusetts who have come to a different conclusion, but I feel in my heart that in the best interests of our country we should support the President's resolution, and I ask the Members to support that resolution.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the victims of the tragic events of one year ago. Last year on September 11th Americans awoke to a brutal attack on our country on its own soil. Throughout the course of this one tragic day, something that at once seemed inconceivable became a horrific reality. No one feels the pain of this day more acutely than the families and friends of the more the than 3,000 people who lost their lives at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. All of these people and their families are in our thoughts and prayers on this somber occasion. Although there is little that we in Congress can do to ease those families' suffering, by adopting this resolution, we are reaffirming our commitment to honor the memory of the people who were lost that day, while also paying tribute to those individuals who unselfishly risked their own lives to protect others. Mr. Speaker, September 11th was one of the most difficult days in American history. But in the darkness of that day, an incredible spirit of bravery and hope emerged. Hundreds of emergency rescue personnel descended upon the scene at both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the sole purpose of assisting others. At the same time, ordinary people demonstrated amazing courage by trying to help others escape while putting themselves in peril and in fighting back against the terrorists on United Flight 93. It is truly remarkable how many people gave their lives trying to protect others. The bravery and generosity of these people is a lasting mark of September 11th. In responding to these extraordinarily trying times, the true fabric of American society was illustrated to the world. Americans around the world came together and generously gave of themselves in a myriad of ways. Rescue workers spent countless hours at ground zero searching for survivors and then shuffling through the debris. Construction workers, ironworkers and other personnel tirelessly worked their way through the wreckage in an effort to cleanup the site. Their important task would not be interrupted by exhaustion, injury or inclement weather. However, far away from ground zero, and across the globe, people generously gave their time, energy, money and caring to help support the loved ones of the lost victims. Today, we honor these selfless contributions. As we gather now, one year later, it is my hope that we never forget the spirit that pervaded this country in the weeks and months following the attacks. As we continue to rebuild and to heal, we will need to draw upon that strength. The American people demonstrated amazing resolve and resilience in the last year, and it is a resolve that we must continue to maintain, day by day, week by week, this year and for many years, that we will preserve our freedoms, protect our families, and work to cleanse the world of the scourge of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11th, Congress rallied in a strong bipartisan manner to quickly pass legislative measures to protect our country. It was this remarkable unity of purpose that most struck me when I was sworn into this body in October of last year. Over time, this unity has dissipated some, but our goal should remain clear. We in Congress owe it to the American people to do all that we can to make sure that the necessary resources are available to protect our country. This is a serious responsibility and not one that should be burdened by partisan debate. In the coming months, we must act responsibly and decisively to ensure that the people of the United States once again feel safe in their own cities and towns. I commend the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties for recognizing this important anniversary and for introducing this thoughtful resolution.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The starting point for this debate this evening should be that Americans have a constitutional right to travel, and history shows us that the Framers of the Constitution and the signers to the Declaration of Independence thought it was an inalienable right and one that came from natural law and that governments were given a duty to protect. I have heard three arguments from the opponents of lifting this travel ban. The first is that because we disagree with the policies of Castro that we should prevent our citizens from traveling to Cuba; yet, if we look across the globe, there are many, many regimes that we disagree with on policy reasons: China, for one, Iran for another; but on a daily basis, our citizens are allowed to travel there. So that is not one that holds up. Secondly, we have heard that history precludes it, as in the Bay of Pigs, I had heard that referred to earlier. Well, we just debated earlier this evening a bill that would establish trade with Vietnam, our citizens are allowed to go there. And what about Vietnam? We lost 48,000 American boys in a war with that country, and yet we allow our citizens to go there. So it is not history that precludes it. Lastly, probably the thinnest argument is that argument around terrorism. I just want to remind people that when we rounded up the Taliban, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld rounded up the al Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan at the Battle of Kandahar, where did they send them? They sent them to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. If there was any chance of Cuba being a hotbed of terrorist activity, that never would have happened. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the Flake amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to express my concerns on strengthening and preserving our nation's Social Security system. We are here today to discuss, H.R. 4070, The Social Security Programs Protection Act. However, I have grave concerns about what we are NOT discussing--namely, privatization, one of biggest threats facing the Social Security Program today. Last week, Democrats filed a discharge petition to demand a public debate on privatization. Democrats think the public has a right to know about the true effects of privatization. Under the Republican Privatization Plan, we would see cuts in guaranteed benefits, massive raids on the Social Security Trust Funds, and the threat that privatization poses to the ability of the system to pay benefits to the baby-boomer generation. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to our next generation to ensure that Social Security will be there for them. Social Security is more than a program, it is a promise. The Republican Leadership is refusing to bring their privatization bills to the floor. Mr. Speaker, we have missed our mission of strengthening Social Security. We have missed our opportunity to strike, a true course consistent with the great traditions in this country of meeting the challenges of each generation. We can only live up to our responsibilities by preserving and strengthening our Social Security system. American families work hard to pay into the system, and they should be able to rely on Social Security when they retire. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to live up to the responsibility that has been bestowed upon us and to strengthen and preserve our Social Security system. Thank you, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, which would try to silence the voices on both sides of the aisle who oppose this fast track legislation. Mr. Speaker, this rule, as well as the whole fast track procedure, takes Congress out of the equation, takes Congress out of the debate and, by doing so, also takes the American people out of the debate. Fast track is nothing more than a silent auction, a silent auction of American jobs, so I am not surprised that the Republican leadership wants this rule. This is not something that they would do in the light of day and with open and honest debate. There was an interesting story in the Washington Post last week where the companies that actually went down to Mexico and ran out on the United States are now leaving Mexico and the maquilladoras for Asian countries because the Mexican workers have had the audacity to ask for $5 an hour in wages. This is a race to the bottom. This should not happen. We should be protecting American jobs.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I think you raise a great point. I think that there is also a sad reality. I just met with about 50 senior citizens in my district who are actually boarding a bus to go to Canada. There was a woman, Mrs. Morgan, who had just fought off her second bout with breast cancer and had been prescribed Tamoxifen, which if she bought it at her local CVS in my district, in and around the neighborhoods of Boston, it would have cost her about $1,500 per year. She was going to Canada to buy in one visit a year supply of that Tamoxifen for $155. There has got to be a better way. Even under the veterans plan, there are hard-nosed negotiations going on between the VA on behalf of veterans and the drug companies; and the drug companies while they are not happy with the negotiations as hard-nosed, they are making a profit. They are making a reasonable profit, however; and it allows the research to continue, it allows drug companies to continue to pursue what we will, I think, in a very short while see as really miraculous developments in terms of prescription drugs for many very debilitating diseases. We need to keep that initiative forward. But we also defeat our purpose if we pass a drug prescription program that seniors cannot afford, which is the great risk if the Republican plan prevails. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his kindness in allowing me to participate this evening.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their great work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am new to this Congress and I must say I had a handful of issues that I thought stood head and shoulders above all issues when I came to Congress; and one of those issues, quite frankly, that I think would greatly improve the quality of life for seniors in this country, America's greatest generation, would be to create a reliable and affordable drug benefit program under Medicare. That was my hope when I came to this Congress, and that is my hope tonight. However, I must admit to great disappointment in reviewing the Republican plan for prescription drugs. I think that we need to start from the very beginning. In 1965, when Medicare was created, I think that back then there was a good-faith, bipartisan effort to develop a plan that would indeed address the health concerns of a lot of our seniors. However, in 1965, the model for health care for seniors at that time, the paradigm, if you will, was for seniors to receive health care. It meant hospitalization in a great many respects. Nowadays, though, fast forwarding to go to what we have today, for many seniors, in order to achieve the goals of Medicare, we need to provide solid, reliable, affordable prescription drug coverage. Many medical benefits accrue to seniors now because of recent discoveries and developments by pharmaceutical companies who have done good work with their research. We need to provide access to those prescription drugs that offer a medical benefit. Today, to accomplish that, we need to have a plan under Medicare that is available to all seniors. Under the Republican plan, there are a number of problems. First of all, a senior citizen would have to go out and find an insurance company or a plan that would allow them to participate. There is an obstacle at the very beginning. I think many seniors who have tried to acquire Medigap insurance, things of that nature through a private insurer, find out those insurers are few and far between, and the cost is prohibitive. Also in this program there is a substantial premium for seniors who would participate in what the Republicans are proposing here. There is at least a benchmark premium of $35 a month, which is $420 a year, with a deductible of $250 a year. Under the Republican plan, the seniors would pay 20 percent of the first $1,000 and then 50 percent of the next $1,000. So if a senior has a regular and serious need for prescription drugs, the very people we are trying to help in this, there are substantial costs. In fact, the out-of-pocket premiums continue until that senior basically has reached the $3,800 a year mark. That is when the full government benefit through their plan would begin. Again, that is not under Medicare. So there are serious problems with that. I think this plan, the Republican plan, allows the seniors to be victims of low expectations. I think we can do better. I sit on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and under the VA proposal, the pharmaceutical program under the VA, we have a straight $7 copay for seniors, for our veterans who participate under that program. It is indeed a model that we should use in providing the Medicaid prescription drug program under Medicare. Now, the way the VA does it, they use the collective weight of their purchasing power and they negotiate in a tough and competitive way with the drug companies. They end up getting a good deal for our veterans through good, hard-nosed negotiations, and that is the type of negotiations we should have with our drug companies on behalf of our seniors under Medicare. The very provision that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has pointed out, there is a provision under this Republican bill that actually requires the administrator not to interfere, not to go after discounts, and not to upset what the market would otherwise charge. I think that cuts the legs out from under this plan and under the administrator and prevents us from actually achieving what we are trying to do in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our seniors to provide for this drug benefit. This is what they need. We have a responsibility to provide it, and we should let nothing come in between ourselves and that goal.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a full drug benefit under Medicare. I have seen firsthand the lengths to which our seniors are forced to go in order to get the prescriptions that they need. Recently I had the sad occasion to meet with a group of seniors from Massachusetts who were actually boarding a bus to travel to Canada in order to get prescription drugs that were not available to them at an affordable price in Massachusetts or elsewhere in the United States. One of these seniors is a woman named Rosemary Morgan, who is a 67- year-old woman who is fighting a recurring battle with breast cancer. Rosemary needs the drug Tamoxifen in order to keep her disease in check and to prolong her life. We are talking about a prescription drug that she needs desperately, not something that is merely an optional drug. However, because Medicare does not cover the cost of prescription drugs and Rosemary has no other form of drug coverage, she is forced to pay the highest prices in the world for this Tamoxifen. Were she to buy a year's supply at her CVS, it would be $1,468. However, in Canada the same prescription is $155 for a year's supply. We need to do the right thing by our seniors and adopt a full prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, throughout the history of this great nation, all of our political parties--whether they were Federalist or Anti- federalist, Democrat or Republican--have worked from a shared belief that each generation of Americans has a basic and continuing obligation to provide a better future for the next generation. Simply put, this is the promise of America. It reflects both the strength of our democratic system as well as its fragility. It is fragile in the sense that this promise to the next generation is only as good and as reliable as our willingness to honor that promise during times of great challenge. After all, it is easy to make promises when there is no cost to their fulfillment. I find it troubling that the Republican leadership has chosen in recent months to forget the next generation and break that basic promise and to wander from that common ground that we once shared. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that a politician thinks about the next election, while a statesman thinks about the next generation. Only a few years ago, a former leader of the Republican Party warned this body, ``If we don't get our house in order, the financial burden of the baby boom retirees will be crushing for the next generation.'' Sadly, that message seems to have gotten lost. What I see now from the leadership on the other side of the aisle, raiding the Social Security trust fund, returning us to deficit spending, and in effect handing the bill for this war in Afghanistan and the domestic war against terrorism to our children in the form of a multi-trillion dollar deficit. It seems disingenuous that while the Republican leadership champions nine years of tax cuts for individuals making over $250,000 a year, they also refuse to ask those same people to help pay for this war and the costs of protecting our country from terrorism. Think about it . . . We are without question the wealthiest generation of any civilization that has ever walked this earth. We have acquired in this generation, our generation, greater wealth, greater scientific progress, greater luxury--a higher living standard, and done it faster, than any other generation of humans on this planet. We have seen in the past 20 years the average income of the top one percent of earners in this country increase by a staggering $414,000 per year. We have seen the number of millionaires in our society increase by 400 percent over the past 10 years. The rate of home ownership is unsurpassed and has never been higher in this country. We have recently come through the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country. Yet we are here today facing a Republican leadership, which refuses to consider the possibility that we might have to ask the richest part of our society to delay the pay of their tax cut. Last year, my Republican colleagues pushed through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, tax cuts that eliminated the surplus. They inherited a projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, and instead of planning for an emergency, instead of planning for an economic downturn, instead of putting some money aside for the future; they assumed the good times would roll forever. Four trillion of that surplus is already gone. Now we have a national emergency, a war to pay for, and instead of being able to tap into that surplus to pay for the war, we have to go into debt, because the Republican tax cuts have already spent the surplus and have generated deficits for the foreseeable future. Few of those who made these arguments last year, who said that it was irresponsible to spend down the surplus and leave no room for a national emergency, are surprised to find that we are now here on the floor today, faced with a need to raise the debt limit. And the Republican leadership is not even willing to let us have an honest debate, a straight up-and-down vote, on raising that debt limit. Last night I heard from the other side of the aisle that if my colleagues and I complained about these kinds of parliamentary games, we were not committed to supporting a strong defense. Mr. Speaker, there is no question here that by our actions since September 11th, every member has shown his and her commitment to this war and to supporting our troops abroad. The question before us today should be whether we respond to this challenge by meeting our fiscal responsibilities and pay for the war, not whether we are going to simply stamp our feet and say ``give me my tax cut'' and pass the bill to the next generation by raiding their Social Security and giving them a deficit. I firmly believe in the promise of America. I know that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle do too. I would bet that most Americans would agree that it would be better to freeze nine years of tax cuts to the very rich than to raid Social Security and bring up our kids in a multi-trillion dollars of debt. Mr. Chairman, at the very least we deserve the right to a full and fair debate of these issues. It is time to end the transactional nature of politics exercised by the Republican leadership, which benefits a small group of very rich people, and instead think about the true and undying promise of America.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, in response to my esteemed colleague from Arizona, I think this is a perfect time to talk about correct tax policy in this country. I think you will find widespread agreement that there is support for reducing the marriage penalty. It is a sensible adjustment to our tax code. However, I think you will also find widespread agreement here that stopping American companies from avoiding their fair share of taxes by incorporating into offshore tax havens is also a sensible adjustment to our tax code. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and their recommendation entitled the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not allowing us to debate that bill today. We quite frankly are in a time of great challenge in this country. It is a time when we should set aside our partisan squabbling and pull together and do what is necessary, do what is right for this country. There are some Americans, however, Mr. Speaker, who seem to feel that the burden of defending our country should fall rather lightly on them. In the last few years, we have seen a growing epidemic of companies voting to, quote, unquote, reincorporate themselves in Bermuda, in Barbados, in offshore tax havens, asking us to believe that buying a post office box in Bermuda or Barbados is a legitimate way to avoid paying to support our efforts against terrorism, paying to support our troops overseas. Profits and jobs are shipped abroad by this process. Those profits are not reinvested in the United States. And it leaves their share, these runaway corporations, it leaves their share of the tax burden to fall unfairly on those companies and individuals who are too honest and are too patriotic to engage in these kinds of schemes. Mr. Speaker, the executives of these companies have practically dared Congress to shut down their offshore tax schemes. I believe we should take them up on that challenge.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, when I first visited Israel in 1998, I was introduced to the complexity and also the special beauty and historical importance that Israel represents. During my visit I met with various representatives of both the Israeli government and the Palestinian community. I remember that there existed at that time a cautious optimism and a hope that perhaps after generations of pain and suffering these groups were on the brink of peace. It is therefore with particular sadness that I have watched this holy land descend into the most extreme violence and bloodshed over the past 18 months. The traffic and horrifying carnage caused by suicide bombers, who are being used as a tool of terror against innocent children, is simply barbaric and upsets me greatly. However, Mr. Speaker, we must not be moved to give in to these terrorists. I stand here today with many in this chamber to condemn these atrocities and express our support for the Israeli people. On September 11th we learned how small the world has become. We can no longer ignore conflicts halfway around the world and pretend that they do not affect our own security. Mr. Speaker, there is no future in a partnership with people encourage their own sons and daughters to die in acts of infamy and the random murder of innocent people. To compromise with a terrorist is to sponsor terrorism. We must stand with Israel.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I realize that there are many Members that wanted to speak on this resolution today; and unfortunately for me, my seniority does not allow me to have an opportunity to speak. I have some remarks here, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this resolution and in support of the people of Israel, and I will enter them into the Record at a later date.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Armenians throughout the United States, Armenia, and the world in commemorating the 87th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, one of the darkest episodes in Europe's recent past. This week, members and friends of the Armenian community gather to remember April 24, 1915, when the arrest and murder of 200 Armenian politicians, academics, and community leaders in Constantinople marked the beginning of an eight-year campaign of extermination against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire. Between 1915 and 1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed and more than 500,000 were exiled to the desert to die of thirst or starvation. The Armenian genocide was the first mass murder of the 20th century, a century that was sadly to be marked by many similar attempts at racial or ethnic extermination, from the Holocaust to the Rwandan genocide to the recent ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. In the 87 years since the beginning of this genocide, we have learned the importance of commemorating these tragic events. In 1939, after invading Poland and relocating most Jews to labor or death camps, Hitler cynically defended his own actions by asking, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' Just a few years later, six million Jews were dead. Now is the time when we must answer Hitler's question with a clear voice: We remember the Armenians, and we stand resolved that genocide is a crime against all humanity. We must remember the legacy of the Armenian genocide and we must speak out against such tragedies to ensure that no similar evil occurs again. While today is the day in which we solemnly remember the victims of the Armenian genocide, I believe it is also a day in which we can celebrate the extraordinary vitality and strength of the Armenian people, who have fought successfully to preserve their culture and identity for over a thousand years. The Armenian people withstood the horrors of genocide, two world wars, and several decades of Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. Armenia has defiantly rebuilt itself as a nation and a society--a triumph of human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity. It is my firm belief that it is only by learning from and commemorating the past can we work toward a future free from racial, ethnic, and religious hate. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide and speaking out against the principles by which it was conducted, we can send a clear message: never again.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, we are at an important point in our legislative calendar and at a point that will have great impact on the future of this institution, this House and this Congress. We are also at an important point in the history of our country and what direction we might take. In the next several hours, in the next several days, we will take up the debate of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance legislation. We will have a singular opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to at last take soft money out of politics. We will have one shining moment to end transactional politics on Capitol Hill, and we will have one chance to actually make sure that working families' voices are heard in the halls outside of this Chamber instead of just the voices of special interest groups and high-powered lobbyists. And I hope that my colleagues will see that opportunity and seize it and join together and pass the Shays-Meehan legislation and bring rational, reasonable campaign finance laws into effect in this Congress. We are also in an important point in our history in terms of what direction this country will take. And those questions will be answered by our debate around the administration's budget and around our own budgetary initiatives that will be put forward on this floor. And I just want to take a moment to just do a gut check on where we are in this country's history. We are without question the wealthiest generation of any people that has ever walked this Earth. We have acquired in this generation, my generation, greater wealth and done it faster than any other generations on this planet. We have seen in the past 20 years the average income of the top 1 percent of earners in this country increase by a staggering $414,000 per year. We have seen the number of millionaires in our society increase by 400 percent over the past 10 years. The rate of home ownership is through the roof, never been higher in this country. We are faced now with several challenges, knowing that we are the wealthiest generation, knowing we have the blessings of generations that have gone before us. We have a couple of challenges, and I think the way we face these challenges is instructive as to the type of people and the type of country that we become. We are faced with the challenge of financing the cost of this war in Afghanistan. And what is our response? If I can take the instruction from the President's State of the Union Address and the instructions of the majority party, we are saying that we do not want to pay for this war. We do not want to pay for this war. We want our tax cuts. That is what we are saying as a generation. We want our tax cuts. Even though we are the wealthiest generations of Americans, do not phase out our tax cuts. Do not delay them. Give us our tax cuts. And instead, we are saying let us build a deficit, and let us just hand the bill, hand the debt owed for this war to our children and to their children. And that, Mr. Speaker, I see as just disingenuous and to a certain degree cowardly. We have a responsibility to the next generations. We have a responsibility, especially given the blessings that we have in this country, to face up to our responsibility and to pay for the cost of the prosecution of this war. It is a just war, and I stand with the President in the prosecution of this war, but we must face up to our responsibilities. I also say the way we are facing our responsibilities to pay for Social Security, to provide a secure and decent requirement and health care for America's greatest generations, and instead, what we hear on the floor in our debate is that we should somehow privatize Social Security, we should somehow suggest curtailing benefits to those who are our most vulnerable and most in need. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we have missed, if that is the direction we have taken, we have missed our mission. We have missed our opportunity to strike, I think, a true course consistent with the great traditions in this country of meeting the challenges of each generation.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in opposition to the so-called Fast Track legislation that will be debated in this House over the next 2 days. I do so for several reasons. Firstly, because Fast Track contradicts the clear requirement of the United States Constitution, which vests the responsibility in this body, in the House of Representatives, to regulate trade with foreign nations. It also vests the power in the Congress to make any necessary laws for the exercise of that authority. Secondly, I oppose Fast Track because it requires that these negotiations, very detailed, complicated negotiations, with great impact for not only our generation but those to come, it requires that these negotiations occur in secret; not in open debate on the floor of the House, but in secret. I also oppose Fast Track because of our own past experience. We have seen what Fast Track has brought us, and we have been shown that it is a poor way to conduct, establish, and implement trade policy. We have seen what it has done for workers, both in the United States and Mexico, through the example of NAFTA. We see now multinational corporations, General Motors, closing down plants in the U.S. and moving them over the border into Mexico, where our own auto workers are now forced to compete with auto workers in Mexico making 67 cents an hour. That is what Fast Track has brought us. We have seen what it has brought to our environment, where corporations are continuing to seek to escape, avoid and evade responsible environmental standards in this country in order to go to other countries and to make a profit, make a profit by avoiding responsible environmental behavior. We have seen what it has done to our food safety standards, where right now in this country under Fast Track legislation we can no longer keep out foods that do not meet our own food safety standards. But last of all and most importantly, I oppose Fast Track because I think it is the single greatest threat to our representative form of democracy. It takes the power that has been vested in this body as representatives of the voters and gives it to the United States Trade Representative, who then, through agreements again in secret, delegates the authority to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. I think every Member in this body knows the chances of their own constituents exercising any right to petition to the WTO representatives in Geneva, Switzerland. I think this is a bad policy for America. I think that we have a responsibility here to our constituents. I know they did not send me down here to give away the rights of the constituents in the Ninth Congressional District of Massachusetts, and I assure you that no Representative in this Congress has been so directed by their people.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed new to this body; but I am by no means new to this issue. Prior to the great honor of serving in this body as the elected representative of the 9th Congressional District, I served as an iron worker for 18 years. I worked in the Quincy shipyard just outside of Boston. I worked in the steel mills in Michigan and Illinois, worked in United Auto Workers plants in Framingham, Massachusetts, and again in Michigan. I have seen a lot of those jobs and a lot of those plants where I worked at one time disappear. I have seen them relocated. Good, highly skilled, well-paying jobs moved mostly to Mexico, but to other countries as well, in a race to find the lowest-paid worker and the least-strong labor standards and environmental standards. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and my own predecessor, John Joseph Moakley from Massachusetts, for their great work in fighting against this so- called Fast Track and also against NAFTA, which has served to really lower the working standards in some foreign countries that we are now dealing with as a result of NAFTA and which we seek to expand through this Fast Track legislation. The proponents of this bill say that this is dearly tied to our fight against terrorism, but that cannot be further from the truth. The truth is, however, that Fast Track would do nothing to address America's security and economic needs in the wake of September 11. It neither rebuilds, nor does it restore the healing that is necessary to occur in this country. What this does do is create what is in effect a silent auction, and what is being auctioned off here is first of all Congress' responsibility to deal with foreign trade. The United States Constitution says that it requires that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and it also says that it shall have the power to make all necessary laws proffered for carrying out those powers. Fast Track changes all that. We give away our rights. We auction off the right to have a lively and open debate and choose instead to allow the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate these deals in secret. It should be no surprise that this country has not been well served by secret negotiations, and we have proof positive that this is not the way to conduct our trade policy. Look at NAFTA. Look at the recent round of discussions and the latest ministerial pronouncements as a result of the WTO conferences. There are no guarantees, no enforcement mechanisms for enforcing our labor laws or human rights. There are no mechanisms, no enforcement devices that allow us to enforce safety standards for food and for the environment. What one does see is great protections for multinational corporations, no protections for American jobs, and this is simply a pattern that we should not follow; we should expand for the sake of following what some describe as free trade, which is not free trade at all, but it is trade that is dictated by unelected bureaucrats who sit in Geneva, Switzerland. This bill would cut the Congress out of the process. It would eliminate the constitutional obligation that Congress has right now to serve the people. The American worker should not be forced to compete with auto workers making 67 cents an hour in the maquiladoras just over the Mexican border. The sons and daughters of America should not be forced to compete with slave labor, which Fast Track would allow. The sons and daughters of America, our workers, should not have to compete with child labor, which Fast Track allows. Tonight, as we have our armed services personnel, our proud sons, fighting on the ground in Afghanistan to restore and to preserve peace at home, we are seeing through this Fast Track legislation the derogation of the very powers that they seek to protect. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this Fast Track. Now, this body stands to turn its back again on the American working men and women by engaging in this Fast-Track procedure. I am new to public service, prior to the privilege of my office now, I was an ironworker for 18 years; I worked at the Quincy shipyard just outside of Boston, Steel Mills in Indiana, and GM plants in Framingham, and in Michigan. I've seen those jobs disappear with thousands of others because companies could exploit low-wage labor through unfair foreign competition. So, as you can see, I am not new to this issue. The proponents of this bill, the President, Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, and others, seek to link Fast Track to our Nation's antiterrorism efforts. At times, claiming that not to support this bill is to be less than patriotic. The truth is, however, Fast Track would do nothing to address America's security and economic needs in the wake of September 11. Fast Track neither rebuilds, nor does it restore, it does not heal and it will not bring America together. Instead it will work to continue to drive America apart--starting with the denial of an open and honest debate on this very floor. The United States Constitution says Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and it shall have the power to make all necessary laws proper for carrying out those powers. Fast Track is a procedural rule that would obligate us to resign our responsibilities on behalf of our constituents. It makes us give up our rights and responsibilities to the people who sent us here. Mr. Speaker, I can without a doubt affirm that my constituents did not send me here to give away their rights or allow their voices to be silenced. And in silence and secret is exactly how these trade negotiations will be carried out under Fast Track. U.S. Trade Representatives, who are not elected by the people, will be deciding and negotiating in closed-door backroom sessions. It is a troublesome process we endorse by engaging in this Fast-Track procedure and we do not have to look far to see the example of failure in that process. We can look to NAFTA. We see it in the fact that there are no enforceable labor and environmental standards in NAFTA or in the proposed expansion of NAFTA to 34 other countries under the Free Trade Area of the Americas Act. While the bill raises the issue of labor standards and raises the issue of environmental protections, enforcement of these issues is recklessly absent. It is easy to see, Mr. Speaker, exactly who benefits from an extension of NAFTA just by examining the juxtaposition of enforceable worker and environmental rights with the rights of investors. Most troublesome are the protections that allow corporations to impose rules on the global economy that effectively mute competing voices and values, while undermining the sovereign capacity of a nation to defend its own citizens' broader interests by overriding established rights in domestic law. We have seen the United States has lost millions of dollars to corporations who have successfully sued States under NAFTA's Chapter 11 bylaws claiming that government efforts to improve environmental standards impeded company rights. These are cases not decided in Federal court but in a NAFTA tribunal--again--behind closed doors. The State of California stands to lose $1 billion to the Methanex Company for trying to enforce laws that keep poisonous carcinogens out of gasoline. In contrast we have seen what NAFTA has done for families, workers and the environment. The impact of NAFTA on American jobs and worker's rights in member nations is astounding. In the 8 years of its existence, Trade Adjustment Assistance has tallied 800,000 American workers who have lost skilled, well-paid jobs to import competition under NAFTA, the threat of factory relocations holds down wages for tens of thousands more. Those who have lost their jobs are working, however--making a fraction of what they used to earn. And their jobs? They're held by workers in Maquiladora earning pennies on the dollar with no breaks, no rights to organize and no laws to keep children in school and out of slave labor. This bill is completely absent of any enforceable standard. The sons and daughters of America's Greatest Generation should not have to compete with child labor and American workers should not have to compete with slave labor. The American public should not be faced with the risk posed by the safety hazards and the emissions impacts of the 4 and half million Mexican trucks that travel over the border every year. Not to mention the contents of those trucks. Less than 2 percent of those trucks--roughly 90,000 are ever inspected. Meaning many enter without the proper safety codes and emissions standards required by all 50 states. Worse yet, the lack of accountability allows produce and meats to come into this country that do not meet the regulatory standards of the FDA--giving families the unfortunate prospect of not knowing if they're eating off the NAFTA diet. We have seen examples of that, with the outbreak of Cyclosporiasis in seven States--California, Nevada, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas (FDA source)--from the consumption of Guatemalan Raspberries contaminated with parasites. A virus that was allowed into this country because the produce did not undergo the FDA process and the sanitation process that is given to U.S.-grown produce. It's accountability that is missing from these types of trade agreements. And without it, we are unable to guarantee protections and safeguards for the American worker and the American public. At issue is not whether America should be part of the global economy but how it should be a part of the global economy. Before riding the fast track to more trade agreements, we ought to address the failures and pitfalls of prior ones. Putting working families first ought to be a major priority especially in the wake of thousands of lost jobs during this recession. Congress has made bipartisan progress on a whole range of issues since then. What we now need to do is to take advantage of this high spirit of bipartisanship and put America's trade agreements on the right track by preserving Congress's legislative role; require negotiators to install provisions that will promote workers' rights, and require negotiators to develop trade rules that cannot undercut environmental laws. We must do whatever we can to recapture the accountability entitled to the American people. The first step in doing that is to defeat fast track. I urge all of my collogues on both sides of the aisle to vote down this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all others, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), for the great work they have done. I am new to this debate. I am new. I have watched the work done by all of the Members here, both in this debate and in previous debates over NAFTA. I commend you for living up to your constitutional obligation to represent the people of your districts. As I said, I am new to this debate; but I am not new to this issue. In my own life prior to the privilege of my office now, I was an iron worker for 18 years; and over that 18 years I worked at the Quincy shipyard just outside of Boston. And I saw that job go away with thousands of others from that shipyard because of foreign competition and the fact that the American shipyards were paying their workers well. And companies could go offshore to exploit low-wage labor. I also worked at the General Motors plant out in Framingham, which is closed now and they are making those cars down in Mexico now. I worked in Michigan in some of the auto industry plants there as well, and I understand those plants have closed and many of them have been relocated in Mexico. I also worked in a couple of the steel mills in Indiana and in Chicago, the Inland Steel and the U.S. Steel plants which I now understand are closed. There is a pattern developing here; and at this rate I am afraid that at some point there will be my counterpart in Mexico City taking my congressional responsibility as well. The point made by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) needs to be emphasized. And that is that the United States Constitution says that Congress shall, not may, not might, it shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and it shall have the power to make all necessary laws proper for carrying out those powers. This fast track mechanism, and this is just a procedural rule, would obligate us to abdicate our responsibilities on behalf of our constituents. Basically, what we would do we would give up those rights and those responsibilities to the very people who sent us here. I need to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others who have said that I can say also that my constituents did not send me here to give away their rights and responsibilities, to walk away from a job just because it is complex. It is difficult. It is hard. We knew that that was the job we were taking when we ran for office. This bill is counterintuitive. It flies in the face of our responsibility both under the Constitution and as a moral obligation to the people who we represent. Another part of this fast track framework that is poorly designed is the fact that while the obligation under the Constitution is given to us as Members, also many of the other responsibilities and procedures that are set up around the Congress guarantee an open and honest debate around trade matters. The Constitution requires that we publish a journal of the actions taken here in the Congress. If you look at Fast Track, Fast Track allows these negotiations to be done in secret, if they are given to the U.S. Trade Representative. These are secret negotiations and they are done in a back room, without the direct representatives of the people being in those negotiations. It just is an unseemly process that we initiate by supporting a Fast Track-type procedure, and we do not need to look far to see examples of the flaws of that process. We can look directly at NAFTA. We have evidence now to see how this Fast Track procedure plays out. We see it in the fact that there are no enforceable labor standards in NAFTA nor in the bill before us to expand NAFTA to 34 other countries. There are no firm mandatory or enforceable labor standards in this bill. There are no firm and mandatory and enforceable environmental standards in this bill. Those have been left out. There is language in here, very fluffy language, that raises the issue of labor standards, raises the issue of environmental standards, but does not allow us in negotiations on these trade matters to require other countries to respect their workers and to respect the environment in those countries. We can look at what NAFTA has done for Maquiladora, the workers there. Although there was the great promise of the raising the buying power of the average Mexican worker, we still find in Maquiladora that the autoworkers in the Maquiladora are making an average of 67 cents an hour. I do not have any U.S. autoworkers in Massachusetts anymore. Those jobs are all gone over the border. The U.S. autoworkers today, those left in Michigan and other places across the country, should not be made to compete with workers making 60 cents an hour, living in substandard conditions, with no working conditions, with no right, no voice in their workplace. This bill is completely absent any enforceable standard. The American worker should not be required to compete with 67-cents- an-hour workers or slave labor or child labor in these other countries. Yet that is exactly what this bill allows. That is exactly what Fast Track and the ministerial directive that came out of Doha, that is just exactly what is allowed here. The American public should not be faced with the risk of trucks coming over the Mexican border without the safety requirements and the regulatory obligations of the trucks that we have in this country that are registered in any of the 50 States, and we should not allow produce, food products, to come into this country that do not meet the regulatory standards that we have set up in this country. We have seen examples of that. I know that in Michigan just recently, we had an incident where 200 people were affected by eating strawberries that had been contaminated with the hepatitis A virus and that were allowed into the country because they did not have to undergo the FDA process and the sanitation process that products here in the United States are required to go under. We should also realize that of the 4.4 million trucks a year that come in from Mexico into the United States, we have the ability right now to inspect 2 percent, about 88,000 trucks out of 4.4 million. We do not have the ability to check the licenses, the qualifications of those drivers, the safety mechanisms on those trucks, and there is just a complete lack of accountability. That is the bottom line. This Fast Track bill takes away the accountability. We are unable to oversee or guarantee that the American workers and the American public are being protected, and we need to do whatever we can to recapture the power and the accountability on behalf of the American people. I think the easiest way to do that would be to defeat this Fast Track proposal.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his solid work on the substitute bill. Mr. Speaker, the privilege of my new office allows me the great honor of representing many of the neighborhoods and towns that surround Logan Airport in Boston. It just so happens that today I have the sad duty of meeting with many of the families from my district who lost loved ones aboard the flights which departed Logan Airport on September 11. Mr. Speaker, today is not the day to exempt security screening companies who failed to protect the public on September 11. I am heartsick that these families are families that we were charged and sworn to protect. They should not be overlooked by foreign security companies. We can fulfill our public duty by professionalizing and federalizing airport security personnel and by supporting the substitute bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Members for their courtesy, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the kind and generous introduction. I want to say I have much to be thankful for today. I thank God for the opportunity to serve here in the House of Representatives. I also want to thank my mom and dad, and my family, my five sisters, my wife, Margaret, my daughter, Victoria, and most of the congressional district that I represent that has followed me here today. I want to thank and recognize them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the families of the 9th Congressional District of Massachusetts and my many supporters for allowing me this opportunity to represent them here in the House of Representatives; and I know that I follow in the shadow of a great man, Congressman Joe Moakley. No one misses him more than I do. He spoke so highly of this institution; and he had such great respect for every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat. I just know that coming in here, I have an awful lot of work to do to deserve my place, to earn my place, to serve beside my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, God bless everyone here, and God bless the United States of America.