Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6560) to establish an earned import allowance program under Public Law 109-53, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Beginning a generation ago under the leadership of John F. Kennedy, the United States became a world leader in ensuring that American trade policy is designed to encourage economic growth in developing countries. President Kennedy said that American apathy toward poor- country development ``would be disastrous to our national security, harmful to our comparative prosperity, and offensive to our conscience.'' It is a moral imperative for the United States to construct trade policies that foster development.

One billion people exist on less than $1 a day right now. The income gap between the least developed countries and the world's industrialized countries grew by nearly 40 percent over the last 25 years. The income of those people in rich countries is now 93 times that of those living in the least developed countries.

For nearly a generation, we know that the world's poor have gotten much poorer. When we consider President Kennedy's words, the call to action is compelling.

While we work toward a broad, multilateral agreement to lower trade barriers to goods and services produced in poor countries, we should also ensure that our unilateral policies are constructed as wisely as possible in order to spur development. The legislation before us takes a critical step in that direction. Let me highlight some of the important provisions in H.R. 6560, which is supported by a broad range of stakeholders including producers, importers, and consumer groups.

H.R. 6560 will extend the Generalized System of Preferences for 1 year providing producers in poor countries the certainty they need to retain and attract investment while providing importers effective access to affordable goods that are critical to their supply chain. U.S. consumers will benefit as a result. Importantly, this extension provides the Congress some breathing room to examine how GSP can improve to foster greater development abroad while also providing American producers greater certainty and opportunity.

The bill before us makes a narrow but critical change to the way we treat apparel imports from the Dominican Republic. This change, which is supported by all of the key stakeholders, including the U.S. textile industry, will better enable the Dominican Republic's apparel producers to compete with producers in East and Southeast Asia.

Anchoring a textile and apparel industry in Central America strengthens the economies of the entire Western Hemisphere. This provision also builds upon progress made earlier this year with respect to Haiti, helping to foster a much-needed economic growth in the Caribbean.

Lastly, this bill addresses two issues which are of specific concern to me because they're related to our trade policy towards sub-Saharan Africa.

For the past decade, my colleagues and I have continued to explore ways to encourage more investment in job creation in sub-Saharan Africa. We have done this primarily through enacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act in 2000, and some of our wishes have come true. We've seen the growth of an apparel industry in southern Africa, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and has provided hope for economic progress and justice. AGOA has contributed positively toward an increase in exports from sub-Saharan Africa in many countries, and a diversification of exports, which is good for economic growth and for stability in the region.

But it has also demonstrated that a trade policy is only one component of a development policy. Beginning in 2006, we experimented with a new idea to encourage greater investment in the upstream production of apparel. It was called the Abundant Supply Provision. It encouraged or required African apparel producers to first use locally produced fabric before sourcing fabric from producers in places like Asia. While well-intended, this provision has had the opposite effect of what the proponents sought.

Earlier this month, the Committee on Ways and Means hosted the trade ministers from the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. They told us that apparel exports under AGOA have declined 15 percent this year and that thousands of jobs are at risk if we do not repeal this abundant supply provision. By doing so today, we demonstrate that we have listened to Africa and that we are responding, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

In addition, we will help enable the sub-Saharan African nation of Mauritius to compete in the global apparel industry by enabling them the ability to use third-country fabric in apparel exports that qualify under AGOA.

I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to devise other measures that will better encourage upstream investment in sub-Saharan Africa, to promote job creation, and economic growth.

This legislation is a strong bipartisan measure, and I want to recognize the leadership of Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, Ranking Member Jim McCrery, Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Wally Herger, who we will hear from in a moment.

I also want to recognize and thank the staff whose tireless efforts in the trenches have been invaluable. They are Tim Reif, Angela Ellard, Behnaz Kibria, and Warren Payne.

I believe our rightful place is at the front of the line when it comes to fighting global poverty by supporting economic and social justice. I believe that's what the U.S. meant in 2000 when we signed on to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

We know our current policies fall short, but tonight we're moving in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6560 because John F. Kennedy was right back then and today. Let us learn from history and follow the inspiration of a great American leader who believed the United States,

Democrat and Republican, had the legislative duty and the moral responsibility to lead the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, earlier today, regrettably, there was a failure to move forward on the multilateral trade talks known as DOHA. Some are calling this a collapse in trade talks, but I believe that we can and that we must continue to make progress in multilateral trade talks. We must spend our energy not by placing blame but by considering solutions to the current challenges.

The World Trade Organization serves a crucial role in the trade system of the world. I believe I speak on behalf of the entire Ways and Means Committee when I say that we remain committed to a robust DOHA agreement. The bill before us demonstrates America's continued commitment to alleviating poverty through our trade policies. I urge the Members to support H.R. 6560.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today the people's House will say eloquently and unequivocally that America's interest to exert its moral leadership in the world is back, that all Americans stand united in fighting this global epidemic.

As we've done in times of the past in great trial, we set aside our differences and declare that America stands with commitment, compassion and conviction against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The Senate has already passed this legislation. And the President has announced that he will sign the legislation, which is one of his top priorities. I give him high credit for that decision.

But beyond the money, beyond the $50 billion, is the fact that we are ending the unspoken fear and discrimination in our own country by eliminating the travel ban restriction that has stopped scientists and others infected with HIV/AIDS from crossing our borders to attend medical or educational conferences, or to visit family and friends.

I was at the United Nations a few months ago, and Members of Parliaments all over the world said, how can we end the stigma of AIDS if you, in the United States, will not allow someone with AIDS to come in? We know how to treat AIDS, we know how to diagnose it, but the United States is the example: Today, we are making a statement that we want to end the stigma of AIDS. That makes it possible for people to come in and be tested, for people to come forward and receive medication. As long as people have to keep AIDS in the background or hide it, we will not end this epidemic. So this provision alone makes it possible.

Representative Granger and I have some legislation in here that ends some of the problems with mother-to-child transmission. These provisions will make it possible for us to prevent AIDS spread and have a generation without AIDS in the future.

This legislation will provide the resources policies necessary to take the fight against HIV/AIDS to the next level. An increase in funding to $48 billion over 5 years will provide the resources to sustain the fight on so many fronts in so many countries especially hard hit by the pandemic.

Our provisions included in this legislation will provide training and education, integrate services into maternal health care and ensure that women and children have access to early screening and life-saving drug therapies.

We know that providing a short regimen of anti-retroviral drugs to the mother and newborn reduces transmission by 50 percent. And now we will have the means to do it.

H.R. 5501 also includes my provision to establish two 5-year targets to protect the next generation. The first goal is that 16 percent of those receiving treatment under PEPFAR be children, which is significantly higher than the children receiving treatment under current PEPFAR programs.

The second goal is that 80 percent of pregnant women in the most affected countries receive HIV counseling and testing and where necessary, antiretroviral treatment to prevent mother to child transmission.

We know how to stop transmission and, over time, we can achieve the goal of a generation born free of HIV/AIDS.

This legislation addresses the fatal connection between HIV and TB, which itself has claimed 1.7 million lives directly or through HIV- associated TB. I'm proud that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle is a leader in the fight against TB as it is in reversing other global medical crises.

My community rightly swells with pride over the local leadership and resources being devoted to fighting on behalf of all humanity.

We have come a long way in a short period of time. H.R. 5501 will build on the systems and success we have had so far by integrating additional services and providing the vital funding needed to train health care professionals and community workers.

Trained medical personnel, on the ground in country, are the front line in this fight and this legislation gives us the ability to send in reinforcements to help fight a war against this disease. There is so much to say about what this day means. Above all, it means we are going to save lives.

We are going to provide global leadership and real hope. The day will come when medical science will discover a vaccine that will end this scourge once and for all. Until then, let us stand together as one Nation and one world, united in one common goal--in the fight against

Mr. Speaker, when the President took office, gasoline cost less than $1.50 a gallon, and a barrel of oil was selling for $30. So they had a planning meeting down at the White House, and gas has jumped to $4.50 a gallon and oil is nearly $150 a barrel.

Despite these facts, the President would like the American people to believe that he has proposed a credible

new plan to lower energy prices, but consider this: The President's invasion of Iraq and tacit military threats to Iran have destabilized the Middle East and driven oil prices out of control.

Big Oil has leases, access, and decades to drill on millions of acres on the Continental Shelf, but they choose instead to drill down into the wallets of the American people. Oil companies are already exploring today. They're exploring the upper limits of their stock prices by using their billions in profits to buy back stock, not to reinvest in America.

We still don't know what the Vice President's secret meeting with the industry was when gas prices were $1.50 a gallon, but it sure looks like it's working for the oil companies, but it isn't working for us.

We've got a plan, and we will propose it and bring it out here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we've bailed out Wall Street once already this year. We may be doing it again soon. But it's time to bail out Main Street by doing what we should have done 50 years ago, and that is provide Americans with universal health care. It's the fastest and most effective way Congress can shore up the American family. Because we all know that Americans are either paying too much for health care, can't afford to buy enough coverage, or can't afford any coverage at all. And the cost in dollars and in human terms is staggering.

A generation ago, the head of General Motors famously said, ``as GM goes, so goes the Nation.'' It's no secret that GM and America are struggling with an economic crisis. We can make the difference by addressing the single largest expense facing an American family and American business today, health care. Every day in America, the American people are forced to dig deeper and deeper into their own pockets to pay for health care. And every day American business is forced to transfer more of the burden to employees or drop coverage altogether.

America's health care system today looks like an ambulance riding on one wheel. And even that wheel will soon fall off if we continue to support a failed system that is not made in America, not worthy of America and nothing more than an accident of history.

In the early 20th century, there was a movement to provide universal health care. But ironically it was fiercely opposed by the insurance industry at a time when it made most of its money selling death benefits to those who feared a pauper's grave. Emerging from the Great Depression in 1930, Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to institute universal health care. But his advisers feared the American Medical Association would kill FDR's proposal for Social Security in their opposition to health care.

In the 1950s, the legendary labor leader, Walter Reuther, first won a health care benefit and a pension too for automobile workers in a labor agreement with General Motors. Then Reuther tried to enlist GM and others to join forces and lobby the Federal Government to institute universal health care. But business couldn't see coming the economic storm from global competition and didn't trust government. Organized labor, flush from a victory in Detroit, saw health care as a perpetual win at the bargaining table, and organized medicine was relentless at lobbying until they drove the universal health care program into the ditch again.

In the second half of the 20th century, there were other attempts by the American leaders, but all of them were killed by seemingly unlimited lobbying resources. Today we have 50 million Americans with no health care coverage at all, another 25 million Americans without adequate protection, and every American can't find pants with pockets deep enough to keep paying costs that are already out of sight.

The only universal truth about health care in America today is that every single American knows someone with a health care crisis or is facing one themselves. American business has to compete today in a global economy, but American business has a major health care benefit expense on its books that the international competitors do not have. Even great companies in my congressional district, which are national models to providing employee benefits like health care, are being stretched to the limit, and their balance sheets, like a rubber band, can only flex so much before they break.

We cannot stand idly by and watch when we know that developing and instituting an American single payer health care system can dramatically improve the health of American business and American families literally and financially. And for the first time in decades, we have a chance if we're willing to seize the opportunity. There are cracks in the dams of opposition. A new survey of U.S. doctors published recently in the Annals of Health Research finds that 59 percent of American doctors now support single payer health care plans, which is a dramatic double-digit increase in support in the last 7 years.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution a few weeks ago. Organized labor recognizes a changing global economy that means they can best represent workers not at one bargaining table, but on a national level where everyone benefits equally.

Even business is beginning to rethink its trust of government. In 2002, Detroit's auto subsidiaries in Canada strongly supported continuation of a single payer health care program because of its positive economic impact on them and their workers.

A few years ago, I asked businesses' executives if they would be willing to pay 6 percent of their revenue to off-load health care and no one raised their hand. Now the average cost is 13 percent for business, and a business leader recently asked me if that deal was still on the table. I'm here to say single payer is on the table. It's time to breach the dam of opposition and create a single payer health care system for the health and well-being of the American people and American business.

We have tried the alternatives. The free enterprise system has had 50 years. But they can't do it. They have failed again and again, and the costs go up all the time. It's time to do what works in every industrialized country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, the reports out of Iraq these days make 2008 sound an awful lot like 1930. That's when the British strong-armed a so-called treaty to take control of Iraq's oil wealth. And it remained that way for decades until the people in the Middle East nationalized their oil wealth to end outside control. But western oil interests and the neocons have wanted it back ever since.

War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may have said that invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil, but the announcement that western oil companies would get what they have lusted for says otherwise.

And editorial cartoonist Rob Tornoe of politicker.com summed up the world view the other day in a cartoon displayed right here next to me. He spoke truth to power with one compelling image. He says all at once that this entire war, its tragic casualties and immense cost, was all about oil.

As so many suspected all along, Secretary of State Rice tried to claim that the U.S. Government played no role whatsoever in securing sweetheart oil deals for Iraq's sweet crude oil. But the New York Times reported in a front page story, ``A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraq Government and five major western oil companies.''

The immense oil reserves beneath Iraq are the world's second largest, and western oil companies want them, just as they did 78 years ago. And like 1930, they plan to permanently occupy Iraq. To remove any doubt from the minds of the American people, I would like to enter into the Record the entire Angelo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930.

Let's look at Article 5. It says that maintaining order inside Iraq is the primary responsibility of the Iraq Government. But then it immediately says that Iraq recognizes and accepts Britain's role inside Iraq and grants Britain the right to build air bases and maintain military forces inside Iraq.

That is exactly what the President and this administration has been saying all along.

The President has made it clear he wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq permanently. In 1930, they didn't call it occupation, they called it a treaty. And they are doing it all over again.

Here's another example. The Angelo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 addresses immunity for British forces and unlimited rights to bases and troop movements. And this administration is doing the same thing. People like Jonathan Schwartz on the Web site democrats.com, Internet sites like After Downing Street and newspapers like the Independent have all examined the 1930 document and compared it to current proposals. They conclude the date is different and it is now the U.S. instead of the British Empire.

Seventy-eight years later, the West is again trying to assume control of the Middle East under the guise of protecting them from themselves. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld addressed U.S. troops in Baghdad and said, ``Unlike other armies in the world, you come not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate.''

In 1917, British General Stanley Maude, addressing Iraqis in Baghdad, said, ``Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors, but as liberators.'' The only new thing this administration added was that our soldiers would be greeted by flowers. We know that was not true, just as we know the entire basis for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not true.

When the Prime Minister of Iraq the other day said that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the President said no, he wants Americans in Iraq indefinitely.

The calendar may say 2008, but this administration is acting like it's 1930 all over again. A journalist has just summed it up in a cartoon. There lies Saddam, and the new statue will be the logos of our five favorite oil companies.

If we ignore the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930

Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the

United Kingdom and His Majesty the King of Iraq. Signed at

Baghdad, June 30, 1930.

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the

British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His

Majesty the King of Iraq, whereas they desire to consolidate

the friendship and to maintain and perpetuate the relations

of good understanding between their respective countries; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty undertook in the Treaty of

Alliance signed at Baghdad on the thirteenth day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six of the Christian

Era, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al-

Ukhra, one thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah,

that he would take into active consideration at successive

intervals of four years the question whether it was possible

for him to press for the admission of Iraq into the League of

Nations; and

Whereas His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Iraq

Government without qualification or proviso on the fourteenth

day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine

that they were prepared to support the candidature of Iraq

for admission to the League of Nations in the year one

thousand nine hundred and thirty-two and announced to the

Council of the League on the fourth day of November, one

thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, that this was their

intention; and

Whereas the mandatory responsibilities accepted by His

Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq will automatically

terminate upon the admission of Iraq to the League of

Nations; and whereas His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty

the King of Iraq consider that the relations which will

subsist between them as independent sovereigns should be

defined by the conclusion of a Treaty of Alliance and Amity:

Have agreed to conclude a new Treaty for this purpose on

terms of complete freedom, equality and independence which

will become operative upon the entry of Iraq into the League

of Nations, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the

British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, for

Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Lieutenant-Colonel Sir

Francis Henry Humphrys, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal

Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished

Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of

the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Companion of

the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, High

Commissioner of His Britannic Majesty in Iraq; and

His Majesty the King of Iraq: General Nuri Pasha al SA'ID,

Order of the Nadha, Second Class, Order of the Istiqlal,

Second Class, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of

Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the

Distinguished Service Order, Prime Minister of the Iraq

Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Who having

communicated their full powers, found in due form, have

agreed as follows:

Article 1

There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His

Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq.

There shall be established between the High Contracting

Parties a close alliance in consecration of their friendship,

their cordial understanding and their good relations, and

there shall be full and frank consultation between them in

all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common

interests.

Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes not to

adopt in foreign countries an attitude which is inconsistent

with the alliance or might create difficulties for the other

party thereto.

Article 2

Each High Contracting Party will be represented at the

Court of the other High Contracting Party by a diplomatic

representative duly accredited.

Article 3

Should any dispute between Iraq and a third State produce a

situation which involves the risk of a rupture with that

State, the High Contracting Parties will concert together

with a view to the settlement of the said dispute by peaceful

means in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of

the League of Nations and of any other international

obligation which may be applicable to the case.

Article 4

Should, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 above,

either of the High Contracting Parties become engaged in war,

the other High Contracting Party will, subject always to the

provisions of Article 9 below, immediately come to his aid in

the capacity of an ally. In the event of an imminent menace

of war the High Contracting Parties will immediately concert

together the necessary measures of defence. The aid of His

Majesty the King of Iraq in the event of war or the imminent

menace of war will consist in furnishing to His Britannic

Majesty on Iraq territory all facilities and assistance in

his power including the use of railways, rivers, ports,

aerodromes and means of communication.

Article 5

It is understood between the High Contracting Parties that

responsibility for the maintenance of internal order in Iraq

and, subject to the provisions of Article 4 above, for the

defence of Iraq from external aggression rests with His

Majesty the King of Iraq. Nevertheless His Majesty the King

of Iraq recognises that the permanent maintenance and

protection in all circumstances of the essential

communications of His Britannic Majesty is in the common

interest of the High Contracting Parties.

For this purpose and in order to facilitate the discharge

of the obligations of His Britannic Majesty under Article 4

above, His Majesty the King of Iraq undertakes to grant to

His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance sites

for air bases to be selected by His Britannic Majesty at or

in the vicinity of Basra and for an air base to be selected

by His Britannic Majesty to the west of the Euphrates. His

Majesty the King of Iraq further authorises His Britannic

Majesty to maintain forces upon Iraq territory at the above

localities in accordance with the provisions of the Annexure

of this Treaty on the understanding that the presence of

those forces shall not constitute in any manner an

occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign

rights of Iraq.

Article 6

The Annexure hereto shall be regarded as an integral part

of the present Treaty.

Article 7

This Treaty shall replace the Treaties of Alliance signed

at Baghdad on the tenth day of October, one thousand nine

hundred and twenty-two of the Christian Era 1, corresponding

to the nineteenth day of Safar, one thousand three hundred

and forty-one, Hijrah, and on the thirteenth day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, of the Christian

Era 2, corresponding to the twenty-eighth day of Jamadi-al-

Ukhra, one thousand three hundred and forty-four, Hijrah, and

the subsidiary agreements thereto, which shall cease to have

effect upon the entry into force of this Treaty. It shall be

executed in duplicate, in the English and Arabic languages,

of which the former shall be regarded as the authoritative

version.

Article 8

The High Contracting Parties recognise that, upon the entry

into force of this Treaty, all responsibilities devolving

under the Treaties and Agreements referred to in Article 7

hereof upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq will, in

so far as His Britannic Majesty is concerned, then

automatically and completely come to an end, and that such

responsibilities, in so far as they continue at all, will

devolve upon His Majesty the King of Iraq alone.

It is also recognised that all responsibilities devolving

upon His Britannic Majesty in respect of Iraq under any other

international instrument, in so far as they continue at all,

should similarly devolve upon His Majesty the King of Iraq

alone, and the High Contracting Parties shall immediately

take such steps as may be necessary to secure the

transference to His Majesty the King of Iraq of these

responsibilities.

Article 9

Nothing in the present Treaty is intended to or shall in

any way prejudice the rights and obligations which devolve,

or may devolve, upon either of the High Contracting Parties

under the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Treaty for

the Renunciation of War signed at Paris on the twenty-seventh

day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.

Article 10

Should any difference arise relative to the application or

the interpretation of this Treaty and should the High

Contracting Parties fail to settle such difference by direct

negotiation, then it shall be dealt with in accordance with

the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 11

This Treaty shall be ratified and ratifications shall be

exchanged as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into

force as soon as Iraq has been admitted to membership of the

League of Nations. The present Treaty shall remain in

force for a period of twenty-five years from the date of

its coming into force. At any time after twenty years from

the date of the coming into force of this Treaty, the High

Contracting Parties will, at the request of either of

them, conclude a new Treaty which shall provide for the

continued maintenance and protection in all circumstances

of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty.

In case of disagreement in this matter the difference will

be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. In

faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed

the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.

Done at Baghdad in duplicate this thirtieth day of June,

One thousand nine hundred and thirty, of the Christian

Era, corresponding to the fourth day of Safar, One

thousand three hundred and forty-nine, Hijrah.

(L. S.) F. H. Humphrys.

(L. S.) Noury Said.

Annexure to Treaty of Alliance

1. The strength of the forces maintained in Iraq by His

Britannic Majesty in accordance with the terms of Article 5

of this Treaty shall be determined by His Britannic Majesty

from time to time after consultation with His Majesty the

King of Iraq. His Britannic Majesty shall maintain forces at

Hinaidi for a period of five years after the entry into force

of this Treaty in order to enable His Majesty the King of

Iraq to organise the necessary forces to replace them. By the

expiration of that period the said forces of His Britannic

Majesty shall have been withdrawn from Hinaidi. It shall be

also open to His Britannic Majesty to maintain forces at

Mosul for a maximum period of five years from the entry into

force of this Treaty. Thereafter it shall be open to His

Britannic Majesty to station his forces in the localities

mentioned in Article 5 of this Treaty, and His Majesty the

King of Iraq will grant to His Britannic Majesty for the

duration of the Alliance leases of the necessary sites for

the accommodation of the forces of His Britannic Majesty in

those localities.

2. Subject to any modifications which the two High

Contracting Parties may agree to introduce in the future, the

immunities and privileges in jurisdictional and fiscal

matters, including freedom from taxation, enjoyed by the

British forces in Iraq will continue to extend to the forces

referred to in Clause 1 above and to such of His Britannic

Majesty's forces of all arms as may be in Iraq in pursuance

of the present Treaty and its annexure or otherwise by

agreement between the High Contracting Parties, and the

existing provisions of any local legislation affecting the

armed forces of His Britannic Majesty in Iraq shall also

continue. The Iraq Government will take the necessary steps

to ensure that the altered conditions will not render the

position of the British forces as regards immunities and

privileges in any way less favourable than that enjoyed by

them at the date of the entry into force of this Treaty.

3. His Majesty the King of Iraq agrees to provide all

possible facilities for the movement, training and

maintenance of the forces referred to in Clause 1 above and

to accord to those forces the same facilities for the use of

wireless telegraphy as those enjoyed by them at the date of

the entry into force of the present Treaty.

4. His Majesty the King of Iraq undertakes to provide at

the request and at the expense of His Britannic Majesty and

upon such conditions as may be agreed between the High

Contracting Parties special guards from his own forces for

the protection of such air bases as may, in accordance with

the provisions of this Treaty, be occupied by the forces of

His Britannic Majesty, and to secure the enactment of such

legislation as may be necessary for the fulfilment of the

conditions referred to above.

5. His Britannic Majesty undertakes to grant whenever they

may be required by His Majesty the King of Iraq all possible

facilities in the following matters, the cost of which will

be met by His Majesty the King of Iraq. 1. Naval, military

and aeronautical instruction of Iraqi officers in the United

Kingdom. 2. The provision of arms, ammunition, equipment,

ships and aeroplanes of the latest available pattern for the

forces of His Majesty the King of Iraq. 3. The provision of

British naval, military and air force officers to serve in an

advisory capacity with the forces of His Majesty the King of

Iraq.

6. In view of the desirability of identity in training and

methods between the Iraq and British armies, His Majesty the

King of Iraq undertakes that, should he deem it necessary to

have recourse to foreign military instructors, these shall be

chosen from amongst British subjects. He further undertakes

that any personnel of his forces that may be sent

abroad for military training will be sent to military

schools, colleges and training centres in the territories of

His Britannic Majesty, provided that this shall not prevent

him from sending to any other country such personnel as

cannot be received in the said institutions and training

centres. He further undertakes that the armament and

essential equipment of his forces shall not differ in type

from those of the forces of His Britannic Majesty.

7. His Majesty the King of Iraq agrees to afford, when

requested to do so by His Britannic Majesty, all possible

facilities for the movement of the forces of His Britannic

Majesty of all arms in transit across Iraq and for the

transport and storage of all supplies and equipment that may

be required by these forces during their passage across Iraq.

These facilities shall cover the use of the roads, railways,

waterways, ports and aerodromes of Iraq, and His Britannic

Majesty's ships shall have general permission to visit the

Shatt-al-Arab on the understanding that His Majesty the King

of Iraq is given prior notification of visits to Iraq ports.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) and their partners in the non-profit, governmental, and private sectors for embarking on their 2008 Housing America Campaign.

The affordable housing issues that the Housing America Campaign raises affect every Congressional district in this country. The statistics are grim: 750,000 Americans are homeless on any given night and 3\1/2\ million experience homelessness at some point in each year. I'm worried that these numbers will only increase as the foreclosure crisis continues.

More than 15 million American families now pay more than half of their income for housing. Too many of these families also make less than 50 percent of their area's median income and yet still are stuck on waiting lists for government assistance. Where I live in Seattle there are thousands of families on waiting lists for Section 8.

In Seattle the ``fair market rent'' established by HUD is over $900 a month for a 2-bedroom apartment. In order to be able to afford this, without paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent, someone in Seattle would have to be making $37,000 a year or about $18/hour, which is more than double the minimum wage in Washington State and about triple the current Federal minimum wage.

I am relieved that the House has taken meaningful action to address the affordable housing shortage by passing legislation to create an Affordable Housing Fund. This critical fund will provide about $500 million per year to finance construction, maintenance, and preservation of affordable housing throughout the country.

In addition, the House has passed legislation that increases the loan limits for government-backed loans, helps homeowners in trouble refinance their home loans and to provide funding to revitalize neighborhoods where foreclosures have been rampant, and to modernize and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

We have more work to do in Congress and it will probably require an administration with a greater commitment to addressing the affordable housing crisis in the U.S. But we should all be grateful to NAHRO and their partners for sounding the alarm and raising awareness both in the Congress and around the country. They make our jobs much easier.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Housing America Campaign as we fight for affordable housing opportunities for every family in this country.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 462 and 463, I was unavoidably detained on legislative business away from the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Madam Speaker, we've just been treated to a lecture to a third grade class about what pollution we ought to worry about. Apparently, my colleague from Texas doesn't understand that the problem is that, when you burn oil, you pollute the atmosphere, and that's where the real problem is and why finding more oil is not the answer to the world's problems.

The American people have had a few days to consider the President's call to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. The New York Times calls it ``The Big Pander to Big Oil,'' saying, ``This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then, the benefits will be years away.''

The Los Angeles Times was even blunter in its characterization of this proposal by our President. It said, ``It's nonsense for them to use the run-up in gas prices as an excuse to advocate offshore drilling.'' Continuing, ``What's really needed, though, is a moratorium on worthless suggestions from politicians for lowering gas prices.''

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's editorial, up north from Los Angeles, said, ``Offshore drilling: This well is dry.'' They said, ``But drilling/plundering our coasts for about 19 billion barrels of oil--that's really all that's available--is akin to placing a Band-Aid on the hemorrhaging wound that is our oil-dependent, wasteful lifestyle.''

The Seattle Times called it Bush's last gasp on oil, and their editorial said, ``Longing for a higher mileage vehicle in the face of gasoline at $4.30 a gallon? The President's response has been ANWR, not CAFE. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)--drilling in a wildlife refuge, not fuel efficiency.''

There's a pattern here from coast to coast. The American people are tired of rhetoric that fails to meet the reality test. The oil industry already has access to 68 million acres of Federal oil reserves, but they are only pumping out press releases. The President already has access to mountains of data on the urgent need to dramatically change our energy policy to focus on renewable resources, conservation and efficiency. Instead, the President gives us political expediency that will not fill a gas tank, that will not lower gas prices and that will not help our addiction to oil.

For the first time, Congress will have to go it alone to shape energy policy for the 21st century. Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, has shown that the people's House is up to the task. This week, the House will consider several bills from Democratic leadership that builds upon our existing record for bold, new energy legislation. We are going to take up legislation that holds oil companies accountable, but the fact is we may not get it all done, and we may have to wait for a new President. As long as the oil dynasty occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we're not going to get any serious changes in this country.

So hang onto your hats, folks. You're going to have a lot of trouble with oil prices and with gas prices over the next few months.

I rise in support of H.R. 6331, along with the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Radiology and the American College of Surgeons. All the medical organizations are supportive of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6307) to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to assist children in foster care in developing or maintaining connections to family, community, support, health care, and school, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today on behalf of young people like Anthony Reeves, a former foster child in Georgia who wrote something that defines our call to action. ``Life is tough enough when transitioning out of care, but it's even tougher if you don't have the support that you need from people who care about you or if you don't have resources and skills packed along with the rest of our belongings as you are shown out the door.''

Anthony's words should remind us that government, and ultimately society, acts as the legal guardian of foster children. These are our children, and the fact is we are failing too many of them.

There is no shortage of problems to confronting foster care-- insufficient services for at-risk families, too few qualified case workers, and an outdated Federal eligibility standard, to name a few. We'll have to confront these issues in order to provide the comprehensive reform that is so urgently needed.

Today we are focused on the shortcomings in the existing system that can disconnect foster children from the things they need most--family, support and school.

Sometimes children have to be removed from their homes to protect them from abuse and neglect. That is a sad, but undeniable fact. But the foster system unnecessarily disrupts other connections to home, family and school for these vulnerable children at a time when they're most in need. One glaring example of this is when foster children are literally pushed out into the streets when they turn 18 years of age. No parent I know of severs all ties and abandons their kids at age 18, yet that is Federal policy for foster care. We displace them from their homes, support them, and then tell them to go it alone. Rather than provide a glide path to success, we subject foster children to a crash landing.

Another example is the inconsistent effort to help foster children stay connected to family. Today, we deny grandparents assistance if they become the legal guardians to a foster child. This is contrary to the growing base of research illustrating that children do better living with relative guardians than they do living in traditional foster homes. Additionally, siblings are too often separated during foster care placement just when a foster child most needs a brother or a sister.

Ensuring school stability is yet another area where we too often come up short. Not enough is done to ensure children that they can stay in their current schools when they are placed in foster care, thus depriving them of the one place where they may feel secure.

We also hear too many stories about foster children not receiving adequate health care services, especially for mental health. Furthermore, we have a special duty to ensure that prescription medications foster children are receiving are effective and appropriate instead of quick and easy.

And finally, we don't provide adequate assistance for Native American children who are removed from their homes and then cared for by tribal communities.

For Anthony Reeves and every foster child, we can and must do better. And that is why we are here today. The Fostering Connections Success Act addresses many of these issues. The legislation would allow States to extend foster care assistance up to age 21, giving young men and women more time to get an education and become truly self-sufficient.

Recognizing that many grandparents and other relatives want to provide loving, permanent homes for children in foster care, the bill would provide Federal payments to relatives who become legal guardians of children for whom they have cared for as foster parents.

It also requires improved efforts to keep siblings together when they are removed from their homes. The measure would require increased oversight of the health care needs of foster kids. And there is a renewed attention paid to ensuring educational stability for foster children in foster care, including avoiding frequent school changes.

Additionally, the bill gives tribes equal and fair access to Federal resources dedicated to keeping vulnerable children safe. For the first time, tribal child welfare programs could directly receive Federal foster care financing. The legislation also provides new resources to ensure all child welfare workers have access to training, which ultimately results in better care for kids. And, finally, this bill extends and improves incentives for States that increase the number of children adopted out of the foster care system.

The legislation includes two provisions outside of the foster care system which save money and thereby ensure that the bill is budget neutral. The first provision reduces Federal tax refunds for individuals who have fraudulently collected unemployment insurance. The same policy has already passed the House once. The second provision will allow the Treasury Department to improve the management of the government's short-term operating cash to achieve a better rate of return. While this bill doesn't do all that's needed, it does meet many of the critical challenges in our foster care system.

We received a letter today from the American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000 professionals, urging passage. The academy said: ``Our Nation has a moral and legal obligation to provide the best possible care to these most vulnerable children.'' I couldn't agree more.

The legislation is bipartisan, budget neutral, and good for children, and deserves every Member's support.

Before I yield to my ranking member on the subcommittee and the co- author of this bill, let me first thank him for his dedication to foster children and his willingness to find common ground. Jerry Weller has been a true partner in doing what is right for our most vulnerable children. He's retiring from Congress this year, and I can think of no better parting gift than passing a bipartisan bill he worked on to improve the lives of foster children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6307.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), not a member of the committee but a staunch advocate for foster kids.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Fattah), who has been the chairman of the Forum on Children, which the Speaker created.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I will only take a moment here at the end. The old rule we learned a long time ago is if you have the vote, shut up. So I am not going to make a long speech.

It has been a great pleasure to work with Mr. Weller. The only thing I really am sad about is that you won't be here to work with me on the Invest in Kids Act in the next legislative session of this Congress.

This bill obviously does not do everything. One would always like to do more. But what we did today was what was possible and what we could pay for and what we could agree upon. I think that that is the important thing for people to realize, that the Congress does work together, and it works best when the sides work together on issues like this. They can be resolved, even though some of these have some sticking points here and there, they can be resolved, and in this case, the children are the beneficiaries. I think for that, the Congress should all be proud today as we vote unanimously, I hope, for this bill.

I think that there are children out there right now who are going to benefit from this, whose stories, many of which we heard in the committee, and if we stood here and told the stories that we heard in the committee, everyone would be in support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Madam Chairman, as a child psychiatrist, I have seen lots of these kids. I have seen them both in detention centers and in mental health facilities and in a variety of settings in which youngsters with really severe problems, people try to handle them. And it is with that in mind, that is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs For Teens Act of 2008.

It was introduced by my friend, George Miller, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of what is a very important piece of legislation that will help protect America's kids.

In answer to the remarks of one of my colleagues just a moment ago about whether or not maybe we ought to let California deal with their problems, this is a problem nationwide. This is not a California problem. There are parents all over this country who have severely disturbed youngsters who try to find a place to place a kid in hopes that the program that is offered will in some way help their child get back on the track to being a successful adult. There are thousands of these youngsters every year that look for a place, some in their States, some outside their State. Parents know what they know. They may not know what the rules are in various States, and in some ways it is almost inevitable something like this, because of the transfer across State lines, that we have a national standard by which we require programs to operate.

They go to these programs for help in facing behavior and emotional problems, substance abuse and sometimes elements of building self- confidence that are known as bootstrap programs or wilderness camps or self-help boarding schools, and they operate across the country.

Now the teenagers who come into these programs receive help.

But tragically, Madam Chairman, they sometimes become the victims of child abuse and neglect. And you have heard about the GAO study, and I think there are plenty of examples about why this is necessary.

The bill would stop any program from restraining kids for any reason other than safety. It would stop a program from withholding essential food and water, clothing and shelter. It would mandate education and training for workers. It would require operators to disclose everything from the roles and responsibilities of their employees to confirmed cases of abuse.

Now to ensure compliance, the department will be empowered to carry out unannounced inspections and enforcement. And above all, this bill places the safety and well-being of the child above marketing hype and unscrupulous operators. In some cases, people have closed a program in one State and moved to another State. These programs that truly help children with a positive, uplifting experience will only benefit from this legislation.

There is no place in America for a program that hurts kids who are there trying to get help. This is not a bootstrap program, it is a dangerous program that should be changed or shut down, and I urge my colleagues to support this.

To allow children who are unable to control their own emotions and their own well-being to be in the hands of people who aren't thinking about them from their safety first is really a misguided program, and this bill will correct that.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I am really very proud to rise in support of a resolution put forward by my friend and colleague, John Lewis. This is a man who has risked his own life fighting for civil rights, helping to bridge a racial divide during one of America's worst times.

This was a time when it took real courage to go out in the streets and do things. John walked with Martin and with John and with Bobby as they dealt with the threats of racial violence. There was clearly fear in everyone. Anybody who went out was fearful; if they didn't, they didn't know what they were doing.

John Lewis is a towering figure who, in his own right, has left his mark in this country. And it is fitting and proper that he should bring a resolution honoring these three civil rights workers whose lives ended 44 years ago in Mississippi at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan.

Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner were killed in that Freedom Summer of 1964. The widow of one of them is now a distinguished lawyer and a good friend in Seattle. She lives on in the memory of her husband.

Their deaths sparked a national firestorm of anger and awareness that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Honoring them honors everyone who fought for civil rights and those who suffered great personal sacrifice during times when justice was neither blind nor fair in America.

It reminds me of the injustice America is only beginning to correct for a group of African American soldiers stationed in Fort Lawton in Seattle. Because of the color of their skin, they were denied equal justice and they were wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit, were sent to prison, and were given bad conduct discharges.

We must never forget the lessons of history or we risk repeating them.

The resolution Mr. Lewis of Georgia offers will help us remain vigilant in defending civil rights and civil liberties, and help us protect the Nation these people died to defend.

I urge my colleagues to strongly support the resolution offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, it says something about tensions in the world today when the first thing I want to enter into the Record is a reminder of my strong and long-standing commitment to the defense of Israel, the safety and security of the Jewish people, and the absolute right of Israel to exist.

I offer this preamble because I also want to say I am deeply troubled by the news reports around the world today that Israel recently conducted a major military exercise in what many military analysts see as training for a possible strike against Iran.

The United States supplies Israel with billions of dollars in military hardware, training and intelligence, and I believe it is both appropriate and urgent for the U.S. to raise questions about their intentions and to aggressively pursue diplomacy in this region.

We have made such a mess of things in Iraq that it's hard to believe that any nation can think war can achieve peace.

News reports say Israel conducted a massive military exercise in plain sight to send signals to the United States, Europe, and Iran that Israel is prepared to launch a massive military strike against targets in Iran if diplomatic efforts to halt or delay its nuclear program fail.

Almost immediately, Iran retaliated in the press saying any attack against its proud nation with a strong military capability would be met with an equally massive counteroffensive. The media reminds us that Iran has just taken delivery of accurate Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. We are edging perilously close to a hair-trigger moment when someone, somewhere, will do something that turns saber rattling into a provocative military confrontation, and we will be at war again on another front. I am deeply worried by that.

There are those who would have us believe that U.S. military superiority ultimately trumps any nation, any force. We are the most powerful military Nation on Earth, but with power comes responsibility, accountability and leadership.

For all the bombs and guns and missiles we have at our disposal, history is replete with failed policies and missions and dubious figureheads we propped up against the will of the people, and any rational approach to U.S. foreign policy. This includes the history of our U.S. secret involvement in Iran in the 1950s when we and the British worked to overthrow and replace the Iran elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the Shah of Iran. We kept him in office because we wanted a direct pipeline to Iran's oil well.

As the most powerful Nation on Earth, you would think that we could

do a lot more to prevent war than simply wringing our hands while we read the newspapers. And I think we can.

First, we have to abandon the notion that all U.S. policy begins and ends behind the butt of a gun. Now some will stand up and say, Well, that is just Jim McDermott, the doctor, who believes we don't have to use guns to fight for peace. Well, I have some company.

I would like to enter into the Record a story carried earlier this week in the Asia Times. It reports on the first conference held by the Center for New American Security. Ambassador James Dobbins, who was special envoy to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo under President Clinton and special envoy to Afghanistan under the current President Bush said that this was about U.S. policy in Iran: ``I reject the theory that the implicit threat of force is a necessary prerequisite to successful diplomacy.''

Let me read the news story:

``Looking back on 40 years of U.S. diplomacy, Dobbins, now director of the Rand International Security and Defense Policy Center, concluded that the conventional wisdom about the need to back up diplomacy with your adversaries with force is wrong.

``'I can say that most of it was not conducted against a background of threat of force,' said Dobbins, `and when the threat of force was introduced, diplomacy failed.'

``In a line that got applause from the more than 750 people attending the conference, Dobbins said his solution was to `deal with Iran.' ''

I urge everyone to read this story and I urge the administration and the Congress to start asking tough questions and demanding straight answers while there is still time.

We have seen what strikes in Iraq did back in the 1980s. We saw a strike in Syria a few months ago, and we are going to wake up one morning with another problem on our hands if we don't start asking serious, tough questions of this administration.

[From the Asia Times, Jun. 17, 2008]

Deal, Deal, Deal With Iran

(By Gareth Porter)

Washington--The assumption that the United States should

exploit its military dominance to exert pressure on

adversaries has long dominated the thinking of the US

national security and political elite. But this central tenet

of conventional security doctrine was sharply rejected last

week by a senior practitioner of crisis diplomacy at the

debut of a major new centrist foreign policy think-tank.

At the first conference of the Center for a New American

Security (CNAS), ambassador James Dobbins, who was former

president Bill Clinton's special envoy for Somalia, Haiti,

Bosnia and Kosovo and the George W Bush administration's

first special envoy to Afghanistan, sharply rejected the

well-established concept of coercive diplomacy.

Dobbins declared in a panel on Iran policy, ``I reject the

theory that the implicit threat of force is a necessary

prerequisite to successful diplomacy.''

Looking back on 40 years of US diplomacy, Dobbins, now

director of the Rand International Security and Defense

Policy Center, concluded that the conventional wisdom about

the need to back up diplomacy with adversaries with force is

wrong. ``I can say that most of it was not conducted against

a background of threat of force,'' said Dobbins, and when the

threat of force was introduced, ``diplomacy failed''.

In diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Union, however,

Dobbins said, ``We never threatened to use force.''

Dobbins complained that the debate over diplomacy with

regard to Iran has been between those who are ready to use

military force now and those who ``say we should talk with

them first''. Advocates of diplomacy, he said, have to ``meet

a high threshold--they have to offer the reversal of all

Iranian positions''. In effect, they have to deliver Iranian

``capitulation'', said Dobbins.

Although very different from the Soviet Union as a threat,

Dobbins observed, Iran is similar in that ``we can't afford

to ignore it and we can't overrun it''. Real diplomacy in

regard to Iran, he argued, would result in ``better

information and better options''.

In a line that got applause from the more than 750 people

attending the conference, Dobbins said his solution was to

``deal with Iran''.

The Dobbins argument represents the first high-profile

challenge by a veteran of the US national security community

to a central tenet of national security officials and the US

political elite ever since the end of the Cold War.

The recently established CNAS has strong connections with

former Clinton administration national security officials and

the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. CNAS president

Michele A. Flournoy and chief executive officer Kurt M.

Campbell both held positions in the Clinton Defense

Department. William J. Perry and Madeleine K. Albright,

Clinton's secretaries of defense and state, respectively,

gave opening remarks at the conference.

The Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and of the

national security elite has long associated itself with the

idea that the threat of military force--and even force

itself--should be at the center of U.S. policy in the Middle

East. Key figures from the Clinton administration, including

Perry, Albright, former United Nations ambassador Richard

Holbrooke, former assistant secretary of state James P. Rubin

and former deputy national security adviser James Steinberg,

lined up in support of the Bush administration's invasion of

Iraq in 2003.

Flournoy and Campbell have already made it clear that CNAS'

orientation will be to hew the common ground uniting the

national security professionals who have served

administrations of both parties. Flournoy co-authored an op-

ed with former Bush administration deputy secretary of state

Richard Armitage two days before the NCAS conference, and

Armitage also introduced the conference.

A paper by Flournoy and two junior co-authors ostensibly

calling for a new U.S. ``grand strategy'' is notable for its

reluctance to go too far in criticizing the Bush

administration's policies. It argues that the current US

positions in Iraq pose the ``real threat of strategic

exhaustion'' and calls for ``rebalancing risk'', but offers

no real alternative to indefinite continuation of the Bush

administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Instead, it urged the ``rearticulation'' of goals in both

Iraq and Afghanistan by replacing the ``maximalist language

used in past years'' with ``pragmatism''.

But the choice of Dobbins to anchor a panel on Iran

indicates that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and

of the national security community now has serious doubts

about the coercive diplomacy approach to Iran that has

dominated policy thinking since the beginning of the Clinton

administration.

A paper on Iran policy co-authored by Campbell and released

at the conference reflects a new skepticism toward the threat

of an attack on Iran as a way of obtaining Iranian

cooperation. It argues that U.S. military threats against

Iran ``have had the opposite effect'' from what was desired,

hardening the resolve of Iranian leaders to enrich uranium

and giving the Islamic regime greater credibility with the

Iran people.

The paper also reflected an unwillingness to dispense

entirely with the military option, however, proposing that

the United States ``de-emphasize, but not forswear, the

possibility of military action against Iran''.

The paper advised against even taking the military threat

off the table in return for Iran's stopping its nuclear

program, on the ground that Washington must be able to use

that threat to bargain with Iran over ``stopping its support

for terrorism''.

The principal author of the paper, James N. Miller, who is

senior vice president and director of studies at CNAS,

explained in an interview after the conference that he

believes Dobbins' assessment of the problem is ``about

right''. Miller said the threat to use force against Iran to

coerce it on its nuclear program ``is not useful or credible

now''.

But Miller said he would not give up that threat, because

the next president might enter into serious negotiations with

Iran, and Iran might refuse to ``play ball'' and go ahead

with plans to acquire nuclear weapons. If the president had a

strong coalition behind him, he said, ``The use of force is

an option that one should consider.''

The idea that diplomatic negotiations with Iran over its

nuclear program must be backed by the threat of war is so

deeply entrenched in Washington that endorsement of it seems

to have become a criteria for any candidate being taken

seriously by the national security community.

Thus all three top Democratic hopefuls supported it during

their primary fight for the Democratic nomination.

Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee

convention in early 2007, Hillary Clinton said that, in

dealing with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear

capability, ``no option can be taken off the table''. Barack

Obama and John Edwards also explicitly refused to rule out

the use of force against Iran if it refused to accept U.S.

demands to end its uranium enrichment program.

Madam Speaker, I think I have walked into a meeting of the Republican drilling caucus. If they would remember a little history, they would remember that Mr. Cheney had a meeting down at the White House back in 2001 and all of the oil company executives came in, and it was a secret meeting.

We have yet to find out who was there, what the agenda was, or whoever. But we can now, 8 years later, see the agenda, create chaos in the Middle East, attack Iraq, destabilize the oil fields, threaten Iran. Let's drive up the price of oil.

Gasoline was $1.47 when George Bush took control, and here we are, it's $4. They have absolutely succeeded.

Now at the end of that meeting they said, and, really, the best part of this is, we are going to get the right to drill in ANWR. Let's blame the environmentalists. They won't let us build refineries.

The reason we don't build refineries is because oil companies don't want to follow the rules. The only thing they drill the hole in is the bottom of the economic boat in this country.