Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, this President has used the resolution that we passed some years ago as a blank check to take us into a disastrous situation in Iraq, leaving Afghanistan half done.

What we are trying to do with this amendment is simply say to the President, you have to stay where we put the money. If you want to come out and go after Iran in a preemptive way, as you did against Iraq when you had no evidence, when you came to this floor and presented evidence that

turned out not to be true, and use that as a pretext for going into war, we are heading for in Iran, in my view, another Gulf of Tonkin kind of situation, where you cook up a situation.

This administration took down the border between Iran and Iraq and now complains to us everywhere that we are getting all kinds of weapons coming in from Iran. Using that as a pretext, the Arab press yesterday reports that the Vice President was in the Middle East telling people that war is coming, telling them that the problems in Iraq don't keep us out of anything. They won't be any hindrance to us going into Iran.

This amendment is simply an attempt to put a minor block in the way of this administration's desire to widen this war, probably to get people's minds off how bad it is in Iraq.

This is supposed to be winding down in Iraq because of the escalation. But in fact that is not what is happening. We are losing more soldiers every day. We have had the bloodiest months in this war.

This amendment is simply to say the United States Congress will decide where this country goes to war, not the President, who wants to go out and create whatever situation he wants in the world.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 263) recognizing National Foster Care Month as an opportunity for Congress to improve the foster care system throughout the United States, as amended.

Madam Speaker, the month of May marks National Foster Care Month. The foster care system provides a safe sanctuary for children who are unable to live safely in their homes.

Its primary goal is to ensure their safety and well-being by providing them with critical services and working to find a safe and loving and permanent home. Over 500,000 American children are in the foster care system on any given day with over 100,000 of these children waiting to be adopted. They need our help, and I believe this is one place where every Member of the House can come together as one, committed to protecting these innocent children.

This morning, we, Mr. Weller and I, had a hearing in the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support to review the changes and the challenges that child welfare agencies encounter in achieving positive outcomes for children and families under their service.

The hearing identified a number of areas that need to be improved to strengthen children and families, which I am committed to addressing. The hearing also highlighted the commitment of some of our most selfless Americans on behalf of some of our most vulnerable children. Millions of Americans serve as foster parents, and,

in doing so, have unselfishly opened their homes and their lives to children in need. These families are to be commended for working cooperatively with human service agencies and biological parents to strengthen the lives of these foster children.

We should also recognize the work of dedicated case workers, juvenile court justices, physicians and the advocates who have committed their lives to ensuring the safety and well-being of our most vulnerable children. These tireless workers should be commended for their work on behalf of children and families in crisis.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 2007 as National Foster Care Month and commending the dedication of foster parents, case workers, judges, service providers and advocates for their commitment to our Nation's most vulnerable children.

Madam Speaker, I would now ask unanimous consent to allow Representative Cardoza of California, who is the author of this resolution and a staunch advocate for improving the well-being of children in foster care, and actually an adoptive parent of a couple of kids from foster care, so he's done it at every level, to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we need a vote on whether this country is going to go to war with Iran. We have talked to the Speaker about it. She has promised it. But the time is getting short. Every day that we wait, we allow people down at the White House to continue to talk about this.

The vote we gave in 2002 to allow the President to deal with the problems of 9/11 was not a blank check to attack any country in the world. This war on terror began with some sense in Afghanistan, and then moved to Iraq to the absolute chaos we have today. It is a quagmire from which we can't get ourselves. And, unfortunately, the President and his Vice President are leading us, it appears, toward a war with Iran.

Ask why the urgency? Why do you want to come out here and talk about that tonight? Well, there was an article that appeared today in the Al- Quds Al-Arabi, which is an Arabic paper published in London. It is a very respectable paper, and it is one that most people in this body, in fact most people in this country, never heard of, nor do they understand and will never know about it because our press won't pick it up.

But I read the Middle Eastern press every day. I have some in my office who read Arabic, and they translate it for me, and I get a summary every day in my office of what is going on. This article I think deserves to be quoted a little bit, because people may not get the Congressional Quarterly or the Congressional Record and read it.

The article says this: ``Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday ended his tour of the Arab world that started with Iraq and ended in the capitals of four other Arab countries, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. High ranking Arab diplomatic sources close to the talks with Cheney confirmed to the newspaper that the probability of war became more likely than peace in the region.''

This is Arabs listening to the Vice President of the United States talk.

``The same sources indicated that Cheney was talking to Gulf leaders he met in a very confident and self-assured way, stressing that the involvement of this country in Iraq does not mean it is in a weak situation and cannot launch another war.''

Think about that. The Vice President is telling the Arab leaders, because we are in this mess in Iraq, just ignore that. We still can go to Iran and have a war.

Cheney went and talked to soldiers and sailors on one of the aircraft carriers, ``announcing to them,'' and this again is a quote, ``in a decisive manner that the U.S. will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons and that the option of a military attack is not excluded.''

Now, he said, again quoting, ``Cheney expressed his conviction that striking Iran may be the best solution for the situation in Iraq.''

Think about it. We are going to solve our problems in Iraq by attacking Iran. He says, ``because Tehran,'' the capital of Iran, ``has the biggest influence in the country and is the source of the arms of the militia.''

Now, this is from a man who sent to Iraq a guy named Bremer who took down all the guards and all the barriers at the border between Iran and Iraq, and Iran, of course, has been coming into Iraq. This administration set it up, or else they were ignorant. You can take your choice on that.

He said, ``They do not expect that there will be any retaliation by Iraq's Shiite militias. Quite the contrary, the Sunni groups and militias will take the opportunity to settle accounts with the ruling government in Baghdad under American support.''

So what he is saying is that the United States is shifting its support from the Maliki government, which is Shiite, and they are now over there telling people, well, we are going to now be supporting the Sunni elements so that they can get--Mr. Speaker, I include the translation of the Al-Quds Al-Arabi article for the Record.

Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday ended his tour of the

Arab world that started with Iraq and included the capitals

of four other Arab countries, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,

and the United Arab Emirates, amidst a war of words with the

Iranian President Ahamdi Nijad, who launched a diplomatic

counter-attack in the form of two sudden visits to the

Emirates and to Oman.

High-ranking Arab diplomatic sources close to the talks

with Cheney confirmed to Al-Quds Al-Arabi that the

probability of war became more likely than peace in the

region after the round of meetings of the vice-president, and

that the expected meetings between the Iranian and American

sides in Baghdad might be the last chance to avoid military

confrontation.

The same sources indicated that Cheney was talking to Gulf

leaders he met in a very confident and self-assured tone,

stressing that the involvement of his country in Iraq does

not mean that it is in a weak situation and cannot launch

another war, against Iran. Cheney, who visited the troops of

his country in Iraq and the Gulf during his last round, made

sure that he met American soldiers on an airplane carrier

announcing to them in a decisive manner that the US will not

allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, and that the option of

a military attack is not excluded. The Iranian President

replied against that with severe threats in a press

conference in Abu Dhabi, assuring that if they (Americans)

make that mistake, the reply of Iran will be very strong and

they will regret it. [Amedinejad said] ``All the world knows

that they cannot beat us and Iran is capable of defending

herself, and that the superpowers cannot stop us from

possessing nuclear energy.''

It was observed that Gulf states have begun searching for

alternatives to the Gulf straits to export their oil abroad.

There were suggestions to build pipelines to the Red Sea

or the Arab Sea across Yemen, due to fears of closing the

Strait of Hormuz through which 18 million barrels pass daily.

Western analysts expect that Iranian retaliation will include

closing the Strait of Hormuz, bombing American bases, and

burning down oil wells in the Gulf, in addition to bombing

Israel with rockets from Iran directly, through Hezbollah in

Lebanon or both.

Cheney expressed his conviction that striking Iran may be

the best solution for the situation in Iraq, because Tehran

has the biggest influence in the country and is the source of

arms for militias. The source added that American estimates

do not expect Iraqi Shiite retaliation against American

troops in case war breaks out. Quite the contrary, the Sunni

groups and militias will take the opportunity to settle

accounts with the ruling government in Baghdad under

America's support and protection. The same source indicated

that Cheney asked his allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and

the United Arab Emirates) to reassure Sunni groups in Iraq

and win them to the American side, passing a message that the

U.S. has lost confidence completely in Al-Maliki government

because of its failure to control the security situation and

to achieve national reconciliation, including giving the

Sunnis a bigger role in the decision-making process.

Cheney assured Gulf leaders that the Iranian nuclear

reactor of Bushahr that lies on the other side of the Gulf

will not be a target for strikes because it has no value and

due to the presence of Russian experts at the reactor, and

that even if it became a target of strikes, it would not

cause pollution to the Gulf waters because it does not have

depleted plutonium. Gulf states that obtain 90% of their

water from treatment stations on the Gulf shores expressed to

American officials their concerns and fears in the face of a

water crisis which would be caused if a nuclear leak pollutes

the Gulf waters in case of war with Iran.

The same source also confirmed that Cheney's talks in the

four capitals focused on Iraq and Iran only and never dealt

with the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was explained by a

change of roles between Cheney and Rice, with the latter's

role confined to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

In Abu Dhabi, there are currently rumors about Mr. Nijad's

asking the Emirates for mediation with Washington in the

current nuclear crisis, and that he brought forth new ideas

that an Emirate delegation will present to Washington in the

next 2 days. The delegation is headed by crown-price and

commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Sheikh Muhammad bin

Zaid. The delegation left for Washington, D.C. already and

has among its members the foreign minister of the Emirates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for an explanation and a full accounting from the Department of Defense concerning an attack on Camp Falcon last year. This much is not in dispute: Under cover of darkness on October 10, 2006, Camp Falcon, America's largest military base in Iraq, which is 10 miles south of Baghdad, was attacked by insurgents, and the base was shelled with mortars and rockets. An enemy round struck an ammunition store which triggered massive explosions and huge fireballs that lit up the night sky in Baghdad.

News footage and amateur video were shown on television in the Middle East, and a BBC reporter described the explosions as immense. In the days following the attack, U.S. military officers in Iraq repeatedly said that the damage would not degrade U.S. military capacity and that the attack did not injure or kill anyone at the base.

In a briefing on October 12, 2006, Major General William Caldwell told reporters, ``Very fortunately, no coalition forces or Iraqi security forces were injured, nor civilian casualties that anyone is aware of at this point. We lost some munitions, but took no personnel casualties.'' That is the official line for the military.

But the questions are beginning to surface as to whether the official line is the truth. It was brought to my attention yesterday during a meeting in my congressional office with Mohammed al Deeni, an independent member of the Iraqi Parliament. He came to the U.S. to talk with Members of Congress about the realities of life in Iraq. At my invitation, other Members of Congress joined me in this face-to-face legislative exchange of information. They heard what I am about to share.

During our meeting, I asked Mr. al Deeni if Iraq was so unstable that a terrorist attack could claim a large number of Americans in one attack. As many of us remember, that is what happened in 1983 when a massive terrorist truck bomb struck and killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. I wanted to know if such an attack was possible in Iraq. Without hesitation, Mr. al Deeni said such an attack had already occurred. He said--and others are saying online--that the attack on Camp Falcon killed 300 Americans, wounded another 200 Americans and killed or injured another 200 Iraqis.

The Pentagon says there were no casualties. But a member of the Iraqi Parliament and others claim there were significant casualties. Which story is true? Satellite images, aerial photographs, videos and written accounts that purport to be firsthand can be found online. I will enter into the Record a list of some of these sites so that people can see for themselves.

Internet sites which contains video, photographs, or

written accounts of the attack on Camp Falcon on October 10,

2006:

http://www.cawa.fr/destruction-du-camp-americain-falcon- explosions-d-armes-a-l-ua-et-ou-d-armes-nucleaires-tactiques- article00913.html.

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/966319/video/xkpjv_base- falcon-irakexplosion-nucleaire/1.

http://abutamam.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-reported- casualties-at-camp-falcon.html.

http://zennobia.blogspot.com/2006/10/al-rashid-falcon- military-bases.html.

Here is one excerpt from a site written after the attack by French journalists: ``Nine big carriers marked by the Red Cross sign transporting the dead and injured were seen by journalists . . . Silence still wraps the whole event from the side of the American military as well as the Bush administration, since there remains only a few weeks before the legislative elections, with a public opinion more and more against the war.''

This happened just before the last elections, and it is unclear as to what happened. I don't know if these stories are credible. But these reports cannot be ignored. If we lost hundreds of U.S. soldiers and other Americans in one attack, Congress and the American people have a right to know about it.

I looked at the videos and the aerial photographs, and the damage appears quite extensive to buildings and military vehicles like tanks. Perhaps American soldiers and others miraculously escaped injury. That would be very good news. Or perhaps we don't know what really happened on the night of October 10, 2006 in an insurgent attack on Camp Falcon.

The Pentagon should open all of its files to independent journalists. I call for a full accounting as soon as possible. Some are saying there's a cover-up in the military. I say it's time to put all the evidence out in the open.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1684, including corrections to the spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Madam Speaker, I rise to call for an up or down vote on a timetable for getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq. Simple, straightforward and to the point.

Do we stay or do we redeploy?

All this talk about benchmarks is a diversionary tactic by the administration to keep making war. Last November, the American people elected Democrats for one reason above all others, to get U.S. soldiers out of Iraq and get Americans out of the Iraq war.

The American people have given up on the credibility of the President. Every week another poll confirms another vote of no confidence by the American people against this President. In a new poll, the Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the Iraq war by a two to one margin.

Newsweek magazine has the President's approval ratings even lower. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe the President's actions in Iraq show he is stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes.

In USA Today, nearly 80 percent don't believe the President's assertion that a U.S. presence in Iraq is preventing terror attacks here at home.

The American people get it. Nothing good comes from being in Iraq, and nothing worse will happen by leaving Iraq.

The American people have issued orders, but the President refuses to redeploy his thinking. More U.S. soldiers and more Iraqi civilians are dying every day. Iraqi children are being traumatized every day by the sight of dead bodies in the street. Over a million Iraqi civilians have fled to Jordan and Syria, where the refugee crisis grows by the hour.

And the President's plan to address this reality is spending more money building concrete walls in Baghdad. Walling in the Iraqi people isn't going to solve anything and may, in fact, worsen the ethnic cleansing that is essentially a part of a civil war raging throughout the country.

How ironic that a Republican President authorizes building concrete walls to contain and separate Iraqi people. The Soviets tried it in Berlin, and it wasn't many years later that Ronald Reagan, a Republican President, told Gorbachev, ``Tear down this wall.''

Iraqi leaders are demanding that the U.S. stop building walls that are in effect concrete jail cells, locking up innocent Iraqi citizens and making them easy prey for more attacks. It may be their country, but that doesn't matter to this White House.

By yesterday, 144 Iraqi lawmakers out of 275 signed a petition calling for the U.S. to set a timetable to withdraw. That is a majority. The story broke this morning on Alternet.com, and one of the reporters, Joshua Holland, has broken other significant news stories concerning Iraq. This is the first time that over half of the duly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament have gone on the record demanding a date for U.S. withdrawal.

Iraqi leaders want their country back, but this President isn't going to honor that request. The President's veto of the supplemental Iraq spending bill was his de facto military escalation of the war, a declaration that he intends to keep making declarations of war, not peace, and the President's veto was his rejection of working with the Congress to end the Iraq war.

A war with benchmarks is still a war. A war with benchmarks in this administration is a war without end. The only benchmark this administration will understand is an up-or-down vote on the Iraq war. And we have been promised an up-or-down vote on Iran, and we need to take that as well.

Members deserve the opportunity to say with their vote what they think and what we are hearing back home from our constituents. Unless we do the job the American people elected us to do, the President won't be the only one getting a vote of no confidence.

The people have spoken and spoken. In the People's House, it is time we accept the will of the American people. Schedule an up-or-down vote on setting a timetable for getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue our debate on funding for Iraq escalation, I want to share a new version of a well-known poem entitled Humpty Dumpty:

Bush, Cheney and others had a great call--

Remake Iraq, it will be such a ball.

Now all Bush's troops and all daddy's men

can't put Iraq back together again.

Our soldiers keep dying, day after day.

So why put up with more endless delay?

Let's just acknowledge what everyone knows:

Bush didn't and doesn't have any clothes.

He broke it, can't fix it, doesn't know how;

Mission impossible: out of Iraq now.

Mr. Speaker, next week Luis Carriles is scheduled to stand trial for allegedly lying to immigration authorities when he entered the United States 2 years ago.

Most Americans have probably never heard of Carriles, but everyone should know the real case against him because it shows the double standard of the Bush administration and its so-called commitment to fight terrorism.

Carriles is being prosecuted for an immigration violation in America, but he has been convicted in other nations for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner over 30 years ago that killed 33 innocent people. He is a wanted international fugitive. The Bush administration knows this, but instead of turning Carriles over to the sovereign Governments of Cuba or Venezuela, as they have asked, we are going to get him on an immigration violation.

Why is the Bush administration handling Carilles in this way? Three letters say it all: CIA.

Carriles was a CIA agent. He was part of the Bay of Pigs debacle, and his fierce opposition to Cuban President Fidel Castro has been reported by the media.

Officially, Carriles left the CIA in the middle of 1976. That is the year that Luis Carriles was convicted in Venezuela of masterminding the downing of the Cuban airplane.

The administration won't reveal what role Carriles played as a CIA agent or what his assignments were. His shadowy connections to the United States Government almost certainly continued after he and the agency parted ways. The media has reported that Carriles helped funnel U.S. supplies to the Contra rebels attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Carriles himself has personally boasted of a role in the deadly bombings of hotels in Havana, Cuba, in the 1990s. And Carriles was also convicted in Panama in the year 2000 for a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. He was sentenced to prison, but he was later pardoned and set free.

You would think that capturing a man like this would have the administration calling a news conference to declare their success in the war on terror with a long-sought terrorist in custody. Not so. Instead, the administration is busy trying to get a court to bar him from testifying about what he did for the CIA. Carriles' lawyers have said his client will talk about that, and the assignments during and after his official employment. One of the CIA directors during the time of Carriles' connection to the agency was former President George H. W. Bush, the President's father.

The American people have a right to know what really happened in the 1970s and what role, if any, the United States played in the deadly games of Carriles. Was he a rogue agent or was he acting on CIA orders?

The Cuban Government wants him, but we are not talking to Havana as long as Castro is alive and in power. Venezuela, which has an 80-year- old extradiction treaty with the United States, has repeatedly asked for Carriles. But the President isn't talking to Venezuela, either, so those requests have been denied.

The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service says Carriles poses a significant danger to our Nation, but the U.S. Justice Department just hasn't acted.

In a recent editorial that I submit for printing in the Record, the Los Angeles Times described Luis Posada Carriles as ``the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana and Caracas.'' The Times points out that Moussaoui is serving a life sentence without parole for his role in the 9/11 attacks, but Carriles was released on bail and is living at home in Miami, with his family, awaiting trial next week. The U.S. is holding a person convicted of major terrorist acts in other countries, but he is going to be prosecuted for an immigration infraction. That is like bringing Osama bin Laden in and trying him for a traffic ticket.

The moral compass of the Bush administration is just spinning round and round over the treatment of Posada Carriles. Next week it is going to stop on a new direction: H, for hypocrisy.

[From the LA Times, Apr. 20, 2007]

A Terrorist Walks: Luis Posada Carriles Has Boasted of Bombing Havana

Hotels, Yet American Justice Lets Him Go Free

With a misguided decision upholding bail for Cuban-born

terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of

Appeals in New Orleans has done more than free a frail old

man facing unremarkable immigration charges. It has exposed

Washington to legitimate charges of hypocrisy in the war on

terror.

By allowing Posada to go free before his May 11 trial, the

court has released a known flight risk who previously escaped

from a Venezuelan prison, a man who has boasted of helping

set off deadly bombs in Havana hotels 10 years ago and the

alleged mastermind of a 1976 bombing of a Cuban airplane that

killed 73 people. Posada's employees confessed to the attack,

and declassified FBI and CIA documents have shown that he

attended planning sessions.

In other words, Posada is the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana

and Caracas. Moussaoui is serving a life sentence without

parole in a federal prison in Colorado for conspiracy in the

9/11 attacks; Posada is free to live in Miami.

Posada, a 79-year-old Bay of Pigs veteran who served time

in Panama for plotting to kill Fidel Castro, has never been

charged with crimes of terrorism in U.S. courts. Instead,

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement nabbed him for lying to

immigration authorities after he sneaked in the country in

March 2005 and held a news conference announcing his

triumphant return. Both Customs and the Justice Department

lobbied to keep Posada behind bars, but U.S. law enforcement

has never shown a strong interest in trying him for more

serious crimes. In turn, Posada's lawyer has preemptively

warned that if charged, his client would likely reveal

extensive collaboration with the CIA.

The United States keeps 385 suspected terrorists imprisoned

in Guantanamo Bay, many in isolation and all without U.S.

norms of due process. Yet Posada, a confessed terrorist, is

sent home with an ankle bracelet.

The United States has not been able to persuade any of

seven allied nations to accept Posada. A federal judge has

ruled that he can't be extradited to Cuba or Venezuela

because he might be tortured. The best solution would have

been for the court to refuse bail until trial while the State

Department keeps searching for a third-party country that

would agree to try him on terrorism charges.

Instead, Castro receives a propaganda victory gift, the

White House has its moral authority undermined and the

victims of Carriles' alleged crimes see justice delayed once

more.

The U.S. government has done many odd things in 46 years of

a largely failed Cuba policy, but letting a notorious

terrorist walk stands among the most perverse yet.

Madam Chairman, it is a privilege and a great personal pleasure to join in honoring my old friend and classmate, and a great humanitarian leader, Dr. Arthur J. Ammann. Art's selection as Alumnus of the Year at Wheaton College will stand as one of the defining moments in the proud and distinguished history of this institution, because it recognizes a compassionate, courageous man who has made a world of difference in our world.

As young Wheaton College students, Art and I lived the vow of poverty, as do college students everywhere. One of my most cherished memories is Art inviting me to join his family in Brooklyn, New York, during a holiday. Suffice to say that was the first time I had ever been to Brooklyn, and the visit opened the eyes of this young, naive suburban Chicago kid, teaching me that we all share the same hopes, dreams and aspirations for a brighter tomorrow, no matter our surname or address.

The Bible and this institution call upon us to live the teachings of the Lord, and there is no better example of living Christianity than Art Ammann. He began his professional career--as did I--by taking an oath to use all of his powers to heal the sick. While the oath comes from the Greek philosopher Hippocrates, the faith to heal comes directly from the Bible: ``My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh. Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.'' (Proverbs 4:20-23)

Art is a brilliant physician who has focused his intellect on healing children and finding a cure for the HIV/AIDS pandemic that has claimed so many lives and robbed so many nations of an entire generation. While my old friend is far too modest to seek recognition, the truth is, without Art the death toll would be higher and hope for a cure would be lower. It was Dr. Arthur Ammann's pioneering research in the early 1980's, before the world knew of this terrible disease, that identified two of the three ways HIV is transmitted, and it was Art who first diagnosed the HIV infection in children.

As a man of unwavering courage, compassion and conviction, Dr. Arthur Ammann did not confine his leadership exclusively to the field of medical research. Over the years, Art has served his community and country in preeminent roles such as the Presidential Task Force for AIDS Drug Development, and he has been honored many, many times. This prodigious man of science has authored or co-authored, quite literally, hundreds of books and scientific articles, and he didn't hesitate when asked to guide Wheaton College as it prepared its response to the HIV/ AIDS crisis.

As a visionary scientist and yet a humble servant of the Lord, Dr. Arthur Ammann always has plowed the fruits of his labor back into the soil, so that it might nourish, protect and save others. Art founded Global Strategies for HIV Prevention 10 years ago. It quickly has become a widely respected non-profit organization, dedicated to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, and supplying life-saving medicine to women and children worldwide. How purely this work reflects the words of the Bible: ``. . . Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God . . .'' (Matthew 5:3-11)

Dr. Arthur J. Ammann has spent a lifetime displaying the strength of a lion, a heart of gold, and a spirit of living life according to the teachings of Jesus. His wife, Marilyn, and his children, Kimberly and Scott, have long known what many now will understand: Dr. Arthur J. Ammann is a good man, who does the Lord's work for the sake of peace and humanity. My friend Art Ammann is an uncommon man who renews our faith by the way he lives his faith.

Best wishes and congratulations to Dr. Arthur J. Ammann, the 2007 Wheaton College Alumnus of the Year for Distinguished Service to Society.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a community that honors the memory and civil rights legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. every day, because King County has adopted Dr. King's portrait as our symbol, and Dr. King's commitment to civil rights as our commitment to all the people in King County, Washington.

So, it is with a unique responsibility that I rise to strongly oppose this Republican attempt to turn back the lock on civil rights in this Nation, beginning with the Head Start program. The Minority Leader, the leader and spokesman for the Republican Party in the House, wants us to legislate employment discrimination within Head Start based on religion. The Minority Leader wants to turn his back on civil rights, and turn back the clock on the struggle for freedom that Dr. King and so many others fought and died for.

The Republican House leader apparently finds the First Amendment inconvenient for his taste. The First Amendment protects Americans from exactly the kind of foolish proposal before us today. Separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles within the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .''

We must not roll back civil rights in this Nation, not today, not tomorrow, and not ever, but that's what the I leader of the Republican party proposes. There is no reason to justify this attempt to roll back longstanding civil rights and religious liberty protections in a program that has benefited countless children over the years. In a nation like ours with so many religious traditions, built-in protections prohibiting religious discrimination in federally funded programs represents a fundamental commitment towards a society that values the contributions of people of all faiths.

Religious organizations have had a long and proud history in Head Start programs, including in my own district of Seattle, where the YWCA is a Head Start provider. Civil rights protections have never been a bar to participation by these organizations. If these safeguards are repealed, thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers and parent volunteers could find themselves no longer welcome at some Head Start programs run by followers of other faiths.

Religious organizations are free to engage in faith-based hiring when they use their own funds to promote their institutional ministry, but not when they use Federal money to educate our Nation's children. It would be wrong to permit religious organizations to use Federal dollars to discriminate on the basis of religion in running Head Start programs that are intended to benefit disadvantaged children of all faiths.

On behalf of the people of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., County, in Washington State, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``No.''

Madam Speaker, 4 years after the banner was unfurled, these are the missions that have been accomplished by the President:

America is more divided than at any time since the Vietnam War. The Iraq Government has before it a sweetheart deal that benefits Big Oil that the U.S. brokered behind the scenes. Read Josh Holland's investigative piece on alternet.com;

America is increasingly isolated in the Arab world, and countries that looked up to America now look out or look the other way. Read Rami Khouri's commentary published in the April 19 issue of the Daily Star in Lebanon;

The number of Pentagon contractors in Iraq who are profiting in the spoils of war, raking in vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money, nearly equals the number of U.S. soldiers. Read ``Iraq War: a Nice Little Earner'' in the Asia Times newspaper dated April 19;

Americans are so fed up with the President's state of denial that they returned Democratic majorities to the House and Senate last November. Read the April 26 editorial in my hometown newspaper, the Seattle PI: ``Iraq: Keep Speaking Out.''

Missions accomplished? All but the most important one: getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq.

That is the will of the American people and the mission of the new Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we just passed has the weight of a feather. It is very weak on setting a date to get our soldiers out of Iraq. If anything, this legislation bends in the wind as a sign of flexibility by the Democratic Congress to work with the President.

And yet a piece of legislation so inherently weak has provoked so many attacks from the White House that its real value may be proving to the American people that the President is out of touch and out of control.

The President's military escalation has only escalated the body count, but he claims we are making progress. Mr. Speaker, tell the President we are not making progress. We are making widows and widowers. The bloody awful war must end now, but the President is in total denial.

How many more must die before this President opens his eyes to reality? We are not seeding democracy. We are spilling blood into the soil, and what is growing is hatred for America, contempt for the President's military occupation and the killing and maiming of America's next generation.

What will the President say to the 82nd Airborne when his rationale for continuing this war is irrational? This heroic, distinguished unit of American soldiers has suffered its worst single day of casualties since the Vietnam War.

Mr. Speaker, what will the President say; we are winning? There will be bad days in Iraq? We are making progress? Mr. Speaker, tell the President we are not making progress. We are digging graves to bury mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, all patriotic Americans, all of them sacrificed needlessly.

They marched off to war, and tens of thousands of Americans are coming home in coffins and on stretchers. The American people have had enough of this bloody, worthless war, but the ways of Washington are not as wise and as pragmatic as the will of the American people.

Today, we passed a weak-kneed piece of legislation that this President will cut off at the knees. The President will emerge from his reality-proof bunker just long enough to veto the bill. He will make a speech and what will he say? My way or no way.

The stroke of the President's veto pen will be like a knife cutting away any hope of reason or sanity for ending this bloody, God-awful war.

The President has retreated to a bunker where he cannot hear the American people, the Iraqi people, our soldiers, military experts and world leaders who keep telling him that the Iraq War will never end until we end it by withdrawing our soldiers and demanding diplomacy.

The American people want their government to listen. The American people want this President to stop ordering soldiers into the crossfire of civil war. The American people want our soldiers home and out of harm's way.

I voted for this Iraq bill today, knowing it will never become law. But I voted for the Iraq bill today because the weight of a feather can sometimes support the resolve of a Nation.

This piece of legislation is the smallest step down the right road, the only road available to leaders who can truthfully assess the reality on the ground in Iraq and respond with reason.

Some will say we are sending a message with this bill, but I think differently.

I believe the President will be sending a message to the American people when he vetoes this bill, a bill so flexible that it could barely stand on its own. The President's veto message will be that he refuses to listen, refuses to change, refuses to work with Congress and rejects the will of the American people.

The President said America will still be at war in Iraq when he leaves office in January 2009. That ought to be America's worst fear. And the only way to overcome it is for the American people to demand that the Republicans vote with the Democrats to overturn any Presidential veto that perpetuates the war any longer. And if Republicans will not do it, then elect someone who will.

The American people have spoken in November and they have said, get out of Iraq. It is time for the President to stop talking and start listening. Bring our soldiers home and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 299) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should increase public awareness of child abuse and neglect and should continue to work with the States to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect through such programs as the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs.

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

Not every child in America is raised in a safe and loving home. More often than we realize, children become the victims of abuse and neglect from the very people they should be able to trust the most, their parents.

Today the Income Security and Family Support Committee that I chair is united behind this resolution to designate April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Democratic Representatives John Lewis, Pete Stark, Michael McNulty, Kendrick Meek and Republican Representative Jerry Weller, the subcommittee's ranking member, Wally Herger and Jon Porter are cosponsors of the resolution.

Our goal in designating April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month is to increase public awareness of the serious threats that child maltreatment imposes on children, and to encourage Americans to break the cycle of violence.

2005 is the most recent year for which data is available from the Department of Health and Human Services. Nine hundred thousand children were victims of substantiated cases of abuse and neglect. Nearly 1,500 children, mostly under the age of 4, died as a result. Another half a million children could not live safely with their parents and were removed from the home.

Child abuse and neglect has a devastating impact on the life of a child that goes beyond the immediate physical and emotional pain that is inflicted on them. Children who suffer from maltreatment are at greater risk of developmental delays and behavioral problems that could last a lifetime. Child maltreatment can delay or disrupt the normal cognitive development process which, in turn, impacts academic achievement.

Children who are the victims of abuse and neglect tend to have lower math scores and English grades, and they repeat grades more frequently than other children. We know that poor academic skills can lead to a child's dropping out of school, continuing a cycle of negative consequences that can last a lifetime.

A history of child abuse and neglect can also disrupt the development of skills that children use to interact with others, such as problem- solving and communication. These skills are critical in stopping the development of other serious behavior problems even among seriously troubled youth. Moreover, victims of child abuse and neglect tend to have greater levels of depression compared to other children. These children are also more likely to suffer from mental illness, experience problems with drugs, and are more likely to become teen-age parents.

Not every child who has suffered from abuse and neglect will experience poor outcomes. Many maltreated children will persevere against the odds and find the ability to cope and even to thrive. They could develop and maintain the personal characteristics that will make them more resilient than others. Of course, this resilience can depend on a child's finding a safe and loving home to live in and access to support systems, educational resources, and health care.

These amazing kids deserve to be recognized and celebrated for their remarkable ability to persevere over the most difficult of circumstances and for setting an example for other children.

In recognition of the fact that too many of our Nation's children will become the victims of violence at the hands of their parents and many others are at risk of such abuse, Congress has expressed the commitment over the last several decades to stop child abuse and neglect. In 1935 Congress established the Child Welfare Services program to provide Federal funding for a variety of services for States to use to protect children who are at risk of abuse and neglect and who assist those who have been victimized.

In 1993, Congress took another step to protect children when it created the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. This program is the largest source of Federal funding designed to

stop child abuse and neglect before it starts and to support vulnerable families who are at risk of falling into crisis.

Last fall we reauthorized promoting Safe and Stable Families on a bipartisan basis, and we made a number of key improvements. For instance, new funding will allow us to respond to the growing methamphetamine problem that threatens the safety of many of our children in communities across America. We provided States with additional resources to attract, train, and retain caseworkers. We required States to have caseworkers visit children in foster care once a month to make sure they are getting the proper care. And we increased funding that is available to the Native American community as well.

These are only modest steps that will strengthen our ability to prevent the incidence of child abuse and support vulnerable families. Certainly more can be done, but these programs express the commitment of Congress to protect abused and neglected children.

In recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month, I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing public awareness of the threat to innocent children and to promote public policies designed to prevent child abuse and safeguard our most vulnerable children.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is Health Care Uninsured Awareness Week. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown about 5 million since President Bush took office. The health care crisis is America's single largest domestic issue, but the President has offered Band-Aids to cover his lack of leadership. And the people have noticed. Nine out of ten Americans told a recent CBS/New York Times poll that the American health care system needs to be completely rebuilt.

Today, the number of Americans without any health insurance surpasses the combined population of 24 U.S. States: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That is the population without health insurance.

But the crisis is even worse than that. Millions of Americans are underinsured, and millions more can't afford the copay, or have to fight constant battles with the big drug companies and the HMOs.

In Seattle, my congressional district, here is what one constituent wrote to Health Care for All Washington, one of the organizations I work closely with:

``My dad has prostate cancer and has taken a turn for the worse. We had to postpone a quarterly injection of his drug because we are having trouble with the health insurance over the cost of the drug. It has been extremely frustrating as the insurance company has the drug in the wrong category. They sent us a letter admitting as much, but every 3 months we have to fight with them again, anywhere from $180 to $1,800. Anyway, since we postponed it, my dad has suffered.''

Does that sound familiar?

The pain inflicted by the health care crisis is hurting families across the United States. According to the Census Bureau, almost one- third of Latinos are uninsured, one-fifth of African Americans, 15 percent of children, 18 percent of full-time employees, and 11 percent of middle-class families.

In other words, only the rich can afford to live without risk. Only the rich are immune, because they have been coddled by the Republican- imposed income tax shelters that can pay for health care. Every other American is one layoff, one major accident, one major illness or divorce away from being uninsured and facing financial ruin.

Since the President took office, health care premiums have risen 87 percent. Have your wages gone up that much?

Here is another personal story from a letter: ``I have always worked and I have never taken welfare or asked for help from anyone. Last month, I was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. There is no cure for this slow-moving cancer. I will not be able to buy health insurance now because I have a preexisting condition. Even if I can find it somewhere, I would not be able to afford the big premiums. The only solution I can come up with is to leave America and move to another nation where I can get health care coverage.''

When American citizens consider leaving the country as the only viable option, that is not a solution, that is an indictment of a failure to act. The only solution to America's health care crisis is a single payer, universal health care system. We have tried everything else except the right idea.

Under H.R. 1200, my bill, every American would be guaranteed a package of benefits. States would administer their own programs, with decisions made closest to the patient. The health care system today is all about profits, not patients. My bill would put patients back in charge. It would provide predictable and lower cost for American businesses, and everyone would be covered.

The special interests have run the health care system into the ground, and millions of Americans have been ground into financial ruin as a result. The single most common cause for going into bankruptcy in this country is health care costs.

America stands virtually alone in the industrialized world in not caring for its citizens, and being a loner is insensitive, incomprehensible, and intolerable. If all we do is read these poignant stories and ring our hands, we will turned our backs on the people who elected us to serve them by leading. It is time to pass universal health care. We can do it, but it will take some leadership in the White House. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until 2009 to get a President who understands that all Americans should be protected with health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the President is going to talk to the congressional leaders about Iraq. It is his way of trying to defuse the will of the American people. He is going to talk about his vision for a military victory in Iraq. He is going to talk about his military escalation and how well it is working.

He is not going to talk about the bombing in the Green Zone last week, or the fact that about 3 hours ago there were 127 Iraqis killed by a suicide bomber. And it is only early morning. There is plenty of time left in this day.

The President will say there are good days and there are bad days. In truth, there are only bad days, and worse days in Iraq.

The only thing worth talking about is protecting our soldiers by getting them out of the Iraq quagmire. That is the only discussion worth having, because setting a timetable is the only way to protect and defend the U.S. soldiers he keeps sending into harm's way.

Don't give him an inch, Mr. Speaker. Bring our troops home.