Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the comments from the floor manager of the bill made clear one of the major goals of the Republican Party. It is to shorten the attention span of the American people.

Among the things they think are inappropriate are not just things we might see on television but things we might hear on the floor of the House. The gentlewoman apparently thinks it is inappropriate for us to discuss on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the issue of media concentration.

That is what we are talking about. The gentlewoman said no, no, no, you are off the subject. Well, many of us believe that excessive media concentration is a subject that ought to be addressed, and it is, of course, the intention of the majority party not to allow that to be discussed. Inappropriate to criticize those corporations that are increasing media ownership.

The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is a fair rule. Well it is fair if the scale is poor, fair, good and excellent. In that case, I guess it is a fair rule because my colleagues let in one amendment.

We will be debating, after this rule is adopted, the substance of this bill, probably the only bill that the majority will allow on our communications matter, for 1 hour and 20 minutes; 1 hour and 20 minutes. If the Provisional Assembly in Iraq gave only an hour and 20 minutes to a subject, we would be very critical of them.

Once again I have to say, with regard to the people in Iraq who have been elected to the Provisional Assembly and who we are urging to practice democracy and respect minority rights, if any of them happen to be watching this proceeding, please do not try this at home. Please show more respect for full discussion than these people are showing.

Now, I also want to talk about indecency. It may be one of my last chances to do it because the gentleman from Vermont is correct. What this has done, this furor, is to lead to censorship, self-censorship, but also censorship by the administration.

I regret things like the Janet Jackson incident and what happened with her and that guy, but I think we have a greater danger now. The greater danger is the censorship of the free and open debate of this country. I guess I have more confidence than the majority in the families of America and the parents to be the main protectors of their children, not the majority party; and instead what happens is we have the Secretary of Education criticizing PBS and pressuring them not to run a show because it showed two lesbians.

I guess maybe I am speaking out of self-interest. If these people keep this up, we just had some fool in the Department of Health and Human Services insist that a panel on youth suicide aimed at gay, lesbian, and transgendered teenagers not use the words gay, lesbian and transgendered, because those things are inappropriate; showing lesbians is inappropriate.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, if some of these people had their way, I would be bleeped. I guess there would be a blank screen when I appeared on here, lest some people be somehow corrupted by the very fact that a gay man takes the floor of the House to talk about a rule that is undemocratic and a furor that leads to ``Saving Private Ryan'' being shut off, that leads to PBS being pressured not to show young people that there is in this world such a thing as lesbians, because that might somehow corrupt them.

I voted for this bill last year, so I am grateful to the majority for one thing. I voted for it, and it resulted in a degree of pressure and a degree of intimidation and a degree of intolerance and a failure to understand the value of free debate that I regretted and felt a little guilty about. So I am glad I have a chance to vote against it, as I will do.

But I regret very much that the gentlewoman from West Virginia and those in the majority feel it is inappropriate to discuss media concentrations or any oppositions that might exist. And that is where we are today. We have a bill that will, I believe, result in more censorship, in more excessive attention to a fairly small problem while ignoring very large ones.

I should say, finally, Mr. Speaker, understand why we have to cut this debate so short: because of our workload. We might actually be here until 4 o'clock this Wednesday, today, and we may even begin tomorrow. Of course, we are getting ready for a 10-day recess, so we may need a little extra time to relax. This House has met very little, we have done very little, and so the refusal of the majority to allow a debate on the important topics that we are talking about here, the effort by the gentlewoman from West Virginia to chide us, to say do not bring up media concentration and all those unimportant irrelevancies, is an example of the majority's disrespect of democracy, which they unfortunately continue to manifest.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from West Virginia, and I regret she would not want to yield, I guess she did not want to respond to me, even though she has a lot of time left. She is going to turn back her time. But she said she was not saying we should not debate these. I will make a prediction: she and the majority will never allow a debate on concentration.

She says, oh no, we just do not want to debate it now. You do not want to debate it now, you do not want to debate it next month, you do not ever want to debate it. So the fact is this is not simply a case of, oh well, we are only on this one issue. It is the effort of the majority to suppress debate on the important question of media concentration. They will not bring it up now, and they will do everything they can to prevent it.

So, yes, I think I am on the right side of democracy when we talk about whether or not to discuss this issue. Democracy says you should discuss it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman really believe that 20 minutes of debate, 10 on each side, on these complicated issues, is free and flowing debate? We got out early yesterday; we are here today. Why only 10 minutes of debate on each side on these complicated issues?

Mr. Speaker, hearing the chairman of the Committee on Rules describe this restricted rule as fair and balanced reinforces the fact that when people on the right in America politically tell you something is fair and balanced, you had better ask for another deck of cards.

The rule not only limits the amendments; and it makes sense, the chairman's defense makes sense if you start from the perspective that no amendments ought to be allowed. And then when you let in two out of 10, or two out of six, somehow you have been generous.

Ought not the assumption be in favor of openness, especially since the House has not been doing very much? Then the chairman said, Well, we do not have to have long debate on these things; after all, we had a hearing in the Committee on Rules, and it was streamed on line. Anyone who thinks that a hearing in the Committee on Rules that is streamed on line is a substitute for open and free debate in the United States House of Representatives, or anyone who says that, ought to remember, I would give just one piece of advice. No matter how pressed one feels in a debate, try to avoid saying something that no one is going to believe. It really does not help your cause.

No one thinks that an online hearing in the Committee on Rules with a handful of Members in a room that has 30 seats substitutes for free and open debate in the House of Representatives, and particularly when you only give 10 minutes on a particular amendment.

I want to talk about the amendment on asylum. We heard a lot of discussion last year in the election from people complaining that religion had been driven from the public square. Well, guess who is ignoring religion this year? The majority.

The provisions on asylum have evoked overwhelming opposition from the various religious communities in America. I noted yesterday that the Commission on Interreligious Freedom set up by this Congress to protect religious freedom in the world put out earlier this week a report saying that our asylum procedures are too restrictive. And what is the response of the majority? To make what the Commission on Interreligious Freedom says is a bad situation much worse.

I noted yesterday, in Leviticus it says, and I have looked at various translations, various renderings, and in every one it sometimes says ``stranger,'' it sometimes says ``alien.'' It is clear it means people we would describe as immigrants. It says, Treat them as you would treat the native born.

Now, I do not purport to be a religious scholar. I do not purport to be an expert in religious interpretation, but I am puzzled. Can we turn Leviticus on and off that way? I mean, often I have heard Leviticus quoted as justification for measures that are critical of homosexuals. Do you not have to take it as a package? I mean, if you are going to use Leviticus to disadvantage homosexuals, do you not have to use it to be nice to immigrants? Is it not true that what is Leviticus for the goose is Leviticus for the gander?

Again, I acknowledge I am not a theological expert, so I will turn to some who are. I got a copy yesterday from the Interfaith Statement. ``The REAL ID act,'' it says, ``threatens the ability of victims of persecution to find safe haven in the United States,'' signed by a variety of Jewish and Catholic and Protestant groups, the Jesuit Religious Service, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Church World Service, the Jubilee Campaign, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Mr. Speaker, because I do not think that religion ought to be driven from the public square on an issue on which there is such an overwhelming religious consensus, I will offer a statement condemning this bill and its asylum provisions be inserted here.

REAL ID Act Threatens Ability of Victims of Persecution To Find Safe

Haven in the United States

As representatives of various faith traditions, we are

deeply concerned that the REAL ID Act, legislation proposed

by Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), would make asylum

a more remote possibility for hundreds of persons who need

protection. We understand that safeguarding our national

security is an urgent issue, and we support measures that

honor that concern. We also subscribe to core beliefs which

require that we provide safety to victims of persecution,

particularly those who have no recourse to the projection

that democratic societies traditionally provide. Restricting

access to asylum beyond current practice and does not serve

the cause of national security and, moreover, erodes a sacred

and legal responsibility to give safety to those whose only

protection comes from asylum.

Each of our traditions has witnessed the suffering of

persons whose beliefs often place them in jeopardy and

possibly in mortal danger. As American-based faith

communities, we have cherished the ability of asylum seekers

to find safety in communities around our nation. We are,

therefore, saddened by a further erosion of our asylum system

under the pretext of national security. We urge Members of

Congress to reject the notion that all asylees are

prospective terrorists and that the current system needs to

be made more restrictive.

The belief that we must receive persons who have been

rejected and persecuted because of their ideas and religious

practices is anchored in both our histories and sacred texts.

We have contributed over the years to supporting and

enriching practices which embrace hospitality as not only a

religious but an American value. We also appreciate the need

to prevent terrorism from violating both our freedom and

safety. We believe that hospitality to the stranger--

particularly one who has been persecuted--and security are

compatible national goals. We, therefore, reject legislation

that subverts hospitality in the name of security.

The current asylum system includes rigorous safeguards

against terrorists abusing the asylum system. The changes

proposed by the REAL ID Act raise a false issue in further

victimizing legitimate asylum seekers. Requiring unreasonable

levels of evidence to prove an asylum claim, placing a

greater burden on asylum seekers to convince reviewers of the

key motivation of their accusers, and allowing subjective

considerations to guide the review process all send a

chilling message to those who desperately seek the safety and

protection which they have a right to expect of our great

nation.

We have all seen how fear can pervert justice. We believe

that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to

oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the

world's most at-risk persons. We are committed to resisting a

fear driven agenda which violates our faith-based principles.

Anti-Defamation League

B'nai B'rith International

Church World Service

Episcopal Migration Ministries

HIAS and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Institute on Religion and Public Policy

Jesuit Refugee Service

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jewish Labor Committee

Jubilee Campaign

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Midland Alliances

Midland Association of Churches

Midland Ministerial Alliance

National Council of Jewish Women

Project for International Religious Liberty

Religoius Freedom Coalition

Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring

World Relief

Mr. Speaker, the asylum provisions make it much harder for people to get asylum. We will have 20 minutes to debate this issue. It would take me half of that time to read the full list of signers.

Last week, we were visited, those of us on the Democratic side, by a representative of the Catholic bishops, who asked us specifically to oppose this bill and particularly to condemn the asylum provisions. I do not think there has been any showing that asylumees have been terrorists.

But, in any case, I do want to stress, those of you who have said we have insufficiently paid attention to religious values, Mr. Speaker, I urge them not to turn their back on the religious community now and not to give the religious communities, a broad range of them, 10 minutes in which we can make the case that this bill violates biblical injunctions about aliens and undercuts our mission to be a haven for the religiously persecuted.

Mr. Speaker, first we have to talk about the procedure. This is a complicated bill. It includes several different subjects, asylum, identification, a fence, yet apparently the majority is contemplating, at most, one amendment.

This is legislation by hostage-taking. You put a whole bunch of things together, including several that are controversial, so if Members oppose any one of them, they will be extorted into voting for the whole package.

We are in the process now, after the election in Iraq, of trying to persuade the Shiia, who will be in the overwhelming majority, to practice democracy, not to abuse their majority, but in fact to encourage members of the minority to participate. It is essential for us to be able to salvage what is going on in Iraq for there to be an agreement on the part of the Sunni Muslims to participate.

In other words, we are telling the people of Iraq that to practice democracy means respect for minority rights.

And here we have the majority in the House of Representatives, a fairly narrow majority, apparently contemplating forcing an up-or-down vote on controversial legislation, maybe allowing one amendment, clearly repressing the strong desire of the minority to be able fully to debate it. In the end, the majority will decide, but they don't even want the debate.

And I guess I know, Mr. Speaker, it is a violation to address the TV audience, and I will not do so. But I will express the hope that if there are any members of the Iraqi Provisional Assembly watching this, they understand the message that is very important. Please do not try this at home. Do not, in the Iraqi assembly, show disrespect for the rights of the minority.

That is the hallmark of this outrageous procedure. And why are we doing it?

It is 1:35 on Wednesday. We are going to finish this debate, general debate and have the rest of the day to do nothing, tomorrow then maybe debate one or two amendments. There is no reason why.

You know what?

What about an open rule?

What about democracy?

What about bringing a complicated bill to the floor and letting Members offer amendments and the majority will win.

You are not afraid, apparently, of losing the vote. You are afraid of losing the argument. And I understand why.

Let me talk now about asylum. This Congress created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1998. That commission just issued a very lengthy report, very critical of the inhumane aspects of our asylum operation.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the New York Times, documenting that report at this point.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 8, 2005]

Asylum Seekers Treated Poorly, U.S. Panel Says

(By Nina Bernstein and Marc Santora)

Thousands of people who come to the United States saying

they are seeking refuge from persecution are treated like

criminals while their claims are evaluated--strip-searched,

shackled and often thrown into solitary confinement in local

jails and federal detention centers--a bipartisan federal

commission found in a report to be released today.

The report, by the United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom, an agency created by

Congress in 1998, describes an ad hoc system run by the

Department of Homeland Security that has extreme disparities

in who is released or granted asylum, depending on whether

someone seeks refuge in Texas or New York, comes from Iraq or

Haiti, or is represented by a lawyer.

The New York metropolitan region ranks among the harshest

in terms of the conditions of detention centers, with

constant surveillance, stark quarters and degrading

treatment. Those awaiting a court decision on asylum are also

less likely to be freed. For example, 3.8 percent of asylum

seekers were freed from the detention center in Elizabeth,

N.J., compared with 94 percent in San Antonio. There were 8.4

percent released from the detention center in Queens, while

in Chicago 81 percent were let go.

One of the experts who examined the centers for the

commission, Craig Haney, a psychologist who briefed the

Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject yesterday, said he

was shocked by what he found.

``I was taken aback by the severity of conditions, the

severity of deprivations and, frankly, the expense,'' he said

in an interview. He said that one of 19 centers examined

handled asylum seekers differently from criminals--in Broward

County, Fla., where many seeking refuge are from Cuba and

where former Cuban refugees form a potent political force. At

$83 a day, the Florida center costs less than half the $200

per detainee of the Queens detention center, though both are

run by the same company.

The report said that women and children seeking asylum,

``whose trauma histories and emotional needs may be more

severe and require more specialized training,'' were at

greater risk of harm.

Among other recommendations, the commission urged that a

high-level protector of refugees be appointed to monitor the

system and correct inequities.

Manny Van Pelt, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, an agency within Homeland Security that oversees

the detention of asylum seekers, defended the system.

``We have a robust inspections program that conducts audits

of our detention facilities nationwide, and our detention

facilities are accredited and subjected to regular inspection

by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees,'' he said in an

interview. ``They are clean and they are safe environments.

Even better, the detention system protects the public.''

The commission had been asked by Congress to examine the

effectiveness of the nation's asylum regulations, created in

part as a response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings,

in an effort to balance the country's desire to shelter those

suffering from persecution abroad with its need to keep out

criminals and terrorists.

The system, known as expedited removal, requires those

seeking asylum at airports and borders to be sent back

immediately unless they are found to have a ``credible fear''

of persecution when questioned by immigration officers. Those

who pass the test--a vast majority--are then detained until

an immigration judge decides the validity of their claim.

Unless they are released pending a decision, the average

detainee is held for 64 days and a third stay more than 90

days--some even years, the report found.

The number of asylum seekers, and the rate at which they

are freed, have both dropped sharply since the terrorist

attacks of 2001, the study showed. But rates of asylum also

differed sharply by national groups between 2000 and 2004,

with more than 80 percent of Cubans given a permanent right

to stay, along with more than 60 percent of Iraqis. By

contrast, just more than 10 percent of those from Haiti and

fewer than 5 percent of those from EI Salvador were granted

asylum. Detainees represented by lawyers were up to 30 times

more likely to gain asylum, but in some places fewer than

half the detainees had lawyers.

With the exception of the operation at George Bush

Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the report found that

asylum seekers were not pressed to withdraw their asylum

claims before the interview, nor were claims summarily

denied. But it found that judges often wrongly used airport

statements to deny asylum later.

Before the change in the law, only asylum seekers with

criminal records were detained. Now, nearly all are locked up

with ordinary criminals. In 2003, 5,585 men and 1,015 women

seeking asylum were jailed. To cut down on that number, the

commission recommended that the airport interviewers, and not

just immigration judges, be given the authority to grant

asylum on the spot when warranted.

Severe psychological damage is among the effects of

throwing people seeking refuge together with criminals in

``stark conditions,'' the report said, describing 24-hour

lights, chained walks to go eat, no privacy even to use the

toilet and little chance to exercise outdoors. Detainees are

allowed to work but paid $1 a day.

Five of the 19 detention centers examined had mental health

staff, and none had guards trained to work with victims of

torture or repression. In most places the treatment for those

considered suicidal was solitary confinement. A footnote

pointed out that isolation was ``likely to exacerbate

depression,'' not prevent suicide.

``The whole detention system is there to break you down

further,'' one former detainee told interviewers in the

report. ``You are not even allowed to cry. If you do, they

take you to isolation.''

Cut off from the outside world and not allowed incoming

calls, even from a lawyer, the detainees are at high risk for

depression, the commission said, and some even said they gave

up their quest for asylum because of the unbearable

conditions.

Since the 1996 change in immigration law, critics have

complained that the system is subjecting those fleeing

torture and repression to harsh conditions in detention that

can drag on for years. But this is the first bipartisan

examination based on an inside view.

One of the Republican commission members, Michael K. Young,

the president of the University of Utah and an adviser to

President George H. W. Bush, said great pains were taken to

make the two-year effort politically balanced. ``That is one

of the things that gives this report real strength,'' he

said.

Preeta D. Bansal, a Democrat who chaired the commission,

said more research is needed, especially on the reasons for

the sharp drop in asylum seekers. ``We have been told that in

foreign countries the Department of Homeland Security is

being employed to prevent people from even getting on board

airplanes,'' said Ms. Bansal, a former solicitor general of

New York State. ``We think further follow-up needs to be

done.''

The report comes the same week that asylum legislation is

to be introduced in the House by Representative F. James

Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the

Judiciary Committee. Among other visions, the bill, known as

the Real ID Act, would make it harder for refugees to get

asylum.

So we have a bipartisan Committee on International Religious Freedom critical of our denial of asylum rights. And what is the response of the majority? Let us make a bad situation worse.

Mr. Speaker, why not an open amendment procedure so those of us who have paid attention to this report could offer amendments that embody it? Why will we not be allowed to offer amendments from this interreligious commission, and it is an interreligious commission.

I know one of the problems the majority has, and I sympathize, but apparently somebody has Bowdlerized their Bibles. And I sympathize; these are people who have Bibles, but their Bibles have big things missing. For example, we often hear Leviticus quoted on the floor of the House. Leviticus 19, chapters 33 and 34, ``When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.''

Now, that is in Leviticus. I know Leviticus gets turned on and off here like an electric bulb, but it does now seem to me that kind of cafeteria approach to religion is something the majority has adopted. Here we have it in Leviticus. This is undoubtedly why the Catholic bishops have spoken out against this bill and have asked some of us to oppose it. But again, religion is to be invoked selectively so religious values are for another time, not when there is political hay to be made by taking this popular stance.

What we have is an undemocratic procedure being mobilized to suppress, even debate, and an opportunity to consider the report of this commission in the service of a doctrine which would seem to me to violate some fundamental religious principles. I guess the majority has the votes to do that if they want to, but they have a day to reconsider, and I hope perhaps something will change their minds.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, based on that argument, in the interest of efficiency, whether we might not substitute chat rooms for the floor of the House, and if being on the Web site is a satisfactory way to bring a bill out. Maybe if we had chat rooms or instant messaging, we could probably save a lot more.

I would urge the majority, since this traditional kind of old- fashioned type of democracy does not seem to have much appeal, to go right ahead, might even save a little more money, by cutting back on what Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or one of those people might have thought was an appropriate way to conduct the business of democracy.

To begin, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely backwards to decry this policy of excluding recruiters from using the facilities of a university. Let us be clear: no university can ban a recruiter from coming to that city or that town. No university can say that students will not talk to the recruiter.

The question is not whether the recruiters can come and advertise; it is whether they can compel the university to offer its facilities involving a policy with which they disagree. But to say that that causes a problem in getting people in the military, it is the supporters of a policy that say to able-bodied men and women, we disapprove of your sexuality, and, therefore, no matter how talented you are, no matter how patriotic you are, no matter what skills you bring, you are not allowed here.

Colin Powell, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before this Congress that there was no argument that gay and lesbian men and women in the military were in any way deficient as members of the military. He made it clear. The only reason for excluding them was the prejudice of others. That was the only reason.

The argument was: if you let these people in, and he said they had been good soldiers and good airmen and good sailors, it would be disruptive. Well, one, that was 15 years ago when he said that. I think society has moved some. But, second, we have experience to the contrary.

I know there have been people critical of the Israeli Defense Forces in some respects. I think they deserve, on the whole, a lot of credit for a difficult job. In the Israeli Defense Forces, people serve who are openly gay and lesbian. So the argument that somehow allowing people who are honest about their sexuality, if they are gay or lesbian, to serve in the military makes you an ineffectual military, how do they explain the Israeli Defense Forces?

In fact, what we are again being told is that good people, able people, and we heard reference to the linguists. This has become the policy of ``Don't ask, don't tell, and by no means translate.'' You who support this policy are the ones, Mr. Speaker, who are depriving the armed services of able-bodied people. You are the ones who have driven thousands, literally thousands of perfectly capable men and women out of the military because you disapprove of what they do in their spare time. So then to claim that it is the universities trying to stand up for a principle that are weakening the military gets it absolutely backwards.

I was also saddened, I must say, by one of the previous speakers who said he wanted to express his disdain for the universities involved. We have universities here which are trying to express their disagreement with what they believe, and I agree, but what they believe to be an unfair prejudice that singles out some of their students. I understand disagreement with that, but disdain? Disdain because people in these positions feel that their students should not be unduly stigmatized and denied this opportunity?

If it is so important to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, should not people on the other side say, you cannot deny these young people the opportunity to serve in the military. Should you not say, you should not deny these young people the opportunity to serve in the military unless they are gay or lesbian. Because if they are gay or lesbian, you want to deny them the opportunity to serve in the military regardless of any fault.

Remember, this is one that says we just stigmatize you from the outset. There is nothing you can do, there is no degree of service you can perform, there is no sacrifice you can offer to make that will allow you to serve your country. And then we will complain because we do not have enough people to serve in the military. And, again, literally thousands have been turned away. The universities are not blocking recruitment. They cannot. They are asking for the right to stand up for principle.

And now we are told by one other speaker, well, if they do not agree with the policy, you would think they would not accept the money. Please. I would say to Members, one rule in parliamentary debate: try to avoid saying something that no one will believe. I mean, this notion that if you do not agree with a policy you should boycott the government, which is using your tax money, nobody believes that. People get taxed, and sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree. We say to people, look, you can voice your opinion, but you cannot avoid paying the taxes.

And, by the way, it is not money from the military they are seeking. Typically, what we have here are law schools. It is law schools, as people have noted, who are doing this. So people have said, well, what about the poor people? We are not getting enough wealthy people to offset the number of poor people. Well, we are talking about lawyers who are being recruited. Frankly, the poor people are not being recruited for the Judge Advocate General's office. It just does not compute.

But what they are saying is, we are not going to allow our facilities to be used in this discriminatory way. And the law schools, by the way, are not themselves, and this is an important point, under the Clinton administration the ruling was that we would look at each element of a university separately. And if the law school said no military recruiting, that did not stop the medical school or the school of engineering from applying for Federal funds. What you now have is a policy that says if the law school says no, no other entity can get the money. So there is no connection there.

The key issue here is this: Have we not in this country come to the point where patriotic young gay men and lesbians who are prepared to serve their country will at least be given a chance? Can you not judge them on their merits? Can you not say, okay, we admire your willingness to do this. We will judge you. If it turns out you become disruptive, we will act. But this blanket denial of even the opportunity no matter how talented, no matter how diligent? You enforce that as a policy, and then you complain that we have people being turned away?

Mr. Speaker, I hope this resolution is not adopted, and I hope we will begin to reverse this blanket prejudicial policy that says to millions, millions of young American men and women, you need not apply to defend your country because we do not like some aspect about you, even if it is going to be entirely irrelevant to your service.

Mr. Speaker when we convened for the lame duck session several weeks ago, I shared with our colleagues a very insightful article from the Washington Post by Fred Hiatt pointing out the extreme gap that exists between the Bush Administration's claim that the advancement of democracy is a major goal of its foreign policy, and the almost complete absence of any real activity towards that goal in the execution of that foreign policy.

The elevation of the promotion of democracy to central status in the Bush foreign policy--in contrast to a great extent to the President's scorn about nation-building when he ran for office in 2000--came partly because of the need to find some substitute justification for the war in Iraq, after weapons of mass destruction and the tie to the 9/11 murders were both shown to be without factual basis. So, many of the neo-conservative supporters of the President--some of them actually believing it--argued that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was an essential step towards an administration policy towards implementing democracy in the Middle East.

This has of course proven to have no more factual basis than the weapons of mass destruction or al-Qaida tie. As Joel Brinkley notes in a long article in the New York Times for Sunday, December 4, ``When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic change.'' (emphasis added)

Contrary to those neo-conservatives who predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would begin an era in which America was hailed for its liberating role, and democracy would become almost infectious, as Mr. Brinkley notes, ``Since then . . . the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change.''

Mr. Speaker, as we begin a new term for President Bush, with Colin Powell no longer available to provide a facade of moderation, the harsher realities of the Bush foreign policy are becoming clearer. Among these are the President's lack of any real commitment to the promotion of democracy as an American foreign policy goal. Joel Brinkley's excellent analysis is further strong evidence of this and I ask, because of the importance of this subject to our national policy debates, that his very useful article be printed here.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 4, 2004]

U.S. Slows Bid To Advance Democracy in Arab World

(By Joel Brinkley)

Washington, Dec. 4.--When Secretary of State Colin L.

Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit

meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote

democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to

introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic

change.

President Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to

bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the

popular view of the United States in the region has grown so

dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching

the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and

social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the

original goal of political change.

Administration officials and their allies defend the change

in strategy, saying the United States should no longer try to

take the lead.

``Others have gotten involved in the political side, and

that is a good thing,'' said Lorne W. Craner, who was

assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights

until August and now is president of the International

Republican Institute, a government-financed organization

dedicated to advancing democracy worldwide. But

administration officials said some senior officials in the

State Department were frustrated by the unwillingness of

their colleagues to raise political initiatives at the

meeting.

A senior administration official involved in Middle East

policy said that if the American program remained largely

centered on business and financial initiatives, ``that's not

good enough.'' The United States needs ``to hold people

accountable,'' he added.

Another official working in the same area added that Arab

leaders were ``willing to take the aid, but they're not

willing to carry out the reform.''

Mr. Powell, in a radio interview on Thursday, said he hoped

the summit meeting participants would ``come to an

understanding of the need for reform and modernization in the

broader Middle East and North Africa region.''

When the State Department set up a news media briefing last

month on the Morocco meeting, it assigned Alan P. Larson,

undersecretary of state for economic, business and

agricultural affairs, to make the presentation. He said

the meeting was intended ``to create greater opportunities

for the next generation in the broader Middle East''

through grants and aid to small businesses, networking

among regional financial institutions and exchanging

``views about how to bring more capital in the region,''

among other ideas. The United States is involved in most

of those efforts through its Middle East Partnership

Initiative.

In an interview, Mr. Larson contended that these and other

financial proposals would contribute to democratic change, at

least indirectly.

``When you help small entrepreneurs, that creates a middle-

class part of the social underpinning of a democracy,'' he

said. ``We see synergistic links between political and

economic initiatives.''

He and other officials said more direct discussions of

political change would come from the Democratic Assistance

Dialogue, a new program administered by Italy, Turkey and

Yemen intended to foster discussion of political change. But

after an initial organizational meeting in Rome last month,

future meetings have not yet been scheduled, said Burak

Akcapar, counselor in the Turkish Embassy.

The Middle East Partnership Initiative, which has received

$264 million from Congress since 1993, has a political

component. But a study by two scholars at the Brookings

Institution, published this week, found that it was

``increasingly shifting its resources from democracy

promotion and engagement with local volunteer organizations,

to the far

less provocative path of regime-led economic development.''

That ``can have the effect of subsidizing an Arab

government's attempts to build a kinder, gentler autocracy,''

it added.

``The whole thing rings hollow,'' said Steven A. Cook, a

fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan

research group based in New York. ``What is missing is not

technical and financial know-how, it is the political will to

reform,'' said Mr. Cook, whose field of study is political

change in the Arab world. ``I don't think these programs mesh

with the president's rhetoric.''

At the briefing, Mr. Larson emphasized repeatedly that the

Morocco conference was not ``an effort to impose anything

from the outside as much as to facilitate efforts that

are already being undertaken in the region'' and ``share

experiences, share ideas'' among Arab foreign ministers.

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington

Institute for Near East Policy, a public research

organization said, ``If only the Arab leaders are involved,

that will be a brief discussion.''

Anger about a perceived bias toward Israel in Washington

and about the war in Iraq have made the United States quite

unpopular among many in the Arab world. Then, in February,

when an Arabic newspaper published a draft of a Bush

administration plan urging the world's wealthiest nations to

press for political change in the Middle East, several Arab

leaders erupted in anger. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, a

close ally of Washington, called the plan ``delusional.''

The administration quickly abandoned the plan.

The unspoken fact behind all of the discussions, said

Leslie Campbell, director of the Middle East Program at the

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a

government-financed group that promotes democracy worldwide,

``is that we are trying to work with a bunch of people who

are going to be kicked out of office'' if democratic change

moves forward. For now, he added, ``it's easier to support

free-trade agreements than political change.''

Now, not only do many Arab leaders oppose the plan for

broad democratic change, so do some opposition leaders.

``The Bush plan is opposed by the ruling elites who fear

losing their privileges and powers,'' wrote Amir Taheri, a

political commentator, in Gulf News, ``and by a variety of

oppositionists who use anti-Americanism as the key element of

their political message.''

There is little question that Arab leaders prefer the new

approach. A senior Arab diplomat said in an interview that

when American officials spoke to his nation's prime minister

about political change recently, ``the prime minister told

them: `I have two trains--the political train and the

economic train. And the political train cannot run ahead of

the other.'

``So we started talking to them about economic

development,'' the diplomat said.

A senior State Department official said discussions with

several Arab states brought similar results.

In a speech to open a session of Parliament on Wednesday,

King Abdullah II of Jordan emphasized that his country must

continue ``reform, modernization and development,'' which

would enable ``the Jordanian individual to actively take part

in formulating the present and the future.'' He went on to

emphasize that change should be focused on fighting ``poverty

and unemployment.''

Mr. Craner, the former State Department official, said: ``I

would watch for the prominence of political versus economic

and social reforms I discussed at the meeting. If it is

mostly economic and social, it is not a good sign.''

The senior Arab diplomat offered a broader warning.

``Something must happen as a result of this meeting,'' he

said. ``If nothing happens, it will be very difficult to keep

this alive because there are lots of people who want to kill

it.''

Mr. Speaker, the recent resignation-- apparently encouraged by the President--of Secretary of State Powell has stripped one of the important facades behind which the reality of the Bush foreign policy has been hidden. It is deeply regrettable that the President and the Secretary of State worked together to keep this facade in place until now, because the fact that the Secretary of State would be leaving is the sort of information that would have been relevant to the voters on Election Day. There is no clear evidence that Secretary Powell had any great influence on the Administration's foreign policy, but his having been around did I think help the Administration in its effort to appear more reasonable in its foreign policy than it has been.

But Secretary Powell's leaving is not the only recent example we have of a facade being lifted from this Administration's record in international affairs. In the Washington Post Monday, November 15, Fred Hiatt points out another great gap between the reality of the President's foreign policy and the way in which the Administration has described it--the issue of the promotion of democracy as a goal of American foreign policy.

As Mr. Hiatt notes, when John Kerry ``made clear that promoting democracy abroad would not be a priority of his presidency,'' this quote ``allowed George W. Bush to claim the high moral ground of foreign policy.'' As Mr. Hiatt notes, the President asserted at his nominating convention in 2004, ``I believe in the transformational power of liberty . . . the wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom.''

But as he points out, this high-minded statement of purpose bears very little relation to the Bush foreign policy in reality.

Mr. Hiatt clearly documents the President's high tolerance for wholly undemocratic actions by foreign nations as long as they are compliant with American foreign policy in other regards. Indeed, as he notes, the only two examples that can be cited by the President's defenders in which the goal of promoting democracy has played a role are Afghanistan and Iraq. And these examples in no way bear out the claim that the President has made the advancement of democracy a central part of his foreign policy--or even a peripheral one.

In Iraq, the President advanced the notion of promoting democracy to explain his decision to go to war only after his preferred political explanations--the tie between Iraq and September 11th and the presence of weapons of mass destruction--were rebutted. Democracy here was a rationalization constructed to justify a policy that clearly had other goals, and then only after alternative explanations were refuted.

It is true that the results of the American intervention in Afghanistan will certainly be a far more democratic Afghanistan, and I welcome that. But here too it should be noted that the President's approach was to first ask the repressive and brutal Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden to us, and only after that government refused to do that did we invade. Democracy in Afghanistan will be a happy byproduct of our war, but it was not the motivating factor.

Beyond that, as Mr. Hiatt makes clear, there is not an area in the world in which promotion of democracy has been an important part of the Bush foreign policy. To quote Mr. Hiatt, ``in Bush's first term, democracy promotion seemed to be the policy mostly when it was convenient . . .''

I agree with Mr. Hiatt that it is not axiomatic that the promotion of democracy should be the single or even the most important goal of American foreign policy in every instance. But what is--or at least ought to be--clear is that a President should not claim a moral basis for his foreign policy which in no way corresponds to reality.

Mr. Speaker, with Colin Powell no longer serving as a diversion without real policy influence, and with the experience we have had with the Administration's inaccurate claims about weapons of mass destruction, I hope that the Administration's actual foreign policy will receive a good deal more scrutiny than it has in the past. Mr. Hiatt's column is a good beginning in that effort. I ask that it be printed here.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004]

A Foreign Policy To Match Bush's Rhetoric?

(By Fred Hiatt)

In an interview last spring, Sen. John F. Kerry made clear

that promoting democracy abroad would not be a priority of

his presidency. Of course he believed in freedom and human

rights, but in every country there seemed to be a goal that

would rank higher for him in importance: securing nuclear

materials in Russia, fighting terrorism alongside Saudi

Arabia, pursuing Middle East peace with Egypt, controlling

Pakistan's nuclear program, integrating China into the world

economy.

Kerry's ostensibly pragmatic approach alarmed some

idealists in his own party and allowed George W. Bush to

claim the high moral ground of foreign policy. ``I believe in

the transformational power of liberty,'' Bush declared as he

accepted his party's nomination for the second time. ``The

wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom.''

But here's the irony: Kerry's recital of priorities around

the world was a pretty fair description of Bush's first-term

record. An interesting second-term question will be whether

the president reshapes his policy to match his rhetoric:

whether he really believes that democracy abroad is in the

U.S. national interest. There are, after all, plenty of smart

foreign policy experts who doubt that proposition.

In 2000 Bush did not campaign on a liberty platform, and

even after his oratory began to soar, his policies didn't

change much. In Afghanistan and Iraq, democracy evolved

gradually into a central goal of post-invasion U.S. policy.

But in the rest of the world there seemed--just as for

Kerry--to be higher priorities.

The administration counted its management of relations with

China and Russia as a major first-term success, for example,

marked by stability and cooperation in fighting terrorism.

The fact that China was chewing away on Hong Kong's freedoms,

and continuing to lock up its own dissidents, journalists and

priests, didn't get in the way. The stunning rollback of

freedoms in Russia didn't seem to bother Bush either.

Smaller countries offered a similar picture. Bush welcomed

Thailand's autocratic leader as a comrade in the war on

terrorism even as democracy there eroded. Under congressional

pressure, the administration rapped the knuckles of

Uzbekistan's torturers, but not so hard as to interfere with

a budding military relationship. Azerbaijan's longtime

communist strongman bequeathed power to his ill-prepared son,

but that was okay; Azebaijan is rich in oil and gas.

Pakistan's strongman broke repeated promises to return his

country to civilian rule, but he was too valuable an ally

against al Qaeda for the administration to object. And so on,

around the world.

The choices Bush made weren't evil, and they didn't mean

that, all things being equal, he wouldn't prefer to encourage

democracy. The United States was attacked, and it needed

basing rights in Uzbekistan to retaliate. Its economy needs

Azeri oil, and Venezuelan oil, and all kinds of other

undemocratic oil. The alternative to the general running

Pakistan might be a lot worse--a fundamentalist Islamic

regime with nuclear weapons, for instance.

So there were strong arguments for maintaining good

relations with all of these autocrats. But that's the point;

there will always be countervailing arguments. If you think

democracy is just a secondary, wouldn't-it-be-nice

objective--if you don't think raw national interest is served

by spreading freedom abroad--liberty will always rank below

some mother, legitimate priority.

You might understand if Bush felt that way. After all, it

was democratically elected leaders in France and Germany who

caused him the most first-term heartburn. Many experienced

diplomats, including senior officials of the Bush

administration, believe it's more important to appeal to the

national interest of a Russia or an Egypt than to worry about

how those nations are governed.

But Bush says he is convinced of the opposite view: that

America will actually be safer if more countries become

democratic. ``As freedom advances, heart by heart, and nation

by nation, America will be more secure and the world more

peaceful,'' he argued in that same convention address.

Such a belief translated into policy would not mean that

liberty would automatically and always take precedence over

basing rights, counterterrorism cooperation or smooth trade

relations. But in Bush's first term, democracy promotion

seemed to be the policy mostly when it was convenient: in

Palestine, where it allowed him to avoid confrontation with

Israel's leader; in Cuba, where it allowed him to win votes

in Florida. If you see him in the next four years risking

other U.S. interests to champion liberty where it is not so

convenient, then you will know he meant what he said on the

campaign trail.

Mr. Speaker, in previous election years we have heard about an October surprise. We did not have an October surprise this year. We are getting a November surprise.

Now, it is not a surprise to those of us who serve in this body. It is an unpleasant surprise to the American people, particularly those people who think that as a collective society we have some responsibilities to each other, because this is an appropriations bill that fails to fund adequately those programs that are essential to improving the quality of our lives to the extent that they must be done together.

People on the other side are fond of saying it is the people's money, not the government's money. Of course it is the people's money. But civilized and sensible people understand that we have two sets of needs for our money. Some of our needs, our desires are best met by money that we have individually and as families. But in our society particularly there are essential needs for our well-being that can only be met if we pool our money.

Now, on the one level people understand that they know that homeland security cannot be advanced by a tax cut. But neither can environmental cleanup, neither can transportation, neither can our ability to extend some compassion to people in need. The majority understand that. They understand that the American people understand that. So that is why, and let us be very clear, the sole reason we are here today a couple of weeks after an election funding the government for the rest of the year is the majority's craven unwillingness to stand up before the election for what they truly believe in. They have successfully hidden from the American people the true consequences of their philosophy. And that is the November surprise.

People who believe that America ought to be vigorously cleaning up environmental messes left from earlier periods, people who think we ought to be expanding the amount of affordable housing we have, people who think we ought to be extending health care for Americans rather than seeing it continue to erode, people who think we ought to be meeting our international obligations.

I read just this past week in Congress Daily that there is a shortfall in the money we send to feed starving people overseas. That is not adequately funded. Some of the President's own priorities are not funded internationally. It is true, I gather, they did manage to give in to the administration and there is money to go to Mars, and maybe ultimately the homeless can live there. But God help them, they better be able to because they certainly are not going to be able to find housing here.

Again, let us be clear here. There is no reason whatsoever why in this lame duck session after the election we are funding all of the important domestic elements of government and some of the international ones, except the majority's understanding that the consequences of their anti-government attitude simply would not have worked well before the election. The sole purpose of this timing is to deceive the American people. Fortunately, that deception cannot continue because we are going to have elections in the future. And we are going to test this philosophy, and here is the philosophy.

It is an administration that believes that all we have to do to reach the good life is essentially to remove all restraints on capital. Do not tax it. Put the taxes on people's consumption or on the money they earn for working. Do not hobble them with environmental regulations. For goodness sake, do not allow labor unions to speak up for their people. Do not make them pay overtime very much.

Four years from now the minimum wage will be meaningless because it will not move for 4 years under their administration and inflation will accomplish what the ideologues cannot accomplish openly. It will be eroded.

But let us go back to the budget. Now, the members of the Committee on Appropriations have always gotten praise here, including the majority members. What is the general phrase? They have done the best they can in a bad situation. Given the constraints they face, they have done a good job.

Let us be very clear, those constraints, those limitations; that is, inadequacy of funding for our public purposes, which is how as a society we in part express our aspirations for decency, for quality of life, for compassion, those constraints were not natural constraints. They did not come from the heavens. They are not natural phenomena. They are the result of the conscious policy choices of the administration and the majority. A decision to go to two wars, one of which was necessary in my judgment, one of which was not, and then to do five tax cuts, has left us, and the majority acknowledges that implicitly today by bringing up two weeks after an election measures that by any sense of democratic procedure should have been voted on before the people got to cast their ballots.

So the majority implicitly acknowledges that its extremely conservative assault on government, its refusal to acknowledge that there are important moral purposes that we can only accomplish if we pool our resources and work together as a people, they implicitly acknowledge the unacceptable nature of that, and we will continue this debate over the next 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the second anniversary of a very important organization dedicated to fighting prejudice in the United States in a very constructive manner. The National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, founded in November 2002 by Justin Nelson and Chance Mitchell is, to quote from the statement which the NGLCC submitted to our Financial Services Committee hearing on diversity, ``the only national not-for profit advocacy organization specifically dedicated to the economic advancements and opportunities of the American LGBT business community.''

The NGLCC carries on this work by its formation of a `` broad-based coalition, representative of the various interests of American LGBT owned and friendly businesses, professionals, and students of business to increase economic opportunities among membership, corporate interests and federal, state and local governments.''

We hear a great deal in our public debate these days about the importance of people working together, being constructive, avoiding divisiveness etc. This can be overdone--democracy requires the honest airing of differences. But it is also important that these differences take place within a context of recognition of shared values, and the NGLCC plays an extremely important role in this. This organization demonstrates that combating prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity is not only not inconsistent with an effort to work for greater unity in our country, but is in fact an essential part of that effort, properly understood.

Justin Nelson and Chance Mitchell through their own commitment to advancing our capitalist system, while simultaneously fighting the prejudice which deprives some people of the full chance to participate in that system, play a very important role. To quote further from the statement which they submitted to our Financial Services Committee, ``It is the unfortunate experience of millions of LGBT Americans that homophobia and ignorance has

been the silent killer of developing and growing LGBT enterprises and a better quality of life for all LGBT Americans. Too often it is the experience that LGBT Americans feel compelled to remain in the closet to safeguard their personal and professional financial condition . . . That millions of LGBT Americans live half lives in the financial marketplace, and the workplace is simply not in the best interest of a strong, vibrant and competitive American economy.

``It is a universal truth that as human beings, we are at our best when we can represent ourselves as whole and complete individuals, encouraged to contribute with vibrant creative energy the many talents unique to each of us as individuals. That LGBT Americans are shackled by institutionalized discrimination is not only shameful, it is not good business.''

It is not easy to start an organization, and it is particularly difficult when the organization being started is one that seeks to bridge significant gaps that divide people in our society. There are a number of organizations that effectively advocate for the rights of LGBT Americans. There are others that are forceful supporters of the legitimate interests of the business community. I know no other at the national level that exists precisely not simply to show that these two goals are not inconsistent, but that, properly understood, they reinforce each other.

I have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Nelson on several occasions, and I am impressed by the quality of their work. I make this statement today on the floor to call attention to this excellent example of how people can work truly to better our country in every way.

Mr. Speaker, Members seeking more information on this useful organization can consult the hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Financial Services Committee on diversity and financial services, which was conducted on July 15, 2004.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the sections of this bill that are relevant to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services are useful ones and not controversial. Indeed, in our committee, as the chairman has mentioned, we adopted a couple of amendments which make some improvement. Some of them, while not directly related to terrorism, the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) regarding conflict of interest potential at the Comptroller of the Currency is a very good piece of legislation. It is not directly relevant to terrorism, although it does not detract.

But I am troubled by the choice the House is being forced to make on this in general. I believe that overall, the bill that will be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, who will be speaking to it shortly, is a far better response to the terrible tragedy of 9/11 and subsequent than the bill that the majority has put forward. It reflects the deliberations of that 9/11 Commission far better on the central issues involving intelligence, involving the way in which the government is organized in the security areas. It has the potential to be genuinely bipartisan as we saw from the other body.

And, in fact, what we are being asked to do is something we have been asked to do all too often recently. What we ought to be doing is what was done in the Senate. We ought to have a bill before us that is amendable. That is what many of us asked to have before us. Instead, we get two packages, and in the end Members will have to choose all or nothing. I will choose the bill when we come to vote on the substitute that more nearly reflects the 9/11 Commission, indeed, very closely tracks the 9/11 Commission.

It has several advantages. It does follow the extensive deliberations of the 9/11 Commission in a thoroughly bipartisan manner. It also makes it likelier that we will get a law passed, because if the bill put forward by the majority passes, the differences between House and Senate versions will be quite substantial and the likelihood of a conference report being adopted before the election in time for that bill to go into effect this year will be slight.

I do not understand why we have not been able to follow in this bill and in

many others the normal democratic process in which a bill comes forward and we are able to amend it and vote on amendments. That is the way it used to be. I can remember when we would do that. Today, what we are told by the rule is you will choose one package or another, and neither package will be perfect. Given that choice, I much prefer the 9/11 bill as opposed to what we are being given by the majority as their version.

But I regret very much the continued loss of democracy in the House. I regret very much the failure to follow what a parliamentary democracy ought to follow. Bring a bill to the floor, and let it be amended. As we try to bring democracy to parts of the world that have not had it before, I fear that we set them a very poor example; and I have to hope, Mr. Chairman, that they are paying less attention to us than I would like to be able to say.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who has been a leader on this issue and who is the author of the very important substitute amendment which genuinely embodies the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), one of the members of the Committee on Financial Services who has been most active on this issue in a very informed way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, you have heard from the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maryland the criticisms of what are not in the majority's bill. Much of what the 9/11 Commission asked for is not in the bill. I want to talk to my objections about what is in their bill that was not in the 9/11 Commission report, and not just to the specifics, but the procedure.

The House has been put into a position time and time again of being given legislation, and it is kind of like being a dog given a pill. When people want to give medicine to a dog, they wrap it in something the dog wants to eat.

When the majority has controversial pieces of legislation that could not pass on their own, they wrap it in something which Members will be afraid to vote against. And that is what we have in this bill. Not in our section dealing with financial services, but in the majority's bill is an example of a tactic that has been used repeatedly. You take controversial things, things that ought to be fully debated, things that many Members would not support on their own, and you wrap them in something which has a great deal of political appeal to try and coerce Members into voting for it.

It is in repudiation of that tactic that I and many others, if the substitute fails, will vote against the basic bill, because I am tired of being given legislation that resembles nothing so much as a pill being fed to a dog.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear that my criticisms do not extend to our part of the bill. I lament that the House in general has not followed the example we have set.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate last week on the amendment that would overturn Massachusetts' decision to allow same-sex marriage, I received permission to put into the Record an excellent article by M.V. Lee Badgett, refuting the shoddy scholarship of Stanley Kurtz, who has alleged with no logical basis that same-sex marriages have somehow caused a decline in heterosexual marriages in some European countries. I should note that Mr. Kurtz completely ignores, in his research, the most relevant example for us--civil unions in Vermont. But even with regard to the handful of European countries he analyzes, his work does not support the conclusion he is so desperate to sustain.

M.V. Lee Badgett has done a very good job of refuting Mr. Kurtz, and I was glad to have a chance to insert her analysis in the record of the debate from last Thursday. Unfortunately, her name was omitted. I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that those reading this insertion who are interested in the subject go to the Congressional Record for September 30, at page H7914, to read the article entitled ``Will Providing Marriage Rights To Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?'' in which Ms. Badgett demolishes Mr. Kurtz.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for showing great leadership on this. He was, to my knowledge, the first Member of this body to decide that we ought to take some action. He spoke to me early when this was first called to our attention, and he has been very diligent and very thoughtful and others, the gentleman from Texas, gentleman from New York, have joined in.

So I am glad we are at this point where we are about to pass very good consumer protection legislation, and this is a species of that legislation; and it shows what our role ought to be, namely, to start from the assumption that the market will work and we will leave things to the market, but to be ready to step in when the market fails and it does not include the kind of protections that it ought to include.

This is a very thoughtful piece of legislation, worked out in a bipartisan way, under the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the ranking member. I am delighted to join in supporting it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for his courtesy; and I am grateful to the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for bringing this forward.

Massachusetts is rich in history, but this is a particularly significant piece of Massachusetts from an historic standpoint. As the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) pointed out, the Liberty and Union Flag was raised there in 1774. This is the place here in Taunton where the revolution was fueled. Robert Treat Paine, a resident of Taunton, signed the Declaration, and it continues to be important.

The courthouse green, a lovely area, was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, the greatest landscape architect in our history and, probably, the history of the world. I am privileged to have an office right in the midst of this. So I guess I should say I would be a beneficiary of this. But it is for the city, and it will be passed on.

I also should say that I became the Representative of Taunton in the last redistricting. And for the prior couple of decades it was extraordinarily well-represented by one of our great former colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moakley, who was sadly taken from us a few years ago. So as we put this bill forward, I am delighted to do it, but I also want people to understand that I do this in tribute, in part, to the legacy of Joe Moakley, one of the great leaders in this House, widely respected and even loved by both sides.

This is a genuinely important historical operation. It played a historic role in the Revolution. We had Frederick Law Olmsted there. It was also very important in the Industrial Revolution. It continues today to be a very important community.

So I am grateful to the committee for bringing this forward and I look forward to the passage of this bill and subsequent action by the Park Service.

Mr. Speaker, to begin as the majority leader leaves, I must say when he says that the timing of this, 1 month before an election when the issue has been pending all year, when he says the timing was forced upon him and is not effected by political considerations, he violates what I would recommend to the gentleman is an important rule of political debate: No matter how advantageous one thinks it is, try hard to believe something no one believes; it does not really help your cause.

Beyond that, we have the most seriously misdescribed constitutional amendment I have ever seen. Actually if the Republicans go forward with their proposal, having created the largest deficits in our history, to require a balanced budget some time in the far distant future, that may be an even greater one at variance with reality. But here is the problem: They describe an amendment very different than the one they bring forward.

We have heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Texas say this is aimed at preventing judges from forcing one State to do what another State does. It does far more than that. At its core what it does is say that no State, by whatever process it chooses, may find that two women being willing to commit themselves to each other legally as well as emotionally is a good thing and not a bad thing, because that is the core of the issue.

In the State of Massachusetts, it is true we began with a court decision. Since then, it has been debated in our legislature. The legislature of Massachusetts very narrowly approved an amendment that would have said no to same-sex marriages but would have mandated full civil unions, which may also be thrown out by this amendment. That amendment will now be debated next year.

An election is going on in Massachusetts today in which how people voted on this is a major issue. We just had a change in the leadership of the Massachusetts House. A speaker who opposed same-sex marriage has been replaced by a speaker elected by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in turn elected by the people, who support same-sex marriage.

I think the question is very much in doubt, but the point is undeniable; the political process in Massachusetts, the democratic process in Massachusetts, is now deciding whether or not to allow same- sex marriage.

Mr. Speaker, the other side comes with an amendment that would cancel any decision made on this that they do not like by the people of Massachusetts. This is not an amendment that says one State cannot do something to another State. There would be an amendment possible. I would not be for it, but if that is really what is meant, then we would have an amendment that took DOMA and made it a constitutional principle. Such an amendment would be possible. I think it would be a mistake. I do not think it would be a good idea to freeze that, because then we would have some real difficulties, but it would be at least in accordance with what the other side is saying because this amendment does far more than has been described.

It has been a rule that I have found when people in political debate will not

be completely open about what they are trying to do, it is because they really know it is not defensible. Why do you not acknowledge that this amendment would cancel a democratic decision by the people of Massachusetts? Indeed, if the legislature decides to get rid of this, there will be a referendum. If the legislature does not decide to get rid of it, then a fairly small number of people can force a referendum and we will have a referendum, very likely, in 2008.

We will have had by that time the benefit of 4 years in which same- sex marriages happened. I understand why the opponents of same-sex marriage are so upset. They have made a number of predictions about what will come after same-sex marriage, none of which will be proven true, so they are desperately trying to cut this off before it happens. We have already had nearly 5 months of same-sex marriage. None of their predictions were proven true, as none of their predictions were proven true when they talked about the chaos in Vermont.

But let us understand what the House is being asked to do. If the concern was to say judges could not decide this, if the concern was to say full faith and credit does not apply, there would be amendments that could be narrowly drafted to deal with that, although I would not support them. But that is not what is here. This amendment says no State, Vermont, Massachusetts, by whatever process, by referendum, by vote of the legislature, by whatever process, can decide that it would like to have same-sex marriage for its own citizens.

I will say that on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, who do not share the distaste for love that is expressed in a way in which you do not disapprove that Members of the majority have, please do not impose your views on the people of Massachusetts. If your concern is genuinely to prevent one State from forcing another, deal with that. But this is an undemocratic effort to say no State may differ in this intimate matter of public policy with your views.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the previous speaker, who said he had presided over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages, I just wonder, in how many of those was the cause of the dissolution some gay relationship?

I mean, I am prepared to own up when I am at fault. Am I responsible, as a gay man, for any of those 20,000 dissolutions? The gentleman said there were 20,000 dissolutions. Would he tell us in how many of those 20,000 dissolutions was the existence of a gay marriage or gay civil union the cause?

A half a dozen out of 20,000.

I apologize. If the gentleman would continue to yield briefly.

I apologize for assuming that the gentleman was referring to gay marriage. This is a debate about gay marriage. So when the gentleman talked about the dissolution of 20,000 marriages, I made, apparently, the incorrect inference that there was some relationship between what the gentleman was saying and the subject under suggestion. I withdraw the inference.

Mr. Speaker, consistently proponents of this amendment have tried to hide what it does. Yes, there is a question about what one State could be compelled to do by the Federal courts to respect another. If that were the problem, an amendment could come forward aimed narrowly at that. I would not support it. But an amendment that said the full faith and credit clause does not apply could have come forward. This amendment goes far beyond that. But the proponents of it apparently understand how indefensible it is in the very democratic terms which they use, and therefore they conceal it from the people, speaker after speaker after speaker.

I hope the majority leader will tell us why he will not be straightforward about this element of it and here is what it is: this does not simply say that judges cannot decide the question. And it does not say that one State cannot compel another. It also says, and its major impact, if it were to pass, would be to say to the voters of Massachusetts, no matter what you say in a referendum, no matter how you, the democratic electorate of Massachusetts, choose to define marriage, we the Federal Government overrule you.

What justification have you for that? You say the people of Texas, the people

of Tennessee want to decide. Why not the people of Massachusetts? Why did you not draft an amendment that would have honored the right of a State's electorate to make a decision? Our legislature is now in charge of this issue. The legislature will decide and the referendum will decide; and this amendment undeniably, but silently, says that no matter what any State does, it will be overruled. Vermont's civil union law originally came from the courts, but it has since been accepted by the political electorate. There have been votes in Vermont over this. Elections. This would also be overturned.

But now let me turn to the merits. We heard one gentleman say that he was not talking about same-sex marriage. He just noted that he had presided over the dissolution of 20,000 marriages. I am a gay man and I have presided over the dissolution of none. So I guess I do not feel quite as guilty about assaulting marriage as some of you would like me to feel. I am sorry Rush Limbaugh has been divorced three times, but it ain't my fault; and it is not the fault of any of my friends. That is the issue.

We are not assaulting marriage. Since when is it an assault on something for people to say, you know what, we have been excluded from this institution. We are also human beings and we feel love. We feel it in a way different than you. We feel it for someone of the same sex, male or female. And we look at your institution of marriage, and we see the joy it brings. We see the stability it brings to society. How does it hurt you if we share in it? That is the core issue I have not heard understood. What is it about the fact that two women in love in Massachusetts want to be legally as well as morally responsible for each other and live together and keep their home? Why is that an assault on you?

What a case of blaming the victim. You are defending yourselves against two loving people whose failure is to love each other and to want not simply to be free floating but to be committed? What is it you are protecting yourselves against? How do we threaten you? What about the love of two men so disturbs you that it would dissolve marriages? There are apparently, what, men and women happily married all over the country and they will learn that in Massachusetts the legislature allowed same-sex marriage to continue and they will get a divorce, they will call the gentleman from Texas and he can make it 20,001.

The gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, says this is not about gay marriage. Yes. And God didn't make little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime. This is a political effort and it comes up a month before the election when it has been an issue since May of this year at least and before, a month before the election, an amendment that has no chance to pass, demonizes same-sex couples.

I say demonize for this reason. You say, we do not have anything against these people. Then why do you change my love into a weapon? Why if I have the same feelings that you do towards another human being does that somehow become the only weapon of mass destruction you have ever been able to find?

I urge the House to turn this down, let the people of Massachusetts make their own choices, and let loving men and loving women live in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record answers I gave to the Committee on the Judiciary and some further material which rebut the preposterous conclusion of Stanley Krutz, which was quoted here, that somehow, same-sex marriage resulted in a decline in heterosexual marriages elsewhere.

Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Answers to the questions from Jerrold Nadler:

When I was asked about Stanley Kurtz's research by

Congresswoman Hart at the hearing, I had not read any of his

work. I now have and I can say that I believe his

interpretation is entirely without intellectual merit.

As I recall Ms. Hart's question, she asked me to accept Mr.

Kurtz's factual assertion that a recognition of same-sex

marriage had been followed in various European countries by a

decline in heterosexual marriage, and asked if I could think

of any possible explanation other than that the former had

caused the latter.

I was reluctant to answer the question before reading the

data lest I be validating premises and assumptions which I

would later find to be invalid. This turns out to be the

case. In fact, Mr. Kurtz does not himself argue that same-sex

marriage recognition preceded a decline in heterosexual

marriage. In every country he discusses, and his selection is

surprisingly sparse, a point to which I'll return, a decline

in heterosexual marriage and childrearing in heterosexual

marriages preceded by a significant period of years any

recognition of same-sex marriages.

But even on the narrow--and inaccurate--statement of Mr.

Kurtz's position that Ms. Hart put forward, the alternative

explanation to the assertion that same-sex marriage causes a

deterioration in heterosexual marriage is a simple one: They

may both be effects of the same or similar social causes.

Indeed, as Ms. Hart put the question to me, it can serve as a

dictionary example of the logical fallacy known as ``post hoc

ergo propterhoc.'' That is, the fallacy that believes that if

something happened after something else, it must necessarily

have been caused by it.

The key point again to stress is that Mr. Kurtz himself

does not argue that same-sex marriage recognition preceded

the deterioration in opposite-sex marriage.

In fact, Mr. Kurtz himself argues essentially that the

primary relationship of same-sex marriage and a decline in

heterosexual marriage is that they are both cause by the same

set of social phenomena. A fundamental flaw in his reasoning

of course is that he does virtually no analysis of any of the

European countries in which there has not been some form of

recognition of same-sex relationships. In other words, there

is zero comparative analysis in his work. Have significant

deteriorations in the incidence of heterosexual marriages

happened in other European countries which have not in

fact recognized same-sex relationships. The answer is

almost certainly yes but we will never know that from

reading Mr. Kurtz, who carefully avoids even posing that

question, obviously lest his hypothesis be endangered. He

does refer to England as a country where there has been a

significant deterioration in the number of heterosexual

marriages, but fails to note that this undercuts his

argument about the relationship between this and

recognizing same-sex relationships since England had not

done that at the time of his analysis.

The second point to be stressed is that Mr. Kurtz is not

talking about same-sex marriage in most cases, but rather of

various forms of recognition of same-sex relationships, akin

to domestic partnerships or civil unions. This is relevant

because some of those who questioned me who are supporters of

a Constitutional amendment asserted that they were talking

only about the unique nature of marriage, and seemed to think

that Mr. Kurtz supported them. Of course he does not since he

conflates marriage and other forms of recognition throughout

his analysis. Thus, the distinction that one Constitutional

amendment draws between marriage and other forms of same-sex

relationships does not appear to be at all supported by Mr.

Kurtz's analysis.

I have read both his testimony and his article in the

Weekly Standard carefully and I am unable to find any

coherent argument that says that recognizing same-sex

relationships reinforced--he does not claim that they are the

primary cause--a decline in heterosexual marriage. His exact

statement is ``there is good reason to believe that same-sex

marriage and marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships

are both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the

Scandinavian trend towards unmarried parenthood.'' The

primary cause of the ``marital decline in Scandinavia''

according to Mr. Kurtz, incidentally, are ``contraception,

abortion, women in the workforce, cultural individualism,

secularism and the welfare state.'' That is, all of these

have by Mr. Kurtz's own analysis more of a responsibility for

the decline of heterosexual marriage and same-sex-marriage.

This of course reinforces my earlier point--namely that Mr.

Kurtz scrupulously in his analysis avoids looking at the

statistics in countries which have not recognized same-sex

marriage, since virtually all of them in Western Europe are

affected by these other factors. And it does appear that to

Mr. Kurtz, even if we abolish same-sex relationship

recognition, we would have to ban or severely restrict

contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, cultural

individualism, secularism and the welfare state if we were to

save marriage. I recognize that there are members of the

Judiciary Committee who are attracted by the notion of

restricting some or all of these, and I commend their

discretion in not being more explicit about this wish.

When it comes to causality, the only effort to establish a

causal relationship-between recognizing same-sex unions and

the decline in heterosexual marriage comes in his testimony

when Mr. Kurtz says that ``same-sex partnerships in

Scandinavia have furthered the cultural separation of

marriage and parenthood in at least two ways.'' He then says

that ``first, the debate over same-sex partnerships has split

the Norwegian Church,'' and he argues that this weakening of

the traditionals within the Norwegian Lutheran Church is a

cause of an increase in same-sex relationships. I have tried

very hard to find the second causal factor but a very close

reading of the text produces no second. So we are left with

one assertion of causality--namely that the fact that

``clergy who preach against homosexual behavior are banned''

from preaching in parts of Norway means that their advocacy

of heterosexual marriage is no longer heard. This

reinforces my view that whatever is or is not happening in

Scandinavia in this regard has virtually no relevance to

the United States.

I am aware of no religious denomination that has banned

clergy from the pulpit if they are against same-sex

marriages. There are some denominations that allow this to be

performed, but there should be no analogy between the United

States, where the great majority of religious groups do not

recognize same-sex marriages, and Mr. Kurtz's view of parts

of Norway where virtually all clergy who oppose same-sex

marriage are banned. To be explicit, if the causality that

links a recognition of same-sex relationships to a decline in

heterosexual marriage rests entirely on the fact that anti-

same-sex relationship clergy are being marginalized and in

some cases silenced, it has no relevance to the United States

where nothing of that sort has happened or is likely to

happen.

This leads me to my final point--namely that reading Mr.

Kurtz makes it even clearer than it was to me before that the

most relevant experience to draw on in predicting what impact

recognizing same-sex relationships will have on American

society comes from Vermont. Some have argued that the Vermont

experience is not relevant because it has only been in effect

for four years or so. But Mr. Kurtz himself has an important

section in his testimony on the Netherlands, where ``formal

same-sex marriage . . . took effect in 2001,'' and

``marriage-like registered partnerships'' dates from 1998. In

other words, the Vermont experience is roughly comparable in

time to that of the Netherlands, and if Mr. Kurtz is right in

judging an impact based on the Netherlands, Vermont should be

equally relevant from the chronological standpoint--and, as a

part of the United States, far more relevant culturally.

We have one set of experiences with legal recognition of

same-sex relationships in the United States--that of Vermont.

It shows none of the negative effects that opponents of same-

sex marriage have predicted. Mr. Kurtz advances a correlation

in the contin

ued decline of marriage in various European countries--where

that decline long predated any recognition of same-sex

relationships--and the recognition of same-sex relationships.

But he carefully confines his analysis only to those

countries where same-sex relationships have been recognized,

so we have no way of telling whether or not the decline in

marriage that he attributes to same-sex relationships has

been equally great in countries where there is no such

recognition. And the only specific causal point he advances

is that this silencing or intimidation of Norwegian Lutheran

clergy who oppose same-sex marriage has diminished their

ability to preach in favor of heterosexual marriage. I am

very certain in my view that the experience in Vermont is far

more relevant to gauging the impact of a recognition of same-

sex relationships in the United States than is the experience

in a couple of Norwegian counties where the clergy opposed to

same-sex relationships have been silenced.

Barney Frank.

Mr. Speaker, the previous remarks are drawn from the research of a man named Stanley Kurtz, research that is of a very low level of intellectual activity. It would make some of the debate here today seem scintillating.

In fact, I have submitted information that makes it very clear that as far as the Netherlands are concerned, the trends involved predate same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, there were same-sex civil unions first, then same-sex marriage. What has happened in the Netherlands predates that. The main author himself states that these are probably effects of the same cause.

Now, let us look to the United States. Vermont has had full civil unions, which most of the Members over there disagree with, since 2001, with zero, no negative effects, the same period of time as the Netherlands has had.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, before he leaves, because he is so certain about the Netherlands, and I will yield him my remaining time, when does he believe that same-sex marriages began in the Netherlands and what was the rate? What is the date?

Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania answer me? When did the same- sex marriages start in the Netherlands?

Well, you made the statement. You do not know?

No, they started in 2001.

The gentleman gets the date wrong. He said since 1989. Same-sex marriage started in the Netherlands in 2001.

When Members are giving statistics, they ought to know what they mean.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, let me begin on a note of agreement with my predecessor in the well. I do think what we are seeing in Serbia has been very encouraging. And I am glad that President Clinton persevered in doing that over the opposition of a large number of Republicans in this chamber who sought to prevent him from carrying out that policy. But I want to talk now about Iraq.

We went into Iraq, I thought, unwisely and unnecessarily. I believe that my vote against that was the right vote. But even those who voted for it have a hard time dealing with what has been one of the most incompetently executed major national security policies in the history of this country. And one sign of that is the consistently wrong predictions this administration has made.

They said that when we went into Iraq and when they won the war, and the military part was won very easily, despite what President Bush had earlier said, he inherited from President Clinton a superb military regime that won easily the military parts of the efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But we were told that once the military part was over, the people of Iraq would be so welcoming, that it would be fairly easy. Indeed, this administration punished General Shinseki for predicting that it would be a difficult occupation. And, of course, it was a very difficult occupation.

But then we were told, well, when we capture Saddam Hussein that will take the energy out of the resistance and things will get calmer. And we captured Saddam Hussein, fortunately; but unfortunately things did not get better. And then we were told, well, we will turn over the government of Iraq to an Iraqi set of officials and then things will get better. And we turned over the government to an Iraqi set of officials and things have gotten worse.

Now, we are accused by those who do not think debating public policy is appropriate in a democracy. Apparently, they have this very odd idea that the more important the issue, the less appropriate it is to debate it. Democracy

in their minds should be conducted about trivia; but when we are talking about important issues of war and peace and the lives of our young people and the national security, somehow it becomes inappropriate to engage in the democratic debate that is at the nature of our governance.

But we have an additional witness to the argument that Iraq remains sadly unsafe in many places for this government and its supporters, the United States government. And we are not just talking about Fallujah or the Sunni Triangle. We are talking about Baghdad. We recently had, and I read this in the New York Times last Thursday, a wire service article, the United States government last week, or at least I learned of it last week, recently gave asylum to a 15-year-old Iraqi girl who asked for asylum on the ground that her support for the American military made it unsafe for her to live in Baghdad.

In other words, we now have an official recognition by the United States immigration officials that being a supporter of the American military in Baghdad is so dangerous as to justify the extraordinary act that is a grant of asylum. This is not critics of the administration saying that. This is not Fallujah. This is Baghdad. This is a sad statement, and I am terribly troubled by this. I am glad we gave this young woman asylum given those circumstances.

A young woman who expressed her support for the American military now tells us that it is unsafe for her to go to Baghdad. Well, if in fact things are calmer, let us talk about an election. They are going to have an election throughout the country. Baghdad is one of the places where we are told things are fairly secure.

Well, if it is secure enough to have a free election, why is it so insecure as to say that a 15-year-old has to be given asylum in the United States because it is not safe for her to remain in her own country because she sided with America.

What is clear is that the result of the Bush administration's Iraqi policy has been a sad deterioration, in my view, of the true national security policy of this country; and the misinformation, the self- delusion, the inaccuracy, the infighting, the inconsistency that have marked this policy have resulted in a very, very sad situation. And as long as the President and his chief advisors insist on defying reality and blaming the messengers who bring forward the evidence of this sad reality, it is unlikely that things will get better. The self-deluded are rarely the self-correcting.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2004]

U.S. Asylum for Iraqi Girl, 15

Washington--A 15-year-old Iraqi girl who claimed

persecution in Baghdad because her family cooperated with the

United States military has been granted political asylum

here. The case is believed to be among the first instances of

an Iraqi seeking political asylum in such circumstances.

The girl and her mother, who asked not to be identified for

fear of retaliation against other family members still in

Iraq, received the letter on Thursday from the Citizenship

and Immigration Services, according to Jeff Sullivan, their

Washington lawyer. The girl came to the United States last

year with her mother for treatment of a cancerous growth in

her cervix. The two subsequently applied for political

asylum. The mother is pursuing asylum for the father and

three other children still in Baghdad, Mr. Sullivan said.