Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I continue to reserve.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, far too many of our Nation's most vulnerable children long for nothing more than a safe and permanent place to call home. As the de facto parents of foster children, it's our responsibility to ensure that each child who is unable to safely return home to their biological parents has the ability to achieve permanency through adoption. Sadly, too many children are languishing in the foster care system for far too long as they wait to be adopted. There are currently 129,000 children who are waiting to be adopted out of foster care. These children, on average, will have to wait nearly two-and-a-half years in the foster care system before they are adopted by the family. A minute can be a lifetime in the eyes of a child. Imagine how a child feels as they wait nearly two-and-a-half years for a family to pick them. Representative Weller and I introduced bipartisan legislation, which just passed the House, which would provide a variety of policy initiatives aimed at increasing the number of children who are adopted from the foster care system. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act extends, expands, and improves the Adoption Incentives Program. This successful program provides financial bonuses to States that increase the number of children adopted out of foster care. I have to add that, sort of parenthetically, I started the subsidized adoption program in the Washington State legislature in 1971. There has been a very uneven spread of that concept across the States in this United States. So it's important that we at the Federal level set the standard and say to States, here's some money if you will think about doing subsidized adoptions for these kids. Since the inception of this program, nearly 440,000 children have been adopted out of the foster care system. The bill also would provide additional incentives for States to continue to increase the number of children who leave the foster care system for permanency through adoption or through guardianship placement with a grandparent or a relative caregiver. Additionally, the legislation would provide adoption subsidy assistance to all special-needs kids--these are the ones that are the hardest to get adopted--rather than those children whose birth parents were eligible for welfare under rules that were in place in 1996. The bill expands Federal adoption assistance by delinking eligibility for assistance from the now defunct AFDC program and by phasing in adoption subsidy to children by their age and their length of time in foster care. And finally, the legislation would provide direct Federal adoption assistance to tribal governments who run their own child welfare programs. Tribal governments would be able to access the same service that is now available to the States. Such services will allow tribal governments to increase the number of Native American children that are adopted out of the tribal foster care systems. The month of November marks National Adoption Month, and that's what this resolution is really all about. As we celebrate the countless families who have opened their homes and their hearts to children who are in need of a home, I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the goals and the ideals of National Adoption Month. Every child deserves nothing less than a safe and loving place to call home. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, we can do our part to ensure permanency and success for all the children. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, this is a propitious day. The market dropped 500 points yesterday, the largest drop since 2001. The economic and regulatory policies of this President has certainly taken the ``free'' out of the free enterprise system. Across America, the dominoes are falling. Bear Stearns fell a few months ago; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, a week ago; a distress sale of Merrill Lynch over the weekend; Lehman Brothers is looking for bankruptcy on Monday morning; and the auto industry is looking for another $25 million in bailout; and AIG wants a $40 billion bridge loan from the Federal Reserve. The stock market, as I say, went down 500 points yesterday. No one really thinks we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Who's next? We can't answer that question of who is next, other than to say an awful lot of people in the financial industry are working nights and weekends to assess their exposure, and do damage control, if possible. What's next? This is a question we can begin to answer. What's next is that the American people are going to be on the hook for the Bush problem for the next generation, and in so many ways will have to pay much of the financial mess. The last 8 years of this administration, they did everything they could to eliminate, gut, stymie, and ignore responsibility for regulatory oversight by the Federal Government. This administration worshipped at the altar of the free enterprise system and the market. The President wanted the gold, but without a standard. Republicans did everything they could to let the financial industry do anything it wanted, regardless of consequence. At the same time, the administration made clear in its Federal appointments they wanted Federal regulatory agencies on the sidelines. Without government oversight watching out for the interests of the American people, the industry turned free rein into freewheeling, irresponsible policies. When the dominoes began to fall, the administration stepped in to charge billions for bailouts to the American people. And it's not over yet. The current financial crisis is the worst in decades, and yet the shell game goes on. The administration wants to hide the extent of the damage, the risk, and the burden on the American people. I would like to enter into the Record the lead Sunday editorial in the New York Times, called: Bailout Hide and Seek. The Federal budget deficit has swelled to more than $400 billion, and is headed for $500 billion, but the administration wants to keep the cost of the bailouts off the Federal books. They want to hide the magnitude of the crisis and their duplicity in making it possible for the last 8 years of economic abandonment. Things are so bad that no one can accurately predict what the cost will be or how much the American people have been saddled with. The only thing the administration keeps saying is, Charge it to the American people. Just like the Iraq war, which is adding up to a trillion-dollar tab. This President misspent the public trust and squandered the full faith and credit of the American people. The bills just keep coming due after the administration leaves office. They say in business: There's no such thing as a free lunch. What they don't say is that the President has arranged for the American people to pick up the tab. The American financial crisis is the culmination of Republican economic policies. Spend freely, lower taxes, and don't ask anybody to make any kind of sacrifice for a war. Just spend. They got what they wanted, and left the American people holding the bag, and the tab. The next administration will not only have to rebuild America's moral leadership in the world, we will have to rebuild America's economic system and the confidence here at home. The legacy of this President is clear. He took the ``free'' out of the free enterprise system, and instead billed it to the American people. Madam Speaker, we can't wait to have the change that Barack Obama will bring for this country. [From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 2008] Bailout Hide and Seek On Friday, less than a week after the government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the White House announced that there is no reason at this time to account for the companies in the federal budget. That is great news for officials who prefer to hide the cost of the bailout since it is due, in large part, to their failure to adequately regulate the financial markets and steward the economy. But it is an insult to taxpayers, whose money is at risk, and it is a reckless gambit. The Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that the government's finances are deteriorating rapidly: the budget deficit for this year is expected to reach $407 billion, more than double last year's shortfall, and to exceed $500 billion in 2009. The takeover of Fannie and Freddie, necessary though it is, will add to the deterioration. Airbrushing that away will only open the door to uninformed--or negligent--decisions on spending and tax cuts. The White House says that the extent of the government's control of Fannie and Freddie does not warrant including the companies' operations in the budget. That is absurd. The government has seized the companies, firing their executives and installing new ones, offering to invest up to $200 billion in the companies if necessary, and most significant, making an ironclad promise to pay their trillions of dollars in obligations, if need be. The White House also claims that the risk to taxpayers is not yet serious enough to require that the costs be shown in the budget. But there is a very real cost to guaranteeing the obligations of Fannie and Freddie, even if the government never has to cough up a penny. The taxpayer is on the hook while the guarantee is outstanding--and the Treasury says that will last past Dec. 31, 2009, when its bailout authority officially ends. The Congressional Budget Office has said that it will calculate the cost of taxpayers' risk and include it in its version of the budget, which is separate from the White House version of the budget. Having conflicting budgets is hardly a good way to restore confidence in the government's financial management. But the C.B.O. accounting will prevent the White House from saying, in effect, ``yes, bondholders, your investments are fully guaranteed, but you, dear taxpayers, don't worry, it costs you nothing.'' As the government (read: taxpayers) assumes additional risks, it is more important than ever to get the accounting right. Accurately reflecting the budget cost of the Fannie and Freddie bailout would not lead to an explosion in public debt. Prudent accounting, accurately applied, would limit the amount that must be counted against the nation's overall debt ceiling. Accurately accounting for risk would limit the cost of making good on the companies' obligations to a figure that reflects the likelihood of taxpayers actually having to pay up. No one yet knows the ultimate cost of the bailout, but it is already more than zero.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to H.R. 6532 on the legislative day of Thursday, September 11, 2008.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, with the clock winding down on the President's second term, this seems like a good time to stroll down memory lane, looking back on America then and now. Under this President the number of Americans without health care has risen from 38 million to 46 million. Under this President the price of gasoline has risen from less than $1.50 a gallon to $4 a gallon. Under this President the unemployment rate has risen to over 6 percent, with millions more Americans out of work and running out of help. Under this President the prices that Americans pay for food, fuel, college, transportation, and medical costs have risen by 25 percent. And let's not forget that mortgage foreclosures are rising while housing prices are falling, like a rock. This President has been willing to bail out Wall Street but never mind Main Street. Strolling down memory lane can be very educational, especially when you consider the President is running for an unprecedented third term. They talk about change, but only the names will change. The Republican ``wreck-o-nomic'' policies that created this economic disaster will remain exactly the same. That's not nostalgia; that's a promise from this administration.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the sounds we are hearing and the signals we are seeing from the administration remind me of the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. For all those supporters of the President who claimed 6 years ago that military intervention in Iraq would be the U.S.'s last option, we now know the war was the first, preordained and only option of the administration. They just had to cook the books to make the American people believe otherwise. America has paid a very steep price: America has lost lives; Iraqis have lost lives; $1 trillion lost; American moral leadership in the world lost. And we cannot afford to let this administration do it again with a military strike against Iran before the President and Vice President leave office in January. The news of late is deeply troubling, and we have a responsibility to remind the Americans of the administration's penchant to conduct diplomacy with bullets and bombs. I believe the people have the right to know and the right to demand this administration, and the Republican ticket for the Presidency, declare there be no military strike against Iran by U.S. forces or on our behalf by a U.S. ally like Israel unless the Congress votes for it. My concerns come directly out of the reporting by credible, mainstream international news organizations that have built their reputation on credibility. I enter into the Record a September 1 story from the Jerusalem Post. The headline is: ``Dutch intel: U.S. to strike Iran in coming weeks.'' [From the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 1, 2008] Dutch Intel: U.S. To Strike Iran in Coming Weeks (By JPost.com Staff) The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an assessment that a U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday. The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been ``extremely successful,'' and had been stopped because the U.S. military was planning to hit targets that were ``connected with the Dutch espionage action.'' The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by unmanned aircraft ``within weeks,'' the report claimed, quoting ``well placed'' sources. The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf report. According to the report, information gleaned from the AIVD's operation in Iran has provided several of the targets that are to be attacked in the strike, including ``parts for missiles and launching equipment.'' ``Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in recent years with the CIA,'' the report said. On Saturday, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff General Masoud Jazayeri warned that should the United States or Israel attack Iran, it would be the start of another World War. On Friday, Ma'ariv reported that Israel had made a strategic decision to deny Iran military nuclear capability and would not hesitate ``to take whatever means necessary'' to prevent Teheran from achieving its nuclear goals. According to the report, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a U.S. strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike. I also enter into the Record the August 29 Jerusalem Post story entitled, ``Israel reaches strategic decision not to let Iran go nuclear.'' [From the Jerusalem Post, online edition, Aug. 29, 2008] Israel Reaches Strategic Decision Not To Let Iran Go Nuclear (By JPost.com Staff) Israel will not agree to allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons and if the grains start running out in the proverbial egg timer, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion. According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United States and Western countries will succeed in toppling the ayatollah regime diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether an American strike on Iran will eventually be decided upon, Jerusalem has put preparations for a separate, independent military strike by Israel in high gear. So far, Israel has not received American authorization to use U.S.-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense establishment been successful in securing the purchase of advanced U.S.-made warplanes which could facilitate an Israeli strike. The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a global early warning radar system, implying that the U.S. is pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only. Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has consistently warned over the pat years it will not settle for a `wait and see' approach and retaliate in case of attack, but rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in the first place. Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK which has left the party recently, has sent a document to both U.S. presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point document states that ``there is no government in Jerusalem that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously considered.'' According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the ``sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate bloodshed.'' To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh wrote, ``real'' sanctions applied in concert by the U.S. and Europe is necessary. A total embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total boycott of Iranian banks will topple, within a short time, the regime which is already pressured by a sloping economy and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they would have outside assistance. The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a half to two years, until 2010. Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby those two states. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade. ``Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security doesn't impress these guys,'' Sneh said wryly. Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly ``it's a shame, because Ido will light all this up.'' He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed commander of the Israeli Air Force and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become the necessity. ``Investing in Iran in 2008,'' Sneh told his Austrian hosts, ``is like investing in Krups Steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment.'' The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale. In related news, Israel Radio reported that Iran has finished installing an additional 4,000 centrifuges in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The Islamic Republic also announced it will install an additional 3,000 centrifuges in coming months. The pan-Arabic Al Kuds al Arabi reported Friday that Iran has equipped Hizbullah with longer range missiles than those it had before the Second Lebanon War and also improved the terror group's targeting capabilities. According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not verify independently, Hizbullah would begin a massive rocket onslaught on targets reaching deep into Israel's civilian underbelly in case the Jewish State would launch an attack on Iran. These and other news stories should remind us that this administration remains in office for several months but years ago forfeited their trust with the American people over the Iraq War. What is especially worrisome to me is that the administration has shifted the Iraq war to the air in an effort to make it an antiseptic war that might be more acceptable to the American people. We're grateful that U.S. casualties in Iraq are down significantly, but when a war should never have been started, every single casualty is a price too high. And today, the U.S. is an unwelcome occupier, and the administration is ignoring the wishes of the elected Iraqi Government to set a date to leave. Instead, the White House is trying to run their country and continue this war. Bombs falling from 30,000 feet have the same devastating impact on innocent Iraq civilians as bullets and bombs at street level. We just don't hear about it much in the American news media. But I hear about it from people in the Middle East who wonder if we will ever leave Iraq and worry that an antiseptic aerial war will be used against Iran. Where once we stood tall on the moral high ground, now decent people the world over question our motives, our resolve, and our moral leadership. They fear, and so do I, that this administration will make the calculation that as long as we drop bombs from 30,000 feet, or fire cruise missiles from 300 miles offshore, the American people can be misled into another war. We must not let that happen. The current leadership in Iran has few, if any, friends in this House today, and I am not one of them. But we cannot solve every challenge that confronts us with military confrontation. And we cannot meet other challenges when our moral high ground has turned into the shifting sands during this administration. When Russia invades Georgia, who in the world is going to listen to the rhetoric of a U.S. President who invaded Iraq? When Iraq says set a timetable to leave and this President says no, who in the world is going to listen to a President who says Iraq is a sovereign Nation? And when this administration says they aren't planning a military strike against Iran, why would anyone in the world believe it when the fine print says all the options are still on the table? Instead of occupying Iraq, the U.S. should be occupying the moral high ground, and we can start by stopping any effort to use force against Iran. Let's do it today before it's too late. We need, Mr. Speaker, a vote before we do anything against Iran.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years I have struggled with the issue of whether the House should impeach a sitting President. Next to declaring war, impeachment is the gravest matter the House of Representatives must consider. I fully understand the gut-wrenching consequences of such a national debate that could precipitate. Yet there is one fact we cannot overlook or escape. America cannot regain its moral leadership in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their actions at home. The allegations that could warrant impeachment keep growing. They have been illuminated in recent books, including ``The Way of the World'' by Ron Suskind; the book by Vincent Bugliosi; and the new book by Bob Woodward, ``The War Within.'' Over 5 years ago, I tried to place asterisks in the Congressional Record next to the statements about Iraq the President made to Congress. I was attacked for saying the President would mislead us into the war. But the American people ultimately learned the truth. There seems to be no end to the allegations, and we have a responsibility to investigate their authenticity. That's why I am signing onto a resolution to consider impeachment of the President. Without accountability, a democracy will fail.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Samuel Snow from Leesburg, Florida. Mr. Snow is a hero and a role model for every American, and especially African-Americans. At a time when most people would have rightly succumbed to anger and bitterness, Samuel Snow stood taller than us all. Sixty-four years ago, Samuel and other African-American soldiers were accused and convicted of a crime they did not commit at Fort Lawton, in Seattle, one of the communities I represent. Last weekend, Assistant Secretary of the Army Ronald James came to Seattle to deliver an eloquent and heartfelt apology on behalf of the Army, and to honor the soldiers, including Samuel Snow, with honorable discharge plaques. Mr. Snow's son, Ray, stood in for his father when Samuel was hospitalized unexpectedly. After the ceremony in which I was honored to participate, Ray Snow took the honorable discharge plaque to a Seattle hospital, where he showed it to his father and read Samuel the inscription. According to Ray, his father smiled broadly as he held the plaque. A few hours later, Samuel Snow died with his family at his side. His son Ray would say: ``My dad has been standing in formation all these years waiting to have his name cleared. With the Army's honorable discharge he was at ease. He now has his discharge papers and he went home.'' I am very proud to have had the honor and privilege of meeting and getting to know Samuel Snow, his family, and the families of the other soldiers whose fathers and grandfathers were falsely accused and convicted, and needlessly paid a heavy price for this racial injustice throughout their lives. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: ``An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Samuel Snow lived to lead the fight against a racial injustice that is a stain on our nation's history.'' Samuel Snow was a man full of courage and optimism who had a wonderful sense of humor and a deep well of courage and conviction. He knew what was right and just, and he died knowing that he had finally defeated the racial injustice that had tried, and failed, to strike him down. Samuel Snow raised a wonderful family and he lived a quiet, humble life working as a janitor, not once complaining about what might have been in life had he not been unfairly deprived of his GI benefits. Samuel Snow's life will inspire others to fight for what is right and just, and to never give up on the country he loved so much. I was privileged to stand in the company of a giant of a man and I am certain that Samuel Snow, an American hero, will not be forgotten.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, a barrel of oil is still more than $120 and the price Americans are paying for a gallon of gas is $4.20 a gallon. Add that to the rising food prices and rising unemployment-- especially long-term unemployment--and the economic climate feels more like the dead of winter than the middle of summer. Too many Americans are still being forced to choose between food and fuel every day either to get to work or look for work. But we can help those at the bottom of the economic ladder survive by simply passing the Gas Stamps legislation I've introduced. It would provide modest assistance to people who need a helping hand to keep their head above water. It would provide temporary assistance over a relatively short time, a few months, like food stamps, and it would say to the American people that we, in Congress, know the first stimulus package was not enough and we're prepared to act again. Providing those in need with a few hundred dollars a month for a few months is a small price to pay so that vulnerable Americans can continue to put food on the table and gas in their tank to go to work. The American people need and deserve some additional help, and we ought to provide it with gas stamps, not the fraud of drilling on the coast.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Beginning a generation ago under the leadership of John F. Kennedy, the United States became a world leader in ensuring that American trade policy is designed to encourage economic growth in developing countries. President Kennedy said that American apathy toward poor- country development ``would be disastrous to our national security, harmful to our comparative prosperity, and offensive to our conscience.'' It is a moral imperative for the United States to construct trade policies that foster development. One billion people exist on less than $1 a day right now. The income gap between the least developed countries and the world's industrialized countries grew by nearly 40 percent over the last 25 years. The income of those people in rich countries is now 93 times that of those living in the least developed countries. For nearly a generation, we know that the world's poor have gotten much poorer. When we consider President Kennedy's words, the call to action is compelling. While we work toward a broad, multilateral agreement to lower trade barriers to goods and services produced in poor countries, we should also ensure that our unilateral policies are constructed as wisely as possible in order to spur development. The legislation before us takes a critical step in that direction. Let me highlight some of the important provisions in H.R. 6560, which is supported by a broad range of stakeholders including producers, importers, and consumer groups. H.R. 6560 will extend the Generalized System of Preferences for 1 year providing producers in poor countries the certainty they need to retain and attract investment while providing importers effective access to affordable goods that are critical to their supply chain. U.S. consumers will benefit as a result. Importantly, this extension provides the Congress some breathing room to examine how GSP can improve to foster greater development abroad while also providing American producers greater certainty and opportunity. The bill before us makes a narrow but critical change to the way we treat apparel imports from the Dominican Republic. This change, which is supported by all of the key stakeholders, including the U.S. textile industry, will better enable the Dominican Republic's apparel producers to compete with producers in East and Southeast Asia. Anchoring a textile and apparel industry in Central America strengthens the economies of the entire Western Hemisphere. This provision also builds upon progress made earlier this year with respect to Haiti, helping to foster a much-needed economic growth in the Caribbean. Lastly, this bill addresses two issues which are of specific concern to me because they're related to our trade policy towards sub-Saharan Africa. For the past decade, my colleagues and I have continued to explore ways to encourage more investment in job creation in sub-Saharan Africa. We have done this primarily through enacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act in 2000, and some of our wishes have come true. We've seen the growth of an apparel industry in southern Africa, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and has provided hope for economic progress and justice. AGOA has contributed positively toward an increase in exports from sub-Saharan Africa in many countries, and a diversification of exports, which is good for economic growth and for stability in the region. But it has also demonstrated that a trade policy is only one component of a development policy. Beginning in 2006, we experimented with a new idea to encourage greater investment in the upstream production of apparel. It was called the Abundant Supply Provision. It encouraged or required African apparel producers to first use locally produced fabric before sourcing fabric from producers in places like Asia. While well-intended, this provision has had the opposite effect of what the proponents sought. Earlier this month, the Committee on Ways and Means hosted the trade ministers from the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. They told us that apparel exports under AGOA have declined 15 percent this year and that thousands of jobs are at risk if we do not repeal this abundant supply provision. By doing so today, we demonstrate that we have listened to Africa and that we are responding, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. In addition, we will help enable the sub-Saharan African nation of Mauritius to compete in the global apparel industry by enabling them the ability to use third-country fabric in apparel exports that qualify under AGOA. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to devise other measures that will better encourage upstream investment in sub-Saharan Africa, to promote job creation, and economic growth. This legislation is a strong bipartisan measure, and I want to recognize the leadership of Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, Ranking Member Jim McCrery, Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Wally Herger, who we will hear from in a moment. I also want to recognize and thank the staff whose tireless efforts in the trenches have been invaluable. They are Tim Reif, Angela Ellard, Behnaz Kibria, and Warren Payne. I believe our rightful place is at the front of the line when it comes to fighting global poverty by supporting economic and social justice. I believe that's what the U.S. meant in 2000 when we signed on to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. We know our current policies fall short, but tonight we're moving in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6560 because John F. Kennedy was right back then and today. Let us learn from history and follow the inspiration of a great American leader who believed the United States, Democrat and Republican, had the legislative duty and the moral responsibility to lead the world. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, earlier today, regrettably, there was a failure to move forward on the multilateral trade talks known as DOHA. Some are calling this a collapse in trade talks, but I believe that we can and that we must continue to make progress in multilateral trade talks. We must spend our energy not by placing blame but by considering solutions to the current challenges. The World Trade Organization serves a crucial role in the trade system of the world. I believe I speak on behalf of the entire Ways and Means Committee when I say that we remain committed to a robust DOHA agreement. The bill before us demonstrates America's continued commitment to alleviating poverty through our trade policies. I urge the Members to support H.R. 6560.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6560) to establish an earned import allowance program under Public Law 109-53, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today the people's House will say eloquently and unequivocally that America's interest to exert its moral leadership in the world is back, that all Americans stand united in fighting this global epidemic. As we've done in times of the past in great trial, we set aside our differences and declare that America stands with commitment, compassion and conviction against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Senate has already passed this legislation. And the President has announced that he will sign the legislation, which is one of his top priorities. I give him high credit for that decision. But beyond the money, beyond the $50 billion, is the fact that we are ending the unspoken fear and discrimination in our own country by eliminating the travel ban restriction that has stopped scientists and others infected with HIV/AIDS from crossing our borders to attend medical or educational conferences, or to visit family and friends. I was at the United Nations a few months ago, and Members of Parliaments all over the world said, how can we end the stigma of AIDS if you, in the United States, will not allow someone with AIDS to come in? We know how to treat AIDS, we know how to diagnose it, but the United States is the example: Today, we are making a statement that we want to end the stigma of AIDS. That makes it possible for people to come in and be tested, for people to come forward and receive medication. As long as people have to keep AIDS in the background or hide it, we will not end this epidemic. So this provision alone makes it possible. Representative Granger and I have some legislation in here that ends some of the problems with mother-to-child transmission. These provisions will make it possible for us to prevent AIDS spread and have a generation without AIDS in the future. This legislation will provide the resources policies necessary to take the fight against HIV/AIDS to the next level. An increase in funding to $48 billion over 5 years will provide the resources to sustain the fight on so many fronts in so many countries especially hard hit by the pandemic. Our provisions included in this legislation will provide training and education, integrate services into maternal health care and ensure that women and children have access to early screening and life-saving drug therapies. We know that providing a short regimen of anti-retroviral drugs to the mother and newborn reduces transmission by 50 percent. And now we will have the means to do it. H.R. 5501 also includes my provision to establish two 5-year targets to protect the next generation. The first goal is that 16 percent of those receiving treatment under PEPFAR be children, which is significantly higher than the children receiving treatment under current PEPFAR programs. The second goal is that 80 percent of pregnant women in the most affected countries receive HIV counseling and testing and where necessary, antiretroviral treatment to prevent mother to child transmission. We know how to stop transmission and, over time, we can achieve the goal of a generation born free of HIV/AIDS. This legislation addresses the fatal connection between HIV and TB, which itself has claimed 1.7 million lives directly or through HIV- associated TB. I'm proud that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle is a leader in the fight against TB as it is in reversing other global medical crises. My community rightly swells with pride over the local leadership and resources being devoted to fighting on behalf of all humanity. We have come a long way in a short period of time. H.R. 5501 will build on the systems and success we have had so far by integrating additional services and providing the vital funding needed to train health care professionals and community workers. Trained medical personnel, on the ground in country, are the front line in this fight and this legislation gives us the ability to send in reinforcements to help fight a war against this disease. There is so much to say about what this day means. Above all, it means we are going to save lives. We are going to provide global leadership and real hope. The day will come when medical science will discover a vaccine that will end this scourge once and for all. Until then, let us stand together as one Nation and one world, united in one common goal--in the fight against HIV/AIDS. I cast my vote for passage on behalf of every person in Seattle, in Africa, China, India and elsewhere who lives with or is threatened by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when the President took office, gasoline cost less than $1.50 a gallon, and a barrel of oil was selling for $30. So they had a planning meeting down at the White House, and gas has jumped to $4.50 a gallon and oil is nearly $150 a barrel. Despite these facts, the President would like the American people to believe that he has proposed a credible new plan to lower energy prices, but consider this: The President's invasion of Iraq and tacit military threats to Iran have destabilized the Middle East and driven oil prices out of control. Big Oil has leases, access, and decades to drill on millions of acres on the Continental Shelf, but they choose instead to drill down into the wallets of the American people. Oil companies are already exploring today. They're exploring the upper limits of their stock prices by using their billions in profits to buy back stock, not to reinvest in America. We still don't know what the Vice President's secret meeting with the industry was when gas prices were $1.50 a gallon, but it sure looks like it's working for the oil companies, but it isn't working for us. We've got a plan, and we will propose it and bring it out here on the floor.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we've bailed out Wall Street once already this year. We may be doing it again soon. But it's time to bail out Main Street by doing what we should have done 50 years ago, and that is provide Americans with universal health care. It's the fastest and most effective way Congress can shore up the American family. Because we all know that Americans are either paying too much for health care, can't afford to buy enough coverage, or can't afford any coverage at all. And the cost in dollars and in human terms is staggering. A generation ago, the head of General Motors famously said, ``as GM goes, so goes the Nation.'' It's no secret that GM and America are struggling with an economic crisis. We can make the difference by addressing the single largest expense facing an American family and American business today, health care. Every day in America, the American people are forced to dig deeper and deeper into their own pockets to pay for health care. And every day American business is forced to transfer more of the burden to employees or drop coverage altogether. America's health care system today looks like an ambulance riding on one wheel. And even that wheel will soon fall off if we continue to support a failed system that is not made in America, not worthy of America and nothing more than an accident of history. In the early 20th century, there was a movement to provide universal health care. But ironically it was fiercely opposed by the insurance industry at a time when it made most of its money selling death benefits to those who feared a pauper's grave. Emerging from the Great Depression in 1930, Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to institute universal health care. But his advisers feared the American Medical Association would kill FDR's proposal for Social Security in their opposition to health care. In the 1950s, the legendary labor leader, Walter Reuther, first won a health care benefit and a pension too for automobile workers in a labor agreement with General Motors. Then Reuther tried to enlist GM and others to join forces and lobby the Federal Government to institute universal health care. But business couldn't see coming the economic storm from global competition and didn't trust government. Organized labor, flush from a victory in Detroit, saw health care as a perpetual win at the bargaining table, and organized medicine was relentless at lobbying until they drove the universal health care program into the ditch again. In the second half of the 20th century, there were other attempts by the American leaders, but all of them were killed by seemingly unlimited lobbying resources. Today we have 50 million Americans with no health care coverage at all, another 25 million Americans without adequate protection, and every American can't find pants with pockets deep enough to keep paying costs that are already out of sight. The only universal truth about health care in America today is that every single American knows someone with a health care crisis or is facing one themselves. American business has to compete today in a global economy, but American business has a major health care benefit expense on its books that the international competitors do not have. Even great companies in my congressional district, which are national models to providing employee benefits like health care, are being stretched to the limit, and their balance sheets, like a rubber band, can only flex so much before they break. We cannot stand idly by and watch when we know that developing and instituting an American single payer health care system can dramatically improve the health of American business and American families literally and financially. And for the first time in decades, we have a chance if we're willing to seize the opportunity. There are cracks in the dams of opposition. A new survey of U.S. doctors published recently in the Annals of Health Research finds that 59 percent of American doctors now support single payer health care plans, which is a dramatic double-digit increase in support in the last 7 years. The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution a few weeks ago. Organized labor recognizes a changing global economy that means they can best represent workers not at one bargaining table, but on a national level where everyone benefits equally. Even business is beginning to rethink its trust of government. In 2002, Detroit's auto subsidiaries in Canada strongly supported continuation of a single payer health care program because of its positive economic impact on them and their workers. A few years ago, I asked businesses' executives if they would be willing to pay 6 percent of their revenue to off-load health care and no one raised their hand. Now the average cost is 13 percent for business, and a business leader recently asked me if that deal was still on the table. I'm here to say single payer is on the table. It's time to breach the dam of opposition and create a single payer health care system for the health and well-being of the American people and American business. We have tried the alternatives. The free enterprise system has had 50 years. But they can't do it. They have failed again and again, and the costs go up all the time. It's time to do what works in every industrialized country in the world.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the reports out of Iraq these days make 2008 sound an awful lot like 1930. That's when the British strong-armed a so-called treaty to take control of Iraq's oil wealth. And it remained that way for decades until the people in the Middle East nationalized their oil wealth to end outside control. But western oil interests and the neocons have wanted it back ever since. War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may have said that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil, but the announcement that western oil companies would get what they have lusted for says otherwise. And editorial cartoonist Rob Tornoe of politicker.com summed up the world view the other day in a cartoon displayed right here next to me. He spoke truth to power with one compelling image. He says all at once that this entire war, its tragic casualties and immense cost, was all about oil. As so many suspected all along, Secretary of State Rice tried to claim that the U.S. Government played no role whatsoever in securing sweetheart oil deals for Iraq's sweet crude oil. But the New York Times reported in a front page story, ``A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraq Government and five major western oil companies.'' The immense oil reserves beneath Iraq are the world's second largest, and western oil companies want them, just as they did 78 years ago. And like 1930, they plan to permanently occupy Iraq. To remove any doubt from the minds of the American people, I would like to enter into the Record the entire Angelo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930. Let's look at Article 5. It says that maintaining order inside Iraq is the primary responsibility of the Iraq Government. But then it immediately says that Iraq recognizes and accepts Britain's role inside Iraq and grants Britain the right to build air bases and maintain military forces inside Iraq. That is exactly what the President and this administration has been saying all along. The President has made it clear he wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq permanently. In 1930, they didn't call it occupation, they called it a treaty. And they are doing it all over again. Here's another example. The Angelo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 addresses immunity for British forces and unlimited rights to bases and troop movements. And this administration is doing the same thing. People like Jonathan Schwartz on the Web site democrats.com, Internet sites like After Downing Street and newspapers like the Independent have all examined the 1930 document and compared it to current proposals. They conclude the date is different and it is now the U.S. instead of the British Empire. Seventy-eight years later, the West is again trying to assume control of the Middle East under the guise of protecting them from themselves. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld addressed U.S. troops in Baghdad and said, ``Unlike other armies in the world, you come not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate.'' In 1917, British General Stanley Maude, addressing Iraqis in Baghdad, said, ``Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors, but as liberators.'' The only new thing this administration added was that our soldiers would be greeted by flowers. We know that was not true, just as we know the entire basis for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not true. When the Prime Minister of Iraq the other day said that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the President said no, he wants Americans in Iraq indefinitely. The calendar may say 2008, but this administration is acting like it's 1930 all over again. A journalist has just summed it up in a cartoon. There lies Saddam, and the new statue will be the logos of our five favorite oil companies. If we ignore the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Majesty the King of Iraq. Signed at Baghdad, June 30, 1930. His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the King of Iraq, whereas they desire to consolidate the friendship and to maintain and perpetuate the relations of good understanding between their respective countries; and Whereas His Britannic Majesty undertook in the Treaty of Alliance signed at Baghdad on the thirteenth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six of the Christian Era, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al- Ukhra, one thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah, that he would take into active consideration at successive intervals of four years the question whether it was possible for him to press for the admission of Iraq into the League of Nations; and Whereas His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Iraq Government without qualification or proviso on the fourteenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine that they were prepared to support the candidature of Iraq for admission to the League of Nations in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two and announced to the Council of the League on the fourth day of November, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, that this was their intention; and Whereas the mandatory responsibilities accepted by His Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq will automatically terminate upon the admission of Iraq to the League of Nations; and whereas His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq consider that the relations which will subsist between them as independent sovereigns should be defined by the conclusion of a Treaty of Alliance and Amity: Have agreed to conclude a new Treaty for this purpose on terms of complete freedom, equality and independence which will become operative upon the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries: His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Francis Henry Humphrys, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, High Commissioner of His Britannic Majesty in Iraq; and His Majesty the King of Iraq: General Nuri Pasha al SA'ID, Order of the Nadha, Second Class, Order of the Istiqlal, Second Class, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Prime Minister of the Iraq Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Who having communicated their full powers, found in due form, have agreed as follows: Article 1 There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq. There shall be established between the High Contracting Parties a close alliance in consecration of their friendship, their cordial understanding and their good relations, and there shall be full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests. Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes not to adopt in foreign countries an attitude which is inconsistent with the alliance or might create difficulties for the other party thereto. Article 2 Each High Contracting Party will be represented at the Court of the other High Contracting Party by a diplomatic representative duly accredited. Article 3 Should any dispute between Iraq and a third State produce a situation which involves the risk of a rupture with that State, the High Contracting Parties will concert together with a view to the settlement of the said dispute by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of any other international obligation which may be applicable to the case. Article 4 Should, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 above, either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war, the other High Contracting Party will, subject always to the provisions of Article 9 below, immediately come to his aid in the capacity of an ally. In the event of an imminent menace of war the High Contracting Parties will immediately concert together the necessary measures of defence. The aid of His Majesty the King of Iraq in the event of war or the imminent menace of war will consist in furnishing to His Britannic Majesty on Iraq territory all facilities and assistance in his power including the use of railways, rivers, ports, aerodromes and means of communication. Article 5 It is understood between the High Contracting Parties that responsibility for the maintenance of internal order in Iraq and, subject to the provisions of Article 4 above, for the defence of Iraq from external aggression rests with His Majesty the King of Iraq. Nevertheless His Majesty the King of Iraq recognises that the permanent maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty is in the common interest of the High Contracting Parties. For this purpose and in order to facilitate the discharge of the obligations of His Britannic Majesty under Article 4 above, His Majesty the King of Iraq undertakes to grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance sites for air bases to be selected by His Britannic Majesty at or in the vicinity of Basra and for an air base to be selected by His Britannic Majesty to the west of the Euphrates. His Majesty the King of Iraq further authorises His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces upon Iraq territory at the above localities in accordance with the provisions of the Annexure of this Treaty on the understanding that the presence of those forces shall not constitute in any manner an occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq. Article 6 The Annexure hereto shall be regarded as an integral part of the present Treaty. Article 7 This Treaty shall replace the Treaties of Alliance signed at Baghdad on the tenth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two of the Christian Era 1, corresponding to the nineteenth day of Safar, one thousand three hundred and forty-one, Hijrah, and on the thirteenth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, of the Christian Era 2, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al- Ukhra, one thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah, and the subsidiary agreements thereto, which shall cease to have effect upon the entry into force of this Treaty. It shall be executed in duplicate, in the English and Arabic languages, of which the former shall be regarded as the authoritative version. Article 8 The High Contracting Parties recognise that, upon the entry into force of this Treaty, all responsibilities devolving under the Treaties and Agreements referred to in Article 7 hereof upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq will, in so far as His Britannic Majesty is concerned, then automatically and completely come to an end, and that such responsibilities, in so far as they continue at all, will devolve upon His Majesty the King of Iraq alone. It is also recognised that all responsibilities devolving upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq under any other international instrument, in so far as they continue at all, should similarly devolve upon His Majesty the King of Iraq alone, and the High Contracting Parties shall immediately take such steps as may be necessary to secure the transference to His Majesty the King of Iraq of these responsibilities. Article 9 Nothing in the present Treaty is intended to or shall in any way prejudice the rights and obligations which devolve, or may devolve, upon either of the High Contracting Parties under the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Treaty for the Renunciation of War signed at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight. Article 10 Should any difference arise relative to the application or the interpretation of this Treaty and should the High Contracting Parties fail to settle such difference by direct negotiation, then it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 11 This Treaty shall be ratified and ratifications shall be exchanged as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into force as soon as Iraq has been admitted to membership of the League of Nations. The present Treaty shall remain in force for a period of twenty-five years from the date of its coming into force. At any time after twenty years from the date of the coming into force of this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will, at the request of either of them, conclude a new Treaty which shall provide for the continued maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty. In case of disagreement in this matter the difference will be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals. Done at Baghdad in duplicate this thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and thirty, of the Christian Era, corresponding to the fourth day of Safar, One thousand three hundred and forty-nine, Hijrah. (L. S.) F. H. Humphrys. (L. S.) Noury Said. Annexure to Treaty of Alliance 1. The strength of the forces maintained in Iraq by His Britannic Majesty in accordance with the terms of Article 5 of this Treaty shall be determined by His Britannic Majesty from time to time after consultation with His Majesty the King of Iraq. His Britannic Majesty shall maintain forces at Hinaidi for a period of five years after the entry into force of this Treaty in order to enable His Majesty the King of Iraq to organise the necessary forces to replace them. By the expiration of that period the said forces of His Britannic Majesty shall have been withdrawn from Hinaidi. It shall be also open to His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces at Mosul for a maximum period of five years from the entry into force of this Treaty. Thereafter it shall be open to His Britannic Majesty to station his forces in the localities mentioned in Article 5 of this Treaty, and His Majesty the King of Iraq will grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance leases of the necessary sites for the accommodation of the forces of His Britannic Majesty in those localities. 2. Subject to any modifications which the two High Contracting Parties may agree to introduce in the future, the immunities and privileges in jurisdictional and fiscal matters, including freedom from taxation, enjoyed by the British forces in Iraq will continue to extend to the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and to such of His Britannic Majesty's forces of all arms as may be in Iraq in pursuance of the present Treaty and its annexure or otherwise by agreement between the High Contracting Parties, and the existing provisions of any local legislation affecting the armed forces of His Britannic Majesty in Iraq shall also continue. The Iraq Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the altered conditions will not render the position of the British forces as regards immunities and privileges in any way less favourable than that enjoyed by them at the date of the entry into force of this Treaty. 3. His Majesty the King of Iraq agrees to provide all possible facilities for the movement, training and maintenance of the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and to accord to those forces the same facilities for the use of wireless telegraphy as those enjoyed by them at the date of the entry into force of the present Treaty. 4. His Majesty the King of Iraq undertakes to provide at the request and at the expense of His Britannic Majesty and upon such conditions as may be agreed between the High Contracting Parties special guards from his own forces for the protection of such air bases as may, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, be occupied by the forces of His Britannic Majesty, and to secure the enactment of such legislation as may be necessary for the fulfilment of the conditions referred to above. 5. His Britannic Majesty undertakes to grant whenever they may be required by His Majesty the King of Iraq all possible facilities in the following matters, the cost of which will be met by His Majesty the King of Iraq. 1. Naval, military and aeronautical instruction of Iraqi officers in the United Kingdom. 2. The provision of arms, ammunition, equipment, ships and aeroplanes of the latest available pattern for the forces of His Majesty the King of Iraq. 3. The provision of British naval, military and air force officers to serve in an advisory capacity with the forces of His Majesty the King of Iraq. 6. In view of the desirability of identity in training and methods between the Iraq and British armies, His Majesty the King of Iraq undertakes that, should he deem it necessary to have recourse to foreign military instructors, these shall be chosen from amongst British subjects. He further undertakes that any personnel of his forces that may be sent abroad for military training will be sent to military schools, colleges and training centres in the territories of His Britannic Majesty, provided that this shall not prevent him from sending to any other country such personnel as cannot be received in the said institutions and training centres. He further undertakes that the armament and essential equipment of his forces shall not differ in type from those of the forces of His Britannic Majesty. 7. His Majesty the King of Iraq agrees to afford, when requested to do so by His Britannic Majesty, all possible facilities for the movement of the forces of His Britannic Majesty of all arms in transit across Iraq and for the transport and storage of all supplies and equipment that may be required by these forces during their passage across Iraq. These facilities shall cover the use of the roads, railways, waterways, ports and aerodromes of Iraq, and His Britannic Majesty's ships shall have general permission to visit the Shatt-al-Arab on the understanding that His Majesty the King of Iraq is given prior notification of visits to Iraq ports.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) and their partners in the non-profit, governmental, and private sectors for embarking on their 2008 Housing America Campaign. The affordable housing issues that the Housing America Campaign raises affect every Congressional district in this country. The statistics are grim: 750,000 Americans are homeless on any given night and 3\1/2\ million experience homelessness at some point in each year. I'm worried that these numbers will only increase as the foreclosure crisis continues. More than 15 million American families now pay more than half of their income for housing. Too many of these families also make less than 50 percent of their area's median income and yet still are stuck on waiting lists for government assistance. Where I live in Seattle there are thousands of families on waiting lists for Section 8. In Seattle the ``fair market rent'' established by HUD is over $900 a month for a 2-bedroom apartment. In order to be able to afford this, without paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent, someone in Seattle would have to be making $37,000 a year or about $18/hour, which is more than double the minimum wage in Washington State and about triple the current Federal minimum wage. I am relieved that the House has taken meaningful action to address the affordable housing shortage by passing legislation to create an Affordable Housing Fund. This critical fund will provide about $500 million per year to finance construction, maintenance, and preservation of affordable housing throughout the country. In addition, the House has passed legislation that increases the loan limits for government-backed loans, helps homeowners in trouble refinance their home loans and to provide funding to revitalize neighborhoods where foreclosures have been rampant, and to modernize and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. We have more work to do in Congress and it will probably require an administration with a greater commitment to addressing the affordable housing crisis in the U.S. But we should all be grateful to NAHRO and their partners for sounding the alarm and raising awareness both in the Congress and around the country. They make our jobs much easier. I look forward to continuing to work with the Housing America Campaign as we fight for affordable housing opportunities for every family in this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 462 and 463, I was unavoidably detained on legislative business away from the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, as a child psychiatrist, I have seen lots of these kids. I have seen them both in detention centers and in mental health facilities and in a variety of settings in which youngsters with really severe problems, people try to handle them. And it is with that in mind, that is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs For Teens Act of 2008. It was introduced by my friend, George Miller, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of what is a very important piece of legislation that will help protect America's kids. In answer to the remarks of one of my colleagues just a moment ago about whether or not maybe we ought to let California deal with their problems, this is a problem nationwide. This is not a California problem. There are parents all over this country who have severely disturbed youngsters who try to find a place to place a kid in hopes that the program that is offered will in some way help their child get back on the track to being a successful adult. There are thousands of these youngsters every year that look for a place, some in their States, some outside their State. Parents know what they know. They may not know what the rules are in various States, and in some ways it is almost inevitable something like this, because of the transfer across State lines, that we have a national standard by which we require programs to operate. They go to these programs for help in facing behavior and emotional problems, substance abuse and sometimes elements of building self- confidence that are known as bootstrap programs or wilderness camps or self-help boarding schools, and they operate across the country. Now the teenagers who come into these programs receive help.