Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and appreciate his encouragement and support in this particular effort along with his leadership on the full Committee on International Relations on the House side.

Mr. Speaker, as others have said, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), this bill represents yet another step forward in the comprehensive effort to address the international human tragedy of sexual exploitation of women and children. It would mandate that humanitarian relief agencies adopt a code of conduct that would promote protection for potential victims.

As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) indicated, U.S. funding would only be available if those agencies had expressly articulated and adopted such a policy. The bill enumerates six core principles that incorporate the findings of a task force created by the United Nations in 2002. To mention a few, and I will be repetitive, but I think it is important to repeat because these provisions are of consequence.

Sexual activity with a child under 18 is prohibited regardless of local law. The exchange of sexual favors for any reason is defined as abusive and exploitative behavior. It is humiliating and degrading, and as such, it is prohibited. Where there is a concern of abuse or exploitation on the part of a humanitarian worker, that individual, that humanitarian worker is required, is mandated now, under the provisions of this legislation, to report their suspicions to the proper authorities. And most importantly, humanitarian agencies are obliged to create and maintain an environment which prevents sexual exploitation and abuse and promotes the implementation of their code of conduct.

It cannot be denied that as a people and a government, the United States has responded to crisis after crisis. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that 600,000 to 800,000 people, mostly women and children, are trafficked across national borders. It is also estimated that 2 million children, 2 million children are enslaved in the global sex trade. The magnitude of this crisis is immense. And sadly, Mr. Speaker, it goes largely unnoticed. It is an international scandal that needs to be revealed and acknowledged by the international community because that is necessary before we can adequately address it and seek to eradicate it. Information and discussion about this tragic reality is critical because there

is widespread agreement that education and awareness, public awareness are the keys to prevention. And if we persist in our collaboration with other governments and stakeholders, including the United Nations, I am convinced that our efforts will result in a significant decline in these unacceptable numbers.

The truth is we are making progress. Since 2001, the U.S. has provided close to $300 million to support anti-trafficking programs in 120 countries. Under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the Protect Act became law, which allows for the prosecution of U.S. citizens who travel abroad to sexually abuse minors. And in the private sector we secured a commitment from the travel and tourism industry to implement its own code of conduct on child trafficking. And I am confident that the passage of this bill code will build on that progress that we have already observed because it will increase public awareness of this quiet crisis. And hopefully it will impact the cultural attitudes that nurture this behavior, often by silence and acquiescence by looking the other way, by ignoring its existence. And there have been some positive developments.

Recently, the action of the government of Morocco in filing charges against their own troops who purportedly bribed Congolese children with food for sex while serving as U.N. Peacekeepers has to be noted for the record, because I have no doubt that the tangible and cumulative efforts of this Congress and many of the stakeholders contributed in an indirect way do that particular action. Because by our cumulative efforts we have announced to the world, to the international community that this issue is a high priority for the United States and for every American.

The idea for this discrete proposal was generated as a result of a meeting in the Majority Leader's office this past January, and I want to acknowledge his leadership on this issue, I see the gentleman presents in the Chamber now, not only on the bill before us today, but for his long and committed engagement on children's issues.

The Majority Leader has made a difference, and I would be remiss also not to note the contributions made by the gentleman who controls the time for the majority, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) whose leadership on this whole array, this particular issue and other related issues, can only be described as inspirational. Many are in the debt of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), many victims across the world.

As a people and a government, the United States responded as we always do in a very positive way to the tsunami in South Asia and to every crisis that besets this planet with passion and incredible generosity. But we cannot lose sight of that unfortunate reality that at such times, there are increased opportunities for sexual predators and those who would traffic for sexual reasons.

So today, once more, we are announcing to the rest of the world that protection of women and children is a top priority for the people of the United States.

Before I conclude, I think it is incumbent upon me to recognize the key members of the staffs on both sides who achieved what I consider to be a thoughtful and obviously bipartisan piece of legislation.

First, let me thank the staff of the Majority Leader's office for their cooperation and hard work enabling us to reach this result. With their customary incredible energy, Cassie Statuto Bevans demonstrated a sincere determination to craft the best legislative proposal to protect women and children who are at risk. I am also grateful for the helpful assistance of Hope Henry in the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). From the House Committee on International Relations, Renee Austell and Matt McLean provided significant time and expertise helping us to formulate the right approach.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the import and guidance of my Democratic colleagues on the committee, Pearl Alice Marsh and Robin Roizman. And I would also like to extend my appreciation to Rob Blair with the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the House Committee on Appropriations whose timely and insightful guidance throughout this process is much appreciated by me and my own staff.

Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation for the skillful assistance of Mark Synnes in the Office of Legislative Counsel in the drafting of this bill. Myself, and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) also appreciate the letters of support that we have received from several leading relief organizations, including InterAction, Save the Children, the American Red Cross, Refugees International, World Vision and UNICEF.

By the way, I also want to acknowledge the assistance and help of my own staffer, Christine Leonard.

Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to unanimously approve this legislation.

[From World Vision, Mar. 1, 2005]

Statement of World Vision on H.R. 912, the Humanitarian Assistance Code

of Conduct Act of 2005

Washington.--World Vision would like to thank House

Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman William Delahunt

for their ongoing commitment to protecting children from harm

and their leadership in drafting H.R. 912, the Humanitarian

Assistance Code of Conduct Act of 2005.

World Vision supports this important piece of legislation.

Each year, millions of children are exploited and abused

around the world, often in the midst of a disaster, such as

the tsunami that impacted South Asia in December 2004.

Humanitarian organizations must be part of the first line of

defense in protecting these children, and this includes

measures for self-accountability and proper conduct.

H.R. 912 helps to ensure this accountability and conduct by

prohibiting the funding of relief organizations that have not

adopted a code of conduct that provides for the protection of

beneficiaries from sexual exploitation and abuse in

humanitarian operations.

World Vision has been in the forefront of developing

comprehensive child protection policies and codes of conduct

among the humanitarian aid community. All organizations that

work with children should use every available measure to

protect children from harm.

World Vision is a Christian relief and development

organization dedicated to helping children and their

communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling

the causes of poverty. World Vision serves the world's poor--

regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. In 2004,

World Vision operated in nearly 100 countries around the

world.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that would sweep aside generations of State laws that protect consumers. Citizens will be denied their basic right to use their own State courts to file class action lawsuits against companies--even if there are clear violations of State labor laws or State civil rights laws. This bill comes after a lobbying campaign costing business interests tens of millions of dollars. Well, that was money well spent. With this sweeping legislation, corporations will have free reign to avoid responsibility for the wrongs they commit.

It is just shameful that the victims of corporate misconduct do not have the same level of influence here in the halls of Congress. Let's not forget the people who died as a result of defective tires manufactured by Firestone. What about countless individuals who died as a result of the tobacco industry's failure to disclose the risks of cigarettes?

Well, if it is any indication of this bill's intent--tobacco is already celebrating this week. Stocks are up and the industry is glowing. Let me quote their take on this bill, ``The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard given how overburdened Federal judges are.''

Plainly that is the goal of the bill. The goal is to ensure that legitimate plaintiffs are denied any recovery at all. And that whatever recovery they do receive is delayed as long as possible. I have spent decades in courtrooms and I can tell my colleagues--from my own experience--that justice delayed is justice denied. The doors to the courthouse will be locked shut. And this Republican leadership is handing the key to corporate America.

With complete disregard for precedent-setting individual and class action litigation, the Republican leadership is determined to destroy America's civil justice system, eliminating protections for the poor and powerless. This bill is a disgrace to the historic victories in courts across the country--to expand consumer rights, protect our environment, and strengthen workers' rights.

And there has been complete disregard for the legislative process in the House. While we have had hearings and markups on class action legislation in the past, this bill is quite complex and very different than previous versions. The fact that the other Chamber has already approved this matter in no way justifies a ``rush to judgment'' in the House, when so many important rights are at stake.

Class actions have addressed the looting of company after company by corporate insiders, whose brazen misconduct and self-dealing defrauded creditors and investors of billions of dollars, and stripped employees and retirees of their livelihood and life savings.

Yet if this bill becomes law, the victims of those practices will face new obstacles in their efforts to call those executives to task.

This bill is not about protecting plaintiffs. It's not about protecting the public. It's about protecting large corporations whose conduct has been egregious. It's about protecting the powerful at the expense of the powerless. And to prevent people from banding together as a class to challenge that power in the only way they can.

We must also see this bill in its proper context. It is part of an ambitious and multi-pronged campaign by major corporations to evade their obligations to society.

Under the guise of ``deregulation'' we're watching the wholesale dismantling of health and safety standards, environmental protections, and longstanding limits on concentration of ownership within the media and other key industries.

Today's bill completes this picture. It takes aim at the civil justice system that exists to correct the wrongs that the government cannot or will not address. I urge my colleagues to oppose this blatant effort to muzzle the courts. This bill is but the latest in a series of assaults by those on the other side attacking the ability of individuals to seek relief from the courts. And it is also but the latest in a series of assaults on States' rights to provide legal remedies for harm suffered by their citizens.

We cannot allow them to do it, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has dedicated the better part of her life to ensuring the public safety of our community. She is a pioneer in law enforcement, and a role-model for all who choose to wear the uniform. Dedicated, visionary, and compassionate, she has left a lasting legacy on the Massachusetts State Police, the troopers under her command, and the public she serves.

I'm talking of Capt. Kathy Stefani.

Where I'm from, it's not uncommon for children to want to follow in their parents' professional footsteps. No where is this more so than with the police department. So it was with a special pride that Kathy's father, Gerry Coletta, a good friend and my chief administrative assistant from my tenure as Norfolk district attorney, encouraged her pursuit of a law enforcement career.

Joining the ranks of the Massachusetts State Police force in 1978, she was one of only three women on the job. It was clear from the beginning that her career was going to be special.

In 1995, when she was elevated to the rank of lieutenant, she became the first State Police officer to run the Commonwealth's crime Lab. During her tenure there, she successfully secured a $1 million grant to develop the first DNA testing facilities in Massachusetts.

And, in 1999, when Kathy was promoted again she made more history as the first woman ever to hold the rank of captain. Law enforcement has always been a family affair, and at her promotion ceremony she proudly accepted her husband Michael's badge as her own.

During her 26 years on the force, Captain Stefani has been involved with some of the most important public events in recent memory. Long before we talked about homeland security, she used her position as Troop H commander to push for a more integrated approach for securing large events--including the 2000 Presidential Debate held at UMASS- Boston, the annual Sail Boston events, the July 4th celebrations on the Esplanade.

During her long career she's been recognized with the Superintendent's Commendation, the Distinguished Service Award for Forensic Science and the prestigious State Police Medal of Merit.

But perhaps the greatest compliments come from those who don't know her personally, but benefit from her forward-thinking plan for the State crime lab during the 1990's. Long before televisions shows like CSI made forensic science popular, Captain Stefani recognized the role that DNA testing could play in bringing criminals, especially rapists, to justice. Her perseverance in advocating for this technology has brought solace and comfort to victims and their families.

As Captain Stefani prepares to enter into a well-deserved retirement, I doubt very much that she'll be working on her tennis game. My guess is that she'll continue to be involved professionally--inspiring the next generation in the classroom; being a role-model to those who continue to wear the uniform, like her brother Chip; being an involved mom to her two kids, and a loving wife to Michael; and a devoted daughter to Gerry and Marge.

I'm honored to add my voice to the chorus of friends, family and colleagues who wish her well as she embarks on her retirement. Job well done.

Mr. Speaker, we are making a terrible mistake here today by changing the rule in terms of the provision that would simply require no action after a 45-day period because, as the earlier speaker immediately preceding me indicated, what we will have done is change a nonpartisan committee that is based on a nonpartisan process into one that provides for a partisan veto over action where the behavior of an individual Member or Members is at question. That, I suggest and submit, is something that this institution will suffer from.

There has been much discussion recently regarding this package. It was anticipated that there would be additional provisions that were not submitted today, but let us be clear what is at risk here. It is the confidence of the American people in the integrity of this institution. Perception, as we all know, is reality. And when the American people understand very clearly that we now have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in which either side has a veto, it will undermine the confidence of the people in our ethical process.

My question to the proponents would be, what is wrong with the current rules? We have operated on them.

Mr. Speaker, since the earliest days of sailing, ship captains have had to be many things to their crew--teacher, mentor, role-model, even friend. Rear Admiral Maurice Bresnahan was the living embodiment of this tradition to the thousands of sailors who crossed his wake.

After a 30-year career in the US Navy that took him to the ranks of ship captain and command of a surface warfare group during the first Gulf War, it would have been understandable for this warrior to simply retire and take up a hobby. But, when the Commonwealth called and asked him to serve as president of Massachusetts Maritime Academy, he embraced the challenge.

Of course, challenge is an understatement. Admiral Bresnahan inherited a school whose training ship was unseaworthy, and the Academy lacked the financial resources to sustain its core curriculum.

I first met Admiral Bresnahan--my Admiral--when I was a newly-minted Congressman. He spoke so passionately about the Academy and its role in ensuring the future of the maritime industry that I was tempted to enlist myself. He was a man with a vision that would transform this small, but proud, school on the banks of Buzzards Bay into a world- class institution.

It was not enough that his cadets learn basic seamanship; they also had to be renaissance men and women--equally at home on the deck of a ship or the halls of an art museum. He demanded excellence--and got it. An inspiring presence on the drill field, cadets wanted to be like and near him. His sailors were well-rounded and well prepared for the Merchant Marine of the 21st Century.

Every sailor learns to use the stars to guide them on their journey. In the case of Maurice Bresnahan, the stars on his shoulders denoted more than just a rank. They were guideposts of integrity, compassion and duty.

I commend to my colleagues the following Boston Herald commentary on his passing.

[From The Boston Herald, November 9, 2004]

Maurice Bresnahan, Massachusetts Maritime President

Rear Admiral Maurice J. Bresnahan Jr. of Centerville, U.S.

Navy retired, president of the Massachusetts Maritime

Academy, died Saturday of a brain tumor at his home. He was

68.

Admiral Bresnahan was a 1954 graduate of Mission Hill High

School in Roxbury, and a 1959 graduate of Massachusetts

Maritime Academy. He received his commission in 1959, served

on five combatant ships and commanded the USS A.M. Sumner (DD

692) and USS Damato (DD 871).

He served as special assistant to the chief of Naval

Operations in the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., following his

graduation from the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

Returning to the Pacific Fleet after completion of the

Combined Arms Warfare Course at the Naval War College,

Admiral Bresnahan took command of the Military Sealift

Command (Far East) and assumed duties as commander of the

Seventh Fleet Logistic Task Force Group headquartered in

Yokohama, Japan.

Upon promotion to Flag Rank, he was appointed commander of

Surface Reserve Forces and commander of Naval Surface Group

Six, made up of anti-submarine warfare frigates home ported

in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast. These commands were

recognized with Meritorious Unit Commendations for their

service during the Gulf War.

Admiral Bresnahan had been serving as president of

Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay since April

1998. Prior to that he served for four years as the college's

vice president of external affairs and marine operations.

Admiral Bresnahan presided over a dramatic increase in

student population at the college and a major campus

expansion.

He also led the effort to replace the former academy

training ship Patriot State with a modern vessel and saw his

efforts come to fruition when the newly refurbished training

ship Enterprise sailed on her maiden voyage last winter.

Total capital improvements to the campus during his watch

exceeded $60 million. He expanded the college curriculum and

established the academy's first master's degree, an M.S. in

facilities management. Admiral Bresnahan believed that one of

his most significant accomplishments at the academy was

establishing the Emery Rice Scholarship, an award dedicated

to academic excellence that is awarded to five incoming

cadets each year.

Admiral Bresnahan's military awards include the

Distinguished Service Medal, three Legions of Merit, the

Meritorious Service Medal, two Commendation medals, and many

other unit and personal awards.

Admiral Bresnahan was an active member of the American

Bureau of Shipping, Boston Marine Society, Columbia

University Maritime Advisory Board, the Naval Reserve

Association and the New York Yacht Club and was past chairman

of the Council of Presidents of the Massachusetts State

Colleges and past chairman of the Consortium of State

Maritime Academies.

He also served as a lay Eucharistic minister at Our Lady of

Victory Parish in Centerville, and was a past member of

Kiwanis.

Admiral Bresnahan is survived by his wife, Alice; one

daughter, Julie Pinero of Sandwich; one son, Maurice

Bresnahan III of Columbia, S.C.; and five grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, there are few athletes whose names evoke instant recognition and respect with their sport. Johnny Kelly was such a man. Dubbed the ``Runner of the Century,'' he was a three time Olympic athlete, he ran the Boston Marathon 58 times (winning it twice) and was a frequent participant in the Cape Cod Marathon and Falmouth Road Race. A 1999 inductee in the Running Hall of Fame, Kelly carried the Olympic torch and served as a goodwill ambassador for the sport he so loved. He ran with greats like Jesse Owens and Stylianos Kyriakides.

Johnny Kelly was one of the Commonwealth's favorite sons--and in his time, a living legend.

His passing at the age of 97, means that for generations of Bay Staters a familiar figure will not be at this year's Boston Marathon serving as Grand Marshal. But his inspiring story will live on. On the course, at the base of the third hill in Newton, a statue depicts a 27- year-old Kelley winning in 1935 and clasping hands with an older Kelley finishing in 1991 at 83. A fitting tribute to a man that reminded us all that the spirit of competition isn't just for the young, but the young at heart.

I commend to my colleagues the following Cape Cod Times commentary on the passing of this truly great American.

[From the Cape Code Times]

Two-Time Boston Marathon Champ Johnny Kelley Dead at 97

(By Bill Higgins)

Johnny Kelley, one of the most celebrated and decorated

distance runners ever, and a name synonymous with the rich

history of the Boston Marathon, died Wednesday night. He was

97.

Kelley won Boston twice and was woven into the fabric of

the event by running the race 61 times, finishing the 26.2

miles from Hopkinton to Boston 58 times.

Kelley last ran Boston in 1992 at the age of 84 and then

presided over the race as its grand marshal. His impact on

the marathon was such that there is a statue of him on the

course with two Kelleys depicted, one young, one old, running

hand-in-hand across the finish line.

Kelley died only hours after leaving his home in East

Dennis and moving to the Windsor Skilled Nursing and

Rehabilitation Center in South Yarmouth.

Kelley was a member of three Halls of Fame and a member of

three U.S. Olympic teams. He was inducted into the USA Track

and Field Hall of Fame in 1980, the first marathoner so

honored. The selection committee waived the requirement

stipulating that an athlete be retired for at least five

years because, they reasoned, Kelley would never retire from

running.

Runner's World magazine named Kelley its ``Runner of the

Century'' for his contributions to the sport.

``Johnny was an icon for all of running, not only the

Boston Marathon,'' said Guy L. Morse III of Centerville,

executive director of the Boston Athletic Association, the

race's organizer. ``He preached his gospel of health and

fitness and was an inspiration to everyone. `Young at Heart';

wasn't just his favorite song or the title of his book. It

was the way he lived.''

Born Sept. 6, 1907, John Adelbert Kelley was the oldest of

five boys and five girls growing up in Medford. He ran track

first at Medford High School, and later at Arlington High

School after the family moved to the nearby town.

Kelley ran his first Boston in 1928 and, ironically,

dropped out. He failed to finish again in 1932, but he

finally got the hang of the marathon. He won his first Boston

in 1935 and won again in 1945.

He also finished second seven times and one of Boston's

famous landmarks, ``Heartbreak Hill,'' was named for Kelley.

In 1936 Kelley, thinking that race leader Ellison ``Tarzan''

Brown had exhausted himself by the last of a series of hills

in Newton around 20 miles, patted Brown on the back while

taking the lead. Incensed by this gesture, Brown soon

regained the lead and went on to win. Kelley, heartbroken,

faded to fifth.

Kelley finished 18th in the marathon at the 1936 Berlin

Olympics. He made the Olympic team again in 1940, but the

games were canceled because of World War II. In the 1948

London Olympics, he finished 21st at age 40.

In 1942, Kelley's wife of three years, Mary, died of cancer

and he was soon drafted into the U.S. Army. Private John

Kelley came up from Alabama's Fort McClellan for the 1943

Boston Marathon, where his time of 2:30:00, his fastest ever

at Boston, left him second again.

Another second place followed in 1944. But in 1945, a

decade after his first win in Boston, Kelley won again at 37

in 2:30:40.

In 1993, the statue ``Young at Heart'' was dedicated in

honor of Kelley at the base of Heartbreak Hill. The statue

depicts a 27-year-old Kelley winning in 1935 and clasping

hands with an older Kelley finishing in 1991 at 83.

``I've had all kinds of citations and awards, but this is

just unbelievable,'' Kelley said at the dedication.

``I've had a love affair with the marathon all my life,''

said Kelley, ``and now, I guess, this means I'll always be a

part of it.''

Each Memorial Day weekend, races are held in Kelley's honor

in Hyannis, with proceeds benefiting Cape Cod Hospital, his

favorite charity.

Bill Rodgers, a four-time Boston Marathon champion, always

called Kelley one of the greatest athletes of the 20th

century.

``When you think about it, who has done as much as John?''

Rodgers said. ``Some people say Jesse Owens or Jim Thorpe

were the greatest ever, but for me, it's Johnny Kelley.

Everyone makes lists for the best this, the greatest that.

Johnny's on mine. He's my hero.''

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

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) just indicated, this is really the culmination of an extraordinary bipartisan effort towards a common goal. I would echo his kudos for so many Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as staff. My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who has been here from the beginning; this has been an odyssey, if you will, of some 4 or 5 years. On our side of the aisle, I want to make particular note of the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and, of course, my friend who I serve with on the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green). But it has to be stated that without the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we would not be here today. It is really that simple, and I want to acknowledge his Herculean efforts.

This comprehensive legislation seeks to repair, if you will, the two sides of injustice when mistakes happen. I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to consider today that the victims of the criminal justice system do not always look alike; they just get caught in this system in different ways. Think of victims like Debbie Smith of Virginia for whom title II of this bill is named. As she has said, and these are her words, ``It gives no comfort to the victims and their families to know that the wrong person is behind bars and the real perpetrator is free to walk the streets'' and commit that crime again.

Debbie Smith is a courageous advocate who has done so much to help her fellow survivors of sexual assault. Yet, it took 6 years for the DNA evidence to be tested in her case, evidence that ultimately led to the capture of that rapist. Only then was she free from what she has called an ``emotional prison.''

And there are other categories of victims in America today, individuals charged with false accusations and imprisoned based on wrongful convictions. Like my friend, Kirk Bloodsworth of Maryland, the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing after 10 years on death row. Kirk had to convince his lawyer to get the test. DNA established Kirk's innocence, and it also led to the identification and conviction of the real perpetrator, the real murderer, within this past year.

Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we seek to protect, Mr. Speaker. Think of the human costs when an innocent person is executed or spends long years in jail. Imagine the scars of a victim who waits years to know the identity of their assailant. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about hypothetical scenarios here; we are talking about real people, ordinary Americans facing the most extreme miscarriages of justice.

Just this past week in Michigan, a murder case was thrown out of court after DNA evidence demonstrated that the defendant was innocent. Almost every week there is a news story about the use of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent. Earlier this year in Texas, DNA exonerated Josiah Sutton. During Mr. Sutton's trial, he asked for a DNA test, but his attorney told him that he did not have enough money to obtain it. Mr. Sutton was convicted on charges of rape and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Four and a half years into that sentence, Mr. Sutton benefited from a moment of serendipity, pure chance, if you will. Listening to the radio, his mother heard about an investigation into DNA testing problems at a Houston crime lab. She called reporters, who agreed to investigate. A UCLA professor conducted an analysis of the DNA evidence and concluded there was no basis for Mr. Sutton's conviction. Since then, he has been fully exonerated, and the crime lab has been shut down.

Well, this bill would help the States protect victims. This comprehensive legislation, as the chairman indicated, contains four titles. I will not review them now; the chairman has done a more than adequate job. It also includes the original bill that was filed by myself and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) entitled the Innocence Protection Act. And here, in the final hours of this legislative session, the version of the Innocence Protection Act that is included in this bill, it is not all that we wanted, but it is an important step forward, and as I just enumerated by pointing just to two different cases, it is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, the criminal justice system is about the search for the truth, and like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges and jurors and police, eye witnesses, defense counsel and prosecutors are all human beings and all make mistakes. I served as a prosecutor for some 20 years. I made mistakes, and those mistakes are etched forever in my mind.

But we have the means now at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error, and especially where lives are at stake, we have no choice, we have no option, we must take advantage of them. Because this bill at its core is about restoring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system, that system, which really does set us apart, sets our democracy apart among the family of nations, that makes us the viable, healthy democracy that we are.

So I would encourage my colleagues to accept the manager's amendment, to pass this bill, and, hopefully, in the course of the next several days, there will be an awakening, if you will, elsewhere in this city, and the bill should be signed before too long, because our system is at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished colleague and prominent member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the committee who has championed a particular title in this bill and who has brought to the attention of the Committee on the Judiciary the need to do something about testing for rape kits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), one of the leaders on the Democratic side on the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who also has been a champion in terms of protecting the victims of rape and making an effort to secure the apprehension of those who perpetrated that particularly heinous crime.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my friend, who has championed justice throughout his career. And I would point out that it was in Illinois, through the efforts of some students at the Northwestern School of Journalism that first brought this to the attention of the country, and that a former governor in Illinois, George Ryan, had the courage to raise this issue, to make it a national issue and to bring it to the attention of those who are concerned about the search for truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my friend and colleague and a leader on the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I support the amendment offered by the chairman for the reasons that he has enumerated.

I would also make the observation, Mr. Speaker, in line with the points made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) regarding the ability of law enforcement to identify sexual predators in the aftermath of the efforts made in New York City to reduce that backlog of DNA tests in those boxes that were sitting in that cold storage warehouse somewhere in Long Island.

I would remind those that are concerned about removing sexual predators from the streets of our communities in this country, and particularly let me remind our colleagues in government at the Department of Justice, the passage of this bill will undoubtedly lead, not to hundreds but to thousands of rapists and other sexual predators being identified. And as the gentleman from New York indicated, there is a likelihood, particularly in this category of criminals who tend to have a

high rate of recidivism, that they are committing these crimes again all over this country.

Let me suggest that this particular act, Justice for All, is and will be, if signed by the President, one of the most effective means of reducing the incidence of sexual violence in this country. We have an opportunity here to defend women and others that are victims of sexual predators. I would think that that fact alone would compel those who are in opposition to this bill, whoever they may be, to rethink their position and support it.

Let me conclude by saying again to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), this has been a remarkable effort, and to you, Mr. Speaker. This proposal before us today, this resolution, really does reflect a good-faith effort to address concerns raised by victims organizations, lawyers, civil liberties groups, prosecutors, and all those who have an interest in justice.

I urge the passage of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding. Here we are once more this evening for the next half hour to talk about the situation in the Middle East. It seems that we have been doing this now for, I think, 15 or 16 months. We describe it as the Iraq Watch. I understand, also, that tomorrow night we will be back here shortly before the conclusion of the legislative business for the day prior to the Vice Presidential debate which is scheduled for tomorrow night between Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards.

Speaking of the Vice President, I remember being somewhat taken aback by the continued allegation by the Vice President relative to the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Of course, just recently I read again where the Vice President makes allusions to some sort of link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Yes, I will. Of course.

With all due respect to my good friend from California, I have read the report. I have read it in considerable detail. I agree with the chairman of the 9/11 Commission after my review of that report that was done by an independent commission comprised of five Republicans and five Democrats. In fact, this past June the chairman of the commission, a former Governor of New Jersey, Tom Kean, had this to say in an interview that

was broadcast over one of the networks. The report concluded that there was no operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that it was absolutely not borne out by any of the evidence that was available to them. In fact, the former Governor, and let me underscore the fact that he is a highly respected member of the Republican Party, had this to say. These are his words, not my words:

``We believe that there were a lot more active contacts frankly with Iran and Pakistan than there were with Iraq. Al Qaeda did not like to get involved with states unless they were living there. They got involved with Sudan. They got involved where they lived. But otherwise, no,'' he said on ABC's ``This Week.'' I think it is rather clear from the 9/11 report that there were no links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. But again that does not seem to deter the Vice President from continuing that fiction. But again that does not appear to be unusual for the Vice President, because it is clear that the Vice President was one of the more significant influences in the determination to seek the military intervention with Iraq.

In a review of the book by Bob Woodward that was posted, by the way, on the Bush-Cheney campaign Web site, there was a particular excerpt that I thought was very informative about the role of the Vice President in the effort to convince the American people about the need to go to war in Iraq. Again, I am reading from an excerpt from that book by Bob Woodward. It describes the differences between the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and his observations and that of the Vice President. I am now reading:

``Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The Vice President and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Hussein and September 11. It was a separate little government that was out there, Wolfowitz, Libby, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Feith's `gestapo office,' as Secretary Powell privately referred to it. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to al Qaeda and trying to nail the connection with Iraq. He would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Secretary Powell thought that Cheney,'' he is referring to the Vice President obviously, ``took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. Cheney would take an intercept and say it showed something was happening. `No, no, no,' Powell or another would say. `It shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening.' A conversation would suggest something might be happening and the Vice President would convert that into a `we know.' Secretary Powell concluded we didn't know and no one knew.''

I think it is unfortunate that, to use the words of Secretary Powell, that the Vice President had the fever, had a fixation about Iraq and some sort of operational link with al Qaeda when none existed.

And unfortunately, it has been repeated over and over and over again so that many Americans accept it, despite the conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission. It simply did not exist.

My friend from California talks about 1990 and Iraq, and I would remind my friend from California that, back in 1990, the President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, made every effort to forestall sanctions that were passed by this House prior to the Gulf War that would have been imposed on Iraq and the Saddam Hussein regime. Not only is there inconsistency here, but please do not talk about 1990 and prior to the Gulf War when this government, the United States Government, under the President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, had what only can be described as a special relationship with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was taken off the terrorist list in 1984. It was that administration that installed an embassy in Baghdad in 1986. It was that administration that provided, if you will, the dual-use technologies that could be utilized in the development of a nuclear weapons program to be shipped to Iraq. I mean inconsistency is not a strong enough word. But maybe this is what prompted Richard Cheney, the Vice President, to be so obsessed and fixated with Iraq.

The last time we were here, we discussed the need to be forthright and to acknowledge mistakes and not paint a picture that is simply not matched by the reality on the ground in Iraq. It is important to heed the advice of a former member of the administration, David Kay, who was responsible for finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, who was appointed by the Bush-Cheney administration to do so, and came back and testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that we were all wrong. Well, we were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And it is dangerous, let me suggest, to continue to attempt, for whatever purpose, and I am not impugning the motives or suggesting that there is a political reason that the Vice President continues to try to maintain that link because far be it from me to question his motives, but, again, to quote David Kay, former member of that administration, when told that the Vice President continued to suggest that weapons of mass destruction might still be found in Iraq, said the following, ``what worries me about Cheney's statements is, I think people who hold out for a hail Mary pass delay the inevitable looking back at what went wrong.'' I believe we have enough evidence now to say that the intelligence process and the policy process that used that information did not work.

I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just think there is a certain level of embarrassment because the Vice President has been proven conclusively to be wrong, not simply out of an investigation conducted by media, by outside parties, but by an independent commission established as a result of action in this body here and in the body across the hall that, if the gentleman remembers, the administration resisted.

But to continue to try to justify the rationale for the war, he simply refuses to acknowledge the reality. If only, if only he and others in the administration would accept the admonition of David Kay, who was appointed by the President and the Vice President to search for weapons of mass destruction, if he would just simply concur with David Kay's statement that we were all wrong, we could then hopefully make some progress. But we are not going to get that, and we know that.

Again, it is either a deception to mislead or it could be incompetence. But I do not believe it to be incompetence, because no one has ever accused the Vice President of being an individual who does not thoughtfully analyze information. But, again, as Secretary of State Powell concluded, if you have the fever, and he thought that the Vice President had the fever, then you are detached from reality.

For the Secretary of State to use the term ``gestapo office'' as an appropriate description of the separate little government that was established in the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, I think says something about the inability of some people to see the world as it really is, as opposed to what you have decided it to be.

We hear so much about these rosy scenarios that the President and other members of the administration paint regarding Iraq and what is transpiring there, and yet when we hear the truth as it is reported by individuals who do not have a particular ax to grind, such as a reporter from the Wall Street Journal.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is, I am sure, an avid reader of the Wall Street Journal. That is a publication that clearly is pro-administration, is very conservative.

But here is what a reporter by the name of Farnaz Fassihi says in e- mails as recently as the 29th of September. ``Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. I leave when I have very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes, and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping anymore. I can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in anything but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints. There have been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near my house that it blew out all the windows. I am now a security personnel first, a reporter second.

``It is hard to pinpoint when the turning point actually began. Was it April when Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Muqtada al-Sadr declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to 10 percent of Iraqi's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni Triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessment, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a potential threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to an imminent and active threat.''

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can assure the gentleman we will not hear it. Right now it is all about trying to paint a rosy scenario that is absolutely without any foundation, when the reality is it is a disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 5, 2004, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Madam Speaker, here we are again late at night asking questions.

Madam Speaker, it is a rare commodity, unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., when one speaks of courage. We witness courage all over America. We witness courage in terms of our men and women overseas risking their lives. We observe courage every day in our streets, particularly with our public safety officials. We clearly witnessed an extraordinary level of courage and heroism on September 11, but we seem to have a paucity of political courage because I believe and I think that most Americans share the view that political courage involves admitting that you are wrong when it is clear that you have made a mistake.

Madam Speaker, all of the questions that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) posed to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) elicited an obvious answer, that the President was wrong.

But what I find most disturbing is the inability of this President to summon the political courage to acknowledge that he was wrong. It is certainly no disgrace to make a mistake, to be wrong. We have all done it. I do it every day. But what I think is particularly un-American, undemocratic, is a reluctance to be forthright and honest about your failures. We do not hear that from this President. That is sad. Because that kind of courage would be the earmark of genuine leadership, of leadership that would be embraced by all of us, irrespective of partisan differences. But it is so sorely lacking at this moment in our history.

We need a leader with political courage. I think it became clear to me last March when David Kay, the man who led this White House postwar effort to find the weapons of mass destruction that were purportedly in Iraq, called on the President to come clean with the American people. I think when he made that call, he felt that the President was receiving poor political advice and that what was necessary was to acknowledge that a mistake had been made. I know that the two of you remember his appearance before a committee in the other branch that appeared on the front page of, I think it was Time magazine, but it was eloquent in its courage when he said, ``We were all wrong.'' It is not a sin to be wrong, but it is not being patriotic and American to lack the courage to admit a mistake was made.

David Kay said, and I am quoting from a story that appeared in the Guardian, a highly respected English magazine. He said that the administration's reluctance to make that admission was undermining its credibility at home and abroad. He called for a frank admission, even though it was embarrassing.

Not only are we losing our prestige, not only are we losing our claim to moral authority but because of this President's failure to admit he was wrong, let me suggest we are losing the war on terror, because we are losing allies every day and the American people should know that. Because when you review the hard evidence that shows that incidents of terror are increasing dramatically every day all over the world, particularly in Iraq and in Afghanistan, I fear that we are losing that war, a war that every American wants to win. I thank the gentleman from Washington for enumerating that list of mistakes. But I could even forgive this President if he could accept responsibility, but he cannot. That is a failure of courage.

Madam Speaker, not only was he wrong, but what the administration did, and we have heard much about $87 billion, and the White House attacks John Kerry because he voted against the $87 billion, but what they failed to do was tell the other half of the story, like we all voted against the $87 billion also, because not only did he fail to tell the truth about the cost of reconstruction but rather insisted that the monies that were to be utilized in rebuilding Iraq were to be a gift, a giveaway. So all of those American taxpayers who are out there who were misled about the cost of the war being paid for by the Iraqis in the first instance, they should understand that all of the money we are pouring into Iraq is not a loan. It is a gift. It is a giveaway. It is welfare, if you will.

We heard today about welfare, welfare to work. We are providing welfare for the Iraqi people. We are building them 6,000 miles of roads. We cannot get a transportation bill through here to help build American roads and repair them. We are building schools in Iraq, and we are rehabilitating schools in Iraq, thousands of them. But there is no money to rebuild and rehab schools in America.

And do my colleagues know what else we are doing? We are building affordable housing, 25,000 units, for Iraqi people. In the United States, with our population, which is ten times that of Iraq, we are building 5,000. And do my colleagues know what? Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer are not going to get a dime of it back. Sure, there are other nations that are giving something, nowhere near what we are, but their governments insisted it be a loan.

So, in short, Madam Speaker, we were misled, and the American taxpayer has been duped, and the American taxpayer is not going to get a dime back.

Madam Speaker, I would simply add to that is what we have now is the President in terms of world opinion that has very little credibility. Let us just state the truth, the reality: If we are going to internationalize, we have to have an administration that has credibility and respect throughout the world.

There was a recent survey of some nine Islamic countries, and in fact Secretary Powell just indicated that the magnitude of anti-Americanism throughout the world and specifically among Muslim nations is growing at a fearful rate. But the survey that was done of these nine countries indicated that the vast majority of those people in those nations believed that we went there for oil; for oil.

I would like to leave you with this question: Before September 11, according to an anecdote that was related in a book by the former Secretary of Treasury, a Republican, a conservative who served in the Reagan and the Nixon administrations, indicated that on February 26, 2001, months before our national tragedy, he saw a map. It was prepared by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, with markings for a super giant oil field and earmarked for production sharing and dividing the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine blocks for future exploration.

In other words, in February of 2001, according to Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, the administration had a map, and the map is to my left. This was before any issue of weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda came up.

Now, where did this map come from? Well, it was produced as a result of a lawsuit, a lawsuit by a group called Judicial Watch, which certainly is no fan or ally of partisan Democrats. They secured it as a result of discovery proceedings in a lawsuit against the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, because of the secrecy surrounding his Energy Task Force. That is where it came out. And here is the map of Iraq.

We need some answers and the rest of the world needs some answers about this map, about Secretary O'Neill's reference to it, so that we can clarify, once and for all, what the real motive of our military intervention in Iraq was all about, because it is stories like this that lead the rest of the world to doubt our motives and our proclamation, Madam Speaker, that we are bringing democracy to the rest of the world.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 30, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct.

As this debate goes on, the memory is still fresh of the vicious attack on the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, and the brutal slayings of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, James Byrd in Texas, Arthur Warren in West Virginia, and Joseph Ileto in California.

These episodes are tragic illustrations of the price we pay in human lives for hatred and ignorance--and powerful testimony of the need for hate crimes legislation.

Some have said that hate crimes legislation punishes thoughts rather than deeds. I disagree. It punishes neither thoughts nor words, but actions. Actions whose defining characteristic is that the victim is selected--singled out--as a proxy for the social group to which he or she belongs. Actions whose express purpose is to send a message of hatred and intolerance to an entire community.

When such actions take place in other countries--when individuals are persecuted because of their membership in a ``social group''--U.S. law recognizes that it is no ordinary crime and grants them a remedy. We entitle them to petition for asylum. Why would we do less to protect our own citizens from the very same crimes?

Some have said we shouldn't pass this law because hate crimes are a local matter. I agree. The authors of this legislation agree. The vast majority of these crimes are investigated and prosecuted at the State and local level. And if this measure is enacted they will continue to be.

Federal hate crimes laws have been on the books for 36 years. All this legislation will do is ensure that when local authorities request assistance, or are unable or unwilling to act, Federal law enforcement agencies will have the ability to come to their aid.

That's why the legislation is supported by the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and other major law enforcement organizations.

And that's why we need the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. For all the Matthew Shepards and James Byrds and Joseph Iletos who can still be saved.

Mr. Speaker, we do not engage in hyperbole during the Iraq Watch hour, your generous words are a bit overstated, but I want to thank you for claiming the time this evening. I know my colleagues who are regulars on the Iraq Watch are coming. We are assembling.

We want to review again what the current status of events in Iraq and the Middle East are so that we can inform ourselves and hopefully inform our colleagues and help educate the American people.

I am sure you are aware that just recently there was what is described as a national intelligence estimate which painted a very bleak picture of the future in Iraq. The national intelligence estimate is a compilation of information drawn from the CIA and other American intelligence agencies. As I indicated, it presents a very, very bleak picture.

It is outlined that there are three different scenarios. The one that is most disturbing is the possibility that Iraq not only will be fractured, but that a full-scale civil war could break out at any time, but I guess, as a Member of Congress, what is more disturbing is that it was just, I think, yesterday when the question was posed to President Bush, what about the national intelligence estimate and the very pessimistic perspective that was presented by our own intelligence agencies, that his response was, well, they are guessing, they are guessing.

That certainly is disturbing to hear our leader, the leader of the free world, make that kind of a statement. I wonder if he reached that conclusion prior to our national tragedy of September 11 when he was presented what is called a Presidential daily briefing on August 6, 2001, that was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States.'' I wonder if he was guessing at that point in time because he had that information, and now, now we are presented again with a national intelligence estimate that presents a far different scenario than what we hear from the President, from the White House, from the Vice President.

Of course, tomorrow, the interim prime minister will be addressing this House. I think it is important to understand that this was a prime minister that was selected through a nonelective process. I am sure we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric. It will sound good, but it is not the true picture, I would suggest, of what our intelligence agencies tell us is transpiring in Iraq today.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the noted conservative columnist, a prominent Republican, William Buckley, recently made the statement that this administration has a dismaying capacity to believe its own PR.

Well, you know, this is not about public relations. This is about war and

peace and the loss of American military lives and untold hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. That is what this is about. To simply say that things are rosy, and they are guessing, I think does a disservice to our intelligence agencies.

Again, to point to the article that was as recent as September 16, it was on the front page of the New York Times. It was entitled, ``U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future'': ``A classified national intelligence estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. There's a significant amount of pessimism, said one government official who has read the document.''

This is just unacceptable, to have the President of the United States say, in response to a question, that they are just guessing. And before we go any further, I think we should indicate that, while we happen to be Democrats, our concern is shared by many prominent Republicans, including men that serve in the United States Congress. So what I have done is I have extracted some quotes from our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

On September 19, just several days ago, Senator John McCain said this on Fox News, ``I'd like to see more of an overall plan articulated by the President.'' Well, so would the American people.

Senator Richard Lugar, another prominent Republican, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, less than a week ago, in response to a question about the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq, had this to say, ``Well, this is incompetence in the administration.''

``The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost. We can't lose this. This is too important. There's no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just must stay the course, and any of you who are questioning are just hand- wringers', is not very responsible. The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' That is Chuck Hagel, respected Republican from Nebraska.

Chuck Hagel goes on to say, ``It's beyond pitiful. It's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.''

Well, again, I think we have learned that much of what we hear coming from the White House is fodder for a political campaign. But let me suggest that the President should put aside politics, not continue to paint a rosy picture when those who ought to know, know that the reality is totally different. Do not mislead the American people. The American people were misled before. They were misled when it was presented to the American people right on this floor that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It was the American people who were misled when it was suggested that there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was false, and we know it was false because the independent commission, five Republicans and five Democrats, concluded that it was inaccurate.

I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington, a regular member and cochair of Iraq Watch.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I continue to yield to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Speaker.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when we talk about failure, from the beginning, after our resources were diverted from the military action that was achieved in Afghanistan, the policy that has been promulgated by this administration can only be characterized as a sequence of failures and, additionally, a refusal to accept responsibility.

It would be so much more credible for the President to stand up and acknowledge the serious consequences that occurred as the direct result of this policy.

I thought it was interesting that the individual that he appointed to conduct the survey in Iraq to determine where at that point in time, because we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, where they were located, called on the President and that man's name is David Kay, as many of us know, called on the President to come clean with the American people because he was concerned that if we did not do so, if the President did not do so, then the credibility of the United States would be eroded and that when another international crisis erupted and we had to seek out support from other nations, this time we would be looked at as having misled not only the American people but the rest of the world. And that is exactly what has happened.

If anyone has traveled abroad, the antipathy and the hostility that has been expressed about this President and, tragically, about our Nation because of the errors and the lack of willingness to accept responsibility has hurt our national interests and our national security, when his own appointee who was highly regarded and highly respected was the chief weapons of mass destruction inspector appointed by this President said, Mr. President, come clean, tell the American people that we were all wrong. He said that here in this building in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And what does this White House do? They continue to shuffle. They reluctantly say, well, maybe that was a mistake. And then the Vice President continues to suggest that somehow there are links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The only link is that Osama bin Laden despised, despised and hated, Saddam Hussein, whom he considered a corrupter of Islam.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me suggest this as an answer. Because if one repeats it often enough, a large number of people, unfortunately, will accept it. That is why it is important to have in a leadership role during these very dangerous times an administration that will be forthright, that will be honest, that will admit mistakes, and that will listen to others. That is what is important.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they say that now. But they were not saying that during the course of the major combat phase. They were saying that we were going to be greeted as liberators, that people would be dancing in the streets. That is absolutely false. And yet they insist on maintaining the message. But it is not an honest message.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

And, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman know what they call those large swaths of territory?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman means no-go zones.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I would suggest this, that what we are seeing in Iraq, because of the incompetence of this White House and this administration, is a burgeoning number of safe havens for terrorism. Yet we hear that there is progress being made on the war on terror. How absolutely false that is.

Again, if I can just take 2 minutes, I do not want to leave the impression that we are speaking here in partisan tone, because so many prominent Republicans, colleagues of ours, share this view. If I may, just indulge me for a moment to read some quotes.

From the former vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Doug Bereuter, highly regarded and well-respected. Upon leaving here he sent a letter to his constituents. In it he said, ``I have reached the conclusion now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions have been revealed; that, all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating future problems in the region and in general in the Muslim world.''

That is somebody who served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in this House.

A former advisor to Mr. Bremer, who was personally recruited by Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, had this to say about 3 weeks ago. His name is Larry Diamond. ``We are significantly worse off strategically than we were before. There are really no good options.'' Another Republican.

Let me quote William Buckley once more. ``If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.''

Someone who works in this building on the other side, ``Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration, what I call the dancing in the street crowd, that we just simply will be greeted with open arms. The nonsense of all that is apparent.''

The lack of planning is apparent. What we had here was a volatile combination of the ideology, the so-called neoconservative influence in this administration, combined with a magnitude of incompetence that if it occurred in the private sector, heads would have rolled, people would have been fired and a new team would come in.

Reclaiming my time, of course it does. The gentleman talks about our soldiers. I do not think there is any community in this country that expected the need to call upon our National Guard and our Reserves to the extent that they did, particularly when the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed General Shinseki, who at that point in time was the head of the United States Army, his estimate that 200,000 to 300,000 troops would be needed. They said that was a wild exaggeration.

Mr. Wolfowitz, that neoconservative who in many ways was the intellectual author of this adventure, dismissed it, because as Dick Lugar said, we were going to be treated to flowers and the Iraqi equivalent of champagne and dancing in the streets. How long did that last?

But now, but now, oh, no, now we are calling up on a regular basis for deployment after deployment our Reserves, to the point where Lieutenant General James Helmly, who heads the U.S. Army Reserves, said just this past week that the war in Iraq is creating great stress on the Reserves, and he is concerned that they will have a tough time meeting their recruiting goals next year. He also noted that the Reservist jobs in Iraq are just as dangerous as regular troops. There is no more a secure rear area. Our truck drivers and our military police have become frontline troops, again underscoring the incompetence of the planning in terms of the military planning and the reconstruction phase of this inept administration.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what we are saying is please, Mr. President, just give it to us straight, okay? Try a little bit of Harry Truman. Lay it out there, the good, the bad and the ugly. The American people can handle it. The American people deserve to know. Unfortunately, this particular White House has an obsession with secrecy.

We know that. Everybody knows that. But if I can, just for one moment, get back to that $87 billion that has emerged as an issue in this election. I voted against the $87 billion. I do not know how either of my colleagues voted; they voted against it. I dare say we voted against it because rather than providing the money to the Iraqi government as a loan, this White House, this President, insisted that we just give it away to the Iraqi government. It was a big give-away. There is no other major donor to the reconstruction effort in Iraq that did not require the monies that are donated or given to be done on a basis of a loan so that their taxpayers would be repaid.

A give-away.

Mr. Chairman, today we have a very simple choice before us. While it implicates the United States' policy regarding Cuba, at a very fundamental level it is about more, much more than the United States and Cuba. It is about values. Family values.

We hear a lot about family values in this Chamber, about the sanctity of the family and the need to protect and strengthen family ties. Well, today the Davis amendment provides us an opportunity to match that rhetoric with action.

It is a test. It is a test for all of us. It is a test to measure the sincerity and the quality of our commitment to family values. In June, as has been indicated, the White House announced new restrictions on family travel which some have suggested would undermine the Cuban government; but I would submit that it is not going to hurt Fidel Castro. No, no. They will not overthrow him, but they will certainly punish families on both sides of the Florida Straits, in Cuba, and in the United States, because until now, Cuban Americans could travel to Cuba to visit family every year, every single year, bringing assistance to their families to help them survive. Well, not any more.

Now Cuban Americans can only visit the islands once every 3 years and they are allowed to travel even on that one occasion if they get permission from the travel police over there somewhere in the Treasury Department. By the way, they can now only visit certain members of the family. They cannot visit aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews. They do not count anymore. And note well, there are no humanitarian exceptions.

The author of this amendment quoted one of the individuals who was instrumental in crafting this anti-family policy. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fisk, and I think it is worthy of repetition. These are his words: ``An individual can decide when they want to travel once every 3 years and the decision is up to them.'' I guess this is freedom of choice. ``So if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out when they want to travel.''

I ask my colleagues to pause and think about that for a moment. If your mother and father are both ill and dying and they should die within 3 years of each other, you have to make the decision which funeral you are going to attend. Let me suggest that is anti-family. Let me suggest it is immoral. Let me suggest that it is not what America is all about.

Now, some who support this new anti-family policy argue that allow family travel will somehow promote Cuban terrorism. Let us see, family reunification abets terrorism. That is just simply absurd, Mr. Chairman. That is just simply absurd.

I would urge the opponents of this amendment to meet Carlos Lazo, a blow-up of Mr. Lazo is to my right, and

tell him he is abetting terrorism. He is a Cuban American who escaped from Cuba some 12 years ago on a raft. Now he is a medic in the National Guard serving in Iraq. When he was home on leave, he could not visit Cuba to see his two sons that are now teenagers. And now he is back in Iraq. Hopefully he will see his sons again. But let us remember that that is a hope because every day he risks his life for his adopted country.

Opponents of this amendment would insinuate that this American hero is abetting terrorism? Come on. That is offensive. Let us be clear, this new policy translates an already-failed policy, because Castro has been there for 45 years, into one that is cruel and heartless, anti- family and anti-American, while today the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) provides a test for those who speak to family values.

I urge my colleagues to support the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly concerned about the erosion of the independence and statehood role in our judicial system. This bill is just another attack on access to the courts, and the latest attempt to override existing State laws. At this rate, we will have a justice system available only to corporate America. Litigation costs already make the courts unavailable for the average person and small business. This bill takes our country further in the wrong direction.

This bill will not ``take back the courts'' for plaintiffs. To the contrary, Congress continues to block access to justice. Imagine a system that leaves the tobacco industry unchecked. Imagine the number of unnecessary deaths if the trial bar could not keep unsafe tires off our cars. Or a justice system that fails to uncover contamination of public water supplies. We need the private sector. The trial bar plays an important role in the protection of American consumers. Yet, I dare say, we are going in the wrong direction.

In another all-too-familiar pattern for this Congress, this bill is another court-stripping measure limiting judicial discretion. From civil rights claims to constitutional challenges, this Congress strips courts of their ability to hear cases. Congress--not a judge sitting in a courtroom--wants to decide if a case is meritorious. Congress--not a judge--will establish inflexible guidelines and impose mandatory sanctions for lawyers. Congress is trying to micromanage the judicial system as well as state judiciaries.

We talk a lot in this Chamber about respecting States' rights. Yet, this bill represents an unprecedented invasion into the traditional jurisdiction of State courts. This unwarranted intrusion into States' rights is wrong. States should be able to set their own rules for the game, including those governing the professional conduct of lawyers. Let's not waste any more time undermining the principles of federalism on a piecemeal basis. Why not simply abolish the 10th Amendment? The bill's sponsors claim an agenda of reform--this is not reform. This is about reeling in the wrong direction.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4571 and support the Democratic substitute offered by my colleague from Texas.