Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day. Today, October 2, marks the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. To honor him, the United Nations approved a resolution that, beginning today, designates October 2 as International Day of Nonviolence.

It's a start, one that was inspired by Sonia Gandhi after she successfully led an international conference called ``Peace, Nonviolence and Empowerment--Gandhian Philosophy in the 21st Century.'' There is a yearning for peace, for an end to world hunger and poverty, and a world in which peace and justice for all is not a dream but a reality.

Gandhi showed us the way. He said: ``Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.''

Gandhi's philosophy is a legacy he left to benefit the whole world. It is up to us to preserve this great gift. And I will do my part. I have introduced House Resolution 653 to express the sense of the Congress that the concept of nonviolence and the teaching of Gandhi remain relevant in this world.

As Gandhi himself said: ``Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.''

The U.N. resolution itself shows Gandhi's remarkable ability to change the world. A record 143 nations co-sponsored the U.N. resolution, Gandhi uniting us again.

Let us resolve to honor his memory by dedicating ourselves to Gandhi's philosophy of peace through nonviolence. It is the only path to true peace in the world.

Mr. Speaker, out of a sense of duty and a growing fear, I rise to say that I hear the drumbeats of war coming again from this administration. This time, Iran is in the crosshairs.

It's ironic that the alarm has sounded today, the birth date of Mahatma Gandhi, and the United Nation's first World Nonviolence Day in honor of Gandhi's commitment to peace.

Perhaps the contrast between the man of peace and an administration of war will underscore the need and the urgency for Congress to act before the President orders a military strike.

I listened and sounded the alarm in 2002 regarding Iraq. But the President and the Vice President had already set in motion their invasion plan, and those who got in the way were called unpatriotic and uncaring or worse. Back then, too many in the media, the Congress and across the Nation were willing to accept a war without justification or justice. Now, at least the American people overwhelmingly recognize the tragic consequences of the Iraq war and the occupation.

At least one development in 2008 may make this time different than 2002. The Internet has grown exponentially. Today, credible and factual information is readily available. The blogosphere is on fire sounding alarm, and we will have no one to blame except ourselves if we let this administration take us to war in Iran. Go to your computer and Google ``Iran war.'' The search yields 74 million hits. Let me read a few of the top search results:

Day One: ``The War with Iran.''

``Iran: The next war,'' in the Rolling Stone.

``America's hidden war with Iran,'' Newsweek.

``Is U.S.-Iran war inevitable?'' Time magazine.

``The Iran plans,'' the New Yorker.

And ``The U.S. trains gulf Air Forces for war against Iran.''

Some see the same signs as I do, and they are writing across a broad spectrum of the media, trying to be heard above the beats of war. However, the President and Vice President are using friendly fire from the right-wing media to lull the Americans to sleep, while they lay the groundwork and shop for a Gulf of Tonkin-like provocation to launch a military strike.

Journalist Tim Shipman of the Telegraph in London writes ``American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law. Some U.S. diplomats believe the exercise will boost calls for military action by neoconservatives inside and outside the administration.''

In the New Yorker, renowned journalist Seymour Hirsh says, ``The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon.

Hirsch adds, ``A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what are called short, sharp incursions by American special forces into suspected Iranian training camps. Cheney is devoted to this, no question.''

Now, does that sound like a diplomatic solution to you?

For at least a year we've been lulled into believing that the administration cannot fool the American people again. But I say this is just the kind of wishful thinking this administration is hoping for. It gives them time to spin the rhetoric and plot the missile tracks into Iran.

We stand on the brink of a conflagration in the Middle East, spreading from Iraq to Iran, to Pakistan and Afghanistan and the entire region. The legacy of this administration could be wars without ends and wars without borders.

Waiting for the next election may be too late; 475 days is a long time.

As a medical doctor, I was trained to listen to the patient. I've been listening to this President, and he's telling us that Iran is his next military target. Congress is all that stands in the way of this President carrying out a bombing strike of how many sources, how many sites we don't know. And I urge the House to act before it is too late.

We need a resolution that requires the President to come back to the Congress before any act of war is taken against Iran.

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the President intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq throughout the remainder of his term and that he intends for the U.S. to perpetually occupy Iraq via massive and permanent military bases he has ordered built. We have just learned of the staggering loss of life as a result of this war.

According to a new and incredible study, the number of civilians killed in Iraq since the war began now exceeds 1 million Iraqi people. The Iraqi civilian death toll exceeds the death toll from the genocide in Rwanda. For years, we and others said we didn't know how bad it was in Rwanda. With this report, that excuse is no longer valid in Iraq.

The official death toll in Iraq, fewer than 100,000 is what the official number is, has long been considered fictitious by humanitarian and other international organizations. Now we are forced to confront evidence that puts the death toll above 1 million Iraqis.

Opinion Research Business, a respected and mainstream London-based research company that works for major corporations and government clients, including the U.K.'s Conservative Party, conducted the survey in August. I point this out to inoculate my colleagues, the media and the American

people from the venom that will spew from this for those who want to keep the real cost of this war in human lives as far from public view as possible, because no one who knows the truth could stand and let it go on.

Joshua Holland, a journalist at AlterNet, broke the news online the other day. I enter his story into the Record, which includes a link directly to the Opinion Research site where people can read the entire research survey online. It was conducted in 15 out of Iraq's 18 provinces during mid August.

In his speech last week, the President referred to Anbar Province as a model of success. The research company did not even visit Anbar or Karbala for security reasons. And they were not allowed to conduct their field research in Irbil.

While the President is willing to stand up and say that he sees signs of success, the survey found that in Baghdad alone, almost half the houses say they have lost at least one member of their family. That's the reality in the largest Iraqi city, which has the largest concentration of U.S. military forces. Baghdad may have a fortified green zone for U.S. diplomats and Iraqi government officials, but the rest of the people live in a bloody red zone, where the killing has claimed someone from 50 percent of the households.

The President cannot claim signs of success in Iraq when his stubborn determination to remain is dissolving Baghdad into a dead zone. The civilian carnage is not isolated in Baghdad. Other major cities also registered dramatic civilian murder rates that would make the world weep at the staggering loss of humanity occurring in Iraq.

For a long time, I and other Members have spoken out about the number of U.S. soldiers killed or gravely wounded in Iraq, and we must never forget the sacrifices made by American soldiers and the painful losses suffered by American families across this country. But Congress must not ignore the overwhelming loss of life in Iraq. News that 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed should compel us to get the U.S. forces out of Iraq immediately.

I know and respect many of my Republican colleagues. Our politics may differ, but our principle to protect innocent people does not. How many more Iraqis must die? The carnage will continue as long as Republicans in Congress wear the blinders that the President hands out to enforce allegiance to his blind and bloody armed occupation in Iraq.

For the sake of humanity, remove the blinders and speak the truth to power. The Iraq war is a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale that exceeds the genocide in Rwanda. We claimed we didn't know about Rwanda. We can't claim that any more about Iraq

[From AlterNet, Sept. 17, 2007]

Iraq Death Toll Rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian Killing Fields

(By Joshua Holland)

A new study estimates that 1.2 million Iraqis have met

violent deaths since Bush and Cheney chose to invade.

According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met

violent deaths since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate

of war-related fatalities yet. The study was done by the

British polling firm ORB, which conducted face-to-face

interviews with a sample of over 1,700 Iraqi adults in 15 of

Iraq's 18 provinces. Two provinces--al-Anbar and Karbala--

were too dangerous to canvas, and officials in a third,

Irbil, didn't give the researchers a permit to do their work.

The study's margin of error was plus-minus 2.4 percent. Field

workers asked residents how many members of their own

household had been killed since the invasion. More than one

in five respondents said that at least one person in their

home had been murdered since March of 2003. One in three

Iraqis also said that at least some neighbors ``actually

living on [their] street'' had fled the carnage, with around

half of those having left the country.

In Baghdad, almost half of those interviewed reported at

least one violent death in their household.

Before the study's release, the highest estimate of Iraqi

deaths had been around 650,000 in the landmark Johns Hopkins'

study published in the Lancet, a highly respected and peer-

reviewed British medical journal. Unlike that study, which

measured the difference in deaths from all causes during the

first three years of the occupation with the mortality rate

that existed prior to the invasion, the ORB poll looked only

at deaths due to violence.

The poll's findings are in line with the rolling estimate

maintained on the Just Foreign Policy website, based on the

Johns Hopkins' data, that stands at just over 1 million

Iraqis killed as of this writing.

These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of

Iraq rivals the great crimes of the last century--the human

toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the

Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7

million) who died in Cambodia's infamous ``Killing Fields''

during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

While the stunning figures should play a major role in the

debate over continuing the occupation, they probably won't.

That's because there are three distinct versions of events in

Iraq--the bloody criminal nightmare that the ``reality-based

community'' has to grapple with, the picture the commercial

media portrays and the war that the occupation's last

supporters have conjured up out of thin air. Similarly,

American discourse has also developed three different levels

of Iraqi casualties. There's the approximately 1 million

killed according to the best epidemiological research

conducted by one of the world's most prestigious scientific

institutions, there's the 75,000-80,000 (based on news

reports) the Washington Post and other commercial media

allow, and there's the clean and antiseptic blood-free war

the administration claims to have fought (recall that they

dismissed the Lancet findings out of hand and yet offered no

numbers of their own). Here's the troubling thing, and one

reason why opposition to the war isn't even more intense than

it is: Americans were asked in an AP poll conducted earlier

this year how many Iraqi civilians they thought had been

killed as a result of the invasion and occupation, and the

median answer they gave was 9,890. That's less than a third

of the number of civilian deaths confirmed by U.N. monitors

in 2006 alone.

Most of that disconnect is probably a result of American

exceptionalism--the United States is, by definition, the good

guy, and good guys don't launch wars of choice that result in

over a million people being massacred. Never mind that that's

exactly what the data show; acknowledging as much creates

intolerable cognitive dissonance for most Americans, so as a

nation, we won't.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on passage of the conference report on H.R. 2669. Were I able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on this important bill.

Furthermore, I was also unable to vote for final passage of H.R. 1908. Were I able, I would have voted ``aye'' on this legislation, noting that while the bill is not perfect, the Congress must continue to consider legislation to reform our patent laws. I look forward to considering a more refined product when this bill is next before the House.

Mr. Speaker, when the President arrived in Australia the other day, he told the prime minister, quote, ``We're kicking ass'' in Iraq. It is a clear sign that he intends to keep a massive U.S. military force in Iraq as long as he remains in office. And he will make it official administration policy next week. ``We're Kicking Ass in Iraq'' might be the headline of the report the White House is writing for General Petraeus to deliver to the Congress next week.

It is supposed to be an objective military assessment, but the President has declared it will be a White House spin document, as usual. Here's what the President's ``kick ass'' assessment translates to on the ground: 10 U.S. soldiers killed this week; 793 U.S. soldiers killed so far this year; 3,752 U.S. soldiers killed since the beginning of the war; and 27,186 U.S. soldiers wounded since the beginning of the war. And, 71,000 documented Iraq civilian deaths since the beginning of the war, although the actual number is much higher.

As the Times of India newspaper said today, Iraq is getting worse day after day after day. We don't even know how bad things really are.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit the other day demanding the U.S. release military documents concerning the number of innocent civilians killed by the U.S. forces. They fear the government is hiding the human cost of war. We don't know, but reliable information does exist.

There is plenty of factual information for the President to rely on, but he won't. An independent commission of retired U.S. generals released a report today that concludes that the Iraqi national police force is so corrupt the force should be disbanded. These U.S. military experts concluded that Iraq's Army over the next 18 months, ``Cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven.''

The GAO released its own independent study showing the Iraq Government has reached only three of the 18 benchmarks established as part of the U.S. continuing to fund the war. In case anyone thinks that achieving three of 18 isn't too bad, let me tell you what they are.

The first benchmark we achieved was passing a law that legally protects the rights of minority parties in Iraq. Except the minority Sunni population remains outside the political situation totally. The other two benchmarks the Iraqi Government achieved was setting up security and public relations offices to support the military escalation. But the White House will use the military brass to paint a much rosier picture next week in its report to the Congress.

Besides the kick-ass assessment by the President, there have been recent reports trying to bolster the administration's position. I enter into the Record at this point a story appearing in today's Washington Post. It's on page 16, but it ought to be on page 1. The headline is: ``Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq. Military Statistics Called Into Question.'' I urge everyone to read this important news story. The only conclusion one can reach is, here we go again.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2007]

Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq--Military Statistics Called Into

Question

(By Karen DeYoung)

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased

sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from

many experts within and outside the government, who contend

that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and

selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush

administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In

congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus,

the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75

percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior

U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq

were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week

in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent

between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi

figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government

statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of

cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the

numbers--most of which are classified--are often confusing

and contradictory. ``Let's just say that there are several

different sources within the administration on violence, and

those sources do not agree,'' Comptroller General David

Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government

Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and

conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they

said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the

CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those

conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic

National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The intelligence community has its own problems with

military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing

aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE

puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat,

sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence

official in Washington. ``If a bullet went through the back

of the head, it's sectarian,'' the official said. ``If it

went through the front, it's criminal.''

``Depending on which numbers you pick,'' he said, ``you get

a different outcome.'' Analysts found ``trend lines . . .

going in different directions'' compared with previous years,

when numbers in different categories varied widely but

trended in the same direction. ``It began to look like

spaghetti.''

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was

escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern

Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted

last month in the assassination of two southern provincial

governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad

headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those

attacks are not included in the military's statistics.

``Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-

Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain

instances,'' the spokesman said, ``we do not track this data

to any significant degree.''

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen--recruited to battle

Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda--are also excluded from the U.S.

military's calculation of violence levels.

The administration has not given up trying to demonstrate

that Iraq is moving toward political reconciliation.

Testifying with Petraeus next week, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq

Ryan C. Crocker is expected to report that top Shiite, Sunni

and Kurdish leaders agreed last month to work together on key

legislation demanded by Congress. If all goes as U.S.

officials hope, Crocker will also be able to point to a visit

today to the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province by ministers

in the Shiite-dominated government--perhaps including Prime

Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to a senior U.S. official

involved in Iraq policy. The ministers plan to hand Anbar's

governor $70 million in new development funds, the official

said.

But most of the administration's case will rest on security

data, according to military, intelligence and diplomatic

officials who would not speak on the record before the

Petraeus-Crocker testimony. Several Republican and Democratic

lawmakers who were offered military statistics during Baghdad

visits in August said they had been convinced that Bush's new

strategy, and the 162,000 troops carrying it out, has

produced enough results to merit more time.

Challenges to how military and intelligence statistics are

tallied and used have been a staple of the Iraq war. In its

December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group

identified ``significant underreporting of violence,'' noting

that ``a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an

attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian

attack, that assault does not make it into the data base.''

The report concluded that ``good policy is difficult to make

when information is systematically collected in a way that

minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.''

Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some

government agencies have called the military's findings into

question. The Associated Press last week counted 1,809

civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly

total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since

the AP began collecting data in April 2005.

The GAO report found that ``average number of daily attacks

against civilians have remained unchanged from February to

July 2007,'' a conclusion that the military said was skewed

because it did not include dramatic, up-to-date information

from August.

Juan R.I. Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University

of Michigan who is critical of U.S. policy, said that most

independent counts ``do not agree with Pentagon estimates

about drops in civilian deaths.''

In a letter last week to the leadership of both parties, a

group of influential academics and former Clinton

administration officials called on Congress to examine ``the

exact nature and methodology that is being used to track the

security situation in Iraq and specifically the assertions

that sectarian violence is down.''

The controversy centers as much on what is counted--attacks

on civilians vs. attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops, numbers of

attacks vs. numbers of casualties, sectarian vs. intrasect

battles, daily numbers vs. monthly averages--as on the

numbers themselves.

The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian

deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them

out of context. In an e-mailed response to questions last

weekend, an MNF-I spokesman said that while trends were

favorable, ``exact monthly figures cannot be provided'' for

attacks against civilians or other categories of violence in

2006 or 2007, either in Baghdad or for the country overall.

``MNF-I makes every attempt to ensure it captures the most

comprehensive, accurate, and valid data on civilian and

sectarian deaths,'' the spokesman wrote. ``However, there is

not one central place for data or information. . . . This

means there can be variations when different organizations

examine this information.''

In a follow-up message yesterday, the spokesman said that

the non-release policy had been changed this week but that

the numbers were still being put ``in the right context.''

Attacks labeled ``sectarian'' are among the few statistics

the military has consistently published in recent years,

although the totals are regularly recalculated. The number of

monthly ``sectarian murders and incidents'' in the last six

months of 2006, listed in the Pentagon's quarterly Iraq

report published in June, was substantially higher each month

than in the Pentagon's March report. MNF-I said that

``reports from un-reported/not-yet reported past incidences

as well as clarification/corrections on reports already

received'' are ``likely to contribute to changes.''

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that

sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent ``since last

year,'' the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S.

journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail,

MNF-I said that ``last year'' referred to December 2006, when

attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however--before U.S. troop strength was increased

under Bush's strategy--the number had dropped to 600, only

slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about

where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a

slight increase in April and May ``but trending back down in

June-July.''

Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was

certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in

the interview with the Australian paper, which did not

publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the

White House fact sheet.

When a member of the National Intelligence Council visited

Baghdad this summer to review a draft of the intelligence

estimate on Iraq, Petraeus argued that its negative judgments

did not reflect recent improvements. At least one new

sentence was added to the final version, noting that

``overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven

of the last nine weeks.''

A senior military intelligence official in Baghdad deemed

it ``odd'' that ``marginal'' security improvements were

reflected in an estimate assessing the previous seven months

and projecting the next six to 12 months. He attributed the

change to a desire to provide Petraeus with ammunition for

his congressional testimony.

The intelligence official in Washington, however, described

the Baghdad consultation as standard in the NIE drafting

process and said that the ``new information'' did not change

the estimate's conclusions. The overall assessment was that

the security situation in Iraq since January ``was still

getting worse,'' he said, ``but not as fast.''

We're kicking ass is the kind of assessment you'd hear at a football game, and the PR game is clearly on by this President and his minions. They will claim progress next week and tease the American people with talk of token U.S. troop reductions. But because it's coming from this White

House, the only thing certain about next week is that it will be their latest attempt to try to mislead us into believing there are enough bullets and bombs, money and U.S. blood to prevail in Iraq.

The best military in the world is being run into the ground by this President. That's the only truth the evidence supports. Don't believe anything else. The American people had it right in November, and they still have it right today.

The U.S. must end its occupation. There is no other choice for this country, except to continue to shed the blood of our people and waste the resources of this country in Mr. Bush's failure.

Madam Speaker, as we enter this period when the President is going to come before us and ask us to extend the surge in Iraq, we ought to hear the story of Jamie Dean.

Jamie Dean was a 29-year-old who came from Hollywood, Maryland. He enlisted and served 4 years, including 1 year in Afghanistan where he cleaned out caves and did all of the tough things that went on there. He came home severely depressed, suffering from PTSD, was being treated at the Veterans Hospital after being honorably discharged from the United States Army.

And then he got the letter. On November 26, he received a letter that said pursuant to Executive Order of 14 September 2001, you are relieved from your present reserve component status and are ordered to report to duty. He was going to be sent within 2 months into Iraq, a man who is suffering from PTSD.

This man broke. He started to drink. He had weapons holed up in his home. The day after Christmas, he was surrounded by the police and was shot dead.

We are breaking the Army. We are breaking the Marines. These people should be thought about when we consider the extension.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2776.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking Mr. Rangel for his leadership in providing the energy legislation which is before us today and to applaud Speaker Pelosi for setting the agenda at the beginning of this session that will change this country's energy.

We live in a Nation addicted to oil, and we simply can't afford it anymore. It's too expensive for the American pocketbook; it's too adverse for American security, and too perilous for the Earth's atmosphere. But the key to any and every part of the energy solution lies here in the Congress in its political will to change what we can change for the good of the American people and the Earth.

Our energy legislation is bigger and bolder than a barrel of oil. It's a balance of support for alternative energy production and conservation. Every American has a stake and an ability to make a change, and our energy legislation unleashes America's ability to create, innovate and seek out and do that which has not been done. This is America's declaration of energy independence, and the first campaign plans to win what must be won. Our grandchildren, our children, our constituents, our country deserves no less. To those who say we cannot rise to meet the future and that we must embrace the past, I say America's boundless optimism has plenty of room to grow and shine. When it comes to energy policy, we have not risen to the occasion or to America's potential. That changes today with this legislation. It deserves bipartisan support.

And I would point out that the rhetoric we're going to hear from the other side is basically, we have to protect the oil companies; we can't touch their profits. Now, at a time when Americans are paying record prices at the pump and oil is at $70 a barrel, we have to change the status quo, and we're going to do it. It doesn't affect oil produced in this country, and it will be better for us in the long run.

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

My prediction is correct. We are here to protect the oil companies, and we are glad to see that.

I will just take one of your arguments, the American Wind Association. You said, this is no use. They say ``strengthening our Nation's energy security, revitalizing world economies and addressing climate change are the central goals of the 110th Congress.'' Wind energy is a large part of the answer. They are in support of this bill.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The gentleman from Missouri should stay and listen. The fact is that 36 of your Members voted for H.R. 6 because we were closing a loophole which was never designed for the oil companies. It was to deal with the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri says that we are taking money somehow and doing bad things with it. He forgets that this issue was to deal with FSC, and, lo and behold, the oil companies slipped in under the door. They were never eligible for FSC before, but the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee allowed them in in the last Congress. They have been taking their profits and just going hell-bent for leather.

We are taking it back from them. I am sure they are upset about it. But it is more important that we use that money for alternative energy, both in production of new energy sources and in conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

(Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, having the right to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.

At this moment, we haven't heard anything to respond to. All we have heard is a defense of the insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to answer the arguments presented.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

I'm sorry, it seems like the gentleman from Texas has forgotten what happened in the early hours of this session. We passed H.R. 6; 36 of your Members voted for it, to close the tax, to

set the money aside to be put into this bill when we decided what were reasonable uses of that money. It has never been used before. This funding source has not been used ever on this floor before, so you are incorrect in your assertion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just made some arguments. He said the country is like a supertanker and we are heading for the rocks and we shouldn't change the direction. No, no, no, we should keep going right straight into the rocks.

Now if you want to criticize this bill for not doing enough, I will go along with you, and I think there are many other Members on our side. But our problem is we can't seem to get any help from the other side to turn the wheel even a half inch. They say oh, if you take money away from the oil industry; they don't want to pay for anything, Mr. Speaker. They simply want to run on the rocks and the Democrats are not going to run this country onto the rocks.

We are going to change the direction we are going with energy. This bill is not the answer to everything. It is not as much as it should be or could be, but we are going in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, is closing the right of the majority?

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

No, I'll take my own time. I'm prepared to close.

No. I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes.

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

This is really a defining moment for the Congress, Mr. Speaker, and how we vote will define whether we embrace the future or cling to the past that is destroying us.

Now, the last speaker talked about somehow, if we take back some of the obscene profits from the oil industry and use it to develop alternative energy and to invest in conservation measures around this country, that that will be the end of the Western World as we've known it. Between 2004 and 2006, oil companies experienced profit increases of an average of 62 percent, some of them as high as 117 percent. Now, oil profits, in the dictionary, that would be obscene, and anybody who thinks we're destroying the oil industry here simply is unwilling to look at the facts.

Supporting this energy legislation is really a vote to move toward our national security because our addiction to oil makes us vulnerable to foreign countries and keeps our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq. No one here in this House still believes that oil wasn't a major reason why we went into Iraq.

Supporting this energy legislation is a vote to strengthen America's domestic economy because our addiction has made the American people vulnerable to punishing and unrelenting price shocks. We didn't start the increase in prices in energy. Gasoline prices weren't started in here by raising taxes. If you think that the oil companies, I don't know if there's anybody in this country who thinks that the Congress is what makes the oil prices go up, the gasoline prices.

Now, supporting this energy legislation is also a vote to save our planet,

because addiction to oil has placed us on a collision course with global warming. Every witness who came before the Ways and Means Committee, whether they were called by the Republicans or the Democrats, agreed that global warming is something we must deal with. The arguments I hear are not about whether there is global warming. The question is how should we deal with it how quickly, what's the best way.

Now, you either turn back now and we will face economic calamity and planetary catastrophe, that's a choice you guys can make, or turn back now and we fail the American people in our global responsibility.

The choice is very clear. The choice is really easy, and the need is urgent for our children, for our grandchildren, for the planet.

I ask all the Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal Republicans have put on the table here are like the things that addicts say. They just want one more fix; let's just have one more quick fix to take care of their problems.

The things that you have said here make me wonder if you understand how business operates. To give people a one-year extension of money and say, make plans, build buildings, hire people and start a new industry, but you've got a one-year guarantee, indicates you have no idea how business runs. That's why we made it 4 years, to give people an opportunity to actually do this.

People listening might ask themselves, well, what's the cost to all this. Well, it costs a long-term extension for renewable energies. It costs a long-term extension for solar properties. It costs the production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol, which plays into the ethanol question. It costs a long-term extension of energy-efficient commercial building expenditures. How can you build a building in one year, from planning to building to constructing, how can you do that? But that's what you're suggesting; we will give them one year.

The Republican motion to recommit makes sure that the renewable energy industry is denied the economic certainty they need to drive production of energy from renewable sources in order that the oil and gas industry can be fully sheltered.

You wouldn't want any competition for Big Oil.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to talk about how you pay for it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to note, with great sadness, the passing of Kathy Cado, a Seattle activist of great compassion and uncompromising integrity. Kathy was a remarkable woman who lent her considerable organizing and fundraising skills to educational projects, environmental efforts, health care initiatives, community programs, and women's issues. She loved progressive politics, and brought to it verve uniquely hers.

Kathy was that rarest of activists--a person of strong views who nonetheless could establish rapport with almost anyone. She brought humor and kindness to all of her endeavors, and she strove always to better her community. She was creative and witty, energizing countless campaigns and ballot efforts. Kathy was a mentor, and an inspiration, to so many; she leaves a legacy of public engagement matched by few others.

Kathy was a kidney transplant patient who struggled for many years with the consequences of renal disease. Yet, she refused to allow her illness to diminish her activism or her commitment to others. Instead, she embraced a new arena of involvement, learning as much as she could about this challenging field of medicine, and working tirelessly to support more kidney disease research and patient service. And, perhaps most significantly, she was resolute that the excellent treatment she received must be available to all who need it, regardless of resources or circumstances.

Kathy Cado was a very special human being who enriched the lives of everyone fortunate enough to know her. She was, in the very best sense, a public citizen.

Mr. Speaker, the debate comes down to this: Do you favor big tobacco or children? Do you favor big tobacco and insurance company profits or seniors? We come down on the side of children and seniors, and that's what this bill is all about.

You've heard over and over and over again there is no change of eligibility, but you insist on saying the same untruth because you want to make a point in the press. That is wrong. There are not any illegal aliens going to get in here. What we took out was what you put in. The fact is that we took out your requirement that people bring in papers when their kid is sick and dying, and you're saying to a parent, now you've got to prove you're a citizen before we'll take care of your kid.

That's what you're doing. You've taken your clothes off in public. You don't want to take care of children.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, yesterday because my flight from Seattle was cancelled. As a result I missed several recorded votes. Were I able, I would have voted in support of H.R. 2750, H. Res. 580, and H. Res. 579.

Mr. Speaker, a man from Kansas said, ``Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.'' Dwight David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953.

I ask that the rest of my time be in silence for those who have died in Iraq, Americans and Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall 744, final passage of H.R. 3093, the FY08 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I not been detained, I would have voted in favor of final passage.

Mr. Speaker, for years the administration has been rigging its case for war against Iran with posturing, finger-wagging and name calling. Those are not my words. One of my hometown daily newspapers, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, authored those words as the first sentence of an editorial they published this morning entitled: ``Iran: No, not again.'' I will insert the Seattle PI editorial into the Record at this point.

[From the Seattle Post-Intelligener Editorial Board, July 17, 2007]

Iran: No, Not Again

For years, this administration has been rigging its case

for war against Iran, with posturing, finger wagging and

name-calling.

And now, just as Iran has struck an agreement with the

International Atomic Energy Agency for inspection of its

nuclear plants, and just as the IAEA chief, Mohamed

ElBaradei, has said that country is slowing progress on one

of those facilities, the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper

reports that Vice President Dick Cheney is pushing for a

military ``solution'' in Iran. Naturally, President Bush is

backing him, going against Secretary of State Condoleezza

Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, both of whom favor

diplomacy over military action (heck, it worked with North

Korea).

In May, Cheney paid a visit to the USS John C. Stennis in

the Persian Gulf, 150 miles off Iran's coast, for no other

reason than to deliver threats. The New York Times reported

that while Cheney said nothing new, he ``stitched all of

those warnings together, and the symbolism of sending the

administration's most famous hawk to deliver the speech so

close to Iran's coast was unmistakable.''

The U.S. rode roughshod over ElBaradei's insistence that

Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction (he was right).

And look where we are now. More than 3,000 American troops

and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in war that defies

reason and sees no end. We fear the same might happen in

Iran.

The fact is, the mainstream newspapers at home and around the world

are expressing grave concerns over what they fear may be the sequel to Iraq, namely, a military strike against Iran.

One of the sources used by the PI editorial is the Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom which published a story yesterday with this headline: ``Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran.''

The Guardian reports that: ``The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favor of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months.''

Ominously, the story adds: ``Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said, `Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.' ''

Thoughtful newspapers and other worldwide people believe the Vice President is pushing for a military strike against Iran. The Vice President's presence and speech aboard an aircraft carrier near Iran in mid-May sent an unmistakable message, says the New York Times.

As the Guardian reports, The Vice President is winning the war for war inside the administration, and now the American people have to be brought along. That means the administration and its surrogates will make the data say what they need it to say.

We're already beginning to see how a new national intelligence assessment released just today will be manipulated. The report makes a persuasive and fact-driven case for getting our soldiers out of Iraq, because the President shifted away from the real war against terrorism to pursue his own agenda in Iraq.

But instead of a sober assessment of what's gone wrong in Iraq, we're hearing that terrorists have reconstituted their operations inside Iran. And the insinuation for military action is clear.

Like many, I would like to know what's really going on in Iran and what Iranian leaders are thinking and doing. Well, where can we turn for an assessment we can trust? We know the Vice President wants to use deadly force in Iran. We know that there are credible media reports that say the Vice President is winning the war to go to war with Iran. So how are we going to get accurate and reliable information from this administration or anyone associated with it?

Today, the State Department announced it wants a new meeting directly with Iran to talk face-to-face, government-to-government. Ordinarily, I would see this as a welcome, even positive, sign that the administration has finally begun to see the wisdom in diplomacy.

Is that the case, or is an announcement that comes on the same day as the New Intelligence Estimate a sign that the Vice President is about to declare mission accomplished? We don't know the answer, and we don't know what happened in Iraq.

But we do know what happened in Iraq. The PI editorial board reminds us how the administration ran over the International Atomic Energy Agency, its chief, to make a war in Iraq, quoting the PI. Look where we are now, more than 3,000 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead in a war that defies reason and sees no end. We fear the same may happen in Iran. So do I.

Tell the President not to go after Iran.

Madam Speaker, the City of Seattle and our Nation recently lost one of the great leaders in the field of medicine, Dr. John R. Hogness, a friend, colleague, and constituent. Dr. Hogness contributed to the common good throughout his 85 years of life.

John wasn't merely a community asset, although he was that; John was a national treasure and we shall miss him.

Dr. Hogness served with distinction as the first president of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.

Under John's leadership, the Institute grew to become a trusted, independent voice, at times courageous, at times bold, but always fair and forward thinking. The high standards Dr. Hogness applied to himself always became trademarks of the organizations he led. And he led some of America's best institutions, including the University of Washington.

Dr. John Hogness served as a president of the University of Washington, dean of the medical school, and vice president for medical affairs. The UW is an internationally acclaimed institution today, in part, because of the significant contributions made by Dr. John Hogness.

He never forgot his roots as a medical doctor and never forgot that medicine is about healing the pain and suffering of people.

Throughout his distinguished career, John believed that academia had a role and responsibility to champion the common good, and so Dr. Hogness long advocated for a national health plan because he believed that everyone had a right to receive medical treatment.

John was just as comfortable filling in for a rural medical doctor in Omak who wanted to take a vacation as he was creating a new department of bioengineering at the University of Washington. Of course, he excelled at both, drawing on his intellect, sense of humor, modesty and commitment to public service.

While this may not be your stereotypical academic, it defines Dr. John Hogness. From time to time, John might have been out of step with the status quo, but he was never out of touch with the people medicine was intended to help, or the medical advances that could save more lives and ease more suffering.

John once remarked that he was most proud of his role in creating an innovative regional medical education program serving Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Medical students attend the University of Washington's School of Medicine, the only medical school in the five states, but the young doctors intern in all five states.

It makes the rural practice of medicine real to young doctors and reality to rural communities throughout the region.

The long list of achievements can be summed up simply by knowing that Dr. John Hogness did so much for so many.

Rather than mourn his passing, I hope that we celebrate the life of Dr. John Hogness by remembering he was an intellectual giant who never forgot how to make house calls.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2608) to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide, in fiscal years 2008 through 2010, extensions of supplemental security income for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code to collect unemployment compensation debts resulting from fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include therein extraneous materials on this bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, refugees come to America fleeing persecution, injustice, torture and even death. During a hearing before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, we heard from one of those refugees. His name was K'Keng, and he fought alongside American forces during the Vietnam war. In fact, he was recruited and trained by our Special Forces. After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, he was imprisoned for 6 years as a political prisoner, after which he eventually made it to the United States as a refugee.

He tried working, but the wounds he suffered during the war made that difficult. Based on his disability and the fact that he had almost no other source of income, he began receiving Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits. But those benefits were terminated when he reached a 7-year time limit on SSI on refugees. He is now 75, partially blind, and lives on only a few hundred dollars worth of food stamps every month, as well as assistance from his young son.

Nearly 7,000 elderly and disabled refugees have lost their SSI benefits. The Social Security Administration projects another 16,000 will do so over the next few years unless the Congress acts.

As the beacon of freedom around the world, America can do better than this. While it is true that a refugee may continue to receive SSI if he or she becomes a citizen, a series of obstacles make that transition to citizenship difficult within the 7-year limit of SSI benefits.

First, a refugee must live in the United States for at least 5 years before they are eligible to submit an application for citizenship.

A refugee must then confront a lengthy application process which can take up to 3 to 4 years. Backlogs in processing citizenship applications have been caused by a variety of issues, including protracted background checks put in place after September 11 terrorist attacks. There are other barriers to citizenship, such as the continuing impact of the recent annual cap on the number of asylees who may become legal permanent residents, a status which asylees must maintain for 4 years before they may submit an application for citizenship.

Also, some disabled and elderly refugees encounter difficulties navigating the application process, which includes both an English language and a U.S. civics test.

I'm pleased to say there is bipartisan support for addressing this issue. The last several budget proposals from the Bush administration have called for an extension in SSI benefits for refugees, and there is a bipartisan bill pending in the U.S. Senate.

I would like especially to thank Mr. Weller, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, for working with me to forge the bipartisan bill we are now considering.

This bill, H.R. 2608, would generally extend SSI benefits for an additional 2 years for disabled and elderly refugees, asylees and other qualified humanitarian immigrants, including those whose benefits have expired in the recent past. Benefits could be extended for an additional period for those awaiting a decision on pending application for citizenship. These policies would be in effect till 2010.

The legislation completely offsets the cost of the SSI extension for refugees within a provision that will reduce Federal tax refunds to recover unemployment insurance debts due to fraud. The Federal tax refund offset authority already exists to collect unpaid child support, unpaid State taxes and debts owed to the Federal agencies.

The bill simply says that if a State concludes that a worker has fraudulently received unemployment benefits or a business owner has failed to pay UI taxes based on fraud, the State can seek to receive a portion of any Federal tax refund that the individual may be owed. Before pursuing a tax offset, the State would be required to notify the individual and provide them with at least 60 days to contest the amount being recovered.

By catching and reducing fraud in the unemployment insurance system, this provision not only offsets the cost of the SSI extension for refugees, but it also will reduce unemployment taxes on employers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the legislation will cut payroll taxes by $326 million over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, refugees come to our country fleeing persecution. They reside in our country legally, and those eligible for SSI are disabled, elderly or both. This legislation extends a modest benefit to help them provide for their most basic essentials. The bill will not add one dime to the Federal deficit, and it will even provide a tax cut. Such a combination should ensure broad support for this vital effort to help those most in need.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to thank Mr. Weller.

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record documents relating to this legislation, including a letter from the Commissioner of Social Security articulating the need for this bill and an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, which highlights the fact that this bill is completely paid for. In fact, it actually reduces the deficit by nearly $50 million.

Social Security Administration,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2007.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to provide the Social

Security Administration's (SSA) views on H.R. 2608, the SSI

Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act.

SSA fully supports an extension of the time period in which

refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian categories

of noncitizens may remain eligible for Supplemental Security

Income (SSI) while seeking U.S. citizenship. The current time

limit is 7 years, and some aged, blind, and disabled

individuals have been unable to obtain U.S. citizenship

within this time period. The Administration recognizes the

daunting challenges refugees have faced in fleeing tyranny,

the adjustments they must make in their resettlement, and

their need for additional help in their quest for U.S.

citizenship.

Section 2 of H.R. 2608 would amend the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996 to permit a 9-year period for SSI eligibility, provide

retroactive eligibility for refugees and asylees who

previously became ineligible after 7 years, and exempt the

general SSI prohibition for refugees and asylees with pending

naturalization applications. These changes would be in effect

from 2008-2010. This provision is similar to the

Administration's proposal for an extension to 8 years that

was in the President's budget in FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007

and FY 2008. One difference between H.R. 2608 and the

Administration's proposal is that the retroactive effect of

H.R. 2608 could require SSA to reinstate SSI payments for

individuals who have been off of the rolls for many years.

While this represents a new workload, we would like to work

with Congress to address the administrative burden inherent

with such an effort, with the overall goal of assisting aged,

blind, and disabled individuals in becoming U.S. citizens.

A similar letter has been sent to Representative McCrery.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.