Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4156, the Orderly Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, just passed.

Let me be clear about why I voted for it. This legislation is a compromise that I hate, but it's the only way to move the agenda of the American people forward. This legislation is anything but perfect, but it does make important strides.

It requires the President to use funding to begin to redeploy U.S. soldiers out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment and sets a goal for complete redeployment by December 15, 2008.

It requires the President to implement a comprehensive diplomatic political and economic strategy to bring stability to Iraq. For the first time, the President will actually have a plan in Iraq.

It requires the President to report to Congress. It will end the secrecy that has surrounded everything about this war.

And it requires the President to accept what the rest of us know, that waterboarding is torture. It is a crime, and this bill says it's not going to be used in the interrogation of prisoners.

After World War II, we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding U.S. prisoners of war. But the President's new Attorney General is walking around wondering about whether waterboarding is a crime.

House Republicans who voted ``no'' said they're willing to sacrifice the will of the American people at the altar of blind political obedience to the White House.

If Republicans in the Senate filibuster this bill, they'll be telling the American people to go away because

they intend to follow the President over the cliff.

If this legislation should reach the President's desk, it just might finally force him to confront reality. But I don't expect any of that to happen.

The President intends to hand Iraq over to the next President. In the meantime, this President is waging an Iraq veto war relying on Republicans to act as mechanical robots and rubber-stamp his vote on every single Iraq policy the Democratic majority has brought forward.

The American people may not understand how badly they've been deceived and misled by this administration, but it's going to continue. Sometime next spring, the President will announce things in Iraq are going so well he'll bring home a few thousand of our troops. He'll have them arrive in the fall during the election, when Republicans are desperate to explain why they ignored the American people. He will not tell us that 100,000 soldiers will be permanently stationed in Iraq at 14 military bases the administration has so artfully called enduring bases. Of these, five are superbases: Camp Victory North, al Asad Air Base, Balad Air Base, Camp Taji, and Tallil Air Base. These are huge bases with everything from video stores to supermarkets and rental cars. They are so big that one of them, Balad, 40 miles north of Baghdad, is the second busiest airport in the world, second only to Heathrow in the amount of air traffic.

Building enduring bases stands for indefinite U.S. military involvement in Iraq, which is not something the Congress or the American people want or will stand for.

The President is running a war by veto. If we could have a vote on a no confidence motion, this war would be over. But in our democracy, the ballot box is the only vote of no confidence and, regrettably, we have another year to wait to get rid of the President.

That only reinforces the need for today's vote. If Republicans won't support something as mild as this, then the American people need to know the Republicans are stonewalling. Every time we force the debate out in the open, the American people see it for what it is.

If Republicans continue to prolong the war, the American people will take charge next November and unelect even more Republicans.

We call this legislation a bridge fund, meaning to build a way to bring our soldiers out of Iraq and home where they belong. We're trying, and we're not going to stop until the American people can declare the mission accomplished and the men and women of our Armed Forces are home.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. Speaker, my concern that the President might launch a military strike against Iran is well known; but my mission here today is not rhetorical. I am here to propose that Members of Congress participate in an Iran war game.

Television could carry the event so the American people can watch it all. We know that the Pentagon has conducted war games to examine the casualties and consequences of a U.S. military strike against Iran. We should, too.

Here are some of the questions that could be answered: Could we use bunker buster bombs? Could a U.S. military strike against Iran result in a wider Middle East war? What provocation would cause the President to provoke such a strike?

A group of retired, high-level CIA agents brought this idea to me. These are patriots whom we trusted with keeping and protecting America's secrets. They and others, including a retired Air Force colonel who conducted war games in the Pentagon, would accurately produce a U.S.-Iran war game just as it is done in the Pentagon. I know because they gave me the plan.

A military strike against Iran would involve life-and-death issues. We need to understand what they would look like. I urge my colleagues and the media to join me in demanding that we publicly conduct a U.S.- Iran war game as soon as possible.

Think what we would have learned if we had done it before Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what the real issue here is. The Republicans are willing to say that 50,000 rich fat cats are more important than 21 million middle-class folks in this country.

Now, the people they're defending are people who have an adjusted gross income of $1 million, or more, who knows, and those folks are paying a 15 percent tax rate. That means they have to pay $150,000 in taxes. Oh, my God, they have to get by on $850,000. What we're saying is, let's tax them like the fireman who pays 30 percent. Thirty percent of $1 million is $300,000. Those poor people, they'll only have $700,000 to get by on. That's what it's about, folks.

Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership today by supporting a visionary proposal put forward by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York.

First, we're going to help millions of middle class Americans by passing the tax extenders that are included in this legislation; without them, 23 million Americans would be harmed by a tax provision called AMT that was never intended to affect and hurt the middle class.

As part of the extensions in the bill, I included a provision that will extend the deduction for payment of local sales tax. Yes, people in my State of Washington will benefit, but so will taxpayers in the eight other States where there is no State income tax.

I am pleased that Mr. Brady joined me in this important matter. It is another sign that we have produced legislation that is bi-partisan.

This is only a 1-year extension, but I think we will have an opportunity to make it permanent when the House begins considering tax reform, and the visionary proposal put forward by Chairman Rangel.

Fact is, we are restoring fiscal discipline and so even good proposals that rightly benefit people cannot be fully implemented all at once because of the need to find ways to actually pay for what we propose to spend or return. And that may be the most important point of all.

Chairman Rangel has produced an honest proposal based on dollars and sense.

What's different today, Mr. Speaker, is that this House has decided to pay for this tax relief.

We are going to save middle America from the alternative minimum tax, and do so by closing the big tax loopholes that billionaires have been driving their Hummers through.

On Wednesday, the Department of the Treasury informed the Nation that we are 9 trillion dollars in debt. Last month President Bush signed the fifth debt-limit increase since the beginning of his term.

He talks about being a fiscal conservative but his Republican Congress emptied your wallets and borrowed astronomical sums of money on credit.

As a result of this fiscal mismanagement, the dollar is on the brink of collapse and the Chinese are suggesting they'd prefer to hold debt in Euros instead of the greenback. It's not just the credit markets on Wall Street that are in trouble. Our public credit market is in jeopardy, too.

So what does the Bush Administration and his rubber-stampers in the minority suggest? They want to extend these tax cuts, but borrow the money to pay for them.

That's not the kind of leadership America needs. I urge support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is time that America work for America's workers, farmers and families. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is a step in the right direction. It marks the first time in history that a FTA has incorporated labor and environmental provisions.

This is a major step forward because it signals that the pursuit of trade is not an end, but a means to help raise living standards and provide opportunity. I represent a trade dependent city and yet my constituents are leery of FTAs because they fear that American workers have been left behind.

Today, we are at a crossroads. We can continue down the path we have been on and keep pursing freer trade knowing that many Americans are falling through a domestic safety net built 70 years ago, or we can pursue policies that respond to a new century.

Last week the House made a good start by adopting legislation to reform the Unemployment Insurance program and update the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. We must do more. Health care that is tied to employment is insecure.

Education benefits that aren't available to working adults do not meet the needs of the modern workforce. Our trade agreements need to be smarter, too. We know that supporting core worker rights--human rights--is central to enabling workers to benefit fully from their labor.

We know that the tools of public policy need flexibility to ensure access in areas like affordable prescription drugs. We know that the Earth's environment isn't yours or mine, it's ours.

Chief Si'ahl, the inspired leader of the Duwamish and Suquamish Tribes, for whom my City of Seattle is named, said it best.

A century ago, this great tribal chief said: ``We did not weave the web of life. We are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.''

My support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement is for this particular FTA, in part because of the progress we've achieved in incorporating labor and environmental standards, and health concerns.

I will continue to consider each FTA on its merits, and in its own context.

I will be paying close attention to the Administration and its commitment to Americans through TAA and healthcare for the children of working families.

In the end trade is about people and the jargon--FTA and TAA--had better produce SBA--Standing by Americans.

The research is clear; this FTA will increase American exports in key goods that come from my State, including: IT products, wheat, apples, pears, peaches and cherries. And this agreement will be good for Peru, too. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, America's a great Nation, but it's a work in progress; and we still have work to do when it comes to protecting the rights of every American.

No one understands that better than Representative Barney Frank, my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. With Barney's leadership, the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last night. ENDA is a clear statement that we will protect and defend the rights of Americans in the workplace.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue comes down to one simple declarative sentence: your sexual orientation and lifestyle is your own business, not your employer's business. No person or business in this country should have the right to discriminate against any American.

I stand proudly shoulder to shoulder with Barney Frank and my constituents in Seattle in strong and unwavering support of ENDA. A chance at the American Dream should apply to every American. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, they all hope and care and wish like all the rest of us. They deserve nothing less than a full measure of justice and equality in this country. So do the transgender Americans, and we have more work to do to extend the protections to them.

We made progress with ENDA and neither Barney Frank, nor I, nor my constituents will rest until we can declare with conviction that all Americans are created equal.

Madam Speaker, it's not as hard as the President would like us to believe. Someone reminded me over the weekend of something. Here's what he said.

When the Japanese Army subjected American prisoners of war to waterboarding, it was a crime, and those responsible were severely punished. After World War II, several Japanese soldiers were convicted for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war.

At the trial of his captors, Lieutenant Chase Nielson, one of the 1942 Army Air Force officers who flew the Doolittle raid over Tokyo, was captured by the Japanese, said, ``I was given several types of torture. I was given what they call the water cure.''

He was asked what it felt like when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. ``Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,'' he replied.

And yet we have an administration complete with Attorneys General and designees who aren't sure if waterboarding is a crime. They can check the record of war tribunals after World War II, because the rest of the world is sure. It was a crime then, and it is a crime today.

Over the weekend I saw ``Rendition.'' It ought to be required viewing for this body.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, Martin Luther King said, ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love.''

Those that volunteer to serve our country deserve our thanks and our support. Members of our Armed Forces make tremendous sacrifices as they honorably perform their duties and deserve so much in return for their service.

The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act is an important piece of legislation that would eliminate many inequities that presently exist in Federal statutes affecting those performing service to our country.

The bill makes several improvements in the Tax Code for servicemembers and their families. It includes a provision to remove obstacles for Americans who wish to serve our Nation overseas through the Peace Corps by providing relief from capital gains taxes on the sale of a home.

Additionally, the bill makes several important changes to the Supplemental Security Income program, known as SSI. The SSI program provides critical benefits for servicemembers who are caring for a severely disabled spouse or child. This bill would change SSI's treatment of certain forms of military compensation when determining SSI eligibility and benefit amounts for military families. As a result, more military families will be able to benefit from this important safety net. This bill would remove penalties that presently exist for blind,

disabled, and elderly veterans under the SSI program.

And, finally, the bill would end the disparate treatment of compensation that is paid to some AmeriCorps volunteers but not to others under the SSI program. This modest change would enable disabled Americans to serve their country and their community despite their disability. For some Americans, AmeriCorps can provide a pathway for the disabled to gain the skills to reenter the workforce.

At this time, I would like to enter into the Record the following documents.

Stories of Americans With Disabilities in National Service

People with disabilities volunteer for the same reasons

that anyone else does--to give back to their communities, to

improve their surroundings, and to be active and engaged in

life. Some national service participants who have

disabilities volunteer with organizations that serve other

people with disabilities, while others focus their efforts on

helping to meet a wide range of critical community needs. The

individuals profiled here represent a small sampling of the

many people with disabilities involved in the Corporation for

National and Community Service's Senior Corps, AmeriCorps,

and Learn and Serve America programs.

americorps*state and national

Steve Hoad, AmeriCorps Alumnus 2001, AmeriCorps*VISTA

Alumnus 2003 Augusta, Maine; disability: blind.

Steve Hoad served with the Maine Conservation Corps in

Augusta as a coordinator of volunteers on a statewide basis.

The program, called SERVE--Maine (State Environmental

Resource Volunteer Effort for Maine), identifies volunteers

for outdoor or natural resource projects sponsored by

government agencies or nonprofit groups. As a person who is

blind, Steve thinks it's important for lots of organizations,

including the Corporation for National and Community Service,

to address inclusion. Steve feels his contributions are

important for the additional reason that, in his opinion, ``.

. . people with disabilities have been left on the sidelines

and pushed into isolation by a couple of different ideas that

people seem to have. One is that because maybe someone looks

different or acts differently or speaks differently, that

they're not as smart; and the other is that because someone

is disabled, they can't contribute anything, they need to be

helped. Those two ideas become very exclusionary.''

americorps*vista

Dawn Facka, AmeriCorps*VISTA Alumna 2001, Anchorage,

Alaska; current location: Charleston, South Carolina;

disability: hearing impaired.

Dawn Facka, a service-learning coordinator with

AmeriCorps*VISTA, advocates for people with disabilities and

serves as a role model for young men and women with

disabilities that come to serve in AmeriCorps Programs. In

addition, she teaches others about the importance of

inclusion and facilitates disability awareness and diversity

training to AmeriCorps*NCCC members. She strives to create a

work environment that is welcoming and understanding to those

individuals with disabilities by advocating for community

involvement and supporting organizations that support and

help individuals with disabilities. She says that ``If

AmeriCorps, had not opened the doors of opportunity to me, I

most likely would still be ashamed and embarrassed of who I

am and [how] society has labeled me. I would still be

apologizing to people who did not tolerate or accept my

hearing loss. I can't begin to show my gratitude . . . to

AmeriCorps for showing me another world.''

americorps*nccc

Joe Tierney, AmeriCorps*NCCC Alumnus 2001 and 2002,

Charleston, South Carolina; current location: Boston,

Massachusetts; disability: traumatic brain injury.

Joe Tierney dedicated two years of his life to service with

Americorps*NCCC. During these years he tutored children,

built houses, designed and built wheelchair ramps, surveyed

and mapped a historical graveyard, blazed trails, worked at a

camp for children and adults with disabilities, and much

more. Of his time there he writes, ``Throughout my service I

met some amazing individuals, traveled to some fascinating

locations, and learned a variety of skills, but most

importantly my service gave me the opportunity to recover,

the ability to experience life with a smile. I made the

decision to join AmeriCorps because I felt an obligation to

give back, I understood that I was very fortunate to have

recovered and that I would have never done it without the

help of many thoughtful, committed, competent individuals.''

learn and serve america

Jared (not his real name), Learn and Serve America Alumnus

2002, Hampshire, Massachusetts; current location: Hampshire,

Massachusetts; disability: significant disabilities.

Jared (not his real name), a high school student with

significant disabilities, participated fully in a water

quality testing initiative though a school-based service-

learning project in Western Massachusetts. During the

project, Jared spoke of all that he learned about water

quality and the effects on the environment. His family and

teachers were impressed with the project because it provided

Jared with a meaningful experience to give back to his

community as well as taught him vital life skills. His mother

speaks of the project as being one of the few opportunities

Jared has had to mingle with other students outside of

special education.

rsvp

Dean Homerick, RSVP Volunteer, current location: Lexington,

Ohio; disability: debilitating arthritis.

Dean Homerick began service as an RSVP volunteer as soon as

he became eligible--the day he turned 55. He is involved in

environmental issues and emergency operations. He volunteers

regularly at the Columbus Zoo, participating in education

programs to teach children about animals, as well as

volunteering at a local nature center and at the Ohio Bird

Sanctuary, where he edits a monthly newsletter. He also

volunteers for the American Red Cross and is the volunteer

coordinator for the Richland County Emergency Operations

Center, charged with alerting volunteers in the event of an

emergency.

corporation for national and community service

The Corporation for National and Community Service provides

opportunities for Americans of all ages and backgrounds to

serve their communities and country through three programs:

Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America. This

year, more than 1.6 million individuals will participate in

the Corporation's programs, helping thousands of nonprofit

organizations, faith- based groups, schools, and government

agencies build their capacity to meet critical local needs in

education, the environment, public safety, disaster relief,

and other areas. Together with the USA Freedom Corps, the

Corporation is working to build a culture of citizenship,

service, and responsibility in America.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Neal to handle the rest of the time.

Mr. Speaker, unlucky or not, 13 is the number before us. That's how many predominantly Sunni nations in the Middle East have declared in the past year that they want nuclear power. We know that Iran is building a nuclear capacity which it claims will be used solely for power generation. Iran is predominantly a Shiite nation. While both are Muslim, Sunni and Shiite are different. At the grass-roots level, everyday people intermarry and get along just fine, until the governments in power decide they want religious ideology to govern everyone.

Sunni-Shiite dominance was behind the Iran-Iraq war two decades ago when Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq to pledge U.S. support to Saddam Hussein. Today the Iraq war has inflamed Sunni-Shiite passions and U.S. forces are in the middle of it, fighting and dying in a fight that we shouldn't be in. There's been a lot in the news about Iran's nuclear program, including threats by the Vice President that Iran will never be permitted to acquire nuclear capacity. In other words, the administration's international diplomacy with Iran begins with an order from the U.S. military to lock and load. A military strike directly ordered by the administration, or indirectly sanctioned by the administration, is considered a foregone conclusion by many in the Middle East.

Given this, let's renew the bidding, because 13 other nations in the Middle East are not being threatened by the administration. In fact, quite the opposite is true. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor lays out the fact. I submit it for the Record.

[From the Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 1, 2007]

Middle East Racing to Nuclear Power--Shiite Iran's Ambitions Have

Spurred 13 Sunni States to Declare Atomic Energy Aims This Year

(By Dan Murphy)

Cairo.--This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern

country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power,

intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran's nuclear

agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover

for a weapons program.

Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim

states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are

reactions to Shiite Iran's high-profile nuclear bid, seen as

linked with Tehran's campaign for greater influence and

prestige throughout the Middle East.

``To have 13 states in the region say they're interested in

nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the

eye,'' says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior

nonproliferation official in the U.S. State Department who is

now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic

Studies in London. ``The Iranian angle is the reason.''

But economics are also behind this new push to explore

nuclear power, at least for some of the aspirants. Egypt's

oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources

to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much

more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived,

it's conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option

than traditional plants.

But analysts say the driver is Iran, which appears to be

moving ahead with its nuclear program despite sanctions and

threats of possible military action by the U.S. The Gulf

Cooperation Council, a group of Saudi Arabia and the five

Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, reversed a

longstanding opposition to nuclear power last year.

As the closest U.S. allies in the region and sitting on

vast oil wealth, these states had said they saw no need for

nuclear energy. But Fitzpatrick, as well as other analysts,

say these countries now see their own declarations of nuclear

intent as a way to contain Iran's influence. At least,

experts say, it signals to the U.S. how alarmed they are by a

nuclear Iran.

``The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout

the whole region,'' Jordan's King Abdullah, another U.S.

ally, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper early this year.

``Where I think Jordan was saying, `We'd like to have a

nuclear-free zone in the area,' . . . [now] everybody's going

for nuclear programs.''

Though the U.S. has been vociferous in its opposition to

Iran's nuclear bid, particularly since the country says it's

determined to establish its own nuclear fuel cycle, which

would dramatically increase its ability to build a nuclear

bomb, it has generally been tolerant of the nuclear ambitions

of its friends in the region.

``Those states that want to pursue peaceful nuclear energy

. . . [are] not a problem for us,'' State Department

spokesman Sean McCormack said in response to Egyptian

President Hosni Mubarak's announcement on Monday.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation

Policy Education Center in Washington and a former Defense

Department official focused on containing the spread of

nuclear weapons, says he finds that hands-off approach of the

Bush administration alarming.

``I think we're trying to put out a fire of proliferation

with a bucket of kerosene,'' he says. He said he recently

spoke with a senior administration official on the matter,

who argued that it was better for the U.S. to cooperate with

Egypt and other countries since, in the official's view,

nuclear power in these countries is ``inevitable'' and it's

better to be in a position to influence their choices and

monitor the process.

Egypt has had an on-again, off-again nuclear program since

the 1950s. In the 1960s, Egypt threatened to develop a bomb

largely out of anger over Israel's nuclear pursuit. Under Mr.

Mubarak, who has ruled since 1981, the country has been

consistent in saying it does not want nuclear weapons, and

Egypt has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to

declare the region a nuclear-weapons-free zone--a strategy it

uses to target Israel's nuclear weapons.

Today, the country has a 22-megawatt research reactor north

of Cairo that was built by an Argentine company and completed

in 1997. A drive to develop a power plant in the 1980s

stalled after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia.

In a nationally televised speech Monday, Mubarak said

nuclear power is an ``integral part of Egypt's national

security'' while also promising that the country would not

seek the bomb. Other Egyptian officials say the country is

planning on having a working reactor within a decade, though

analysts say that's an optimistic time line.

Egypt's nuclear plans have been reinvigorated in recent

years, with Mubarak's son, Gamal, widely seen in Egypt as his

father's favored successor, calling for the building of a

reactor. Mubarak discussed nuclear power cooperation on state

visits to Russia and China last year.

``They feel politically threatened by Iran's nuclear

program, they've pointed out rightly that Israel [hasn't

been] a member of [nonproliferation] treaties for many

years,'' says Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation expert at the

Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

``Of course there is economic logic: If they can sell

whatever oil they have for $93 a barrel instead of using it,

that's attractive . . . but it shouldn't be assumed that it's

all benign.''

For Egypt, the allure of nuclear power is apparent. Its oil

consumption is growing and electricity demand is growing at

about 7 percent a year.

``Egypt can absolutely make a legitimate case for nuclear

energy,'' says Mr. Fitzpatrick. ``Its reserves are dwindling,

it needs the oil and gas for export, and it needs to

diversify its energy resources.''

Even major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia are, along

with Iran, arguing that they need nuclear power. They say

it's better to sell their oil than to burn it at home.

But some analysts argue that nuclear power remains an

economic loser. Mr. Sokolski says that when state subsidies

to nuclear power are removed, nuclear plants are not

economically viable. ``If it was, private banks would be

financing nuclear plants without loan guarantees. They can't

do it and make money yet.''

Of course whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up,

particularly in the Middle East, concerns about the possible

spread of nuclear weapons are not far behind. Experts who

follow the nuclear weapons question say assurances of only

pursuing peaceful objectives, as have been given by all the

countries pursuing nuclear power, Iran included, shouldn't be

taken at face value.

``Although Egypt does not feel directly threatened by Iran,

it does feel its own power and influence in the region

threatened by a resurgent nuclear armed Iran,'' says

Fitzpatrick.

``There are a lot of countries in the region who have

expressed interest in nuclear power, and I think there are

good reasons to be concerned about this interest and the

timing of this interest,'' says Mr. Wolfsthal. ``Nuclear

power has had economic arguments in its favor for a decade,

but the fact is these programs are only coming to a head in

light of the Iranian program.''

Wolfsthal says the key issues in the coming years will be

whether Egypt contracts a turn-key plant from a foreign

company--which would minimize the amount of skill and

technology transferred to Egyptian engineers--or if it will

pursue nuclear partnerships that broaden its knowledge and

skills bases.

Will they pursue their own nuclear fuel cycle, which, he

says, would make little economic sense and would be a clear

``red flag'' of intent to develop a weapon, or will they

buy nuclear fuel from abroad? ``If you are interested in

having the capability of building a nuclear weapon, the best

way to start is by building up your nuclear power

infrastructure,'' he says. ``The same people that help you

design and build nuclear reactors have many of the skill sets

you will need if you are going to build a nuclear weapon.''

Fitzpatrick agrees that if Egypt promises not to develop a

nuclear fuel cycle and would agree to more intrusive

inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there

would be little reason for concern, though he doubts those

commitments will be made. ``Egypt won't take those steps

because it says its hands can't be bound anymore while

Israel's hands are unbound. They already resent the nuclear

asymmetry with Israel, and a nuclear armed Iran on top of

that adds too much for them.''

The conclusion is clear: a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, but a nuclear Israel, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear India, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear Yemen, a nuclear Saudi Arabia and nuclear all the others, well, that's a different story.

There was a time when world leaders hoped for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Instead, while we try to shoot our way to peace in Iraq, other world leaders are watching the creation of a nuclear excess zone in the Middle East. We threaten Iran, while we encourage the others.

The President has used two terms to implement a nuclear double standard. Today's U.S. friends can have nuclear power because they really only intend to use it for power generation. But today's U.S. foes must be stopped from acquiring nuclear power because they might use it in a bad way.

Today's friend is the President's standard for supporting the proliferation of nuclear capacity in the world.

Timing is everything. Not many years ago, Iran was our friend. Under the Shah of Iran, maybe they should have started their nuclear work sooner because that would have met the President's definition for a nation deserving of nuclear power.

But let's not forget Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam. He may not have been our friend that day, but we sure acted like it.

Today Pakistan is in political crisis. And we know they have nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power. What will the President do about it? His State Department spokesman said the other day the administration doesn't have a problem with nations developing peaceful nuclear energy. That's diplomatic-speak for today's U.S. friends get to develop nuclear energy, while today's U.S. foes get threatened with bunker-buster bombs. The administration has been drumbeating for months against Iran, but how much have we heard about the other 13 nations who intend to develop nuclear capacity?

A double standard is no standard at all. And history shows that in the Middle East, today's friend can be tomorrow's foe. What kind of policy is that?

The President has destroyed the philosophy, the practicality, and the prudence of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Instead he has embarked on a new policy that will guarantee, that will guarantee, that we live in a much more dangerous world.

So much for security from this administration.

Madam Speaker, I am enormously proud to rise in celebration of the 30th anniversary of one of Seattle's finest start- ups, one that is valued throughout the country today. You may initially think I am speaking of Boeing, or UPS, REI or Starbucks. Rather, I refer to the CASA movement--Court Appointed Special Advocates.

Every year more than 800,000 children enter the court system after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care. They have not committed any crime, instead, they are simply child victims of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. It is up to a judge to decide their futures-- what healing services they will receive, where they should live and with whom, and if they can be safe. In order to reach such critical decisions, judges need to be fully informed about the child's situation.

In 1977, King County Superior Court Judge David W. Soukup of Seattle, Washington believed that he was not getting all of the facts he needed to make well-informed decisions affecting the futures of children coming before him in child welfare cases. The judge convened a meeting of community representatives to discuss his idea for recruiting citizen volunteers to do the detailed research that judges could not. Judge Soukup envisioned trained volunteers who would speak to the children and their teachers, therapists, foster parents, and family members, then write reports for the court including the volunteer's recommendations for the child's best interests. This vision was the impetus for the first CASA program.

Before coming to Congress, I sometimes had occasion to testify as an expert witness in Judge Soukup's courtroom. He was both a thorough and caring jurist. He explained that he founded the CASA movement because he wanted someone in his courtroom whose only job was to provide a voice for the children. Caseworkers are obligated to their agency, the parent, and others. An attorney appointed as the child's legal representative cannot testify about privileged, and potentially harmful, information that the child may have revealed. Attorney guardians ad litem simply could not afford the time to do a thorough investigation of all the facts, interview significant adults in the child's life, and advocate for the mental and social needs of the child.

Judge Soukup's innovative vision has grown to become a strong and respected national program of advocacy for children. It is estimated that CASA volunteers serve 30 percent of children who are in foster care and court systems because of abuse and neglect. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the founding of that first CASA program in Seattle--it is also the year in which the two millionth child will be served by a CASA volunteer.

Many of my colleagues are equally proud and supportive of the remarkable work that CASA volunteers perform within their districts to assure that a child's needs are recognized and addressed by the courts and social service systems. There are more than 900 CASA programs in 49 states. Nearly 60,000 CASA and volunteer guardians ad litem served 220,000 children in 2006 alone.

Several studies demonstrate the effectiveness of CASA advocacy for children. Judges appoint CASA volunteers to their most difficult cases, in which children face an even higher-than-normal factor of risk. In spite of the difficulty of their cases, children with a CASA volunteer are substantially less likely to spend more than three years in foster care or ever to re-enter foster care. A greater number of targeted services are ordered for children and their families when the child has a volunteer. In four out of five cases, all or almost all of the CASA volunteers' recommendations are accepted by the court. Judges today identify a great need for more volunteers to be assigned to children's cases.

I thank Judge Soukup for his inspiration. He must feel enormously rewarded by the knowledge that his idea has helped provide better outcomes for two million children today. Congratulations to the King County Dependency CASA Program on this 30th anniversary. I applaud the National CASA Association for its leadership in expanding that single program in Seattle to more than 900 offices in 49 states today. I salute Washington State CASA, also located in Seattle, for undertaking the largest expansion of CASA within the state. Finally, I congratulate and thank the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have served as CASA volunteers over these last 30 years for their steadfast advocacy to assure that the interests

and needs of the children remain the focus of our child welfare and court systems.

Mr. Speaker, what makes America work is America's workers.

Today, America is going to work harder to protect its workers. We currently have a program that was put together in the middle of the night in 2002 in the midst of the fast track legislation, and it was never intended to work.

This bill provides protection for almost double the number of workers covered by that program. This measure before us also improves a more basic protection for all jobless workers, unemployment insurance. Only one-third of America's unemployed now receive unemployment benefits, and coverage rates for low-wage and part-time workers are considerably lower.

This bill provides up to $7 billion to States implementing specific policies designed to eliminate unnecessary barriers. We ask States to count a worker's most recent wages when determining their eligibility. We ask States to end discrimination against part-time workers. And we ask them not to disqualify workers who must leave work for compelling family reasons like domestic violence or taking care of a sick child or following a spouse whose job has moved.

These are State options. We are not requiring them to do anything. If they don't want it, they don't have to have the money. But we are giving them the opportunity to take care of their unemployed workers. The improvements promise to provide unemployment benefits to over half a million jobless workers if adopted in every State. Women particularly stand to gain from this bill because they are more likely to work in part-time or low-wage jobs and are more likely to leave for family reasons. The cost of supporting these reforms is fully offset by extending an unemployment tax that has been on the books for 30 years, and that President Bush is specifically asking us to continue. Any talk about increasing taxes is simply empty rhetoric from the other side. They know it, because the last time it was extended, they did it on their watch.

Mr. Speaker, a vote in favor of this bill should be the easiest vote that

every Member of Congress takes this year.

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for proposing a substitute today. It's healthy for America to see two different views on how we should help dislocated workers.

Democrats want to help more workers who lose their jobs because of trade, especially workers providing services. The Republican substitute says no to helping those workers.

Democrats want to assure more dislocated workers have an opportunity to receive training. The Republican substitute would, instead, cap the amount of training any worker can receive, not to go on and finish a program.

Democrats want to assure health care coverage is affordable for workers losing their jobs by paying 85 percent of their premium. The Republican substitute said, well, 65 wasn't enough, but we'll give you 70. So again, they cut the workers short.

Democrats want a better wage insurance program to help trade-affected workers who are reemployed in jobs that pay less than their prior employment. The Republican substitute guts the program as it presently exists and instead only provides a benefit to those at the very lowest wage jobs.

Republicans don't care if workers have a chance to get a living-wage job; they want to force people back to minimum-wage jobs. Democrats want to help States improve unemployment insurance for all workers who are denied unfairly their benefits, especially women. The Republican substitute goes in the opposite direction by allowing the administration to approve waivers from States that could deny more jobless workers unemployment insurance.

In short, the Democrats want to help workers navigate the global economy. The Republican substitute, on the other hand, tells workers, well, you're still, more or less, on your own.

After this substitute is defeated, I'm hopeful that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ultimately join us in passing a bill to assist America's workers when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Hodes of New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Higgins of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mrs. McCarthy of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Louisiana keeps worrying about the fact that we are mischaracterizing his amendment. I want to take a specific because the whole question of putting a cap on training benefits is a cut in benefits from what we presently have. The unworkable thing that was in the law before, when you cap at $4,000 the amount per year that a worker can get, a total of $8,000 over a 2-year period, in Minnesota and Maine, 50 percent of the workers spend $10,000. Thirty percent of the TAA workers in Pennsylvania spend more than $15,000 over 10 years. Twenty-five percent of the people in South Carolina spend over $15,000. Eighty percent of the workers in Nebraska spend more than $10,000.

Now, when you put that cap on there, you are saying to a 45- or 50- year-old worker who used to make 35, 40, 45, 50, $55,000, we are not going to give you sufficient money to really retrain for a job that you had equivalent in pay before. You are saying whatever you can get for four grand, fine, that's it. But if it takes more than that, well, you're on your own.

This bill is designed to try and help workers who were the middle class in this country, people who were making livable wages. Now, you also say in your bill that your wage insurance, it used to be in the present bill if you were over 50 and your job was making less than $50,000 a year, you could receive up to an additional $5,000 if you took a job that paid less than you were making before.

Now, what you've done in this bill, in this amendment you offer, you say we will give you a minimum wage job, and if you don't make an additional $2.40 above that minimum wage in your State, then we will sort of give you a little cushion up to that $2.40. That is pushing people to low-wage jobs. You are taking those $50,000-a-year people who were working in auto factories and working in manufacturing jobs across this country and you are saying, go out and get yourself a minimum wage job and we'll give you an extra $2.40 an hour. My, aren't we generous.

And you understand why we talk about you gutting what miserable program you put in place in the first place.

This bill that we have put together here today is one that will allow States, and the reason why we put additional money in for training is no one could use it before. They will under our bill.

I wish you and I could have a debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Sestak, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Would the gentleman yield?

You will concede that the Department of Labor says that no State ran out of money, but that GAO said that nine States ran out of money, that there is an argument about how the States keep their books, will you not?

I hope you understand we put in more money because we hoped to cover more people.

If we change some of the regulations, it will be more accessible to people.

Mr. Speaker, do you have the right to close? I think you have the right to close.

We have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time that we have to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

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

Mr. Speaker, we've been here before. In the 1920s, America spied on its citizens and arrested thousands because they advocated for change. In the 1950s, America black-listed innocent Americans whose only crime was to run afoul of Senator Joe McCarthy. In the 1970s, America illegally spied on people in the civil rights and the Vietnam antiwar movements, including Dr. Martin Luther King.

The transgressions were so egregious that a courageous Senator Frank Church from Idaho led a search for truth and affirmation of freedom. In the end, the Congress passed FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA provides a swift and certain means for America to meet any threat without threatening America's freedoms. But this administration seems it cannot defend America without demolishing America's freedoms.

The President wants the Congress to undermine FISA with new legislation that would make it easy to spy on any American, just like the 1920s, the 1950s and the 1970s. These are not the good old days, and I oppose any attempt to use fear to subvert freedom.

We can keep America safe without sacrificing America in the process. I urge my colleagues to remember why FISA was created and why we should not neuter it in the near future.

Madam Speaker, this is the choice we have to make today. We stand up for our children and their future or we stand down with the President and tobacco companies. Good health or no health for millions of poor and disadvantaged children across America--that is what's at stake today.

The President will spend $50 billion in 5 months on a war in Iraq, but he won't spend $35 billion over 5 years on poor and vulnerable kids. We pay for SCRIP but we will keep paying for the war for decades to come. We take care of our children while the President passes his war costs on to our children, and grandchildren.

We can vote to provide access to quality, affordable health care for our Nation's children by voting to override this veto, or we can vote to sit back and watch the economic security of our working families erode day by day, as this Administration has done.

The President said he is using his veto pen on SCRIP to show he is relevant, but with the stroke of a pen he has merely shown he is irresponsible with the health and welfare of America's future.

Let's set a good example for our children and support a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, health care bill that will get us one step closer to universal coverage for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about a surge in Iraq the President is not talking about. An outbreak of cholera is spreading across the country, harming and killing innocent Iraqi people. Five hundred new cases were confirmed in Kirkuk in the last 5 days.

The World Health Organization says there have only been 12 deaths so far, but there are 3,000 confirmed cases and 30,000 more Iraqis are sick. As a medical doctor, let me tell you that cholera is caused by human waste contaminating the water supply. In other words, the sewage treatment plants that we were supposed to rebuild that worked prewar are still not working after the surge. And innocent Iraqis are suffering.

When a Seattle church group sent me to visit Iraq in 2002, they asked me to see firsthand how Iraqi children were suffering from the effects of the first war in 1990, the subsequent economic sanctions and how their suffering would only get worse in a new war. They were right.

Cholera is the latest example of a failed war. Instead of talking about the surge, the President should be talking about the scourge of cholera.

Madam Speaker, Seattle recently lost a prominent and much loved citizen, Walt Crowley. I would like to insert in the Record a statement on his passing from HistoryLink, an impressive organization Walt helped to found.

Remembering Walt

Walt Crowley, visionary cofounder of HistoryLink.org,

passed away on September 21, 2007. Looking back at the rich

tapestry of his life and work, one sees that it would take an

encyclopedia to document how much of an effect he had upon

the city of Seattle and on the state of Washington.

Fortunately--and thanks to his efforts--we can do that here

at HistoryLink.org, the Online Encyclopedia of Washington

State History.

Walt moved to Seattle at the age of 14, when Boeing hired

his father. Many of the friends and colleagues who knew him

the longest probably met him during his days at the Helix,

Seattle's first underground newspaper, for which Walt wrote,

cartooned, edited, and even sold copies of out on the street.

Whether it was at a social gathering, during a street march,

on the campaign trail, or even in the midst of riots, Walt

touched the lives of many people, and made numerous

friendships that lasted for decades.

Walt's passion for civic activism led to a career in city

politics. During a sit-in protest at Seattle City Hall, Mayor

Wes Uhlman was so impressed with the young man's wit and

political savvy that he hired him. Over the next few years,

Walt worked in various city departments, most notably as

deputy director of the Office of Policy and Planning, where

he often advocated for historic preservation. His love for

Seattle grew, based on his awareness of its past.

The Write Stuff

His skills as a writer opened up new vistas in his career

when he formed Crowley Associates Inc. along with Marie

McCaffrey, whom he would later marry. The two collaborated on

books about the Seattle Aquarium and Pioneer Square, and

provided writing and advertising services to numerous

political campaigns, voter initiatives, and labor unions.

Walt also wrote articles for the Seattle Weekly and was

brought further into the public eye when he was hired to

conduct biweekly ``Point-Counterpoint'' debates with

conservative activist John Carlson on KIRO-TV News.

But it was the history muse that inspired Walt's greatest

creative output. His introduction to historical research came

when he was hired to write a history of the Rainier Club. He

followed this with books about Seattle University, Metro

Transit, and Group

Health Cooperative, as well as two of his proudest

accomplishments, Rites of Passage: A Memoir of the Sixties in

Seattle and The National Trust Guide: Seattle.

In 1997, he and local historian Paul Dorpat, a dear friend

and colleague from their days together at the Helix, tossed

around the idea of publishing an encyclopedia of King County

history. A book of this size and scope had not been published

since Clarence Bagley's tome, written more than 70 years

before. Worried that such a venture might prove to be too

unwieldy, Walt's wife, Marie, suggested that an online

encyclopedia would be a more suitable way to keep and

maintain the historical record. Work soon began, and the rest

is history . . . or shall we say, HistoryLink.

Making History

When HistoryLink launched in 1998, it was the first

encyclopedia of community history created expressly for the

Internet--an accomplishment that made Walt exceedingly proud.

But being the first meant blazing trails where no historians

had gone before, not only in designing and organizing the

online encyclopedia, but also in competing for funding in a

dot-com world. Walt always referred to our efforts as

``venture socialism.''

Helped along by a hand-picked staff--many of whom still

write, edit, and contribute to the site--as well as by a

topnotch board of trustees, HistoryLink.org grew to become a

success, and in 2003 expanded its coverage statewide. Today

it receives more than four million hits a month. It is read

by students, teachers, journalists, genealogists, history

buffs, and anybody who wants to know more about the people

and events that shaped Washington's growth and development.

Besides penning some of HistoryLink's books, Walt wrote a

large number of essays and editorials on topics that appealed

to his interests, including state politics, political shifts,

mayoral transitions, municipal ownership, civil violence,

Seattle's neighborhoods, streetcars, monorails, aviation, the

Space Needle, and even flying saucers. With such a wealth of

Walt's words and knowledge and insight contained in our site,

we here at HistoryLink.org take comfort in the fact that as

we continue to grow and expand our content, we will never

lose his voice--even though we have lost a colleague, a

mentor, and most of all, our friend.