Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.

I am just a few years older than the State of Israel, and I remember, as a little Jewish girl, the pride and joy my family felt that a Jewish state was a reality. My parents expressed tremendous relief that there was now a place in the world safe for Holocaust survivors, and a haven for all Jewish people wherever we may live.

We watched with amazement as an arid land turned green as it was transformed into farms and towns. We ourselves planted trees in Israel by buying a tree certificate and gave it to our family friends on every special occasion, so we could participate in making the desert bloom. We all stood a bit taller, and every Passover, the holiday of freedom, was sweeter because Israel wasn't just a longing of our people, but a real country on the map.

That pride burns brightly today. Sixty years later, Israel has weathered war and terrorism and remains a strong, thriving democracy-- the only democratic nation in the Middle East and America's closest friend and ally in the region. Israel has become a resource for the United States and the world because of her groundbreaking discoveries in the areas of medicine, energy, clean water, and security technologies.

On her 60th anniversary, the vibrant Jewish community in the Chicagoland area is proud of Israel's pioneering leadership and the strong United States-Israel bond, and works hard every day to strengthen and refresh that relationship.

I will always support the State of Israel, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H. Con. Res 322.

Madam Speaker, only a week after the State Department renewed Blackwater's contract, the Bush administration was at it again giving more praise to Blackwater, the private military contractors. Last Friday, Ambassador Crocker said contractors ``like Blackwater are absolutely essential.''

But was it absolutely essential for Blackwater to gun down 17 innocent Iraqis? Was it absolutely essential for a Blackwater employee to kill a guard to the Vice President of Iraq? Was it absolutely essential for a Blackwater helicopter to drop CS gas on a traffic jam in Baghdad?

It has been months, and some in cases years, since these incidents and we still don't have the results of those investigations. Instead, our government has ignored those abuses and renewed Blackwater's contract and then a week later said they are absolutely essential. What kind of country do we live in where it's acceptable for the United States government to praise and reward a company that kills innocent people?

The only thing that is absolutely essential is that we end this State Department's dependence on private military contractors now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008.

I think everyone in the chamber today remembers the frustration and disbelief we all felt in November 2000 as hundreds of volunteers poured into Dade County Florida to oversee the recount of the Presidential election. As the future of our nation swayed in the balance, we all thought to ourselves, Can this actually be happening in America?

The answer, unfortunately, was yes. As devastating as that event was, I think we learned two very important lessons. The first is that every vote really does count. Every person who is eligible must get to the polls. The second lesson learned is that our system of elections is broken. Changes must be mandated, improvements must be made.

That is why I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5036. This bill takes real steps to improve the transparency and accuracy of electoral process by minimizing the financial burden placed on local governments to ensure the accuracy of election results.

H.R. 5036 fully reimburses jurisdictions that choose to offer paper ballots on Election Day. In the 2006 election cycle, we learned that electronic voting machines are not always reliable, often malfunctioning and creating substantial complications on Election Day. H.R. 5036 also subsidizes manual recounts of elections results if basic minimum requirements are met. We must provide resources to the states to ensure that the elections they conduct are fair and accurate.

Both provisions provide absolutely necessary funding to alleviate the significant burden placed on local and county governments when holding elections. This relief is critical to ensure that local government entities can protect the legitimacy of election results without enduring financial hardship.

While, I recognize the fact that more must be done, I also believe that this bill is a very good start and I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Rush Holt, for his leadership on this issue. Even a month ago, it appeared that passing this bill was impossible. However, thanks to Representative Holt's tireless efforts to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that impossibility becomes reality today. America will be a better for place for his efforts on this Issue.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the State Department decided to renew Blackwater's $1.2 billion contract for another year. It has been over 6 months since Blackwater contractors killed 17 innocent Iraqi civilians, 16 months since the Christmas Eve murder in the Green Zone, and 35 months since a Blackwater helicopter dropped CS gas on a traffic jam in Baghdad. Yet there have been no arrests, no charges, no trials, no convictions. Nothing.

The Department of Justice, the FBI and State Department have remained completely silent about these investigations. Meanwhile, those contractors are still working side-by-side with our troops in Iraq.

But what is even more appalling is that our government has ignored those abuses and renewed Blackwater's contract. If you owned a company, would you rehire someone who has killed dozens of innocent people? The State Department's decision not only puts the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians at risk, but it threatens the safety of our troops and jeopardizes our mission in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to sign on to my bill, H.R. 4102, the SOS, or Stop Outsourcing Security Act, and phase out the use of military security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, as we mark the fifth anniversary of the ill-planned and ill-executed war in Iraq, I rise to draw thc House's attention to two articles from the Chicago Tribune about the lasting damage done by the conflict.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 16, 2008]

By Any Calculus, War's Cost Cruel: Politics, Money, Blood--All Show a

Painful Bottom Line

(By David Greising)

It's a cold calculus, trying to estimate the cost of a war.

What is an Iraqi life worth? The life of an American GI?

It's no easier estimating the value of removing Saddam

Hussein from power than it is calculating the sum cost of

lifetime health care for a host of disabled American

soldiers.

When politicians talk about the war's costs in terms of

lives and treasure, they don't necessarily expect someone to

actually pull out a spreadsheet and start running the

numbers.

But that is what has happened with the Iraq war. And as we

approach the 5-year anniversary of the initial March 20,

2003, ``shock and awe'' aerial assault on Baghdad, it is

worth noting an important shift in the accounting of the

conflict's cost.

Those who opposed the war are finding that the costs far

exceeded anything they would have expected, or might have

argued, at the time the conflict started. The most notable

and authoritative such argument is put forward by Nobel

Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who puts an eye-

grabbing, ultimate bottom line on the seemingly endless U.S.

commitment to Iraq: at least $3 trillion. That's trillion,

with a ``T.''

Those who argued during the run-up to war that armed

conflict would be more economical than the cost of containing

Hussein have shifted fields. Instead of arguing, as some once

did, that America's Iraq adventure might actually turn a

profit once the country's vast oil wealth began to flow, they

now put forward a more nuanced argument.

On a purely fiscal basis, they now acknowledge, the war has

been at best a wash. But looked at as a total package--taking

into account the benefits of removing a tyrant from power and

thrusting Iraq into its post-Hussein period, however bloody

and chaotic--they say armed intervention was still the more

attractive alternative.

A trio of University of Chicago economists sought to

estimate the cost of containing Hussein had there been no

U.S.-led invasion. Their 2006 paper pegged it at $700 billion

over an unspecified period of years.

That estimate figures in the extra U.S. military equipment

and manpower that would have been needed to keep Hussein

within his borders and keep his hands off Kuwait. It includes

the cost of weapons inspection programs, of economic

boycotts, of oil that would remain in the ground and a rate

of premature Iraqi deaths ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 per

year, based on Hussein's bloody track record and

mismanagement of the country.

``When people talk about the cost of war, as an economist,

you have to ask, `In comparison to what?''' said Kevin

Murphy, one of the U. of C. economists.

Though he faults President Bush for errors in execution, he

believes war was the better option.

``I don't hear Joe Stiglitz saying the best world is the

world where Saddam stays around as long as possible because

it costs too much to make him leave,'' Murphy said.

He has a fair point. Stiglitz spends little time

contemplating either the economic or moral consequences of

allowing Hussein to remain in power. Perhaps that is because

Stiglitz cannot take his eyes off the financial and human

catastrophe that is unfolding before the nation's eyes.

Bringing important new scholarship to the book ``The Three

Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,''

Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes spend little time

contemplating what-ifs. Instead they turn a calculating eye

to the economic consequences of the American military

invasion--and to the vital policy considerations presented by

both its financial and human costs.

There is the expected, grim accounting that any actuary

might calculate. The cost of 4,000 American troops' lives,

for example, runs to roughly $28 billion. War outlays have

added $1 trillion to the national debt, and could run to $2

trillion over time, the authors calculate.

One of the most important calculations is an aspect of the

war often ignored by the politicians and pundits who are not

quite as handy with a calculator as Stiglitz is: The

staggering, long-term toll of veterans' health care,

disability benefits and Social Security disability pay. Add

them up, and even in a best-case scenario they amount to $371

billion, according to the authors' calculations.

Stiglitz expected his calculations would come under

criticism, as they have. But he said the larger purpose--

putting some price tag on the war--is important.

``The public ought to have some accounting of the costs,''

he said in an interview.

``Obviously, after Pearl Harbor, you wouldn't sit down and

say, `How are we going to respond?''' Stiglitz said. ``But

this was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war. We had

a choice of timing, and a choice of whether to go to war at

all.''

The debate is not purely among economists, obviously. But

even among political scientists who supported the war,

Stiglitz's view is starting to take hold.

Michael O'Hanlon, a security expert at the Brookings

Institution who runs a project that compiles all manner of

data on present-day Iraq--from military and civilian deaths

to commodity costs to public opinion--said he cannot ignore

the negatives: a huge increase in violence in Iraq, the lack

of political stability, the inability to find weapons of mass

destruction and oil prices at $110 a barrel.

O'Hanlon supported the initial American invasion, and he

gave carefully delineated backing to the troop surge a year

ago. Today, though, ``common sense ultimately pushes me

toward the Stiglitz view if I had to look at just the bottom

line,'' O'Hanlon said.

The question for Americans, ultimately, no longer is

whether going to war made sense. Today, as we head toward the

presidential election, the question is whether we keep U.S.

troops in Iraq or start bringing them back.

Based on governmental budget figures, several economists

have put the cost of the Iraq war at $12 billion a month.

Stiglitz figures the actual cost probably is at least twice

that.

And putting a final fiscal argument to the test, Stiglitz

invokes a tenet of economics that is hammered home at the U.

of C. business school itself: The fallacy of the ``sunk

cost.''

People throw good money after bad, in hopes of recovering

what they first invested, even though every new dollar just

perpetuates a lost cause.

Five years into the war, Americans must decide whether we

are caught up in a sunk-cost fallacy. But in this case, the

cost is not counted just in dollars and cents. It is tallied

in the impact on American security, and in the cost of

American and Iraqi lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to James Yoo, an incredible man who has worked in my district office as a constituent advocate for nearly 7 years, and who, sadly for me, will soon be leaving.

I want to first let others of my staff describe what James has meant to them and to the constituents of the ninth Congressional District.

Cathy Hurwit, Chief of Staff: When I think of James, I

think of someone who has the strongest, most finely-turned

moral compass of anyone I know. It is evidenced in terms of

his compassion and understanding of the problems facing our

constituents--particularly those caught up in a draconian

immigration system. In dealing with constituents, he is

always calm, professional and dedicated--but in talking about

the unfairness of the system and the indignities that so many

faced, his moral outrage is evident. His sense of justice led

him to law school to learn the skills and get the degree

necessary for him to represent them. But it also is evidenced

in the way he deals with his colleagues and everyone around

him--modest about his own outstanding accomplishments but

always willing to praise the efforts of and look out for

others.

James is a role model--the standard of what a constituent

advocate should be. Fun to be around, collegial and

thoughtful.

Leslie Combs, District Director: James is such an integral,

essential and special part of our district office, that it

truly is hard to imagine the office and team without him. He

makes us all laugh daily with his dry sense of humor and his

fascination with Malcolm Jamal Warner (Theo on the Cosby

Show). He is an extraordinarily generous and compassionate

person, both towards his colleagues and the constituents who

he has helped. James has helped over 2,600 constituents since

he started working for Representative Schakowsky 7 years ago

on July 1, 2001. He has helped reunite families that have

been separated due to immigration backlogs. He has helped

explain the complicated nuances of the immigration process to

hundreds of families and to his fellow constituent advocates.

He has made sure that immigration applications are processed

quickly and that people get their oath ceremonies and green

cards. James is extremely intelligent, thoughtful, and warm,

and he will be missed. He is going to be an excellent

immigration lawyer.

Taina Rodriguez, Constituent Advocate: James ``Malcolm

Jamal Warner'' Yoo James

is definitely one of a kind. He has an outstanding ability to

see the good in a person. He is supportive, caring, kind,

honest, strong and hopeful. His views on many issues are a

little nutty, but I never said he was perfect. He always

tells me the truth, even when I hate to hear it because

chances are 9 out of 10 times he's right. He told me once

that he hates it when people say ``I can't'', and I find that

to be very inspirational.

James calls our relationship ``love and hate''

relationship, but I see it more of a big brother, pain in the

neck type of relationship. (But in a very good way). Who is

going to lecture me about school and my study habits, and who

is going to lecture me about how I choose my dates! It's very

difficult to see myself coming into the office and not having

James around. It's going to be a sad day on April 11, 2008.

However, I know that he will go on and accomplish great

things. Who knows, he might even get to meet Malcolm Jamal

Warner!

Kim Muzeroll, Executive Assistant: James is one of the most

selfless and thoughtful people I know. He is smart and he is

savvy. He works under the radar but he is immensely

effective. He doesn't seek the spotlight and he never wants

credit for his accomplishments, but he deserves recognition

for his commitment to social justice and his tireless work on

behalf of the constituents of the 9th Cong. district,

Illinois, the nation and in fact the world.

Abbey Eusebio: The ninth congressional district has been

lucky to have James Yoo as a tireless advocate for almost a

decade. He worked with constituents one on one to assist them

with immigration matters and provided outreach to different

ethnic groups in the district. James was the go-to person for

immigration matters and was a constituent advocate that

constituents and colleagues could always count on. He set a

high standard for his colleagues for substantial and

efficient constituent service. He is a great role model and

always kept the needs of constituents and the office as a

priority.

As a friend, James is like our big brother. He is a humble

man who is down-to-earth and has a great sense of humor.

James was a great asset to Team Schakowsky. We will be very

sad to see him go but know that he will continue a career of

advocacy as an immigration attorney.

Paola Castano, Constituent Advocate: James is very

knowledgeable and a great source of information. I am always

impressed about the wealth of knowledge that he has on

various subjects. James is the type of person you can talk to

about just about anything under the sun. And whenever we

would discuss subject matter that we weren't exactly sure of,

off to internet we went, and it was Wikipedia once again to

the rescue! If it weren't for Wikipedia, we would have never

learned the names of the 3 Chipettes (Brittany, Eleanor, and

Jeanette), the Chipmunk's female counterparts. If we didn't

know that, then where would we be?

I am most grateful to him for other reasons too. When I

started working in this office in December of 2006, it was

taking me a bit of time to adjust to all the transitions

taking place within the office. However, the most difficult

aspect for me, the thing that was holding me back was that I

had just come from an unpleasant work experience in my

previous law office job, so I wasn't allowing myself to

warm up to my new surroundings. However, from the very

beginning, it was James who helped me to feel very welcome

and tried to make me feel like I was part of the office. I

soon came to realize that if he was taking the time and

making an effort to make me feel at home here, the least I

could do was to try too. And because of these efforts, I

have made friends with some truly great people in this

office, including James.

I also thank James for taking the time to train me on

immigration these last few weeks. He has been very patient

and understanding with me. Though it was intense, I believed

at times that it was all too much at one time, and I felt as

if I could never, ever, come close to taking on the role he

has had in this office and this community, James reassured me

and helped me to believe that I could take on this new role

as a CA.

Ann Limjoco, Suburban Director: I have had the privilege of

working with James for more than 6 years now. Over the last 6

years, I have seen him become a master at immigration

casework. He is the immigration guru in our office. James is

the one we would all go to with any questions on immigration.

He was able to grasp such an understanding of immigration

law, more than any other Constituent Advocate I've seen in

the last 6 years in this office. It is so fitting that he is

leaving this office to become an immigration lawyer. I think

the time he has spent in this office has prepared him to do

this.

I can also call James a good friend. He is the type of

person I can rely on at all times. When I moved into my

apartment in Glenview, James was right there helping me move

boxes into my parents' minivan and unloading them into my new

place. We have also spent countless hours going out to dinner

or having drinks. I will miss him greatly. Not only will the

constituents of the 9th Congressional District be losing a

great asset, but we will be losing a great co-worker.

However, I know our friendship will continue on and that we

will keep in touch. I will miss working with him dearly!

Kris Sadur, Constituent Advocate: It's been an honor to

know and work with James Yoo. His calm demeanor and steadfast

dedication to assisting our constituents is unwavering. He is

an excellent and patient teacher, assisting all staff on the

intricacies of immigration and always willing to listen to

questions regarding a case. I will miss his sweet smile,

composed nature and astonishing intelligence. We are losing

an extraordinary staff member and thoughtful advocate for

constituents in the 9th Congressional District.

I join all of my staff in praising James for his remarkable service to our district and to the thousands of people he has helped. I will never be able to thank him enough for his extraordinary work and for the standard of excellence that he set for our office. I am confident that James will continue to make this world a better place and a happier place to be. Though I will miss him in the office, I fully expect that he will never desert Team Schakowsky.

Madam Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their work in bringing such a strong reauthorization before us today.

In an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, Michael Gerson wrote that in voting for this bill, members of Congress can participate in ``something extraordinary--a true miracle of science and conscience, and politics at its noblest.''

When the emergency plan for aids was first announced, there were approximately 50,000 people on AIDS drugs in sub-Saharan Africa. Today there are roughly 1.4 million, so I share Mr. Gerson's enthusiasm for this bill, and I am proud of the statement we will make as a Congress by passing it.

I am also extremely encouraged by provisions in the Senate bill that will play a key role in the development of safe and effective microbicides. I hope that in conference, the Committee will look at these microbicides provisions, which hold great promise to save the lives of millions of women as part of a comprehensive program to stem the spread of global AIDS.

I am so pleased to be able to lend my voice in support of this critical and imperative bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank Congressman Wynn for his effort to bring this critical resolution to the floor today. I'm glad to be here to speak out in strong support of H. Con. Res. 302, a resolution to recognize March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month.

My family and my life, like so many others, have been touched by someone with cancer. Two and a half years ago, after fighting courageously for a year, my amazing daughter-in-law, Fiona, died of colorectal cancer, leaving behind two young children, a husband and many loving family members and friends. At 38 years old, she died, not having a screening, and though, in retrospect, she had symptoms. Too many of us have either struggled with cancer ourselves or know of someone who has.

I recently saw a new study from the CDC saying that colorectal cancer testing has risen steadily since 2002, and this is very encouraging news. But another study that appeared in the Journal CANCER at the end of last year is extremely troubling to me. It shows a significant underuse of colorectal cancer screening procedures among Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, only 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries received recommended screening.

In fact, only 25 percent of Medicare patients received recommended screening during the study period.

We have to do better. We must work to expand public education and understanding of the benefits of screening. Congress needs to make it a priority to reduce the amount of out-of-pocket-costs associated with cancer screening to ensure that those who may be at risk of developing colorectal cancer get screened. And as the richest country in the world, we need to act to make sure that everyone gets the medical care they need.

You've heard the statistics. If caught early the survival rate is 90 percent; if not, it's only 10 percent.

Through the establishment of Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month we will add to the over one million colorectal cancer survivors living in America today.

I urge my colleagues to support this wonderful resolution, and I thank the gentleman for introducing it.

This FISA legislation is proof that we can protect the American people, keep our country and our families safe without violating American's civil liberties. The Republicans have posed a false choice, tried to convince us, the American people, that the only way to protect this country from terrorists is to sacrifice our civil liberties, particularly when it comes to this administration perhaps illegally telling the telecommunications companies to share our private communications with them.

The Republicans want to wave a wand, grant amnesty to the phone companies, retroactive immunity to turn over information about their customers, not only letting the companies off the hook, but protecting the administration from judicial scrutiny about its warrantless surveillance programs.

This program, this legislation that we have introduced, is a fair way to resolve this conflict issue.

Madam Speaker, last week's report of the February jobs figures--a net loss of 63,000 jobs--is yet another sign that we need to act to spur employment. We need to stimulate the economy and to create the good jobs that will help working families across the country achieve the American dream.

I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a recent study that gives us new information on how to achieve that goal. The study, completed by economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, evaluates the economic relationship between public spending and job creation. The study, ``The U.S. Employment Effect of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities,'' concludes that public dollars invested in health care, education, mass transit or construction for home weatherization and infrastructure create more jobs than investing an equivalent amount in either military or personal consumption through tax cuts.

The study evaluates the relative effects on job creation of investing an equivalent amount of federal dollars in three scenarios: (1) private consumption through tax cuts, (2) the military, and (3) domestic investments. This important study finds each billion dollars of federal funding would create: 10,799 jobs if spent on tax cuts designed to spur personal consumption; 8,555 jobs if allocated for military spending; 12,883 jobs if invested in health care; 17,687 jobs if invested in education; 19,795 jobs if invested in mass transit; 12,804 jobs if invested in home weatherization and infrastructure.

The bottom line is that public dollars invested in health care, education, mass transit, or construction for home weatherization and infrastructure create more jobs than investing an equivalent amount in either the military or personal consumption.

I hope that my colleagues will review this study, and I would like to thank the Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst for their work in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the following letters of support for H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, submitted for the record on the floor debate of this bill.

March 4, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Capitol Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: Consumers Union,

the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, urges you to

support HR 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and

Addiction Equity Act, to prohibit insurance discrimination

against 80 million Americans suffering from addiction and

mental illness.

Over 25 million people need mental health and addiction

treatment but are not getting it. Each year, 1.3 billion work

days are lost due to mental disorders, more than arthritis,

stroke, heart attack and cancer combined. Moreover, workers

with untreated depression cost their employers $31 billion a

year in lost productivity and workers with untreated

alcoholism cost their employers $135 billion in lost

productivity each year. The need for equity in health plans

for the treatment of addiction and mental illness is well

documented--14 field hearings were held around the country in

2007. The time to pass this legislation is now.

H.R. 1424, introduced by Representatives Patrick Kennedy

and Jim Ramstad, has the support of the majority of the House

with 273 cosponsors. Because of the critical nature of this

legislation, we urge you to support HR 1424 and move it to

the full floor for a vote as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Gail Shearer,

Director, Health Policy Analysis, Consumers Union

Washington Office.

I thank our chairman for yielding me this time and for his great leadership on this issue, and for making it clear that this veto was about torture.

In December, I said that restrictions on the use of torture represented a battle for the soul of our country. Because the President chose to veto this critically important piece of legislation, that battle continues today.

The way we treat our prisoners is a fundamental measure of our character. It is what separates great nations with moral authority to lead from other lesser nations.

The President's national security team has now publicly confirmed that the CIA waterboarded detainees. Incredibly, President Bush and his advisers insist that they have the legal authority to do so again and that they don't consider it torture. These claims have damaged our Nation's moral authority and credibility around the world.

There is a simple way to restore some of our moral authority. It is in this bill in the form of a provision mandating that all intelligence agencies and those under contract or subcontract with our intelligence agencies comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation guidelines.

The interrogation rules in the Army Field Manual have served us well, but don't just take my word for it. Generals, intelligence professionals, diplomats, religious leaders, and foreign leaders, many of them our closest allies, have all spoken out against the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding.

Consider the words of Navy Rear Admiral Mark Buzby, Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which is already required to comply with the Army Field Manual, who recently stated that ``we get so much dependable information from just sitting down and having a conversation and treating them like human beings in a businesslike manner.'' Or what about the advice of the Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, who, before changing his mind and joining with President Bush to oppose this bill and with it Congress' effort to ban torture, stated that the issue of interrogation was ``a defining issue'' and that interrogation should be ``humane and yet effective.'' And that an Army general in Iraq had told him that ``the techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.''

In December, Congress made its voice known and passed this critically important bill. With one flick of his pen, the President tried to take our voice way. I believe it is time to say once and for all ``no'' to techniques like waterboarding, ``no'' to torture, and ``no'' to this President's attempt to legitimize his administration's political legacy at the cost of this Nation's moral authority.

I urge all my colleagues to join with me in voting to override the President's veto.

Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly condemn the remarks made about U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama by Congressman Steve King of Iowa, who said that if Barack Obama became President, al Qaeda terrorists would, and I quote, ``be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11.'' Why? Because, he said, ``of his middle name and because of who his father was.''

Senator Obama, like all of us in this House, swore on the Bible to defend our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has done nothing to warrant this attack. He has served his country honorably in the U.S. Senate. This attack on his patriotism, religion, heritage, and middle name amount to nothing more than a smear campaign.

I would fully expect these comments to come from people like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, not from one of my House colleagues. There is simply no room in this country for remarks like these, remarks that Mr. King declares he stands by.

I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning these hateful remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, the United States watched in horror and despair as the lives of six innocent and promising students from Northern Illinois University were taken suddenly and cruelly. As we mourn this senseless tragedy, I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

The tragedy at NIU last month is just another painful reminder that the United States must do more to stem the flood of violence and ensure that our campuses are as safe and secure as possible. The incident at Northern Illinois comes only a week after a gunman opened fire on a college campus in Louisiana, and just 10 months after the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead.

I believe that in order for this disturbing trend to be curtailed the United States must adopt commonsense reforms that will reduce the number of assault and other high power weapons available to the public while also allowing responsible gun owners that right to bear arms.

I urge my colleagues to work with one another toward a solution that will prevent incidents like this one from taking place in the future.

Again, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to all the students at NIU--not only the victims and their families, but those students who are dealing with the aftermath of this horrific event. I know that the impact of this event will linger forever, but I also know that NIU will continue to be a vibrant center of learning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the appointment of John McCarter to serve on the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents.

The Board of Regents is responsible for a variety of issues related to the Smithsonian Institution, including budgets, planning documents, proposed programs and construction, appointments to Smithsonian advisory boards, and legislative initiatives. Given the variety and importance of the Board's responsibilities in managing the public's most cherished cultural institutions, and given the recent controversies regarding Smithsonian leadership, we must support the appointment of members to the Board of Regents who will ensure that the Smithsonian Institution will fulfill its critical mission in perpetuity. That is why I am pleased to support John McCarter's appointment.

John McCarter has an accomplished history of service in both the public and private sector. Currently, he serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Field Museum, a jewel in the crown of cultural attractions in Chicago, and one of the greatest natural history museums in the world. The Field Museum attracts over 1 million visitors each year; its collection includes over 23 million specimens, a number which continues to grow due to its ongoing expeditions and research in 94 countries around the world; and its staff includes 72 Ph.D.s.

Under John's leadership, the Field Museum has undertaken a series of projects to rebuild and restore the museum. During his tenure the Museum has created several new permanent and traveling exhibits, including the ``Tutankhamen and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs'' exhibit in 2006, which has toured to Philadelphia, London, and soon Dallas, to sold out crowds. The museum has also expanded its educational role in the community, establishing partnerships with science teachers in the community and organizing activities for inner- city schools.

A native Chicagoan, John previously was Senior Vice President of Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Earlier in his career, he served as President of DeKalb Corporation, and was Budget Director of the State of Illinois under Governor Richard B. Ogilvie. John was also a White House Fellow during the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, and is currently a trustee of the University of Chicago and a board member and former Chairman of Chicago's Public Television Station Channel 11. McCarter is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Business School, and also attended the London School of Economics.

It is my honor to support the appointment of John McCarter to the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. John's service to the Field Museum, to the City of Chicago, to Illinois, and to the country, will make him an invaluable addition to the Board.