Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the announcement in Beijing yesterday that the Government of North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program is a positive step, and I applaud the efforts of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, as well as the efforts of our negotiating partners, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.

Obviously much work remains to be done to ensure that North Korea follows through on its pledge to halt plutonium production at Yongbyon and to allow the return of international inspectors, as well as to resolve other outstanding issues; most noticeably, the need for complete declaration from Pyongyang of all of its nuclear activities and final disposition of North Korea's existing nuclear program.

As with past agreements with the reclusive regime of Kim Jong-Il, this agreement could collapse at any time.

There is now, however, rare optimism that a significant ratcheting down of tensions with the North is possible. The agreement should serve to remind those in the administration who see confrontation as the only way to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program, that diplomacy can be effective, even if it is often immensely frustrating.

I hope that the President and Secretary of State will use this breakthrough with North Korea to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 4 years since President Bush ordered American military forces into Iraq with the intention of toppling the government of Saddam Hussein. Now, after more than 3,100 American troops have been lost and this Nation has spent in excess of $365 billion, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Do we endorse the President's decision to escalate the conflict, or do we, as a coequal branch of government, exercise our prerogative to force a change in course?

In October of 2002 I voted for the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq based on three assumptions: First, that the intelligence community correctly assessed that Iraq had active stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing a nuclear bomb; second, that President Bush would exhaust all diplomatic efforts to resolve the international community's standoff with Iraq over its weapons programs; and, third, that if the President determined that a resort to force was necessary the prosecution of the war and its aftermath would be competently managed by the President and his administration.

Each of these assumptions proved to be wrong. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no nuclear program; President Bush did not exhaust all diplomatic efforts; and perhaps most tragically, his administration made terrible, costly and repeated blunders in its conduct of the war.

I have been to Iraq three times to visit our troops and to thank them for their service and their sacrifice. I have met the families of five soldiers and marines from my district who have been lost in Iraq. I have visited with our wounded here and overseas.

Words cannot convey the admiration that I have for the magnificent job that these men and women, many of them still in their late teens and early twenties, are doing on our behalf in Iraq. Whatever failings there have been in the prosecution of this war by the administration, our troops have performed magnificently in wretched conditions and against an often unseen enemy that has targeted U.S. military and Iraqi citizens without discrimination.

We must and we will continue to ensure that they have the resources they need to do their jobs and to come home safely, and once they are home, we will provide them with the care and benefits that they have paid for in blood.

Unlike some of my friends in the minority, I have never construed support for the troops to require a blind, unquestioning and slavish devotion to the Executive, even when the Executive is wrong, even when its policies will not achieve the desired result, and even when those very policies place our troops unnecessarily and unproductively at greater risk. On the contrary, on the contrary, an engaged Congress is essential to meaningful support for the troops.

On many occasions here on the House floor, in committee and in meetings with senior officials, I have pressed for accountability, oversight and a more vigorous commitment to force protection. In October 2003, I voted against the $87 billion Iraq supplemental because I believed that it shortchanged security for our troops and allocated too much for no-bid contracts.

Now, more than 3 years later, our reconstruction efforts in Iraq are a disaster and a national disgrace. Too many of our troops still ride into battle in vehicles that are not properly protected against IEDs and other weapons.

Last June I voted against the administration's ``stay the course'' resolution that sought to conflate the war in Iraq with the entire struggle against al Qaeda, even as it failed to acknowledge that our strategy to stabilize the country was not working and that its country was slipping into civil war.

Now, against the advice of Congress, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, most military experts and the American people, President Bush has determined that victory in Iraq can be achieved by deploying 21,000 additional combat troops to Baghdad and its environs.

Regrettably, I cannot see how this escalation can be successful. Instead, I believe it will further the cycle of dependency that has allowed Iraq's Shiite dominated government to avoid making compromises with Sunnis and to avoid building capable security forces. It will increase the strain on our military at a time when the Army and Marines are already stretched to the breaking point. And, most of all, it will deepen our military commitment to Iraq at a time when there is a national consensus that we should be taking steps to reduce our combat role and reinvigorate the diplomatic process.

The administration and the minority charge that those who do not support the escalation have no plan and that this is the only possible path to success. I disagree. The Iraq Study Group laid out a strategy that centered around a reduced American combat presence in Iraq, increased efforts to train Iraqi forces, increased pressures on the Iraqis to make compromises and a regional conference to hammer out a common approach to Iraq.

This resolution is a clear message to the President that his approach has lost the confidence of this House and we need a change of direction. I hope he chooses to take our counsel. But he should be aware that the days of a rubber-stamp Congress are over, and we are willing to take other steps to insist on charting a new course in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of my constituent, Army Specialist Carla Jane Stewart of the 250th Transportation Company based in El Monte, California. Specialist Stewart was killed in action on January 28, 2007 in Tallil, Iraq, when her military convoy vehicle overturned.

Carla was born in La Canada Flintridge, California to an Armenian American family. Her father, Edmond Aprahamian, a former Marine, and her mother, Emmy Aprahamian, are proud parents who will cherish the memory of their daughter who chose to enlist in the U.S. Army at the age of 35. After completing her basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, she told her family and friends that if her unit was not deployed to Iraq, that she would volunteer to go. As it turned out, the 250th was deployed to Iraq last year and is due to return home in March.

Carla learned mechanical drafting alongside her father. Her family and friends have spoken with reverence of her distinctive commitment to duty, her dedication to her unit, her love of country and family. According to her father, Carla always had a smile. She was a small woman; her unit called her Stewart Little, but she was gutsy and in every other way giant.

It takes a special commitment to volunteer for military service in a time of war, and even greater devotion to country to do so at the age of 35, a time when most of us have put aside thoughts of abandoning the comfort of home to take up arms in the fight for liberty and freedom. Specialist Carla Jane Stewart did both, and on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, we honor her memory.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report on the state of climate change science. This report is the most comprehensive, unbiased summary of the climate situation because it evaluates all peer-reviewed research published around the world and draws only the most conservative conclusions.

The report found that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal, and that the culprit is almost certainly our emissions.

However, this troubling scientific consensus is not acceptable to some, like the American Enterprise Institute, which sent a letter to climate scientists offering them $10,000 to write articles challenging the IPCC's analysis. This is an appalling attempt by vested interests to buy science that is more convenient for their outdated philosophy. However, it is also encouraging because it demonstrates just how desperate the climate skeptics are.

The IPCC report is the writing on the wall. The American people are demanding comprehensive climate change legislation, and we can delay no longer.

Madam Speaker, February is Black History Month, a time that we have set aside to honor the contributions that African Americans have made to this Nation. Some question the continuing need for a month-long celebration; others see it as a poor substitute for concerted national action to address the needs of African Americans. But Black History Month remains a time for reflection on the progress of our national journey towards a truly equal and just society.

America has traveled a long way in the last few decades, but we have a

long way yet to go. We have seen the promise of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision of a colorblind America, but its reality lies in too many ways still beyond our grasps.

In some respects, this is a historic moment for this country, and historians may look back on this period as the true beginning of a post-civil rights era, a time in which the statutory gains made by an earlier generation are bearing fruit as a new generation fully realizes its dream for themselves and their children.

The current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and her predecessor, Colin Powell, are black. One of the front-runners in the Democratic Party's 2008 Presidential contest, Barack Obama, is African American.

In 1974, Boston was the scene of protracted racial violence as the result of a court-ordered busing to integrate the city's schools. Last month, Massachusetts inaugurated its first black Governor, Deval Patrick.

Here in the House of Representatives, the Chair of the Democratic Caucus is African American, and five committees are chaired by black Members: Homeland Security, Judiciary, Ways and Means, Government Administration, and the Ethics Committee. Last Sunday for the first time two black head coaches faced each other in the Super Bowl.

It would be easy to look at these examples of African Americans who have made it to the summit of our national life and conclude that the shackles of oppression and prejudice have finally been released, but that is not the case. And even as we honor those who have risen, we cannot neglect the millions more who are still trying, including many whose lives were shattered by Hurricane Katrina only a year and a half ago. As Senator Obama has said, things are better, but better is not good enough.

It would be easy to look at the achievements of Dr. David Satcher, who served as Surgeon General of the United States from 1998 to 2002, or Dr. Keith Black, the chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai in L.A., and conclude that African Americans are well represented among the Nation's physicians. Unfortunately, while blacks make up 12 percent of the population, they comprise only 3.6 percent of the Nation's doctors. This paucity of African American doctors is one reason why blacks lag behind whites in a host of crucial medical indicators.

White women in the United States can expect to live more than 4 years longer than black women, and white men have a life expectancy that is over 6 years longer than African American men.

African Americans in the U.S. also have higher mortality rates than Caucasians for many diseases, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, prostate cancer, breast cancer and AIDS. Nationwide, the infant mortality rate for blacks is double that, double that of the white population.

Or we could look with optimism on the achievements of black business professionals, who are increasingly found in the upper management of American corporations and who are starting their own businesses at an ever-increasing rate. African Americans who own businesses increased by nearly a third in the 5 years from 1997 to 2002 and now number more than half a million nationwide. But these numbers cannot compensate for the fact that only four of the Nation's Fortune 500 companies are led by African Americans.

More generally, the median income for white households is $48,000, while that of black households is only $31,000. More telling, nearly one in four African Americans live in poverty, while fewer than one in ten whites do.

It would be easy to look at the achievements of Neil de Grasse Tyson, the astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium, and Dr. Stephen Mayo, an associate professor of biology and chemistry at CalTech and think that the burden of inferior schools has been lifted from the shoulders of African Americans. Sadly, that is not the case.

At every level of education, blacks are disadvantaged in the classroom. According to the NAACP, far less money is spent on black pupils than on white pupils, more than $1,400 less per student in most impoverished areas. This inequality means that black children do not get access to the technology and other resources that white kids have.

More importantly, the quality of teachers in predominantly African American schools is not equal to that of teachers in white schools. These schools have the least experienced teachers, the highest percentage of out-of-field teachers, the highest teacher mobility rates, the greatest incidence of teachers who leave the profession. The consequences are predictable: profound gaps in reading and math that emerge in early elementary school and persist through high school, and much lower high school graduation rates.

So, Madam Speaker, even as we celebrate the many and profound gifts that African Americans have made to our country, we cannot lose sight of the urgent need for all of us to do more to rededicate ourselves to achieving the equality that is the cornerstone of American democracy. Things are better, but better is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, about a week and a half ago, a courageous journalist by the name of Hrant Dink was murdered outside of his newspaper office in Istanbul. I would like to read today some of the comments that he made in his last newspaper article Agos on January 19, the day that he was shot dead.

He wrote, ``At first, when an investigation was launched against me for insulting Turkishness, I did not feel troubled. This was not the first time . . .

``I had complete trust in what I'd written and what had been my intentions.

``Once the prosecutor had the chance to evaluate the text of my editorial as a whole, not that single sentence, which made no sense by itself, he would understand that I had no intention of insulting Turkishness and this comedy would come to an end. I was sure of myself. But, surprise! A lawsuit was filed.

``In covering every hearing, the newspapers, editorials and television programs all referred to how I had said that the blood of the Turk is poisonous.

``Each time they were adding to my fame as the enemy of the Turk.

``In the corridors of the courthouse, the fascists physically attacked me with racist curses.

``They bombarded me with insults. Hundreds of threats hailed down for months by phone, e-mail and post, increasing all the time.

``I persevered through all of this with patience, awaiting the decision that would acquit me.

``Then the truth would prevail and all those people would be ashamed of what they had done.

``My only weapon was my sincerity. But when the decision came out, my hopes were crushed. From then on, I was in the most distressed situation a person can possibly be in.

``The judge had made a decision in the name of the Turkish nation and it had legally registered that I had denigrated Turkishness. I could have coped with anything but this.

``In my understanding, the denigration of a person on the basis of any difference, ethnic or religious, is racism, and there was no way this could ever be forgiven . . .

``Those who tried to single me out and weaken me have succeeded. With the false information they oozed into society, they created a significant segment of the population who saw Hrant Dink as someone who insults Turkishness.

``The memory of my computer is filled with angry, threatening lines sent by citizens from this sector.

``How real are these threats? To be honest, it is impossible for me to know for sure.

``What is truly threatening and unbearable for me is the psychological torture I placed myself in. The question that really gets to me is: What are these people thinking about me?

``Unfortunately, I am now better known than before and I feel people looking at me, thinking: Oh, look, isn't he that Armenian guy?

``I am just like a pigeon, equally obsessed by what goes on on my left and right, front and back. My head is just as mobile and fast.

``What did foreign Minister Gul say? Or Justice Minister Cicek? There is no need to exaggerate about Article 301 on insulting Turkishness. Has anyone been actually put in prison?

``As if going to prison was the only price to pay. This is the price. This is the price.

``Do you ministers know the price of making someone as scared as a pigeon?

``What my family and I have been through has not been easy. I have considered leaving this country at times . . .

``But leaving a boiling hell to run to a heaven is not for me. I wanted to turn this hell into heaven.

``We stayed in Turkey because that was what we wanted, out of respect for the thousands of people here who supported me in my fight for democracy . . .

``I am now applying to the European Court of Human Rights. I don't know how long the case will take, but I do know that I will continue living here in Turkey until the case is finalized.

``And if the Court rules in my favor, I will be very happy and will never have to leave my country.

``2007 will probably be an even harder year for me. The Court cases will continue. New ones will be initiated and God knows what kind of additional injustices I will have to face.

``I may see myself as frightened as a pigeon, but I know that in this country people do not touch pigeons.

``Pigeons can live in cities, even in crowds. A little scared perhaps, but free.''

Well, Mr. Dink, unfortunately, found otherwise when he was gunned down outside of his office by young men no doubt inflamed by the passions that the government did so little to quell. Hrant Dink, who had the courage to talk about some of the darkest periods of Ottoman history, of the genocide of the Armenian people, the first genocide of last century that claimed a million and a half lives, paid for that courage with his life.

Well, we will have the courage here soon to take up a resolution on the Armenian genocide. All we have to do is vote. That is very little compared to what Hrant Dink did and the price that he paid.

I had a chance to meet him in Istanbul a couple of years ago. He was optimistic about the future. He was optimistic about Turkey's future, about its willingness to examine its past. Regrettably, that optimism was misplaced.

Today we remember a courageous journalist, Hrant Dink. And his legacy lives on.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special recognition to Robert C. Davidson, Jr. upon being named recipient of Morehouse College's Bennie Leadership Award for the year 2007.

Robert Davidson's long and distinguished career began in the late 1960s, when he began as a Management Consultant with the New York-based Cresap, McCormick and Paget. Robert later moved to Boston, where he cofounded and served as Vice President of the Urban National Corporation, a private venture capital company established with a commitment to increase industry's investment in minority-controlled businesses.

Mr. Davidson's entrepreneurial spirit continued as he served as Chief Executive Officer of Avant Garde Enterprises, and it later led him to develop and head his own management and consulting firm. In 1978, Robert formed Surface Protection Industries, Inc. (SPI) and served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Under his leadership, SPI developed into one of California's leading African-American-owned manufacturing companies.

Robert Davidson has a strong commitment to community involvement and voluntary service. He currently sits on the Board of Directors for the following organizations: Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia; Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (NYSE); Broadway Federal Bank (NASDAQ); Fulcrum Venture Capital Corporation; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business Advisory Council; Art Center College of Design in Pasadena; the South Coast Air Quality Management District Brain Tumor and Air Pollution Foundation; and the Los Angeles Urban League.

Prior board affiliations include Children's Hospital of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Rebuild LA; Museum of Contemporary Art; Charles Drew University School of Medicine; Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena; Shaare Zedek Medical Center Jerusalem; Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra; Falcon Cable Community Ventures; the African/American Museum of Art; the Black-Jewish Economic Development Committee of Los Angeles; Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles; the Weingart Center for the Homeless; and the Planning Commission for the City of Pasadena.

Mr. Davidson lives in Pasadena with his wife Faye and their three sons, Robert III, John Roderick, and Julian.

I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in honoring an outstanding individual of California's 29th Congressional District, Robert C. Davidson, Jr. The entire community joins me in thanking Robert for his success and continued efforts toward making the 29th Congressional District a better place in which to live and work.

Mr. Speaker, in December 2005, we learned that the Bush administration was using the National Security Agency, the NSA, to eavesdrop on Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant or judicial oversight, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Over a year later, Congress has yet to address this issue, and the NSA's secret surveillance program has continued unabated. Just last week the administration continued its unilateral approach, announcing that notwithstanding its protestations last year, that it could not possibly allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oversee the NSA program; it would now submit to the court's jurisdiction, but not tell the Congress how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would oversee the program or why its policies have changed.

When Members of Congress questioned the Attorney General and the National Intelligence Director regarding this shift in policy, both officials refused to provide information regarding the nature of the administration's new policy in this area.

Indeed, we have no idea whether the administration is now seeking warrants on an individualized basis or broad programmatic approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Congressional silence in this area and others has had other repercussions. Earlier this month Congress was again caught by surprise when we learned that the President has claimed potentially sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a court warrant.

Again, the administration could obtain a warrant, and quickly, from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge, but has chosen not to submit this effort to court supervision. Interestingly, the developments over the last year bear a striking resemblance to events that occurred some 30 years ago, when a series of troubling reports

began appearing in the press concerning domestic intelligence activities and surveillance of political activities of U.S. citizens.

These revelations and others revealed by the Watergate scandal convinced lawmakers that Congress had been too permissive and trusting, failing to carry out its oversight responsibilities over the executive branch.

In response, a U.S. Senate committee was formed to investigate intelligence activities by the government. The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly referred to as the Church committee, after its Senate chairman, issued more than 50,000 pages of reports in what is considered the most comprehensive review of intelligence activities in the country.

Ironically, the reports included sections on mail opening as well as the National Security Agency and fourth amendment rights. In rebuffing recent congressional requests for information on the current NSA program, the administration has made the argument that the NSA surveillance program is too sensitive to be shared with Congress, even to Members in the classified setting.

When these same concerns were weighed by the Church committee in 1975, the opposite result was reached, with the committee refusing to neglect its oversight responsibility merely because their work would be harder. In fact, the extensive oversight and the substantial record generated by the Church committee inspired the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Both have worked effectively to ensure that the President has the tools necessary to thwart attacks while ensuring respect for the civil liberties of Americans and the adherence to the rule of law. FISA, as it is called, has provided a measure of oversight over foreign intelligence activities on U.S. soil, and with it the confidence of the American people.

This administration, however, has undermined that trust by circumventing FISA. Congress should follow the example of the Church committee, by vigorously examining the NSA surveillance program and determining what legislative action is necessary. The administration should cooperate and work with Congress as we engage in our oversight responsibilities, and make the case for statutory change if revisions are required to meet new challenges in the war on terror.

If, however, the administration rejects congressional oversight in this area and continues to defy requests for information, Congress should seek other means of redress. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Representative Jeff Flake that can serve as a basis for examining these issues and restoring the rule of law.

The NSA Oversight Act, H.R. 11, would reiterate existing law requiring court approval for the surveillance of Americans on American soil, and would provide greater oversight of NSA's surveillance activity. Our legislation also makes some key changes to FISA in order to streamline and expedite the process in response to the administration's argument that the current framework was too cumbersome.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to fully examine this issue, step up its oversight responsibility, and take legislative action if necessary.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the College Student Relief Act. America's economy continues to change, and a college education has grown increasingly more important. Unfortunately, it has also grown increasingly more expensive, with tuition and fees for a four-year public college rising 41 percent--after inflation--since 2001. Federally subsidized loans provide a crucial helping hand to middle class students and families. This legislation will lessen the burden on hardworking students and families by cutting interest rates on federally subsidized student loans in half over a period of five years, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

In California, the average college student with federally subsidized loans graduates with more than $15,000 of debt. The costs of college are such that it is simply unaffordable for many students without help. Over the next decade, 4.4 million high school graduates will be prevented from attending a 4-year college by financial barriers. Our Nation's economic competiveness relies upon having the best educated workforce possible and investment in postsecondary education will yield great societal benefits.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will make a difference in the lives of millions of young people, helping to put them on secure financial footing as they move from college to the working world. And it does so responsibly, within the structure of the PAY-GO rules that ensure that the entire $6 billion in costs will be paid for by reasonable offsets. I urge a ``Yes'' vote on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2007.

In California, we have devoted State funds, nearly $300 million a year, to pursuing research on embryonic stem cells, and it has helped make California a destination for researchers on the cutting edge of biotechnology. But the promise of stem cell therapies will not benefit just the people of California, but all Americans, and indeed the entire world. Shutting the National Institute of Health out of this research is misguided, and turns our back on the many millions who may benefit from the cures it may provide.

More than five years after the Administration instituted restrictions on Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the promise of this potential line of treatment is greater than ever.

There are those who suggest that research on adult stem cells is equally promising and has produced new therapies--and I welcome further research in that area. But we, as legislators, should not prejudge which avenues are most promising. We should leave the science to the scientists.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to transform the way we treat diseases that afflict millions of Americans. There is not a person in America who doesn't know someone who suffers from diabetes or Alzheimer's or cancer or heart disease, and embryonic stem cell research hold tremendous promise for the treatment of each of those, along with many other potential therapies.

Medical and biological ethics are a serious issue and we can have differences of opinion, but I believe that a commitment to lifesaving medical research that holds the potential to cure diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's is consistent with a commitment to the sanctity of human life.

Last year, I voted to override the President's veto of this important legislation. I hope the President will reconsider his opposition, and it will not be necessary to vote on an override again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Martin Luther King Day that we celebrated earlier this week. Americans celebrated the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King who would have turned 78 this month. While there is much left to be done, Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society is closer to reality this year than last.

Dr. King championed nonviolent resistance as a means to bring about fundamental change. He sought such change to bring about equality between peoples of all races, an end to segregation and racial injustice and improved working conditions for all.

Dr. King was a master of rhetoric, and he used his power to bring together Americans from a variety of backgrounds to march in pursuit of equality and justice. And Dr. King achieved great success at attaining these lofty goals, despite his murder at the age of 39.

At only 26 years of age, Dr. King became a national figure by leading the Montgomery bus boycott. At that time, Dr. King was the new pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church and was spurred to action by the arrest of Rosa Parks for refusing to give her seat on a public bus to a white man. Dr. King inspired action through his words, ``There comes a time when people get tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression.'' With that, he called for a citywide boycott of public transit and demanded first come, first served seating, courteous treatment by bus operators, and the employment of African American bus drivers. The boycott lasted 382 days and in that time, Dr. King's house was bombed and he was arrested. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on public transportation.

With the success of the Montgomery bus boycott, Dr. King noted, ``We have gained a new sense of dignity and destiny. We have discovered a new and powerful weapon, nonviolent resistance.''

Nonviolent resistance, which had been pioneered by Mohandas Gandhi in India, became a cornerstone of King's strategy to gain full civil rights and equality for all people. Over the next 13 years, Dr. King achieved basic civil rights for African-Americans, desegregation, the annulment of Jim Crow laws and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Dr. Martin Luther King Day allows us to reflect on the steps that we, as a nation, have made towards fulfilling Dr. King's dream. Dr. King's 1963 March on Washington was organized around numerous demands for civil rights, many of which are still very relevant today. One such demand was full and fair employment, including a raise in the minimum wage from $1.25 to $2 at that time.

I am proud that last week is part of the 110th Congress' first 100 hours. The House of Representatives addressed this issue by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. This will significantly benefit a great many low-income families, including the 2.1 million African American minimum wage earners. Other legislation in the first 100 hours will improve health care and education for American families, including 3.9 million African American Medicare beneficiaries and 2.3 million African American college students.

This past weekend I commemorated the work of Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Jackie Robinson Park and at the Metropolitan Baptist Church in my district. At these celebrations my constituents and I examined our progress over the past 40 years since Dr. King's tragic death and remember his line from ``I Have a Dream'' about the fierce urgency of now. Dr. King preached then that now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children, and it is still that time now.

With continued and wide disparities and access to higher education, wages, and access to health care, we as a Nation still have much work before us. Now, even as we celebrate one of the truly great men in this Nation's history, it is time to recommit ourselves to the vision of Dr. King and bring about racial equality and opportunity for every American.

Madam Speaker, in these opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democratic majority in the House has succeeded in passing a package of bills that is designed to secure America. We passed a bill to improve our Nation's ability to prevent another 9/11 style attack on our country. We have made life a little more secure for millions in the United States who toil at the minimum wage, and millions of young people who leave college with a degree and a mountain of debt. We have secured the ability of America's medical researchers to explore and exploit the life-saving potential of stem cells. We have committed this government to safeguarding our economic security by ending years of fiscal irresponsibility. And today, we have begun what may be the most important project of all, to ensure America's energy security by ending our dependence on foreign oil and developing clean, green renewable sources of energy.

Ensuring our energy security will require more than just the protection of American oil supplies from terrorists in hostile nations. It will also mean we find homegrown fuel sources that reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It will mean that we pare down our energy consumption and promote efficiency. It will mean that we transition to renewable energy sources that ensure a clean, dependable energy supply for years to come.

There are those who say that it would cost too much to shift our infrastructure over to new energy sources. They say that the market has decided that coal and oil are the cheapest energy, and that switching to renewable energy would harm our economy.

This is shortsighted, false, and, ultimately, dangerous because much of the true cost of oil and coal don't appear on the gas pump or on our electric bills. Extracting coal and oil harms the environment and burning fossil fuels produces pollution that clogs our cities and greenhouse gases that warm our atmosphere. Tens of thousands of Americans get lung cancer and other respiratory diseases from power plant air pollution and this, too, is part of the true cost of ``cheap'' energy. These expenses are paid by the American people just as surely as they pay their electric bills.

But to find the true cost of a barrel of oil, we must look further, to a foreign policy beholden to oil and gas, and that price is too steep.

Today the House passed a bill that will roll back tax breaks for oil and gas companies and reform the royalty relief system that has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. The $13 billion dollars saved by this overdue reform will be placed in a strategic reserve to be spent on programs to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy and alternative fuels, promote energy efficiency, and step up research on advanced energy technologies. Initiatives like these are the only way to permanently reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and this bill is a good first step on the road to true energy security.

European and Asian competitors are already developing technologies that will reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Rather than American entrepreneurs, it is our competitors who are prospering from these developments. By marshaling America's great strengths, our inventiveness, our technological prowess, and our entrepreneurial spirit, we can better secure our Nation, save our environment, and become the world leader in this cutting-edge industry.

We must encourage the development of flexible-fuel and hybrid vehicles. These vehicles can be built with today's technology and will enable a smooth transition from gasoline to biofuels.

We must raise the corporate average fuel economy standards.

We must invest in research and development of new energy technologies, like wind power, cheap solar cells, plug-in hybrid cars, and cellulosic ethanol. The new energy economy will be dominated by rapid innovation, and the scientific investment we make now will be paid back with interest by the technologies it creates.

We must encourage employers to offer mass-transit benefits so that employees can commute without their cars, and support mass transit systems around the country.

We must pass global warming legislation to reduce our output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Many of America's most successful companies have realized that something must be done to contain global warming and they are now pushing Congress to lead.

We know what must be done to end our dangerous addiction to oil. All we need now is the will to do it.

Madam Speaker, we have lost so much time since 9/11, time that could have been so profitably used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But it is not too late to abruptly and constructively change course. The American people are ready for a clean energy economy, and the bill we passed today will begin to put our country on that new road to energy independence and a more secure future.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's decision by President Bush to escalate the U.S. troop commitment in Iraq will not bring stability to Baghdad. It will not ameliorate the growing civil war in Iraq. A troop increase will not result in a more rapid exit for the more than 130,000 American troops serving there, many of them on their third or fourth tour in Iraq. And worst of all, it makes apparent that the President has paid little heed to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a multitude of experts, both civilian and military, the Congress and, most importantly, an overwhelming majority of the American people.

For a long time, many of us have been calling for a new way forward in Iraq, and the White House billed last night's speech as a dramatic departure from current policy. But while the rhetoric may have been different, the plan outlined by the President was more of the same, and he clearly intends to stay the course. This is a position that I believe is unwise and that I strongly oppose.

I will support a resolution of disapproval, and I am willing to explore other options to force the President to truly change policy in Iraq.

In his remarks, the President told us that failure in Iraq is unacceptable, but his prosecution of the war has made success in Iraq recede further and further from our reach. The latest escalation is another in a long series of poor decisions by the administration that have cost the lives of so many brave and dedicated troops, cost American taxpayers more than $350 billion and left Iraq in chaos. Shiites and Sunnis who once lived in integrated neighborhoods in Baghdad are slaughtering each other now at a terrifying

pace. Iraqis spend 16 of every 24 hours without electricity.

Rather than sending additional troops to combat the insurgency, we should begin to responsibly redeploy our forces in Iraq while redoubling our efforts to train and equip Iraqi forces to provide their own security, an effort which is at the very heart of the Iraq Study Group recommendations for bolstering security in Iraq.

President Bush rightly characterized the most recent pushes to stabilize Baghdad, Operation Together Forward and Operation Together Forward II, as unsuccessful, because there were not enough Iraqi forces to hold areas cleared by American troops. But the President's assertion that we will now be able to rely on 18 Iraqi army and police brigades to shoulder much of the burden in a new offensive in Baghdad is clearly at odds with reality.

The Iraqi Army has not distinguished itself in combat. And four of the six battalions that were deployed to the capital last summer failed to show up at all.

The Iraqi police, which are under the control of the Ministry of the Interior, have been heavily infiltrated by Shiite militias and death squads and cannot be expected to take on Shiite extremists as Prime Minister Malaki has pledged. There is little support for an escalated American military presence in Iraq. American military commanders do not see an increase as improving the security situation on the ground, and the strain of multiple deployments has seriously eroded our capacity to respond to other contingencies should the need arise.

The American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, do not support an increase in the troop strength in Iraq. Perhaps most important of all, the Iraqis do not want more American troops in Iraq. In fact, if there is one thing that unites Iraqis, it is the desire that American forces should not remain indefinitely.

Furthermore, by continuing to bear the brunt of the fighting against insurgents, foreign fighters, and militias, the United States has fostered a dangerous dependence that has slowed efforts to have Iraqis shoulder the burden of defending their own country and government.

Even as we focus our military efforts on training Iraqi security forces, we need to push the Sunnis and Shiites to make the political compromises that are the necessary precondition to any reconciliation process. I have been arguing for more than 2 years that the struggle in Iraq is primarily a political one. The Iraq Study Group and numerous outside experts have also pressed the administration to force the Iraqi Government to make the hard decisions on power sharing, minority rights, and the equitable distribution of oil revenues that could help quell the Sunni insurgency and undermine support for Shiite maximalists like Muktada al Sadr.

I also believe the United States must work to convene a regional conference to support Iraq's bringing together its neighborhoods to find ways to stem the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq and to pursue common strategies in support of reconstruction and political reconciliation efforts.

There is hard evidence that Iran is facilitating the flow of weapons, trainers, and intelligence to Shiite militias in a bid to assert greater control over its neighbor. At the same time, the long and porous Syrian border has continued to be a transit point for foreign jihadis who have carried out some of the spectacular and devastating attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.

Finally, our efforts in Iraq cannot be pursued in a vacuum. We need to do more to engage the Arab and Muslim world, and there must be a renewed effort to start peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This week's passage of the 9/11 implementation bill included excellent proposals for buttressing our leadership by improving our communication of ideas and communication in the Muslim world and by expanding U.S. scholarship exchange and other programs in Muslim countries.

Mr. Speaker, failure is unacceptable, but so is staying the course. I hope and expect that the debate we are going to have, the first real debate we have had in years, will convince the President to listen to those who are calling for a new way forward and not more of the same.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to raise the wages of 13 million Americans, and we should take it.

Why raise the minimum wage in America? For the simple reason that men and women in the richest Nation on Earth should not work full time and still be relegated to living in poverty. What does it mean for the father or mother in a family of three to live on the current minimum wage? It means an income of $10,000 a year.

Imagine living in Glendale, Burbank or Pasadena, or any city in America, and trying to get by on $10,000 a year. A raise in the minimum wage will be an additional $4,000 for that family of three. It will mean more groceries on the table and a greater opportunity to get health care. It will mean potentially pulling that family out of poverty. It is the right thing to do. We have the opportunity today to make that happen for millions, and we should take it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to speak very strongly in favor of these PAYGO rules as a very strong step to restoring fiscal responsibility to this House.

Over the last 6 years, the President and the Republican-controlled Congress essentially had a policy of borrow and spend. We didn't have the discipline to turn down new spending requests; we didn't have the discipline to pay for additional tax cuts. We even had, in the most ironic of weeks, a situation where we voted to increase the national debt by $800 billion in the same week we voted to cut taxes by $800 billion, and we made it very clear that we were borrowing the money to fund these additional tax cuts.

This is not the way to restore fiscal responsibility to this House. PAYGO is. The first rule of PAYGO is when you are in a hole, as we are in, when you are in a budgetary hole, stop digging. If we want new spending, we need to find a way to pay for it. If we want new tax cuts, that is great, too, we need to find a way to pay for it. And we cannot pay for it by asking these young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere to come home and pay for it later and have their children pay for it. Because right now all we are doing is shifting this obligation onto our children and grandchildren. That has got to stop.