Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to a death in my family I needed to depart Washington, DC, last week and missed several votes on February 8, 2007.

Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on: rollcall vote 87, the Hastings of Florida amendment; rollcall vote 88, the Rogers (MI) amendment; rollcall vote 89, the Weller amendment; rollcall vote 90, the Cantor amendment; and rollcall vote 92, final passage of H.R. 547.

I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 91, the Motion to Recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand today with fellow veterans as the House debates the most damaging, costly, and divisive course of U.S. military involvement since Vietnam.

At a naval station in California, I treated combat veterans returning home from Vietnam, many with severe physical and psychological wounds like PTSD and the effects of agent orange. After Vietnam, America swore there would never be another tragic military misadventure, but that is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

The American people want this Congress to end the war and to bring our soldiers home now, not 2 years from now at the end of this President's term. That is what the American people elected Democrats to do in November.

What we do this week is a miniscule little step. Step two will come when we get to appropriations next month.

We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be false. The American people know this, and today they are watching our debate. They will judge our actions.

Getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq has been my top priority since they were sent there 4 years ago under false pretenses. And the new claim by the President that escalating the war will reduce the violence is just another attempt to mislead the American people. It is a lot like Lyndon Johnson sending the bombers into Cambodia and Laos. They don't accept it. The American people don't accept it and they won't.

Those who claim we cannot leave Iraq without causing chaos ignore reality.

I ask to insert in the Record a piece by Retired Lieutenant General and Reagan administration NSA Director William Odom that decisively debunks this argument.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2007]

Victory Is Not an Option

(By William E. Odom)

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly

delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions

from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees

it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-

American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of

producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the

consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is

a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications--hedged, as intelligence agencies

prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact--

put the intelligence community and the American public on the

same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in

Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of

Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are

still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the

war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to

defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant

to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling

those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush,

wringing hands and debating ``nonbinding resolutions'' that

oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S.

troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of

mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and

Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two

more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and

possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not

inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the

game of ``who gets the blame'' could begin to alter American

strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a

more stable Middle East.

No task is more important to the well-being of the United

States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and

improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it

will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment

that the president's policy is based on illusions, not

realities. There never has been any right way to invade and

transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing,

but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a

liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about

everything known by professional students of the topic. Of

the more than 40 democracies created since World War II,

fewer than 10 can be considered truly ``constitutional''--

meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly

accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a

generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim

political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic

fissures like those in Iraq.

Strangely, American political scientists whose business it

is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the

lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators

shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many

findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They

also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create

the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now

expected to create a constitutional order in a country with

no conditions favoring it.

This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal

democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do

so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as

a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable

constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country

together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is

to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than

a century to get over its hostility toward British

occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored

supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S.

occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity

toward the United States. Even supporters of an American

military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and

only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from

winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its

senior members and their families live within the heavily

guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and

military command.

As Congress awakens to these realities--and a few members

have bravely pointed them out--will it act on them? Not

necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths

that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims.

Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

(1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible

aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon.

Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now

fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!

Undoubtedly we will leave a mess--the mess we created, which

has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers

gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next

breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath,

a civil war, a terrorist haven, a ``failed state,'' or some

other horror. But this ``aftermath'' is already upon us; a

prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

(2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence

from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of

the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy

in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq

and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put

Shiite groups in power--groups supported by Iran since Saddam

Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of

Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now

supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war

inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will

confront this contradiction helps explain the administration

and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to

Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in

Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this

time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's

ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the

anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and

have more lasting consequences.

(3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-

Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened

Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have

remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its

strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial.

After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing

role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the

Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive

in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to

question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-

Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is

the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

(4) We must continue to fight in order to ``support the

troops.'' This argument effectively paralyzes almost all

members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a

litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid

pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting

we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has

anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored

``staying the course''--whatever that meant to them--but now

in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing

their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories

about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups

are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home.

Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to

reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing

the war is the implication that the troops are somehow

responsible for deciding to continue the president's course.

That political and moral responsibility belongs to the

president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S Truman

make it clear that ``the buck stops'' in the Oval Office? If

the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With

Congress?

Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to

exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the

way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.

The first and most critical step is to recognize that

fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way

to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition

for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away

the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy

our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to

collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.

Second, we must recognize that the United States alone

cannot stabilize the Middle East.

Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are

actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using

sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening

``regime change,'' using the hysterical rhetoric of the

``global war on terrorism''--all undermine the stability we

so desperately need in the Middle East.

Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable

region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our

military operations so they enhance rather than undermine

stability. We can write off the war as a ``tactical draw''

and make ``regional stability'' our measure of ``victory.''

That single step would dramatically realign the opposing

forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even

many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities

against the United States want predictable order, albeit on

better social and economic terms than they now have.

Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to

achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies

and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen,

however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should

Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are

increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will

awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-

led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.

If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical

legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind

of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader

capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic

defeat into strategic recovery.

If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress

the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It

is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate

for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act,

it, too, will live in infamy.

Chaos, not democracy, has taken root in Iraq, and chaos will continue to take U.S. lives until we act in our best interest and order our people out of harm's way.

News accounts continue to remind us that our soldiers don't even have the proper body and vehicle armor. We cannot adequately protect the soldiers already serving, but more were ordered in anyway. If you want the most basic reason to vote to oppose escalation, it is that we haven't properly equipped the troops already in Iraq, and we are not doing any better by the troops we are sending in now.

Just being on the record against the President's escalation of this war is not enough. The only way to diffuse the violence in Iraq is to defund the war in Iraq. Congress has the power to control the funding, and we have the responsibility to exercise the power vested in us by the Constitution. That is what the American people elected us to do. We must exercise our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of government and do what the President is unwilling to do: bring our soldiers home.

When appropriations for Iraq come to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment based on the 1970 Hatfield-McGovern appropriations amendment to end the war in Vietnam. It will be an amendment to provide funding to protect our soldiers as we bring them home in a planned, safe, and orderly way, and to prohibit taxpayers' monies from being used to continue or expand the war in Iraq. This will provide a transition for the Iraqi security forces using a benchmark that matters: the date when U.S. troops will be out of there.

The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis can solve their own problems. We can't help; we just make good targets.

So I want to encourage everyone in the House to vote for this resolution. I want to make it the biggest, strongest, clearest vote that we can get to let the President know for the second time, he ignored the election, that the Congress says ``no.''

I know that many Members of the Republican Party are as distressed as I am about Iraq, and I admire their courage in standing up to their President. Every veteran, including myself, in this House and in this Nation is very proud of our soldiers. They have done what we have asked them to do. It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it is a civil war. And bring our soldiers home. We can begin to do it immediately. That is what I advocate and that is what the American people expect from us.

Madam Speaker, the President and his administration would be wise to avoid making Iran the next Iraq. Despite that, the demonizing of Iran has begun as the President tries to divert the attention of the American people away from the Iraq debacle. Instead of advocating diplomacy in the region as recommended by the Iraq Study Group and countless leaders in both political parties, the President is making veiled threats that are becoming increasingly worrisome. The boiling caldron of violence in the Middle East is growing hotter, and to many people, the policies and pronouncements of the President concerning Iran are seen as throwing gasoline on the fire.

As the situation worsens in Iraq, the President talks more and more about Iran, as if the attention of the American people and the world can so easily be diverted. That is not going to work this time. The focus of the American people, indeed the focus of the world, is on the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the disastrous war the President continues to wage and escalate. We know he is raising the stakes in Iraq. Many fear Iran is not behind. And we see an irony in that.

Leaders in the Middle East I met with recently in Jordan blame Paul Bremer, the President's first administrator in Iraq, believing Bremer, unwittingly or otherwise, handed Iraq to the regime in Iran. He did it with disastrous decisions.

First, he dismantled the Iraqi army. That left the border between Iraq and Iran unguarded and open to the infiltration of weapons and insurgents to foment violence in Iraq.

Bremer gave the Shi'a effective control by mandating they receive a majority of seats in reconstituting an Iraqi government.

These decisions opened the border and at the same time tightened relationships between Iranian Shi'a and Iraqi Shi'a. It set the stage for Iran's influence to grow stronger and stronger inside Iraq and unleashed a torrent of violence, pitting Iraqi against Iraqi with American soldiers caught in the cross fire. Is there any wonder that many Iraqis believe their nation is being handed over to Iran by the

Mr. Speaker, the President has isolated himself from all the evidence, military advice, members of his own party, and the American people. He is not staying the course in Iraq. The President is making matters even worse by escalating the war.

He has ordered at least 21,500 more U.S. soldiers into the middle of a bloody and violent civil war. This President has stepped backward in history. He is making the same tragic mistakes of Vietnam all over again.

The President's speeches won't stop a bullet, and they won't protect soldiers from the tsunami of violence inundating Iraq. Our soldiers don't have enough equipment or support. Soldiers know it, but the White House ignores it.

Some of the best newspapers and magazines in the Nation are reporting the facts, and they are not just repeating the President's spin.

From the McClatchy newspapers, here is a recent headline: ``Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause.''

From the San Francisco Chronicle: ``Corners cut in rush to add troops; shorter training time, lack of equipment hurt readiness, experts say.''

And the latest issue of Business Week said: ``Military equipment: Missing in action.''

I will enter these stories into the Record.

[From BusinessWeek]

Military Equipment: Missing in Action

A new Defense audit says the Pentagon has failed to properly equip soldiers in Iraq--just as the President struggles to find support for a

troop increase

(By Dawn Kopecki)

The Inspector General for the Defense Dept. is concerned

that the U.S. military has failed to adequately equip

soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for

nontraditional duties such as training Iraqi security

forces and handling detainees, according to a summary of a

new audit obtained by BusinessWeek.

The findings come as the Pentagon prepares to send another

21,500 troops to Iraq and as Democratic leaders levy threats

to restrict funding for a war that's already cost about $500

billion. The Army alone expects to spend an extra $70 billion

on an additional 65,000 permanent troops from fiscal year

2009 through 2013. According to Army officials, $18 billion

of that will be spent on equipment.

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been

able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have

gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary

supplies to ``effectively complete their missions'' and have

had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for

the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with

the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have

also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles,

and communications equipment, among other things, auditors

found.

``As a result, service members performed missions without

the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain

equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed

missions while waiting to receive equipment,'' reads the

executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often

borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed

supplies, according to the summary.

Pentagon officials did not immediately return phone calls

seeking comment.

The audit supports news reports and other evidence that

U.S. troops have been stretched too thin or have performed

tasks for which they were ill-prepared. It is likely to add

fuel to the opposition to President George W. Bush's decision

to send more troops to Iraq in an effort to quell the

violence there.

Already, support for the troop increase is tepid in the

Senate, where Democrats are preparing to vote on a nonbinding

statement against the President's plan. While lawmakers have

threatened to reduce funding for the war, few have publicly

committed to using the ``power of the purse'' to block

funding for the troop surge. ``The thing we're going to do

now is very important, to show the American people that the

United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis, does not support

an escalation,'' says Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

``Even the Republicans are very timid in their support for

the President at this stage.''

In the summary of the Inspector General's audit, the

equipment shortages were attributed to basic management

failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

U.S. Central Command lacked standard policies for requesting

and tracking equipment requirements or for equipping units to

perform nontraditional duties. Auditors surveyed 1,100

service members stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from all

four military branches, the National Guard, and Reserves.

The Inspector General recommended that the Pentagon

establish new internal controls and policies to address the

funding, equipping, and sustaining forces performing

nontraditional duties.

Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family I was unable to travel to Washington, DC, and missed votes in the House of Representatives on January 29, 30, and 31. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on:

1. H.R. 521, 2. H.R. 49, 3. H.R. 335, 4. H. Res. 70, 5. H. Res. 82, 6. H. Res. 24, 7. H. Con. Res. 20, 8. H. Res. 59, 9. H. Con. Res. 34, 10. H. Con. Res. 5, 11. H. Res. 90, 12. H. Res. 24, 13. H. Res. 116, and 14. H.J. Res. 20.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of loving family and friends, I enter into the Record our memory of Roseanna Wabel McDermott, born in Streator, Illinois, who died peacefully on January 29, 2007, at Columbia Lutheran Home in Seattle. We will miss her gentle spirit and twinkling eye.

Roseanna and her husband, Mac, came to the great Northwest in 1971. Early in their marriage, they had founded a church in their garage in the Chicago suburbs. Throughout her life, Roseanna continued to live her Christian faith of love, charity and compassion. She fundamentally rejected racism and unjust war.

A true mid-Westerner and a bride of the Depression, Roseanna had sizeable grit and an entrepreneur's resourcefulness. She could make something out of nothing, and for her everything had at least one more use before it went into the trash. She re-wired lamps, rejuvenated Charlie Brown Christmas trees with a bit of careful grafting, and mended furniture. She was a saver--of string, rubber bands, and plastic twist ties. And, she showed us there was always hope for a dying plant, a broken chair, or a difficult personality.

As a consummate gardener, Roseanna fed her family from her backyard and taught her offspring the wonders of composting, the satisfaction of baking and the skill of darning. She was a crack gin rummy player (despite her misgivings about the danger of cards), and she loved the interaction and challenge of a good game of Scrabble. She enjoyed all things northwest--Dungeness crab, Pacific oysters and the Seattle Mariners.

Roseanna possessed a wide curiosity and believed in the power of education. A Streator High School graduate, yet financially unable to go to college herself, she sacrificed for the education of her children and served as their constant reminder of the benefits of hard work and life-long learning.

Roseanna's loving presence and beautiful smile were dwarfed only by her huge heart and unwavering belief in the goodness of all. She is preceded in death by her husband of 68 years, William Morrell (Mac), and survived by her children Jim, John, Lois, Mark; her grandchildren Katherine, Jim and Nicholas; and, her great grandchildren Kendall and Lachlan.

In tribute to their loving care of Roseanna, donations may be sent to Columbia Lutheran Home (columbialutheranhome.com) 4700 Phinney Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103. Please join in celebration of this beloved woman on February 10th at University Congregational United Church of Christ at 2 p.m. (4515 16th Ave NE, Seattle).

Mr. Speaker, today we are going to discuss energy and a new direction.

The Speaker has set a vision to get us off our oil addiction. And in order to do that, we have got to find some money to begin to develop alternative energy sources.

Now, the newspapers today are filled with stories about why we are still in Iraq. We are trying to get a law passed over there that puts in production sharing agreements with the big oil companies of this country. We are trying to get a hold of the Iraqis' oil. We want to take 70 percent of the profits at the beginning.

Now, no Iraqi who has any nationalist feelings is going to sign that, and that is why we are still there 4 years later. We are till trying to get a hold of their oil and control it.

This country has to take the beginning step today, with H.R. 6, to get us off this oil addiction. Alternative energy, whether you are talking solar or wind or biomass or bio diesel, all these are ways that Americans can use for energy and we don't have to live off the rest of the world. We get 3 percent of our oil from the United States. All the rest comes from outside. We are totally dependent on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil doesn't think it is a good idea. But let's set the stage for this debate.

Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1 billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly profits that they have been reporting.

Their answer to everything is more drilling and more money. The President completely agrees. He thinks it is unfair of us to expect Big Oil to actually earn money. He would actually just give it to them. That is what they think; that is what the American people face.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, it is expected that 86 percent of our energy supply will come from oil, coal, and natural gas in the year 2030. That is the same proportion of our energy consumption that carbon provides today.

That same report states that we should expect oil, gas, and coal prices to continually climb. In other words, if this country does not pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil.

The bill before us takes the vital first step in the pursuit of a new energy policy that looks to American innovation to provide renewable energy. This bill is a down payment, and only that, on a commitment to an energy policy that is fitting for the 21st century. The bill before us is fundamentally fair.

In 2004, the Congress sought to help American manufacturers better compete in the global economy, but in doing so they provided a 10 percent reduction in the Federal taxes owed by Big Oil. That translates into a tax subsidy for over $1 billion a year, a real boondoggle.

What is more, the Congress gave this subsidy to oil at a time when the industry was enjoying recordbreaking

profits that were resulting from $60 a barrel oil. That is wrong. Today we take the first step back in the right direction.

Today we're taking the taxpayer money and putting it to better use. Today the House of Representatives will decide that it's wiser to invest in renewable energy, innovation, and a future for our economy and our planet.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my gentleman friend from Illinois that the United States is among the lowest countries in the world in terms of corporate taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an original cosponsor of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

The gentleman raises an interesting possibility, and the legislative process will move forward. There will be bills put into the Congress and this will be discussed.

What we are doing today is creating a fund from which proposals can be funded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Yes. The bill before us directs some of the subsidies we currently give to Big Oil into a new fund which is created by this bill called the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.

The purpose is really this, to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy and to promote energy efficient products and conservation; and furthermore, we want to spur research, development and deployment of clean renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the amount of time that we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of the debate.

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

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Louisiana, I would think that the end of the Western World as we have known it is about to descend upon us by these rather minor changes we are making in the tax policy of this country, by taking back subsidies to an oil industry that between January and September of 2006 has had $96 billion worth of profit reported.

Now these are minor changes at the most and we know that. This is a down payment on the changes that must go on in this country. We know the American people have spoken on this issue. They are demanding change. That is why they voted the way they did in November. They saw what they got out of the White House and out of the Vice President's office, the records of which are still kept secret so we don't know what agreements were made with the oil companies at the beginning of this administration.

I spoke earlier, and after I spoke I went out of the Chamber and I bumped into some people from the National Wildlife Federation, and they gave me 30,000 signatures of people who want this bill to pass, people who care about the environment. People who care about global warming, people who believe in national security, who believe in economic security, signed this in the last 3 weeks. The American people obviously are way ahead of us.

Detroit didn't know what was going on. The Prius was on the street for 3 years in Tokyo, and they never saw it coming. When the Prius came to the United States, the waiting time was 18 months long. That is what we have to change. We have to change the thinking in this country about whether we are going to be addicted to oil forever or not.

Now global warming is real. The average temperature in the ocean has gone up 1 degree worldwide. In the Northwest, it is up more than 2 degrees. And the changes that means for salmon spawning and for the ecology that goes on are under way. Yesterday's New York Times had a story about the melting of the glaciers in Greenland. There is no question about whether global warming is happening. The question is whether this Congress will respond and lead the way.

Speaker Pelosi when she came in said she was going to do these things and set a new direction for this country. Today we are finishing up 100 hours of efforts in a whole series of areas, this being the toughest, this being the most complicated, the most costly, the one that is going to take us the most time.

We can change the health care system in fairly short order if we want to. We can change college loans in fairly short order if we want to. But changing the way we use energy in this country needs to start today.

No one says this bill is the be-all and end-all of what should happen, but we can see countries that have done it. In Brazil, they have gotten themselves off gasoline. They are using ethanol. We could do that. The Brazilians are not smarter than we are. They just decided as a country they were going to get off their addiction to oil.

The Danes, when we dropped our support for the wind industry, picked up the technology and now at every place you go to see a windmill in this country, it is made in Denmark. Why is that? We started that in 1994 with some amendments supporting the wind industry, and then we let them expire.

Last year, 2005, we suddenly woke up and said, Oh my God, the Danes are ahead of us. We better start again. There is a whole series of things that we should be doing if we are serious about what is going to be our future.

Now, I have hoped that we would have a day like this when we would start to make the change. This is one small step. The Chinese say a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. This is the first step.

Mr. Rahall has done an excellent job, and I want to congratulate the staff of the Ways and Means Committee, and particularly John Buckley whose idea this bill was. He came to me with the idea. It was not my idea. It was John Buckley's and congratulations to John.

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

Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?

Madam Speaker, I urge people to vote down this motion to recommit. Mr. McCrery sat in the other day when we had a forum in the Ways and Means Committee and we discussed this bill. We went over it fairly carefully with experts from two sources at least. And, clearly, we are making very modest changes. That was clear from the testimony we had, that these were modest changes to the law.

When we make the bigger changes, which we will have to do to give us a real source of money for this, and decide how we are going to allocate it in the most effective way for the country, there will be full hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and I look forward to having your participation. You have been a real wonderful change in the Ways and Means Committee for us, and we are looking forward to working with you on the Tax Code to make this truly the first step, the first teeny step, and then we are going to make a lot of other big steps.

Madam Speaker, to hear the Speaker's answer to the question.

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, there is one nation in the world where seeding democracy right now might take root. It is Cuba. It is only 90 miles away from our shores, but we are using the same sort of wrong- headed thinking regarding Cuba that we are using in international affairs around the world with equally dismal results.

Today the Bush administration has draconian travel restrictions in place for any American trying to visit family members in Cuba. It is their idea of promoting democracy by punishing the people we are trying to befriend. It makes no difference if a relative is well, sick or dying in Cuba. You get one chance every 3 years to visit Cuba legally. If an American visits a relative in Cuba and that relative is stricken by a heart attack the day after you leave, you cannot go back for 3 years.

The administration thinks that by cutting off families in Cuba from loved ones in the United States, they will encourage the overthrow of Castro.

When will we ever learn? This policy plays right into the hands of those who want to portray the United States as an arrogant bully willing to use innocent people as a wedge against a regime we don't like.

Our policy regarding Cuba is hurting innocent people here and there, not the government we have been trying to overthrow for a generation. It has hurt one of my constituents, an Iraq war hero, who came to the United States from Cuba 15 years ago risking his life coming on a raft floating in the ocean.

Sergeant Carlos Lazo made national headlines last year when he tried to get to Cuba to visit his teenage sons. Carlos is a man who joined the Washington National Guard to give service to his new country.

As a combat medic in Iraq, he risked his life to save others, and for his heroism he was awarded the Bronze Star. I had the honor to pin that medal on him in a ceremony in Seattle last year.

Carlos is an American citizen, a decorated war hero, and he is barred from boarding a flight to visit his family in Cuba. That is not how you promote democracy in Cuba or anywhere else for that matter. And the fact is, there are countless stories just like Carlos. It makes no diplomatic or strategic sense. We hurt U.S. interests by hurting U.S. citizens who reach out to family in Cuba.

Who could possibly be a better ambassador representing the United States than the blood relative of someone living in Cuba? The most powerful statement we could ever make to the people of Cuba is to let them interact with Americans who are related by blood or marriage.

Are the Cubans more likely to listen to U.S. propaganda or to a son or to a daughter? The answer is obvious, and it should be just as obvious that the U.S. needs to revise its travel ban to Cuba.

As it stands now, we are separating families. Instead, we should be reuniting loved ones. We don't promote freedom by denying it to innocent civilians, and we don't make new friends anywhere when an American citizen is denied the ability to visit a dying mother in Cuba. Imagine the propaganda of a press release, Americans barred from visiting mother on death bed in Cuba. A story like that can and will be used against us all over the world.

We don't gain from a policy that forces separate families, and it is time

to change. We don't have to lift the embargo against Cuba to restore family relations among Cubans and their relatives who live in America. We have a real opportunity to make progress promoting democracy in Cuba, and we ought to take it.

We need to revise the U.S. travel policy to Cuba to recognize that the American people are the best ambassadors we could ever deploy. Every visit by an American citizen to a loved one in Cuba will do more to promote freedom and democracy than all the leaflets and all the broadcasts and all the saber rattling that we have tried unsuccessfully in the last half century. We don't need to tear down a wall, we do need to tear up a policy and start over, and we should do it now.

Mr. Speaker, we each have our heroes. Gandhi is one of mine. Gandhi said, ``Be the change you want to see in the world.'' Those are words to live by and a philosophy to guide us in making laws that affect the American people.

I have been elected as a subcommittee chairman in the new Congress, and I think the American people and my House colleagues deserve to hear something about my vision about that responsibility.

I am elected to chair the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. Human resources is really about America's safety net. This subcommittee has jurisdiction over many vital social and economic programs that support the American people. They are key portions of the Social Security Act, which include unemployment insurance, temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental security income, and programs to protect vulnerable and assist disadvantaged children. I don't think the present subcommittee name ``Human Resources'' really conveys the mission of that committee or the urgency, so we have decided to change the name to the Subcommittee on Economic Security and Family Support.

In one sentence, here is my vision of what this subcommittee can do in service of the American people: We can transform common dreams into the common good, and we have a social responsibility and a moral imperative to do it. We should at least begin an effort to cut poverty by 50 percent, and I intend to try.

Millions of Americans, many in families where both parents work, live in poverty today. That should be unacceptable in the richest nation in the world. The millions of children who go to bed hungry tonight, abandoned, abused, neglected, or just plain forgotten, it is a shame. We have got to remember. We have got to say to these children, ``You are not alone, and we will help.'' We can inspire innovations in child welfare for children in kinship care, for foster parents, for case workers, for family court workers, and countless other unsung heroes in America. ``We thank you for your service to the children and your communities and your family, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that your government does its part.''

I am not standing here as a Democrat. Good ideas don't begin with a political party label; good ideas begin with a commitment to something bigger than ourselves but involving all of us. It is the common good. No child should be alone in a country as compassionate as ours. We can start there, and then debate the ideas and programs that can deliver the common good. We can vow to cut poverty in half.

Just 2 days ago, we stopped to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Let's not forget something Dr. King said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' That applies to every nation on earth, including the United States. The richest nation on the earth is poorer for every American who lives in poverty. There is work to be done, and we cannot deny it. We can make America the nation where social and economic justice applies to everyone regardless of their economic circumstance.

We admire the visionary work done by leaders who have come before us. These leaders believed we have an obligation to assist Americans who lose their job through no fault of their own. In the 21st century, changes wrought by a global marketplace should challenge us to reexamine and strengthen the support for American workers. Anyone who loses their job, especially an older worker, knows what I mean. America is a nation founded on the common good. It is the fundamental basis of this country, and every caring family, we take care of each other.

The safety net committee I chair is woven out of the social fabric that created America. We have been handed the

responsibility and an expectation to do good. It is far too convenient to bash the government and blame it for all our ills. In America, the people are the government. I think the people expect and deserve a government that acts in their name and on their behalf in a way that reflects the hope and promise America has meant for over two centuries.

America's future is in our hands, and it is within our power to nurture, heal, and defend. That is my mission, and that is the mission of this Congress. The safety net is ours to weave and ours to protect. We must do it.

Mr. Speaker, we will invest in America's future tomorrow by making college more affordable and accessible for over 5 million Americans. We are going to cut the interest rate in half over the next 5 years for undergraduates with subsidized student loans. Interest on those loans will drop from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next 4 years.

Investing in America's future is long overdue. Now, the question is: Who benefits? Ordinary Americans, that is who. This legislation will help low- and middle-income Americans who rely on subsidized loans to make college a reality. It gives them a real shot at the American Dream.

We know that an undergraduate college degree is a minimum education requirement for participating in the hope and opportunity of the 21st century. We also know that our sons and daughters have been forced to take on significant debt in recent years to pursue that college degree. In the last 5 years, undergraduate students and their families have seen tuition and fees rise over 40 percent at public universities after inflation. At the same time, the cost of borrowing money has gone up by 2 percent.

It is a debt load that is forcing talented young Americans to pass up a college education and America cannot afford to let that happen. Americans with an undergraduate degree earn much more on average than Americans without one. In 2005, the average earnings of someone with a college degree was 60 percent more than someone with only a high school degree. In today's dollars, we are talking about $37,000 versus $67,000 for a college graduate.

And there is every reason to believe this income gap will widen in coming years. Making college more affordable and accessible gives more of our children and grandchildren access to a better life, and those economic benefits ripple through the entire economy.

I represent Seattle, a city where technological innovation is a daily ingredient of our local economy, from Boeing to Microsoft, through a thousand start-ups. These companies need an educated workforce to succeed. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy, and Americans deserve every fair advantage.

A college education is one of the best advantages, and it isn't just about making money. With a college degree, students have more careers to choose from. In other words, a college degree is a key that can unlock your own personal happiness. Imagine working at something you want to do every day instead of something you have to do.

Today, too many promising young Americans are not going to college because it costs too much, not because they do not have the ability to succeed. And we know there are racial and gender disparities that make it imperative for us as a Nation to make college more affordable, accessible, and available.

For those who do go to college, the typical student graduates over $17,000 in debt. So we are making a downpayment in this bill on America's future by cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans, and we would be wise as a Nation to do more.

Today, the United States accounts for 14 percent of the world's college graduates. That is just half of the percentage we accounted for 30 years ago. In other words, knowledge is power, and other nations have dramatically stepped up their efforts.

A few months ago, the nonpartisan National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released a new report that ranks the United States 16 among the 27 industrialized nations in the world for the number of students who complete a college education or advanced certificate degree. The data in the report also suggests there is a shortage of college-educated young Americans ready to take over as the college- trained baby boomers retire. We could be as much as 15 million college graduates short in just over a decade. That would be completely unacceptable in the United States of America.

Cutting interest rates in half on subsidized student loans is a start, but it is just that. It is just a beginning. We need to find other ways to invest in America's future by investing in America's future generation. We say it over and over again, that children are our future. This is an opportunity to put in law the fact that we mean business. The 21st century will require nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues on the other

side today, it seems like I am back in medical school in 1963 when the American Medical Association president told us, if we get that Medicare, that will be the end of health care in this country; there is no way we will have any kind of good health care in this country.

Well, the fact is we would never have had it if we waited for you to do it. During the 12 years you were in control, you proposed not one single way to deal with the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance.

Now with respect to senior citizens, they are isolated in a blizzard of confusing programs and options which cost more than a 250 percent difference in the same zip code. I live in 98119. You can spent 250 percent different depending on which program.

People don't know that. My mother is 97, and you expect them to pick this up. They ought to get a lower cost, and we are going to get it for them by getting the Secretary to negotiate them, as he should. That creates a huge national pool that the companies cannot ignore, and they are going to have to work toward the common good.

Now, it is time we worked for the common good in here, not for the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry or anybody else but the seniors who have to deal with the prices of their drugs. That is what they are asking for us. It is the same proposal we have used in the VA.

You would think we would be doing that to the veterans if it was bad? Come on. This is good for the veterans, it is good for the seniors, and it is finally working toward the common good in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have not received very much information about a major issue in and around the Iraq war, and the oil industry would like to keep it just that way. Fortunately, investigative journalism is still being practiced, and I want to share information uncovered by a reporter for AlterNet, in the United States, and a major Sunday story this week in The Independent, a newspaper in the United Kingdom.

The number one Iraq story for all of 2006 on AlterNet, which is an Internet-based news and opinion site, was a two-part series by a reporter, Joshua Holland, entitled: ``Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil.''

Last Sunday, The Independent carried stories with these headlines: ``Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War, How the West Will Make a Killing on Iraqi Oil Riches.'' And ``Blood and Oil: How the West Will Profit from Iraq's Most Precious Commodity.''

Members of Congress are limited in how much information we can enter into the record at one time, so I will enter into the record The Independent story. I will also encourage every American to seek out and read the complete AlterNet story, which is available online.

These investigative reports paint a disturbing picture and raise troubling questions about big oil's attempting to steal the oil wealth and resources of the Iraqi people. From the beginning of the Iraq invasion, more moderate voices, especially overseas, questioned whether the ulterior motive behind toppling Saddam Hussein was a grab for Iraqi oil. In this scenario, democracy is a by-product of oil production, not the real reason for military action in Iraq.

Gaining access to the oil wealth of Iraq has had oil industries salivating for years. Gaining control of that oil wealth would be a prize beyond compare for the oil industry. Iraq has the third largest oil reserves in the world, and there are many oil geologists who believe that vast additional oil reserves are just waiting to be discovered in Iraq's western desert. They call it the Holy Grail, and some believe the untapped riches could propel Iraq from third to first place in the world's oil reserves.

An estimated 115 billion barrels of oil reserves are under Iraq. Today's price is $53 a barrel, and that is an 18-month low. The American people are still suffering from the oil price shocks and

high prices at the pump, and the oil industry is booking record profits in the billions of dollars every quarter, record profits in a world that is addicted to oil.

In 1999, Vice President Cheney was running Halliburton, and he said in a speech that another 50 million barrels of oil would be needed by the end of the decade, and the key was the Middle East.

This administration and the British prime minister have repeatedly said that the U.S. invasion was not about oil. But these investigative reporters say a new law is quietly working its way through the Iraqi government that would give unprecedented access, control and oil wealth to Western oil companies. It would happen under what is known as a production sharing agreement, a PSA.

Here is how The Independent put it: ``PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries.''

The news account continues: ``Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and twoexporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC.''

The PSA's would give big oil in Iraq deals that would last for 30 to 40 years. These deals, the news reports point out, would force Iraq to share its oil wealth with Western outsiders, not their own people. Up to 70 percent of the profits would go to outside producers in the first years, and the news media points out that these deals could be enforced ahead of any social and economic reforms in Iraq and ahead of any social programs. One person quoted called it ``colonialism lite.''

The President said it is not about oil. The prime minister said it is not about oil. They said Iraqi oil was for Iraqi people. But the legislation working its way through the Iraqi government is about nothing but Western access to the oil and its incredible wealth. The leaked drafts of the legislation show the West in a role with access and control, including a provision in the leaked draft document that would enable Western oil companies to transfer their wealth right out of Iraq. They don't have to leave it in Iraq at all.

Quoting directly from the leaked draft, ``A foreign person may repatriate its exports in accordance with foreign exchange regulations in force at the time.'' In fact, the language is so favorable to companies that they would be able to take every bit out and sell the rest to the world.

A vast amount of Iraq's wealth would be up for sale, by foreigners, to foreigners.

Quoting the leaked draft: ``It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners.''

The United States has been in Iraq for over 4 years already.

How long will we be there if western oil companies are given free rein to put a vice grip on Iraq's oil?

If western oil companies get a 30-year agreement, we may call Iraq the 30-year war.

The President said Iraq was all about democracy. News reports now give us a picture that say it might have been all about the oil.

Read the news reports and decide for yourself.

I include for the Record the article from The Independent.

[From The Independent, Jan. 7, 2007]

Blood and Oil: How the West Will Profit From Iraq's Most Precious

Commodity

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As

the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises

past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on

sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on

Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push

through a law giving Western oil companies the right to

exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world,

with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be

extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick

Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton,

an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to

preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in

Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has

quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the

point of being presented to the cabinet and then the

parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure

from the norm for developing countries: under a system known

as ``production-sharing agreements'', or PSAs, oil majors

such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the

US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract

Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil,

but gives a share of profits to the international companies

that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells,

pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first

for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and

Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both

tightly control their industries through state-owned

companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do

most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting

Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it

could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to

come. ``Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome,''

said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and

environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said

the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of

BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the U.S.

government, which had a representative working in the

American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

``Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to

scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis,'' said Mr.

Muttitt. ``The draft went to the U.S. government and major

oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund

in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in

Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation.

Only one had.''

Britain and the United States have always hotly denied that

the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the

invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons

motion to back the war. ``The oil revenues, which people

falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust

fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN,'' he

said.

``The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council

Resolution that would affirm . . . the use of all oil

revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people.''

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after

President Bush declared major combat operations at an end,

under a banner boasting ``Mission Accomplished'', Britain co-

sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the

United States and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far

from ``all oil revenues'' being used for the Iraqi people,

Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil

earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in

1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the

United States and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be

used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example,

Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: ``We have

not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for U.S. purposes, or for

coalition purposes. Quite the contrary . . . It cost a great

deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi

people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it

will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for

oil.''

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the

war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: ``We're

dealing with a country that can really finance its own

reconstruction, and relatively soon.''

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the

invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically.

The country is now producing about two million barrels per

day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels.

Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under

the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly

attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports

is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven

most of the educated elite out of the country for safety,

depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and

administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with

corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-

general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500

in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or

northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of

$8,400.

``In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more

money, just to be stolen,'' said Greg Muttitt. ``It's another

reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now.''

Before the war, Mr. Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil

would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues

afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he

has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the

country, ``so the people have faith in central government'',

as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on

oil--it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy--control of

the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of

the oil reserves in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias,

heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power

with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic

deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and

even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year,

setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear

to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement

based on population

was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS

that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA

deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early

draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is

understood there have been no significant changes made in the

final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are

generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at

least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that

oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by

securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources

could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that

any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be

settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday,

legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating

the relevant paragraph with the note, ``Some countries do not

accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and

themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state. ``

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in

the final draft.

Under the chapter entitled ``Fiscal Regime'', the draft

spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on

taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject

to any tax when doing this.

``A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in

accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at

the time].'' Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other

foreign companies: ``It may freely transfer shares pertaining

to any non-Iraqi partners.'' The final draft outlines general

terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard

12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.

It is also understood that once companies have recouped

their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed

to keep 20 percent of the profits, with the rest going to the

government. According to analysts and oil company executives,

this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali

Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy

Studies, said: ``Twenty percent of the profits in a

production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been

recouped, is a large amount.'' In more stable countries, 10

percent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able

to recoup 60 to 70 percent of revenue; 40 percent is more

usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources,

an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: ``They are

reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad

security situation in Iraq. The government needs people,

technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has

got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract

companies. The major companies tend to be conservative.''

Dr. Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country,

said: ``It's very dangerous . . . although the security

situation is far better in the north.'' Even taking that into

account, however, he believed that ``for a company to take 20

percent of the profits in a production-sharing agreement once

all the costs have been recouped is large''.

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with

Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge

field. Although the contract was never signed, the French

company would only have kept 10 percent of the profits once

the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is

understood it agreed to take only 40 percent of the profits,

the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production-sharing agreements of more than 30 years are

unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like

the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start

production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and

easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil.

Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to

be developed.

Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's

reserves--the third largest in the world--only 2,300 wells

have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms--widely feared by

international nongovernment organisations and Iraqis alike--

have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-

sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was

bankrupt and in chaos.

At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to

develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island

in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after

months of thinly veiled threats from the environment

regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give

Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the

project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs

would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr. Muttitt

disagreed. ``The most commonly mentioned target has been for

Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by

2015 or so,'' he said. ``Iraq has estimated that it would

need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six

years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year,

according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and

$4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $lbn a year,

and that could easily be made up if the security situation

improved.

``PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It

is not true at all that this is the only way to do it.''

Technical services agreements, of the type common in

countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be

all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group,

said: ``The U.S. and the UK have been pressing hard on this.

It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in

Iraq.'' The Iraqi authorities, he said, were ``a government

under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The

U.S. has a lot of leverage . . . Iraq is in no condition

right now to go ahead and do this.''

Mr. Paul added: ``It is relatively easy to get the oil in

Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea.

There are super giant fields that are completely mapped,

[and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So

the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk

is specious.''

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small,

maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in

Iraq in the foreseeable future. ``Production over the next

year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up,''

said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. ``The whole

thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate.''

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: ``All the majors

will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even

Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not

in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for U.S.

and allied companies because of the disastrous war.''

Mr. Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done

now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq

might become peaceful enough for development of its oil

resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a

future struggle over natural resources which has led to

decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as

Iran.

Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan

suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its

terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

``The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil

to be decided behind closed doors,'' their statement said.

``The occupier seeks and wishes to secure . . . energy

resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to

determine their own future, while still under conditions

of occupation.''

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not

only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The

perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among

foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the

insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American

troops to a country already described in a U.S. intelligence

report as a cause celebre for terrorism.

America protects its fuel supplies--and contracts

Despite U.S. and British denials that oil was a war aim,

American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as

they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former

defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of

looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil

Ministry--alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi

capital--was under American guard.

Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was

among U.S.-based multinationals that won most of the

reconstruction deals--one of its workers is pictured,

tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts,

mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled

rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another U.S. giant, has

pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in

Iraq.

in just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign

investors for the next 30 years

A 40-page document leaked to the `IoS' sets out the legal

framework for the Iraqi government to sign production-sharing

agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its

vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing

partnerships between the Iraqi government and international

oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation

between Iraq's federal government and its regional

authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts

to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that

Iraq needs foreign investment for the ``quick and substantial

funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects''.

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of

``great importance to the whole nation as well as to all

investors in the sector'' and that the proceeds from foreign

investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term,

decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

the role of oil in iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves--10 per

cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields,

of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per

cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue.

Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production-

sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are

used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply

in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing

countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they

were

signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are

now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for U.S. companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to

U.S. companies.

As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such

as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of

companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing

coalition military presence in the country. Other companies

have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and

hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course,

its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA),

part of the U.S. Department of Defence, created the Project

Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's

reconstruction.

In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim

government took power. But the U.S. maintained its grip on

allocating contracts to private companies. The management of

reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq

Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the U.S.

Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office,

in the Department of Defence.

The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has

been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of U.S. giant

Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq

worth $13bn (7bn), including an uncontested $7bn

contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other

companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the

giant U.S. conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group

that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation,

and General Electric. According to the U.S.-based Centre for

Public Integrity, 150-plus U.S. companies have won contracts

in Iraq worth over $50bn.

30,000--Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in

Iraq.

36--The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a U.S.

company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since

August 2003.

$12.1bn--UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's

electricity network.

$2 trillion--Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the U.S.,

according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph

Stiglitz.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House, my constituents in Washington's 7th Congressional District, and First Responders across America to join me in honoring a fallen hero, King County Deputy Sheriff Steve Cox.

Last weekend, Steve Cox, an extraordinary public servant, was killed in the line of duty while interviewing witnesses to a shooting in the White Center neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The tragic loss of this 9 year veteran of law enforcement has stunned and saddened our entire community.

Steve Cox had become the White Center neighborhood's Superhero. Area residents remembered Deputy Cox in The Seattle Times as the person ``who was single-handedly making the streets safer and the neighborhood better. He became so deeply involved in community issues that he was elected president of the local Council. To his family, he was a man who had found new joy since he and his wife, Maria, adopted a baby, Bronson, who turned 1 in October.''

Deputy Cox exhibited a personal and steadfast commitment to law enforcement and community safety that spanned varied sides of the law enforcement profession. The son of teachers, Deputy Cox was an attorney and served as a deputy prosecutor in Franklin and King Counties prior to becoming a King County Sheriff's Deputy 9 years ago.

I had the honor of meeting Deputy Cox in our community. I know that he touched the lives of so many that he so honorably served.

Deputy Steve Cox led by example. He was and will always be a role model of selfless public service. We mourn his passing, but we are grateful for the life he led on our behalf and the legacy of idealism and heroism we will never forget.

Mr. Speaker, getting American trade policy right is important for many reasons. We must aim to provide opportunity for American businesses and the workers they rely upon, while also providing opportunity to people in less developed nations.

We have before us a consensus measure that is long overdue. Consensus building is hard work and too often those in power seek that which is easy, not that which is best and necessary.

I'm very pleased the bill before us continues the trade benefits vital to the nations of sub Saharan Africa.

This bill would finally launch a more just trading policy with Haiti, and bring Vietnam into the community of trading nations that abide by international rules.

I am pleased this bill continues to provide discretion to the President to retain competitive need limit waivers under the Generalized System of Preferences and does not require revocation of any such waiver currently in effect.

Unfortunately, this bill falls short in some fundamental ways. First, we should make permanent GSP, not merely extend it temporarily.

The program should also be enhanced to meet the pledge made by the U.S. Trade Representative to extend duty-free and quota-free treatment to products produced by workers in poor countries.

At the beginning of this year's session of Congress, President Bush addressed the Congress and the American people and said, ``In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting--yet it ends in danger and decline.''

The President is right. The bill before us offers a dangerous future for our dealings with our own hemisphere. It weakens our relationship with Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. The conditions this bill imposes upon continued trade benefits for these countries are unrealistic.

This bill threatens thousands upon thousands of jobs in the Andean region, feeding a growing and destructive form of populism.

Mr. Speaker, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.

I know when the new Congress convenes in just over three weeks, the troubling components of this bill will be properly addressed, and I therefore support the bill before us today.

In conclusion, let me say I very much look forward to the new Congress, when trade policy will be constructed in public, and in daylight.

I look forward to next year's consideration of policies that aim to improve the human condition, and are produced by means enabling consensus, not division.