Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the November election clearly showed, Iraq is the number one issue weighing on Americans' minds. A vast majority of people across the Nation strongly disagree with the President's plan to send nearly 21,500 additional troops into Iraq, and a bipartisan majority in this Congress has also voiced its opposition to this measure.

This week here in the people's House, we will have an opportunity to express our opinions on the troop escalation, and then we will have to vote whether or not we support the President's plan. The American people want a debate. And while there is one going on in this House, the Senate Republican leadership continues to block debate in the Senate.

One has to wonder what Senate Republican leaders are so worried about. After all, Republican Senators, like John Warner and Chuck Hagel, joined with Democrats to propose their own resolution opposing the troop escalation.

Are Senate Republican leaders really willing to stifle the voices of their own Republican colleagues so that they can continue to protect the Bush administration? It is time for real debate. It is time for a new direction on this war.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the Honorable James Clyburn of South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that from my understanding, we are a separate but equal branch of government. The Executive does its thing; we do ours. And part of our responsibility is to debate, investigate and evaluate what the President says and not simply rubber-stamp what he says. So we are doing our job and what the American people elect us to do

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, the chief deputy whip, the Honorable Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the mover and shaker on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the Chair of the Steering Committee, the Honorable Rosa DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Speaker of this House and to the Democratic leadership for allowing us the opportunity to have every Member come to the floor of the people's House to talk about Iraq and whether or not they agree with the President's escalation. I think that is what this House is about, and one of the Members of that leadership who we do owe that gratitude to is the Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus, and I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, the Honorable John Larson.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism, the gentlelady from California, the Honorable Jane Harman

Mr. Speaker, the American people are indeed looking at this debate. They want to know where their Members stand, simply whether they support the troops and their position with the President and his escalation, and we had the opportunity for every Member to speak out on that. That is what this House is all about. We are doing our jobs. It is just the first step in many steps

As a result, the American people also, I am sure, will want to hear the distinguished gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Mike Doyle, who is the vice chair of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no one in this House, whether you be to the left or to the right, who does not believe in our troops and our soldiers, who does not respect them and honor them. In fact, I think that by having every Member have the opportunity to speak on this

floor to talk about their patriotism is exactly what is supposed to happen in the people's House.

With that, I am proud to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a man who was one of the leaders in opposition to giving the President the authority to unilaterally go into Iraq, a man who is steady and effective on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas, the Honorable Lloyd Doggett

Mr. Speaker, there is a concept from the people of West Africa called Sankofa. Literally translated, it means, ``It is not taboo to go back and fetch what you have forgot.''

Today, I want to use the premise of Sankofa and go back to some of the things that have occurred in the recent past with regard to Iraq so that we can learn from those lessons. In order to know where we need to go in Iraq, we have to evaluate what missteps have been made. That is our responsibility.

As we look at the last 5 years, the President has shown no accuracy on the challenges we face in Iraq. While our soldiers are courageously carrying out their orders, it has become apparent that military action to bring security to Iraq has reached its limitation, but our President insists on escalating military force.

I recall over 4 years ago hearing the President and the administration push for war with talk about a smoking gun that would come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The administration pulled on the emotions of the public while our Nation was still in shock from 9/11. Our President pushed for war with arrogance. ``Bring it on,'' he said. Coalition of the willing. Deck of cards. Freedom on the march. Mission accomplished. A plan for victory. Those are just some of the promises that have been made, but the administration has not been able to make good on those promises. It is fair to say that the President has defaulted on a promissory note.

Today, the question before us is can the President make good on the promise of security in Iraq with an escalation of the combat operation. All of the facts point to a strong ``no'' on that question.

After reviewing all of the facts, I saw that increased troops did not work in the spring of 2004, when troop levels were raised by thousands, but this did nothing to prevent the continued uprising, and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. I have heard from generals, former Secretaries of State, and a bipartisan commission, all saying that escalation will not work. I am vehemently opposed to the escalation of the Iraq war and its open-ended commitment to a failing effort.

The President only accepts the advice of those who agree with him. After months of threats and a long military build-up, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The administration cut short U.N. arms inspections after a war-sanctioned resolution failed by a wide margin to gain support in the U.N. Security Council. Because the President could not get the U.N. or the world public in support of an invasion, he developed his unilateral preemptive doctrine.

The President has had generals tell him that this war should end and an escalation is not the answer; but when he gets advice he doesn't like, he simply fires the generals.

He has had a commission of experts advise him that a diplomatic political effort with all of Iraq's neighbors would be the most effective way to enable the U.S. to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. However, the President did not like that advice, so he has chosen to simply ignore it.

When the President needed Congress to approve military action against Iraq, he cared about the perspective of the Congress then. As Congress begins to conduct oversight of the combat operation, the President wants to ignore the voices of dissent that come from this very body.

The cameras of history are rolling, and I hope and pray that at the end of this debate history can record that this body, starting with this resolution as a first step, has taken the appropriate action to end a morally wrong war that threatens to irreversibly stain the fabric of Congress if we do not exercise our constitutional authority and our

patriotic responsibility to balance the President's power.

To move forward and bring security to Iraq will require a bipartisan effort; it will require dialogue with Congress, dialogue between Congress and the administration, and dialogue and diplomacy between Iraq and all of its neighbors, as the Iraq Study Group wisely recommended. I am reaching across the aisle to my colleagues who also believe that military action has its limitations and a diplomatic offensive will bring a new and critical approach to secure Iraq.

This war has created deep humanitarian crisis in Iraq and a deep political crisis in the international system. Based on all that has happened leading up to this war and since its commencement, I cannot in good conscience support any escalation of military force in Iraq. But I plan to move forward with a strong push for a diplomatic effort to a problem that military action simply has not been able to solve.

Some ask what will happen in Iraq if we leave, but the more fundamental question is, what will happen to Iraq and the United States if we stay.

Dr. King, when speaking on Vietnam once said, ``A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.'' I echo those sentiments today. If Congress is silent while the President escalates the war in Iraq, we betray the American people, we betray the American soldiers, and we betray our constitutional responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, people are being massacred in Darfur, Sudan by the Sudanese Government's proxy militia called the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed have been unleashed to carry out a scorched earth campaign against innocent civilians from three African communities in Darfur causing death, destruction, and displacement.

After the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews of Europe were murdered as a result of Adolf Hitler's plan called the ``Final Solution'', Germany's deliberate and systematic attempt to annihilate the entire Jewish population of Europe, the world said ``Never Again.''

In 1994, from April to June, 800,000 Rwandans were brutally slaughtered in one of the worst cases of human suffering of the 21st century. The U.S. and the international community failed to mount an intervention to stop the genocide, instead, we stood by watched and did nothing. The United Nations had a front row seat to these atrocities for they were on the frontlines but did not have the mandate to stop the slaughter. After the Rwandan genocide, we looked back and said, ``Not on my watch.''

From August 1998 to April 2004, 3.8 million people or 38,000 people per month have died in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC. Today, the people of the DRC are still suffering the affects of a lack of a serious commitment to end the lawlessness in their country.

Mr. Speaker, it is our watch and genocide continues to happen in Darfur, Sudan. What will be our excuse for not acting this time? We have witness testimonies from survivors of the genocide and other documentary evidence that the Sudanese government is acting with intent to destroy groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity.

The United Nations estimates the number of people affected by the conflict at almost 4 million and according to the World Food Program, nearly 3 million people are reliant on humanitarian aid for food, shelter and health care. The Sudanese government and regional insecurity continues to obstruct aid workers from reaching displaced villagers. This phenomenon coupled with a lack of adequate funding will cause the number of people dying each month to increase significantly.

The Khartoum government has demonstrated that it cannot be relied upon to address the humanitarian crisis. The government's use of import restrictions and routine harassment of aid workers and obstruction to food aid deliveries is according to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, ``a violation of international humanitarian law.'' Also, The United Nations' International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur report found that the Sudanese government has committed major crimes under international law, including a pattern of mass killings, rape, pillage and forced displacement that constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity. The U.N. must act now to protect civilians.

History will remember that we waited for the approval of a genocidal regime before going in to protect innocent Darfurians. We must act now. The world will remember that this Republican Congress, Republican Senate and Republican White House did not do all it could to stop the deaths, destruction and displacement that is occurring in Darfur.

It has been 2 years since then-Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that, ``genocide has been committed in Darfur, and the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility.'' I have supported and continue to support the 7,000 member African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS. As it stands, AMIS has no mandate to protect civilians, lacks the troop strength, financial, and logistical support necessary to stop the ongoing genocide. However, given these insurmountable odds, the A.U. force has performed admirably. AMIS' mandate was set to expire on September 30, 2006, and the A.U. has consistently called for transition of AMIS to the U.N. force. Khartoum vehemently opposes this request and consequently opposes U.N. Security Resolution 1706 but with much reluctance, Khartoum has agreed to extend AMIS' mandate until the end of the year.

The United States continues to call on the Sudanese Government to recognize the severity of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and immediately agree to a transition of AMIS to the U.N. President Bush has failed to leverage the diplomatic might of the presidency to overcome the objections of the Sudanese Government to a U.N. force entering Darfur. Instead, we have accepted the stalling tactics of the Sudanese administration: Only a massive U.N. force can legitimately and credibly protect civilians, ensure humanitarian access and fully carry out the extensive monitoring and implementation duties spelled out in the Darfur Peace Agreement.

The Darfur Peace Agreement, DPA, establishes critical security, wealth-sharing and power sharing arrangements that address the long- standing economic and political marginalization of Darfur. To date, the criteria's of the DPA have yet to be implemented thus creating a sense of uncertainty for Darfur.

We must leverage our compounded international diplomatic efforts to work with members of the Security Council such as China and Russia to overcome Sudanese President al-Bashir's objections to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706 and allow the 20,000 U.N. forces to enter Darfur and begin to provide immediate security to Darfurians. The international community should not take a backseat to Khartoum's objections nor should the deployment of the troops be contingent upon Khartoum's consent.

The situation on the ground continues to spiral out of control. Violence is causing surges in malnutrition and starvation rates. Humanitarian aid organizations have been cut off from helping those in need. Twelve humanitarian aid workers have been killed in the last 2 months. Twenty-five humanitarian aid vehicles have been hijacked causing humanitarian aid organizations to pull out of northern Darfur leaving major populations vulnerable.

Under pressure from the Congress, the President recently appointed a Special Envoy for Darfur, Andrew Natsios. Securing civilians should be Mr. Natsios' primary responsibility. Further, he should have a strong mandate and staff to ensure he is successful in achieving this mandate.

The Government of Sudan is deploying 26,000 Sudanese troops to Darfur in preparation for a major offensive. At the same time, the Sudanese Government is opposed to U.N. forces entering Darfur and continues to object to the African Union troops remaining in Darfur if they transition into a U.N. force. The actions by the Government of Sudan should raise concern for the safety of the people of Darfur.

Sudanese armed forces--Janjaweed militia--are still using vehicles that they've painted white to look like African Union troops and they continue to steal gasoline from the A.U. It is despicable to know that the Sudanese Government in Khartoum continues to use helicopter gunships and Soviet-era Antonov planes to bomb villages and drive innocent unarmed civilians from their mud-and-thatch hut homes.

An international force is needed immediately to stop the killings, rapes, and pillaging in Darfur; provide security to facilitate humanitarian assistance programs for internally displaced people; enforce the cease-fire between the government in Khartoum and the rebel groups in Darfur to allow for political negotiations; and, facilitate the return of civilians to their land, reconstruction of homes, and provide a secure environment.

Mr. Speaker, we should be immediately deploying a U.N. peacekeeping force in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706 and immediately implement all previously passed U.N. Security Council resolutions. The people of Darfur should not have to wait. We must act not before it is too late, we must act now before there is no one left to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to support S. 3661. This is a fair and pro-consumer compromise that is in the public's best interests and was passed by unanimous consent this afternoon by the Senate.

Local communities should have input to limit airport size in order to deal with the issues of noise, congestion and safety. Accordingly, this bill respects the desire of the community to make sure that the more urban of its two airports does not become overbearing. Failure to do so will send a signal that the Federal Government is prepared to override every other community that wants to limit the size of its airport facilities to protect the environment for safety reasons.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 3661.

Mr. Chairman, I too want to congratulate Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for the strong bipartisan bill.

This initiative really talks about and reflects confidence in India as a global strategic partner. You know, the world is flat, and we have to have these partners in the world. What this does is, it says to India, because it is one of the world's largest democracies, that we understand and we recognize that.

Also, we have to remember that this is about civil nuclear power. India has over a billion people and we have to figure out how we also make sure that we protect and preserve our environment. So what this does is recognize that the production of clean energy can reduce further pollution of the environment and decrease dependency on fossil fuels.

In fact, if you look at the Indian CO2 emission, a threefold increase in India nuclear capacity by 2015 would result in a reduction of over 170 million tons annually, or approximately the total current CO2 emissions of the Netherlands. So I strongly support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the chairman; and I believe I understand his intent for introducing this piece of legislation. But the bottom line is we have got to make sure that we accomplish something here.

The real deal here is not about the chatter between President Chavez and President Bush and the statements that have gone back and forth. The bottom line here is, what do we do to make sure that we are stopping the flow of drugs?

While we are here debating the merits of this resolution, the experts are still in Venezuela completing the specifics of an agreement that would reestablish the relationship between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the appropriate Venezuelan authorities. The fact that we are debating it on the floor today, as Mr. Delahunt says, it really threatens our relationship and makes it so that the possibility of getting this thing done becomes remote at best.

We don't need to continue to politicize this issue. What we need to do is to make sure that we are staying out of it, actually, and allowing the experts to really sit down to work to complete their job.

The Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of 2006 reported and identified 20 countries as major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries, despite increased drug seizures during the past 4 years; and these are the real facts.

In an effort to reduce the proliferation of drugs throughout the region and into the United States, the presidents of Venezuela and Colombia have started a process of military modernization to shore up the fence along their countries' borders; and Venezuela has extradited a number of leading armed actors from the ELN and the FARC to Colombia.

In fact, I spoke with DEA officials in my office, and I know they want this agreement signed so that they can continue to do their jobs. I also have been in communication with the Venezuelans; and they have expressed, I believe, a sincere desire to finally get this agreement signed.

Our actions today condemning the Venezuelan government for being complicit in efforts to secure airport facilities to prevent trafficking of controlled substances, narcotics and laundered money does not fit the action of negotiating in good faith to finalize this agreement. We cannot play into the hands of being somewhat obstructionist and widen the gap between our two governments, which already has a very strained relationship.

In the resolution itself, Mr. Speaker, it urges Venezuela to support strategies for ensuring secure airport facilities that meet international certifications to prevent trafficking of controlled substances, narcotics and laundered money. However, when the data- sharing agreement is signed, according to the DEA mandate, title 21, chapter 13, subchapter 1, part E, this concern will be addressed and covered. So passage of this resolution will either prevent or substantially delay this agreement from being signed.

The resolution also, you know, there is some truth, but sometimes the truths are half-truths. It states, drug trafficking through Venezuela significantly increased in 2005, when in fact over 25 percent of drug seizures occurred at the Simon Bolivar Airport in 2005, and 2005 also witnessed a 58 percent increase in drug seizures compared to the previous year. In addition, drug seizures are up in Venezuela compared to this time last year by as much as 30 percent.

The resolution further identified that on April 11 of this year, a commercial plane originating in Venezuela was seized in Mexico at the airport of Ciudad del Carmen, carrying 5.6 tons of cocaine with an estimated street value of $100 million. Well, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, according to Mexico's Defense Department, the army was waiting for the plane on Monday at the Airport del Carmen 550 miles east of Mexico City after receiving information from the Venezuelan Government and U.S. authorities; and this is according to Mexican Army General Carlos Gaytan.

Mr. Speaker, I have a newspaper article that I would ask unanimous consent to have added to the Record indicating the very same with quotations from the general.

Mr. Speaker, we are also told that statistics on drug seizures at the Simon Bolivar International Airport in Caracas are not available, but the truth of the matter is no one must have asked for the information. Because I called and asked for the information, and they provided me with the following, and I have charts that I would like to present for the Record.

There is a chart identifying where seizures took place in 2005, two charts define how much cocaine and heroin was seized at the airport and at Santiago Marino Airport since 2002. I have a chart identifying nationality of individuals involved in drugs and have been caught since 2002. And I have several charts identifying the type of drug and the quantity confiscated in Venezuela in 2005, the number of security agencies and personnel involved in drug confiscation throughout Venezuela, persons from Venezuela arrested for drugs in Venezuela, and the number of foreigners arrested for drugs in Venezuela. So I have all of these that I would also like to submit at the end for the Record. Their information is available. They have been sharing this with us.

This resolution further threatens the delicate relationship between our two countries. And, consequently, for me, I am really concerned. I happen to represent an international airport, JFK, John F. Kennedy International Airport; and I understand the importance of keeping drugs out. To me, that is what the bottom line is. This isn't about us against them. For me, it is about securing our country so that we can keep the drugs from coming in and doing what we have to do.

The resolution basically I think, and I hope I am wrong, as Mr. Delahunt said, what it will do is it will assure that we won't have an agreement. And if we don't have an agreement, then what we have accomplished is that there can be more drugs getting into this country.

We have got to do just the opposite. We have got to make sure that we do everything that we possibly can to secure and to prevent drugs from entering into the United States of America. I think that this is the wrong way of doing it, so therefore I will oppose this resolution and ask all Members that, if you truly want to stop drugs, we need to get an agreement with Venezuela.

This is indeed a sad time, but a happy time. Sad, and my prayers go out to Tom, Thomas J. Manton and his family over his passing; but happy because his life passed our way. And so, as in all things, we thank God. We thank God for the life of Thomas J. Manton.

When I think of Tom and all of what he has done in his career, there is a commercial that ran some time ago and it said he ``did it the old- fashioned way.'' Well, Tom became an attorney, a member of the New York City Police Department, a member of the city council, a Member of the United States House of Representatives, and a county leader of Queens County the old-fashioned way. He earned it. He truly is an inspiration for men and women who may have grown up on the hard side of the mountain, that if, in fact, you focus and you work hard, that truly you can make a contribution to your community and to the great society that we call America.

When I think of Tom, I think of words like ``gentleman.'' I think of words like ``dignity,'' and I think of words like ``respect.''

In 1984, we needed the right person at the right time to bring Queens County politics back, and history is something that is ongoing. And you never know when you are creating history or you are part of history. You just do what you have to do. But in 1984, Queens County politics was at its all-time low. So what it needed at that time, at its time of need, was a man of dignity, a man who earned respect, and a man who was honest because we did not have that reputation at that particular time. So Queens was lucky that there was a man that was willing to step up to the plate and become the county leader. And I think that is significant.

And I know he was a Member of this House, and I know that he was a city councilman and police officer, but I want to talk about Tom, that for 20 years, he was Chair of the Queens County organization, and people know that in this day and age that it is a feat that is not often obtained, because what you have got to do is you have got to keep and bring people together. And Queens County, as you have heard already, is the most diverse county in all of these United States of America. So people scratch their heads and try to figure out how did Tom Manton sustain his leadership in the most diverse county in this Nation?

Well, first of all, and you are going to hear me utilizing these words frequently, he earned the respect of people. Some people think county bosses and backrooms and they have got whips and all that kind of stuff and they try to whip you in line. Tom was always soft-spoken and always tried to give you, in a rational way, his viewpoint and how it was best for the whole to do whatever he believed. But even in that, he included people. He did not just say ``I am Tom Manton, and this is what I am doing.'' He brought people around and included them in the process so that when a decision was made, it was made by the entirety. And he had the vision to know and to understand that the county was so diverse that you had to make sure that everybody had a seat at the table.

So, yes, he brought in the first South Asian. He brought in the first Latino. He helped create the first woman borough president and the first African American borough president in Queens County. He had the vision to make sure that you had sometimes somebody who might be a newcomer but had the ability to bring people together to make sure that they were part of it.

And what I also think was unique about Tom, even when he had to say no to you, it was never a personal situation. And I think that you could look and see where many individuals whom he may not have been with initially or had to turn down for one position, but later down the road, he found a way to make sure that that relationship was reconciled and that person went on to do some other things. He was extremely loyal, which is another fantastic quality that you often do not see.

So I conclude my statements by just saying again, as I started, I have to thank the Creator of all for Tom Manton, because He sent us the right man at the right time to do the right thing for a borough that was desperately in need. He sent the right man at the right time to do the right thing to sit here in the United States House of Representatives. He sent the right man at the right time to have such a beautiful and dignified family as the Manton family. And our hearts and our prayers go out to the entire Manton family.

May his soul rest in peace.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, initially it was not my intent to come discuss this bill on the floor, but last night we were into a serious debate, a serious debate about Israel and its right to defend itself, and we talked about Hezbollah and Hamas and how they were not for peace and how they were for destruction.

I at that time took the floor, because I agreed with that significance of Israel defending itself, and here, on the very next day, as I was listening to the debate, we have a country that has come a mighty long way in a short period of time. We have a country that says they want peace, and they have exhibited the fact that they want to live in peace. They have been a strong ally to us. I have a letter from AIPAC indicating that they don't have any objection to this.

What kind of message are we sending to one of the most important areas, and volatile areas, in this world? Here we have an Arab country, a moderate Arab country, a country, as we say oftentimes, we are not against them, we are not against people who happen to be Muslim, et cetera, but they are doing everything we have asked of them.

The Sultan came in with a decree because he wanted to make sure we had a bipartisan debate. He didn't want anything to be divided Democrat or Republican. The Sultan said, I am going to live up to my word, giving us all of the indications that they are going to do the right thing.

I know I heard in this debate some say, well, there is no agreement that it happened where there is a promise before the vote on the bill. I just thought to myself, I said, that is not true. Because I know in this bill, as in other bills, IP protections, there is a lot that has to take place and laws that have to be changed after this bill has been passed.

We did it in Bahrain. I have a letter right here that was signed by Rob Portman at the time saying, basically, that we want to make sure that Bahrain, and this was a commitment letter and a clarification letter, saying that after the bill was passed that they would do certain things in their law. That is no different, no different, than what's in this bill.

So I say we have got to do what is right. If it was right, and we sent the right message to Bahrain, it has got to be right and we send the right message to Oman. This is a small country. It is not going to have a heavy impact on the United States of America. It is not going to make a difference to John Q. Public and the United States of America with reference to jobs, but it can make a difference with reference to the message that we are sending to the Arab world and to peace across this globe. It sends a huge message, and I will support this free trade agreement.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today to support this resolution, and indeed in saying that I wish this resolution did not have to be. For surely I am also convinced that the people of Israel and many of the people in Lebanon and in the Palestinian Territories wish it had not to be, but it does.

Why does it? Because you cannot have peace if you are negotiating with yourself. If individuals will not even acknowledge the right for the State of Israel to exist, how can you have peace? And if you are put in that position, then you have no choice but to defend yourself.

The thing that we must not think that Israel is doing in having to defend itself and using the force that it has to use is they are doing it with glee. That is not what they want to do at all. They wish that there was peace. But when people do not acknowledge your right to exist, and there are 14,000 rockets aimed at you, I just ask you the question, I think of myself. Suppose you are in your home and you have got people that are outside, and they are pointing weapons at you and your family. What would you do? Would you just say, let them continue to point them and shoot them until there is damage to you or your family?

What we are talking about here is simply a matter of defense. And indeed, we would dream of having the day where we do not have to have these resolutions on the floor, dream of the day when there is no innocent people on any side of the lines in the Middle East who are dead or would be killed or anything of that nature, dream of having peace.

The only way to have it, though, is to have partners, to have somebody that is going to stand and say, we will fight, along with Israel, to make sure that all of its people are safe. We need to have the day when, in fact, we know that the terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, who is holding hostage an entire region for their bad reasons, are wiped out.

And if they will not go away, then Israel must defend itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with the American people the truth about the war in Iraq. For truly it had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terrorism.

We invaded Iraq because Vice President Cheney erroneously claimed, there is overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraq Government.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Secretary of State Colin Powell conceded that he had no smoking gun proof of a link between the Government of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein, and the terrorists of al Qaeda.

We know there were no weapons of mass destruction. The prewar costs estimates were as incorrect as our intelligence on WMDs. The postwar planning was nonexistent. The laundry list of things we did wrong and the deceptions surrounding this war are never-ending, and we continue to make mistakes even now.

No, Mr. Speaker, the mission was not accomplished. Instead of invading Iraq, we should have mobilized all of our forces to pursue and apprehend Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who in fact orchestrated 9/11 while we had him pinned down in Tora Bora, in Afghanistan.

At that time we had an opportunity to unite the world and bring people together when we had a true coalition of nations. American families can tell that things are not going well in Iraq.

However, a leader, a true leader, a real leader, needs to have a plan. A plan of engagement. A plan of how to exit. We went into war with neither.

The American people, the families who have lost the loved ones, deserve more than that. They deserve to know that there is indeed a plan, an exit strategy. This Congress, this Congress, must stand up for our troops, for their families, for America, and for the sake of refocusing, to wage a real struggle against terrorism.

No, Mr. Speaker, we must not stay our failed course. We must not be stubborn, because stubbornness does not win wars. Stubbornness really and actually causes us to lose. I tell my children not to be stubborn, because stubborn does not win. Let's do the right thing for the American people and tell them the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the House Republican Do-Nothing Congress refuses to do anything to address the economic conditions that have led to large majorities of middle class Americans feeling squeezed to make ends meet.

Since taking control of both the White House and the Congress 5 years ago, Republicans have chosen to focus their attention on America's wealthiest, claiming the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people have waited for 5 years, and they have not seen any results.

Instead, they see a monthly paycheck today that is not much different than the one we received back in 2001. While their wages have stagnated a lot of their monthly costs have increased dramatically. Housing costs are at their highest levels in 14 years. Health care costs for the average family have increased more than $1,200. College tuition is up 40 percent and gas prices have doubled. The middle class is indeed squeezed, and yet they are getting no help from the Republican Congress that chooses to listen only to the wealthiest few.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are ready to take America in a new direction. We will start by listening to all of our constituents, not just the wealthy elite.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during the week of the World Philatelic Exhibition being held at the Washington Convention Center, to recognize the history of the Black Heritage Stamp Series and to honor my former constituent, Chairman and Founder of the Black American Heritage Foundation, Mr. Clarence Irving.

In 1976, Mr. Irving conceived the idea of commemorating Black American Women on U.S. Postage Stamps. His proposal was that either of two women, Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune or Mary Church Terrell be so commemorated. This proposal was presented to the Honorable Joseph P. Addabbo who represented my district at the time and the initiative became part of the activities surrounding the bicentennial celebration of the United States.

Two years later, the U.S. Postal Service created a completely new series commemorating Black Americans, with Harriet Tubman chosen as the first historical figure to start the ``Black Heritage USA Series''. Each year another stamp appears in this commemorative series honoring a prominent African American figure.

Today, at 82, Clarence Irving still heads the Black American Heritage Foundation, organizing or supporting African American art initiatives throughout the country. I am grateful for his determination in realizing his vision and acknowledge him as the ``Father of the Black Heritage Stamp Series''.

Mr. Speaker, in a ceremony held February 2, 2006, in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol and attended by many Members of Congress, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and South Korean Minister of Trade Hyun-Chong Kim announced the commencement of negotiations toward a U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and signaled their commitment to conclude the talks by March 2007. The U.S. and Korea plan to implement the agreement by September 2007. In light of the fact that the FTA negotiations will officially begin next week, I rise to recognize the significance of this undertaking.

Launching the United States-South Korea FTA talks is a critical step in the relationship with an important U.S. strategic ally and economic partner. I strongly believe that as we pursue market access for U.S. exporters, it is to our advantage to strengthen already constructive relationships with our allies. South Korea is our seventh largest trading partner and a friend in a challenging region of the world. Advancing the economic relationship makes sense and will be an important benefit to two great nations.

Close engagement between the U.S. and South Korea has paved the way for FTA negotiations. Even before the official announcement, the South Korean Government demonstrated how important it considers improved trade relations with the United States. South Korea took the concrete step of reducing the long-standing quotas that limited the screening of films by the American entertainment industry. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made so far on addressing several trade concerns. I am confident that South Korea will continue to work closely with the USTR Rob Portman toward making this endeavor a success.

The FTA negotiations will officially begin on May 3, following the expiration of the statutory 90-day consultative period. In the interim, our two governments have agreed to hold preliminary discussions. According to reports, once the FTA takes full effect, over 90 percent of traded goods between the U.S. and Korea will be phased out over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of underscoring the importance of these talks, permit me to list a few salient facts about the U.S.-Korean economic relationship.

South Korea is a stable, democratic country with a free-enterprise economy and a gross domestic product of $726.5 billion in 2005, making it the world's 11th largest economy.

The per capita income of South Koreans in 2004 is an impressive $14,162.

As noted by the Los Angeles Times, South Korea is now the seventh largest trading partner of the United States, with over $72 billion in trade volume each year. Moreover, South Korea is the fifth largest market for U.S. agricultural products.

U.S. exports into South Korea totaled $25.1 billion through November of 2005, up 4.6 percent from the same period in 2004, with the biggest U.S. sales coming in computer chips, $4.2 billion; industrial machinery, $1.4 billion, organic chemicals, $1.3 billion, and civilian aircraft at $953 million.

At the same time, South Korean exports to the United States totaled $40.1 billion through November 2005, down 5.4 percent from the same period in 2004, with the biggest South Korean sales coming in passenger cars, $7.2 billion; household goods, including cell phones, at $5.7 billion; computer chips, $2.8 billion; and computer accessories, televisions, and VCRs at $3.9 billion.

According to a study done in 2001 by the U.S. International Trade Commission, a U.S.-Korea free-trade agreement could increase U.S. exports to South Korea by $19 billion and U.S. imports from South Korea by $10 billion.

Finally, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, during the 2004 calendar year, 627,000 South Koreans visited the United States for tourism and business travel, representing the fifth largest foreign market of tourists, excluding Canada and Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I wish to recognize the launch of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement negotiations and I encourage my colleagues to offer their own expressions of support. South Korea is a longstanding and trustworthy ally of the United States and a mutual FTA would only further solidify and reinforce our alliance partnership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is good for the United States, and it is good for Bahrain. It has real trade benefits. But beyond that, it will strengthen relations with one of our most steadfast friends in the Middle East. Progress made on labor and economic reforms can stand as a model for future trade agreements with the Middle East.

The Ways and Means Committee's bipartisan approval of the U.S.- Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is symbolic of the cooperative and supportive relationship that exists between the two countries. This agreement will bring benefits to both countries, strengthen economic ties, and promote social, political, and economic opportunities. The Bahrainis have taken difficult, but important, progressive steps that will elevate standards in Bahrain and help promote stability in the Middle East.

Bahrain has been a steadfast American ally through World War II, the gulf war, and the war on terrorism. Bahrain has implemented multiple substantive reforms over the past few years, including the adoption of a new constitution to transform the country from a hereditary emirate to a constitutional monarchy, the creation of a bicameral legislature, and granting suffrage to all citizens over 18 years of age. In addition, Bahrain has made significant improvements to its labor laws and has dismantled its Arab League boycott of Israel.

My friends, globalization is here. And as Tom Friedman indicated, yes, indeed, the world is flat. We have made sure that we are more interdependent upon one another; and it is good to be interdependent, because with that interdependence, we as a Nation begin to depend on others in this world. The world is much smaller than it was just 40 years ago. As we become dependent upon one another, raising the standards of living all over this world, we then indeed ensure a safer United States of America and a more harmonized world.

I say let us vote for this. It is good for America, it is good for Bahrain, and it is good for the Middle East.