Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Dr. William Henry ``Bill'' Cosby Jr.--a husband, a father, a renowned entertainer, and an activist who has recently been selected to receive the Kennedy Center's 12th Annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. His contributions as an author, writer, actor, singer, comedian, and television producer span every facet of the entertainment industry and his work is beloved around the world.

In 1961, Mr. Cosby was the first African American to win the coveted Emmy award for his work on the TV show, ``I Spy.'' Since then, Mr. Cosby has garnered numerous awards for excellence in the performing arts including the Golden Globe, a People's Choice award, and Grammy and Emmy awards. His natural comedic talent was first noticed in college when he attended Temple University and worked as a bartender. His quick wit and laid-back style easily drew others to him, including the legendary producer and director Carl Reiner. During his successful career in entertainment, Mr. Cosby remained committed to education, eventually earning a doctorate degree in Education from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Mr. Cosby is a rare comedic genius. He is intelligent, creative and never relies on profanity. His popular stand-up comedy performances are drawn from personal experiences such as a childhood spent on the streets of Philadelphia and his experiences as husband and a father. His thought provoking performances feature themes of family, love and human fallibilities. In addition to stand-up, his work in television is well known. He worked on hits including the ``Electric Company,'' the animated comedy ``Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids'' and starred as Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable, the affable, educated and loving father on the hit comedy ``The Cosby Show.'' Mr. Cosby's work explored challenging family issues softened by comedy. His impact on children and young adults is immeasurable. Even today, Dr. Huxtable continues to be the most beloved television father of all time. Moreover, Mr. Cosby continues to be a mentor and voice of empowerment in urban and black communities. He uplifts and inspires young and old through public forums, music, humor and song. He continues to educate and encourage involvement based on the principles of family unity, community involvement and personal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Dr. William Henry ``Bill'' Cosby. Mr. Cosby's brilliant artistry, unwavering activism and volunteer spirit continue to lighten hearts and enlighten minds by bringing hope and laughter to millions. Mr. Cosby has made and continues to make our nation and our world a better place.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Charlie Burke upon the occasion of his retirement from Baldwin-Wallace College after nearly fifty years of dedicated teaching, service, and leadership.

Professor Burke taught his first course in American Government and Politics in 1961. Since coming to Baldwin-Wallace in 1970, he has continued to teach and develop the course. He also crafted over a dozen other courses that critically analyze domestic and international politics.

Through both his curricular and extracurricular leadership positions, Professor Burke was instrumental in making Baldwin-Wallace College an internationally-recognized, liberal-arts institution of higher learning. Equally importantly, Professor Burke demonstrated commitment to students. He connected with and mentored students in order to facilitate learning and leadership in informal ways.

Professor Burke is one of only two students from his high school class to attend college. He also enlisted in the army at age 17 and served in the demilitarized zone in Korea. With help from the GI Bill, Professor Burke studied at Boston University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition of Charlie Burke, who has academically and personally helped better the lives of his students.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4173. Although I am supportive of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency as well as other provisions in the bill, ultimately I do not think H.R. 4173 adequately addresses the causes of the financial crisis, and I do not believe the reforms are sufficient to prevent another financial crisis from occurring.

In testimony before the Committee on Financial Services earlier in the year, Dr. Robert Johnson of the Roosevelt Institute stressed that reform of the derivatives markets is absolutely central to fixing the financial system. In fact, he went so far as to say that without strong and comprehensive derivatives reform, any effort to address the problem of systemic risk would be rendered impotent.

H.R. 4173 makes some progress toward regulating derivatives by establishing regulations for clearing and regulating over-the-counter derivatives; however the bill--especially in light of the House's adoption of the Murphy amendment--contains a number of loopholes that sophisticated financial industry insiders will exploit with ease. For example, the Murphy amendment's expansion of the exemption of derivatives users, jeopardizes the integrity of the whole reform. As Dr. Johnson said in his testimony, the challenge is to ``[preserve] as much scope for deriving value from derivative instruments for end users without making the definition of end user so broad that it allows large scale financial institutions to effectively continue their unregulated OTC practices and at the same time assures that end users do not themselves, through loopholes, contribute to a weakening of the integrity of the financial system.'' H.R. 4173 does not accomplish this.

Credit rating agencies were also at the heart of the financial crisis. It was their bogus ratings on opaque securitizations and other financial products that fueled the asset bubble, and it was the fundamental conflict of interest in their ``issuer pays'' business model that strengthened their position in the industry.

Unfortunately H.R. 4173, rather than address the fundamental conflict of interest in the ``issuer pays'' model, instead sidesteps the issue and gives the Securities and Exchange Commission more authority to mitigate conflicts of interest. The years leading up to the financial crisis, however, taught us some very important lessons regarding the enforcement authority of the SEC: when officials at the Agency operate with a philosophical disagreement with its mission, it does not matter what tools they have; they simply will not use them. In the interest of long-term, systemic reform, H.R. 4173 should have directly addressed this problem.

As everyone knows, another major cause of the crisis was gargantuan, systemically-interrelated institutions headed by shortsighted executives that scarcely had a notion of their complexity. H.R. 4173 attempts to address ``too big to fail'' by creating a resolution authority for unwinding and dissolving large institutions that have failed. Simply put, too big to fail is too big to exist. Real financial reform would include prohibiting financial institutions from metastasizing to the point where they threaten the whole system. Real reform would also include limits on interconnectedness and risk. In the words of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, ``Such an approach won't prevent another crisis, but it would make one less likely--and less costly if it did occur.''

Yet another cause of the financial crisis was the contagion that spread from the $8 trillion housing bubble that burst. The housing bubble was fueled by predatory and subprime mortgages that were securitized on a massive scale. The manager's amendment included language from H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, and I applaud Chairman Frank for acknowledging the importance of including this legislation. The manager's amendment also included $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help communities address the problem of abandoned and foreclosed properties. My Domestic Policy Subcommittee did important work on how to target this federal assistance most effectively, I was glad to see its inclusion, and I supported the manager's amendment.

Curiously absent from H.R. 4173, however, is real reform of the process of securitization or any acknowledgement whatsoever that the federal government, through interventions at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, is the securitization market right now. H.R. 4173 would only require that securitizers retain 5 percent of their assets, called ``skin in the game.'' However, regulators would have the power to raise that amount, but only to 10 percent, and could also eliminate it altogether. This would hardly act as a deterrent to what has become an abused practice. Securitization, done wisely and thoughtfully, is vital to our economy; however by failing to address this issue H.R. 4173 simply allows the abuse of securitization to continue.

There is no reform of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that subjugated the ``public good'' aspect of their missions to the demands of their investors for higher profits.

Finally, H.R. 4173 does not fix the problem caused by the conflict of interest in the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues Ron Paul and Alan Grayson to include in the bill the authority of the Government Accountability Office to conduct audits of the Federal Reserve, but the financial crisis--and the government's extraordinary response--taught us monetary policy and regulatory policy must be exclusive. Relying on one entity to conduct both activities so vital to a healthy financial system will inevitably give rise to conflicts of interest. This bill, however, further conflates these policies at the Fed by giving the Fed more regulatory authority.

H.R. 4173 cannot be the end of this process, but I fear passage of this bill will preclude further consideration of financial reform. If Congress rests on the laurels of H.R. 4173, we will be back here sooner rather than later to debate the same issues all over again. I look forward to continuing efforts to enact real, comprehensive reform of the financial services industry.

Madam Speaker, yesterday our President mused about the inevitability built of war, war's instrumentality in the pursuit of peace, and just wars.

It is important for us to reflect on his words, because once we believe in the inevitability of war, war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once we are committed to war's instrumentality in pursuit of peace, we begin the Orwellian journey to the semantic netherworld where war is peace, where the momentum of war overwhelms hopes for peace.

And once we wrap doctrines perpetuating war in the arms of justice, we can easily legitimate the wholesale slaughter of innocents. The war against Iraq was based on lies, the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan based on flawed doctrines of counterinsurgency. War is often not just; sometimes it is just war. And our ability to rethink the terms of our existence, to explore the possibility of peace without war, may well determine whether we end war or war ends us.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the sharp increase in war spending is taking up a greater portion of our gross domestic product, which will cost the United States about 2 million jobs because such spending ``is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.'' Contrary to popular assumptions, massive spending for war does not create jobs; it costs jobs. War spending is capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. War creates unemployment.

The current plans to make extension of unemployment benefits contingent on Congress' passing a war spending bill raises serious questions about economic policy, not to mention basic decency and common sense. We're telling people that as long as we're at war they'll get their unemployment benefits. And of course, as long as we're at war, there will be more people unemployed.

Instead of unemployment benefits, people need work. Instead of war, people need work. War drives up the deficit. War takes away money from job creation. War results in unemployment. War is a weapon of mass destruction.

Madam Speaker, yesterday I began circulating to Members of Congress a letter that would enable Members to be able to sign on to legislation that will be introduced when we return in January that would be aimed at creating a vote in this House on whether or not we keep our troops in Afghanistan and continue operations in Pakistan. This action is being done pursuant to the War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973, and the intention of it was to claim Congress's constitutional authority under article I, section 8 to be able to take this Nation into war, commit our troops to war, or to continue to stay at war.

Congress cannot remain on the sidelines in this matter. We have the lives of our troops at stake. We have trillions of dollars at stake. Congress must engage in this debate over whether or not to stay at war in Afghanistan and to continue operations in Pakistan.

It's comforting to let the President do everything, but we can't do that, because whether we agree with the President or not, we have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to make a decision on these wars.

Now, some will say the authorization for use of military force dispensed with that. Oh, no, it didn't. A reading of that authorization makes it very clear that it does not supersede the War Powers Act.

And so when I put this resolution to the Congress in January, it will be an automatic mandatory referral to the International Relations Committee. They will have 15 days to report it back to the House, where we can expect a debate. When the bill is introduced, it will be introduced with broad bipartisan support because this is not a Democrat or Republican issue.

We have learned recently that U.S. contractors are paying the Taliban to ensure safe shipment of U.S. goods to U.S. soldiers, who then use those supplies to strengthen their war with the Taliban. We have learned that Blackwater is involved in ``black ops'' in Pakistan working as independent contractors for the purposes of assassination. We cannot let these things happen without Congress being directly involved and taking direct responsibility.

All across this country people are worried about their jobs, their homes, their health care, their investments, their retirement security. Why is it that war becomes the centerpiece of our national experience? Some can say, well, it makes us safer. Oh, has it? Did the invasion of Iraq make us safer? Over 1 million innocent people perished in a war based on a lie; let us never forget that.

The policies of unilateralism preempted at first strike were a dead- end. And for those who say war is inevitable, I say you're dead wrong. Peace is inevitable if you tell the truth. Peace is inevitable if you're ready to confront the difficulties of diplomacy.

We have a right to defend ourselves, and I stand upon that right. I voted for this country to defend itself in those days in September of 2001. But we can never mistake defense for offense. We can never claim the right to aggress against another nation in the name of trying to make us safer because all we do is create more enemies. Occupations

fuel insurgencies. If you want peace, you work for peace. If you want war, you create war, but we can never claim that war is peace. It's not. It often is a path to more war.

The Constitution, when it was written, our Founders were very clear they didn't want an imperial government, they wanted to make sure the dog of war was chained. And the way to do it, they put that decision in the hands of the Congress. This is about our Constitution, our Constitution, which I always carry a copy of. This Constitution requires us to take a stand and to have a vote. And in January, we will have a vote whether to remain in Afghanistan and continue operations in Pakistan.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10:30 p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, December 11, 2009, at 9 a.m.

Today I will begin circulating two privileged resolutions which will trigger debate and votes on a timely withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes it Congress' responsibility to determine whether or not we go to war or stay at war. Consistent with article I, section 8, the privileged resolutions will invoke the War Powers Act of 1973. I ask for your support of these resolutions which will be introduced in the House in January.

Yesterday, with the Secretary of Defense at his side, the President of Afghanistan declared that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the U.S. for the next 15 to 20 years. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot afford the loss of lives. We cannot afford the cost to taxpayers. We cannot afford to fail to exercise our constitutional right to end the wars.

Please sign on to the privileged resolutions to end the wars and bring our troops home. Stand up for the troops. Stand up for the truth. Stand up for the Constitution and Congress' responsibility.

Madam Speaker, U.S. contractors are paying U.S. tax dollars to the Taliban in order to protect the delivery of U.S. shipments of U.S. goods to U.S. soldiers so that our soldiers can fight against the Taliban.

In an investigative expose, The Nation magazine reveals ``how U.S. funds the Taliban,'' and ``with Pentagon cash, contractors bribe insurgents not to attack supply lines for U.S. troops.'' Another quote from the investigation: ``The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents, and Taliban commanders.'' The American executive I spoke to was fairly specific about it: ``The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them,'' and then the Taliban uses that money to shoot at our troops. What a racket.

Are we in Afghanistan to fight or to fund the Taliban or both?

Madam Speaker, I seek to claim time in opposition.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The gentleman asks for unanimous consent to split the time between himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I have already claimed time in opposition. What does the Chair rule on that?

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, as Chair of the Hungarian American Caucus, I want to bring to the attention of this Congress the concerns that have been raised about H. Res. 915, legislation which ``encourages the Republic of Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press.''

This legislation issues broad condemnation of the Republic of Hungary without regard to current legal proceedings that should receive more discussion. I urge my colleagues to consider the consequence of this legislation before casting a vote.

It's already been stated that the Hungarian Prime Minister has given statements questioning the award of the contract, that there is a parliamentary committee looking into it, that courts are reviewing it, and that, in fact, there's a prosecutorial investigation in the offing.

I have contacted the Hungarian Government, and in response to this congressional inquiry, the Hungarian Government pointed out that the licenses awarded to two national radio stations by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board are under judicial review before the court: ``A criminal procedure related to the issue was launched with the prosecutor's office.''

Now, if this doesn't indicate a responsiveness by the government to the award of the contract, I don't know what does. The question then comes, Why is this even on the floor of the House as a suspension?

I stand by the right of every Member of this body to protect the interest of any business in any district. That's what we're here for. But I think that to put this resolution before the House for passage before any committee meetings have been held to review the actual extent of the Hungarian Government's involvement or lack thereof is really not consistent with our duties and due diligence on every piece of legislation.

Now, the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board awarded 12- year licenses to two national radio stations in 1997, to two companies, one based in the United States and another in Europe. The licenses expired last month and are the only licenses that allow for nationwide coverage by commercial rather than state-run radio broadcast services in Hungary. Following a national bidding process, the licenses were awarded to two Hungarian companies. Members across the political spectrum in Hungary have raised concerns regarding the manner in which the licenses were issued, and a U.S.-based telecommunication company filed legal proceedings in Hungarian court.

Now, the legislation accurately states the importance of foreign investment and a need for equitable treatment in accordance with the United States and Hungarian laws. However, broad condemnation of the Republic of Hungary, charging the country, or implying, that there's widespread corruption without allowing legal processes to take place is more than problematic. This dispute should be resolved in Hungarian courts, which can render judgment and provide sufficient remedy to the injured party including, if they care to, revoke existing licenses, forcing a new round of competitive bidding, or awarding compensation. I mean, these are all things that the Republic of Hungary has the opportunity to do.

But I just want to go back to the legislation itself, which raises questions about the integrity of the government itself. And, frankly, I don't think that's appropriate given the scope of the legislation and the grievances that Members have about the contract-awarding procedure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this resolution encourages the Republic of Hungary to respect the rule of law. Now, if you're encouraging someone to respect the law, the underlying assumption is that they don't.

I think that to look at the action of a single agency and to put a broad brush on an entire national government is really grossly unfair. To imply that Hungary does not respect the law is actually an insult to the people of Hungary, who put their lives on the line in 1956 fighting to break free of domination by the Soviet Union, who put their lives on the line to be able to establish a democracy and self-determination.

Is this what they deserve? Do the people of Hungary really deserve to be treated this way? This should have been handled diplomatically. This should have been handled at a committee level before bringing it to the floor of the House of Representatives. And with respect to foreign investors, since the Government of Hungary has itself launched an investigation into the award of this contract, doesn't that show that they want foreign investors to be treated fairly? Doesn't it show that they respect the rule of law by going forward to raise the potential of prosecution of people involved in the award of this contract? Don't we already have what it is that this legislation supposedly aspires to, evidence of respect for the law and fair treatment of foreign investors?

There is no evidence that the Republic of Hungary has suddenly taken a tilt towards Soviet-type control of the press; I hope that no one is seriously asserting that. Hungary is a proud and free society, and we should be very careful about moving forward with resolutions that in any way imply otherwise, not to say simultaneously, well, Hungary is a law-abiding nation, and then say, well, they ought to respect the law.

So again, I wish that the sponsors of this legislation, who I deeply respect and who I know are working very hard for their constituents and the business community as well as for all the people in their districts. I would say take another look at this and maybe send it to committee so that we could have the opportunity to have a deeper discussion about the advisability of the legislation, and maybe to tailor it even more firmly. I mean, I could agree with questioning the action by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board--the Hungarian Government is questioning that action, but to challenge the entire government's integrity when the government has already taken action to raise questions itself about the award of a contract, really we have to ask what we're doing here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I question why this resolution was brought before this House under suspension. I question why an effort by the proponents of the legislation wasn't made to contact the Hungarian Government and to learn that their position is in fact that there is a judicial review and that there is a criminal procedure related to the issue that was launched with the prosecutor's office because that would clearly indicate action being taken on the part of the government to look at this particular contract.

Why is this matter on the floor of the House of Representatives? Why are we taking this time to look at something that is already under review by the Hungarian Government and doing it in the context of urging the Hungarian Government to have respect for law? That's what they're doing, they are showing respect for law by taking this forward. Why do they need to be encouraged? Everyone here understands what that means; we're implying that they don't respect the law unless their judicial response is a certain way. That is not an appropriate way to proceed here. And again, it is very difficult when you have a colleague who you want to agree with on everything present a resolution with which you don't agree.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As my colleague has stated, this resolution is intended to address the actions of the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board; they are the ones who awarded the contract. But yet, in the same breath, we're asking the Hungarian Government to respect the rule of law. Is

there any other example, other than the action of a single board, that any proponent of this legislation can point to which indicates that the Republic of Hungary does not respect the rule of law? Or are we simply talking about one agency? Because if we're talking about one agency, then the resolution should have been written in a different way. Because the impact of this resolution is not going to be just to talk about the decision of one agency, it is going to imply, very broadly, that the Government of Hungary does not respect the rule of law. That passage should have been struck from this legislation.

I ask my colleague, Mr. Engel, if you look at the second part of the enactment clause, if he would consider striking that.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is a motion to strike in order by the manager of the bill, or would the sponsor of the bill have to ask for such a motion?

So since this legislation is being offered under suspension, then no motion to strike would be in order; is that right?

Okay. I withdraw my request for a colloquy with my friend from New York.

I just think if it was so important to bring this to the floor, it should have been tailored quite narrowly to talk about the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board and not to take a broad brush with which we paint the Government of Hungary.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I think that in the time that I had allotted, I had an opportunity to present my point here. And I just hope that when my colleagues vote on this later on in the day that they will consider the diplomatic implications of voting for this resolution.

And I will say again, and this is really a concern that I have that I want to express to the leaders of the House of Representatives, we have a lot of bills that come to this floor under suspension that appropriately should be discussed in committee before they come to the floor of the House. I think this is a good example of such a bill. And I would ask our leadership to please pay more careful attention to these issues because this House has very valuable time, and while we have the freedom of speech on this floor, the speech gets very expensive when there are so many other issues waiting for discussion on the floor.

I appreciate the opportunity here. I want to thank my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for what she has expressed and for the concerns that Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Engel have expressed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

With all due respect to my good friend, Mr. Engel, you have compared this to a tempest in a teapot. It's your teapot and it's your tempest.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Speaker, this morning I stood before this House and pointed out that The Nation magazine did an investigation that showed that U.S. tax dollars were going to U.S. contractors who then gave the Taliban money so that the Taliban wouldn't attack a shipment of U.S. goods to U.S. troops. And of course U.S. troops would use those resources to attack the Taliban.

The war in Afghanistan is a racket. We have a strategy to pay off insurgents, warlords, the Taliban, in pretending that somehow this practice is going to help make an already corrupt central government more stable. I have been in this House now for seven terms, and I have seen the slow and steady erosion of the Constitution of the United States and, in particular, congressional authority with respect to article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which very explicitly puts the power to create war in the hands of the United States Congress, not in the hands of the executive.

When the Founders crafted the Constitution, they were very clear that they did not want a monarchy. They wanted to what was called ``restrain the dogs of war'' by placing the power to commit men and women into combat in the hands of an elected Congress, in this case in the hands of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, over a few generations, we have seen that power of Congress erode.

Today, according to ABC News, Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, in a joint press conference with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, said that his country's security forces will need financial and training assistance from the United States for the next 15 to 20 years.

Now, since we're already spending at least $100 billion to $150 billion a year in Afghanistan, we are now committed, through Mr. Karzai, we're embarked on a strategy that could lead us to spend $2 trillion, maybe more.

We've had speakers precede me today speak about the need for jobs in the United States. It goes without saying we should start taking care of things here instead of endeavoring to pour our resources into a corrupt administration, and furthermore, engage in a kind of corruption through trying to pay off warlords and even the Taliban to create shipments to our troops.

As President Obama prepares to escalate military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must reinstate our prerogative as it relates to war. The United States has been involved in military action--both in Afghanistan and Pakistan--since the inception of this administration despite the fact that the President has never submitted a report to Congress pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.

Madam Speaker, when Congress returns in 2010, I intend to bring to the floor of the House privileged resolutions reasserting this congressional prerogative. My bills will trigger a timeline for timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Pakistan, invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and secure the constitutional role of Congress as directly elected representatives of the people under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution for Congress to decide whether or not America enters into a war or continues a war or otherwise introduces Armed Forces or materials into combat zones.

Despite the President's assertion that previous congressional action gives him the authority to respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001, a careful reading of the authorization of military force makes clear that this authorization did not supersede any requirement of the War Powers Resolution and therefore did not undermine Congress' ability to revisit the constitutional question of war powers at a later date.

We will have an opportunity in this House in January to vote on this issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I urge my colleagues to join the resolution, which I'll begin to circulate the notice of starting tomorrow.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, the Obama Administration, in forging a new foreign policy that is more humane and less antagonistic towards other nations, would do well to follow the lead of the late Tom Lantos, who dedicated his life to the cause of human rights, an issue that has now become his legacy. Indeed, it is rare for the House to name an entity after one of its own, but the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, chaired by our colleague Jim McGovern, can rightly claim that distinction.

Throughout his public career, Tom Lantos and his wife, Annette, maintained a deep and enduring commitment to human rights. Among the members of this chamber, Tom Lantos was widely respected across the political spectrum for his knowledge of foreign policy and commitment to human rights. The issue was the very core of his beliefs and his eloquent voice became this chamber's conscience on many international issues.

Few in today's world can match Tom Lantos' commitment and achievements in the cause of human rights, but if there were such a person, it would be Dr. Irene Khan, who in 2001 became the first woman, the first Asian, the first Bangladeshi and the first Muslim to hold the position of Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Dr. Khan's caring about human rights victims and the poor dates back to her native Bangladesh's early struggle for independence, as she witnessed widespread poverty and multiple threats to human dignity. It has been a combination of her personal outreach to human rights victims and case studies from around the world, combined with her professional involvement in U.N. Organizations, that led to her being selected to head Amnesty International.

In her recently published book, The Unheard Truth, Dr. Khan describes the divergent tracks of a fellow Bangladeshi who was born in the same household and she grew up with, and while Khan went on to be a successful lawyer, her friend, Fajal, suffered a lifetime of violence and unemployment, and is now disabled, living in a shack in one of Dhaka's sprawling slums, surviving on handouts.

For Dr. Khan, this is a grim reminder of how people remain hopelessly trapped in poverty, often due to circumstances beyond economic conditions but rather the result of political repression, famine, war, or simply the insecurity and fear inherent in their local surroundings.

In her book, Dr. Khan reveals a more acute understanding of the forces that bring about human rights abuses. Poverty, she argues, is more than the lack of material resources, it is all about fighting deprivation, exclusion, insecurity and powerlessness.

As the numbers of people living in poverty swell to upwards of 2 billion, she argues that poverty is the world's worst human rights crisis. By raising the issue of rights, Dr. Zhan is not pointing fingers but providing a formula for sustainable and equitable solutions, and giving people the means to change the power imbalance that keeps them in poverty.

To achieve Tom Lantos' vision of the banner of human rights waving ``over every corner of the world,'' I recommend that international leaders adhere to Dr. Khan's compelling message on the need to empower the world's poor with the basic economic, social, political, and legal rights to assure them a strong voice in shaping their own future.

America is in the fight of its life. And the fight is not in Afghanistan; it's here. We're deeply in debt. Our GDP is down; our manufacturing is down; our savings are down; the value of the dollar is down. Our trade deficit is up; business failures are up; bankruptcies are up; foreign borrowing is up.

The war is a threat to our national security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our Army, and put more soldiers' lives on the line.

Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15 million people out of work; people losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, their retirement security; $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war.

When are we going to start taking care of things here at home?

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Sister Donna L. Hawk of Cleveland, Ohio, as she is named the West Side Catholic Center's Walk in Faith recipient of 2009.

Throughout her life, Sister Donna Hawk has turned her faith into action, uplifting the lives of those living on the streets. Sister Donna has become a nationally-known leader by creating and operating transitional housing for the homeless, especially for women and their children fleeing domestic violence. While working for many years as a volunteer at the West Side Catholic Shelter, Sister Donna developed a special compassion for women, many of whom had young children seeking refuge from abusive situations.

In 1986, without funding, Sister Donna teamed with Sister Loretta Schulte to rally community leaders and developers in order to transform a motel on Cleveland's west side into Transitional Housing, Inc.--a place of shelter and source of counseling and resources for women and children in need. For more than twenty years, Transitional Housing, Inc. has served as a model for similar programs throughout the nation and across the world.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honor and recognition of Sister Donna L. Hawk, whose faith in action, unwavering belief in the possibility of transformation, and staunch advocacy has given strength and hope to countless women and children.

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda's been routed. Our occupation fuels a Taliban insurgency. The more troops we send, the more resistance we meet. If we want to be truly secure, we need to redefine national security to include financial security, because America has record debt, skyrocketing unemployment, huge trade deficits, record business failures, and foreclosures.

The people of Afghanistan don't want to be saved by us. They want to be saved from us. Our presence and our Predator drones kill countless innocents, create more U.S. enemies, and destabilize Pakistan. The U.S.-created Karzai government is hopelessly corrupt, despised by Afghans. Our solution: provide them with a high-level U.S. minder, making him less legitimate. Another strategy: buy or rent friends among would-be insurgents. Give them cash and guns. When the money runs out, they shoot at U.S. soldiers.

We played all sides in Afghanistan--and all sides want us out. They don't want our presence, our control, our troops, our drones, our way of life. We're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. What part of ``get out'' do we not understand?