Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on a day when 10 more U.S. soldiers died in Iraq, raising the number of brave Americans killed to 2,900, it is hard to find anything positive to say about the Baker Report, anything which is associated with a war which was hopelessly wrong from the outset.

It was Congress that demanded the creation of a bipartisan group to critically examine the U.S. presence. At long last, the Congress, the American people, and the reluctant President have an Iraq plan to debate, except this President's interest has already begun to wane. He recently installed his own study group, which is a sign to me the President has changed his rhetoric but has not changed the course.

America cannot and must not deal with Iraq in 2007 in the same way this President dealt with it in 2006. America needed a plan for Iraq long before the U.S. went in there. Many of the 79 recommendations made should have been implemented years ago. One recommendation that is imperative from any hope of success, diplomacy involving Iraq and Syria, has been rejected by the President before it is even debated out here in the Congress. The American people and the American soldiers deserve better than that. This President has led them into this mess and we have, now, a chance to lead them out. And he rejects the recommendations before they are even discussed. We need better than that out of the Presidency.

Madam Speaker, the President has repeatedly said that he is not interested in engaging in Iran in an effort to stabilize Iraq. There is a tragic irony in the President's intransigence. While the President is unwilling to talk to Iran, his policies in Iraq, in reality, are allowing Iran to take over Iraq. But if we don't recognize and act on this soon, Iran will succeed.

This is real, it is not rhetorical. Actions by the President, through his appointed surrogate to run Iraq, Paul Bremer, that date back to the first days of the U.S. invasion, have created a situation today that makes Iraq a prime candidate for what Iran could never accomplish on its own militarily; that is, taking over Iraq, its oil, its infrastructure, even its existence as a separate Nation. Iran couldn't successfully invade Iraq, but we did, and now we are playing right into the hands of the Iranians by not acting on what Iraqis see happening.

The media portrays an overly simplistic picture of sectarian struggle. We hear a lot about Shi'a and Sunni Iraqis, but we don't hear about Persians; that is, Iran and the Persian versus Arab is where the real battle for Iraq will be won or lost. Every time the President meets with Iranian Shi'a clerics, or those connected or controlled by them, he confirms in the Iraqi-Arab minds, both Shi'a and Sunni, that he is ceding control to the Iranians.

It began with Bremer's decision to give the Shi'a control of the governing council. Then his decision to disband the Iraqi Army and the Baathist technocrat government further confirmed to the Arabs the feeling that the United States, despite its protests to the contrary, was opening up Iraq to an Iranian takeover. The borders were open.

This is not my speculation, this is what moderate leaders in the Middle East told me in face-to-face meetings I attended in Amman, Jordan recently. Moderate leaders desperately want the American people to understand what is really going on, because they see that as perhaps their last hope of getting our President to see.

To the Iraqi Arabs, there are only two explanations to account for Paul Bremer's actions: a blunder based upon ignorance of the history of the region, or a deliberate decision to neutralize Iraq as a strong Arab secular nation, thereby making it more susceptible to U.S. influence in the future.

Moderates in the region see it this way. The President, and therefore

America, continues to openly act in ways that enable an Iranian takeover. Just the other day, the President met with the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdul Aziz Hakim, in the White House. He is controlled and tied to the Iranians. This comes on the heels of the President's meeting and endorsement of al-Maliki.

Meeting with Iranian-controlled Iraqis, no matter what sect they belong to, confirms to many in the region that the President doesn't understand the current situation. Moderates told me the resistance in Iraq is based on the U.S. occupation and a power grab by the Iranian- controlled clerics. Blaming it all on Sunni-Shi'a tensions is not just incorrect, they say, it is exactly what Iran hopes for, because it leaves them hidden.

Here is another example. Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shi'a leader, left the coalition with the Iranian-controlled SCIRI and joined the Arab Sunnis. Al-Sadr strongly opposes the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and some see the meeting between the President and the Iranian leader of SCIRI as only deepening the passions against the United States. Friends of the United States in the region, and even foes, believe the same.

To many in the region, one only need look at history to understand. Arabs and Persians have fought for centuries before Islam even existed, and their enmity remains intense. Persians are the Iranians. Arabs are the ones in Iraq. Failure by the President to understand it is Persian versus Arab or Iran versus Iraq that is going on, has produced one disastrous decision after another. The solution, they believe, is obvious. Strategically, redeploy the U.S. troops out of Baghdad, out of the cities, and onto the Iranian border to stop the infiltration of Iranian agents into Iraq.

Some Arab leaders told me they estimate as many as 14,000 Persians, Iranians, have infiltrated to run death squads who are killing the Arab Sunnis and inciting a civil war as cover for the real war that is Iran versus Iraq.

Unless we change the course, unless we draw back our troops out to the borders in preparation for ultimately leaving the country, the day will come when the only banner proclaiming ``mission accomplished'' will be flown by Iran. We can't let that happen. We have to change the course. The President must see this is not a sectarian fight between Shi'a and Sunni, it is between Iraq and Iran. They fought for 8 years, just recently, and now they are doing it again, and we have allowed them, the Iranians, to have the goal of making it happen.

Madam Speaker, last week the American people voted for new ideas and a new direction in Iraq. Changing the Secretary of Defense was a good first step, but we have a long way to go, and the situation is getting worse.

Last week, I went to Amman, Jordan, to listen to a cross-section of moderate secular leaders from the region. They gave me their ideas for stabilizing Iraq. It is a way forward and it comes from the people in the region closest to the chaos.

These leaders believe the U.S. should redeploy our soldiers to the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iraq and Iran. These leaders believe strategic redeployment can stop the infiltration of violence and get U.S. soldiers out of harm's way in Baghdad.

The leaders gave me a four-point plan they believe will save American and Iraqi lives and their country. Strategic redeployment is a key element. We should do it.

In medicine, doctors are taught to listen to the patient. The saying is, ``Listen to the patient. He's telling you what's the matter.'' Too often we have gone in like a doctor who had an idea that they knew what was wrong and how to fix it.

We, the Congress, must listen to those moderate secular leaders in Iraq.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations.

Today is a day that shows America really at its best. With one piece of legislation, we will show the world the heart and spirit of our country. In the grand scheme of things, there is not a lot of money involved here, but there is an enormous amount of history and healing involved. Democrats support permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam because granting PNTR to Vietnam allows it to join the rules- based, multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization. Vietnam's accession to the WTO will ensure that Vietnam is bound to international rules and concessions that aim to provide trade-related economic growth that is fair.

But PNTR does more than just bring Vietnam into a multinational trading relationship. PNTR continues to heal the wounds of a conflict whose wounds are still felt today. The healing of the Vietnam War continues, and today marks another important step in that process.

The U.S.-Vietnam accession agreement, for the most part, is a strong one. The agreement will open an emerging market of almost 90 million people to American exporters of goods and services. This agreement will provide the Nation's exporters and consumers opportunities which are not available today.

In my home State of Washington, a State that relies heavily on exports to drive its economy, products like computer software, commercial aircraft, and agricultural goods will find better access to an increasingly dynamic economy through this agreement.

Subjecting Vietnam to the disciplines of the WTO and its rules and dispute settlement mechanisms will be a positive step in providing the United States more of an opportunity to ensure that Vietnam's economic reforms continue and move in the right direction. This will provide a new opportunity for the Vietnamese to improve their lives by participating in freer and fair markets. That is what makes this agreement worthy of support despite its flaws.

Even as we move, I hope, to pass this resolution, we must recognize a deeply flawed process by which the resolution is brought before the House. First, this is a major trade bill that is coming to the floor on a suspension calendar, the legislation introduced and made available to the Members and the public just a few hours ago without any significant debate, without any hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, and without the opportunity of any markup. I doubt most Members know anything about this bill, which was introduced just a few hours ago, as most Members are presently flying back from their districts across the country.

This is not the way the Congress should operate when we are legislating on matters of importance to the American people. We should follow the regular order, and I am hopeful that in the future we will do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain we will do that, having listened to Mr. Levin talk about it.

In fact, the bill, and Vietnam's accession agreement to the WTO, omits a critically important provision. The Bush administration failed once again to negotiate a safeguard mechanism with Vietnam, which is a country with a nonmarket economy. This is a major oversight. Nonmarket economies do not respond to normal market signals of supply and demand, and thereby they often create surplus supply that can lead to import surges in the U.S. market. These surges, and this administration's failure to address them effectively, are one of the areas in which the Bush administration has failed to stand up for American businesses, for their workers and the manufacturing sector in general.

In the new Congress, the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means will need to consider ways that our trade law remedies can be updated and strengthened, including the antidumping laws. American firms are among the most competitive in the world, but they cannot compete with the treasury of foreign countries. The administration should know that in the new Congress; the new majority will insist that the administration incorporate safeguard tools in future PNTR agreements.

In closing, I support this bill because it is an important step that we should take to strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is an important step to provide opportunities for American and Vietnamese workers and entrepreneurs. Most importantly, this is a step we can take to improve U.S.-Vietnamese relations and our relationship with emerging Asian economies. It is unfortunate that the agreement has some key shortcomings that my colleagues on the House Ways and Means intend to address in the coming months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel confident this measure before us will pass quite easily. I am glad that you have allowed the House to consider it today. I am sorry that Mr. Ramstad did not get a chance to come. We are going to miss Mr. Shaw as he leaves us. Mr. Kolbe, I am sorry he has left the floor. He was also a promoter of trade in underdeveloped countries and has been a real contributor to that effort here in the Congress.

However, this House has a little bit of work left to do in trade. And I talked to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Thomas, before he left about whether or not we can get a bill between now and the time we get out of here. I would urge the Speaker and the chairman to act on a bill that extends the expiring trade preference programs, the Andean Trade Promotion Program and the generalized system of preferences. These are programs that have been in place for many, many years and have had a very positive effect in the underdeveloped world. And I think it is important that we not allow them to lapse in the midst of transition between party control and whatever.

There are a lot of people out there whose jobs depend on how those are implemented. And I think that the chairman understands that and has given me his assurance that he is going to talk to the Senate about whether we can get through such a piece of legislation, because it is vital to these developing countries and the workers and the American businessmen and consumers.

If you are trying to plan to source some of your material overseas and you do not know what the law is going to be applying to it, it is very hard for you to plan in advance, as the garment industry does or other industries. You need some certainty about when things are going to be available and what preferences will be in place so that the costs can be considered.

I would urge the Speaker in this thing to bring us a short-term clean extension. There are a lot of things out there that can get onto these bills that really do not add, in fact are very controversial.

But the clean extension should include the provisions for Haiti, which is the poorest country in our hemisphere, and certainly we want to do what we can for them. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a very undeveloped area that is having enormous economic problems. And for those kinds of supports I think there ought not to be any kind of opposition to them. The problem is they always get coupled with everything else under the sun that people have always wanted to do.

I hope the chairman and the committee and the subcommittee and the Speaker will all come together and bring us a bill and we will support it as we have done this one today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are shutting down the debate in Congress today. They don't want the American people to hear anything other than Republican press releases. They have nothing else to show and offer the American people.

November will be a referendum on the President's failed diplomacy, disastrous war in Iraq, and governing America by telling the American people to be afraid.

Now, maybe Aesop was wrong 3,000 years ago in his fable. Maybe you can

shout, ``Wolf, wolf, wolf,'' and win an election. But you can't stifle democracy and cling to power. The American people have had enough.

The Republican leadership believes that they are going to have the last word today, but, fortunately, on November 7, the American people are going to choose a new direction. They don't want any more of this. They have watched it, they have given the President support, they have given him leeway, and what have they gotten? A war that is making more unsafe our world, and Americans want a new direction. They are going to get it on November 7.

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know the Republican majority today has created the House Failed Diplomacy Caucus.

The Republicans need another press release before they go home, so we have 20 minutes to offer our thoughts on a bad bill sent to the floor by Republicans to show how tough they are.

Showing how smart we are would be a far better idea for dealing with nations like Iran and Iraq. But global diplomacy isn't the stuff of press releases; rhetoric is. So the Republicans have shut down debate by bringing legislation to the floor under a closed rule. They don't want ideas or improvements for making the world a safer place. They want leaflets to drop during the campaign, and they are being printed en mass right now. It is the Republican Iraq strategy all over again. Different nation, same flawed approach.

Republicans have given us H.R. 6198, the We Run the World Act. There is no need for other nations to actually have governments, actually. We will send our press releases. Just follow along, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, and anywhere else where we think we run them.

Republicans want Americans to point the finger and send along instructions. They are staging a campaign event right here on the floor. You watch how quick it makes it into the ads of television.

This is not, not, going to help America chart a path to deal with what is wrong with the Iranian government. No one disagrees with the fact that it is not a government we want in control of that country. It will only entrench and bolster those who are wrong.

The press release won't protect anybody. But, in fact, the Iranian dissidents don't want the money. Do you know why? Just like many Republicans today don't want Bush to come into their district and put his arm around them in the midst of this campaign, the Iranian dissidents know that, if it becomes American money, they are done. They will not be able to do what they need to. We need to vote ``no'' on this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the President says he looks to the generals on how to prosecute the war in Iraq. Yesterday, two generals from the Army and a Marine colonel who had all served in Iraq called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld.

The President has repeatedly claimed he listens to the military. Well, General John Batiste told an oversight hearing that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush White House ``did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq.''

The generals have spoken, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary misled us into combat with disastrous consequences. Rumsfeld has failed our soldiers and the American people. He just

ordered another 4,000 into Iraq, into the cauldron of violence that his incompetence has created.

The generals have spoken, Mr. Speaker. Tell the President to listen to us. Will you? Somebody has got to talk to the President. He doesn't seem to listen to Members of Congress. The generals have now spoken. What is he waiting for? Perhaps it is the election.

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

I rise in strong support of Senate bill 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act. By passing this legislation, we will better protect our most vulnerable children, the children who are abused and neglected in our society.

This legislation would not have been possible without the leadership and compassion of Mr. Wally Herger, the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee. I thank him for that, and I recognize the efforts of his staff to collaborate with me and others to write legislation that will make a difference in the lives of vulnerable kids.

For many of these children, we are the last line of defense, separating hope from despair. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is a lifeline that will save lives. Today, we are first responders to children who need us to rescue them for abuse and neglect.

S. 3525 combines the key features of the legislation we worked together to pass in this House in July, and the bill includes several important provisions authored by the Senate. So it is truly collaborative, both bicameral and bilateral here. This legislation is an example of what is possible when we forget party labels and work together for the common good.

We know the problems confronting our Nation's child welfare system are staggering. We won't solve them all in one day or with one bill. This Improvement Act is not a comprehensive solution. It is, however, a modest but important step in the right direction, a step that can save the lives of abused and neglected children.

This legislation extends for 5 years the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. This is the largest source of Federal funding dedicated to preventing child abuse, to safely reuniting troubled families, and promoting adoption when kids can't return home.

The bill also brings the mandatory funding that Indian tribes receive from this program better in line with what the tribes really deserve, and I am proud to say that the measure does more than merely continue current resources.

In this legislation, we fought to recognize the importance of a consistent interaction between caseworkers and foster children. We do this by including meaningful incentives for States to make progress toward ensuring that children in foster care are checked on at least once a month by qualified State caseworkers. Caseworkers are the first responders for children. We recognize that in this legislation, and we support them.

Here is how we do it: To assist the States in assuring that children are visited by first-rate caseworkers, the bill provides States an additional $95 million over the next 5 years to improve their child welfare workforce. These funds will be used to enhance the retention, recruitment, and training of caseworkers, as well as increase their access to useful technology. I personally see this investment as a down payment in the people who are best able to protect vulnerable kids.

The current level of turnover for child welfare caseworkers, that is, tenure on the job, is less than 2 years. That is detrimental to the well-being of foster kids.

Our legislation also makes progress on another issue that threatens the welfare of children. That is substance abuse. Building on a proposal that originated in the Senate, the bill will provide competitive grants for States and community based organizations to launch really a rescue mission for families and children whose health and safety are threatened by their parents' substance abuse problems. We are going to be proactive, and we are going to address this issue and meet the needs head on.

This new grant program would have a special focus on methamphetamine drug use because of the dramatic destabilizing effect it has on families. However, the grants also could be provided to organizations combating other serious drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine.

I would also like to highlight a provision in this bill that would require the States to have disaster preparedness plans for their child welfare programs. This would require procedures to track displaced foster kids, identify children who may be newly in need of child welfare services because of disaster, preserve essential records, and have a process for communicating and coordinating with other States.

We really don't have to look any further than what happened in this country in Hurricane Katrina to understand why such a requirement is necessary, or to the report I requested the Government Accounting Office conduct, showing that the States are lacking in any kind of plan.

Finally, this bill would extend for 5 years a program that helps our court system track child welfare cases and a program that provides mentoring services for children of prisoners. We will also try a limited demonstration project to test the feasibility and effectiveness of providing services through vouchers.

Today, we have an opportunity to launch a rescue mission for vulnerable kids. I strongly urge Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would only point out that this bill has been supported by the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities, Conferences of State Court Administrators and Chief Justices, the Center For Law and Social Policy, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, the Mentoring Partnership, the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the National Congress of American Indians, the Association of American Indian Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good bill, and it ought to pass by a voice vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 6131, does some good. It would change the rules regarding the Leaking Underground Storage trust fund and allow these funds to address the MTBE leaks. That is shorthand for gasoline additives in underground tanks at your neighborhood gas station.

MTBE leaks are dangerous and destructive, and this legislation will amend the energy bill in a good way. Unfortunately, these additives get into water and create problems for human beings. The legislation does nothing to address the other dangers and destructive leaks in the President's energy policy, however. It does not amend the bill to repeal the tax giveaways the President's energy bill gives Big Oil.

It does not repeal the $30 billion in corporate welfare Republicans have given to Big Oil and their energy companions. It does not make America less dependent on oil, and it does not make America less vulnerable to nations that have the oil resources that we need.

Oil and gas companies continue to line their pockets with American taxpayer dollars. The Republicans have delivered billions in tax breaks last year. That was after the Republicans handed over billions in 2004. Republicans gave oil companies a sweetheart tax break that climbs in value as the process and profits claim. You pay and pay, while they keep and keep.

That sums up the Republican energy policy. Today, we should act to stop one big leak in the Nation's energy policy. It will take removing Republicans in the midterm election to begin to plug the other big leaks in the Republican energy policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think from the previous speaker and myself you understand that this bill does not do any harm. I think that is why we will support it. It does not do very much about the energy problems in this country, and I really think that is where we ought to be spending our time.

If the Federal Government really was interested in cleaning up the environment, they would spend the money that is there. It is there for that purpose. However, they need it to cover the debts of war and a whole lot of other things which, in my opinion, are not the way this money should have been spent.

So I personally will urge a voice vote and pass the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order speech at this time.

Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday of a new intelligence assessment that confirms what the common sense of the American people concluded some time ago: The war in Iraq has undermined our efforts to fight terrorism.

The national intelligence estimate says the Iraq war has made terrorism worse on a global scale. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. These conclusions come from the agencies and specialists who work to keep America safe by keeping leaders informed of the latest verifiable information.

The intelligence assessment is sobering, but the White House and Republican response is staggering in its total denial of the truth. Faced with newspaper accounts of the new intelligence report in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the White House immediately issued a denial. They went so far as to have their appointees repeat the often-heard misstatement that significant progress is being made in Iraq.

Violence is the only thing that Iraq has more of today. More than 200 people have been killed in Iraq since the

weekend, but the President and the Republican surrogates keep saying significant progress is being made.

The Republican idea of keeping America safe is keeping America in the dark, unaware of the truth Republicans have been told behind closed door. Republicans continue to blindly endorse the President's Iraq war because those are the marching orders from the White House. There is no independence from the President. Republicans in the House do exactly as they are instructed.

So when the intelligence community tells Republican leaders the Iraq war is spreading terrorism, the White House tells the Republicans to say something else. U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying in the middle of a civil war, yet the Republicans mechanically recite the same old White House rhetoric.

The only thing that will help America become safer is to face the truth. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. Only Republicans disagree with that truth.

The Republican party in power denies the facts of the intelligence community; and they keep telling America you are safer, you are safer. The facts prove the President has been wrong about Iraq all along. The facts prove the President could have changed course but instead chose to keep U.S. soldiers in harm's way and make the world a more dangerous place. And the facts prove the Republican Party abandoned the American people in favor of misleading statements, failed foreign policy, and a President who will stay his own course when America is off course.

America is not safer when the President has a Republican Congress willing to accept White House press releases instead of cold hard assessments from 16 intelligence agencies of the United States Government. America is not safer when the Republican Party's principal weapon in the war on terror is misleading press releases denying our own intelligence community. But that is what the Republicans would have you believe. Republicans think a press release is more important to their future than an intelligence plan that demands we confront Iraq as it really is.

Republicans had the power to change course and work with the Democrats to produce a national plan on the crisis in Iraq. They simply refuse. They go it alone. Republicans had the power to develop a plan for Iraq that was based on facts, not the President's speeches, but they refused. Jack Murtha, Ike Skelton, many on our side have offered them alternatives.

The world today is more dangerous, and Republicans will not even accept their own intelligence assessments.

The American people learned two important pieces of information over the weekend: The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous, and the Republican Party is not willing to act on that intelligence. They are not protecting the American people. They are protecting their own hold on power by denying the horrible mistake that they have made. They will not change course because that would require them to say, well, you know, we did the wrong thing when we let the whole Army go, when we let Abu Ghraib get out of hand. They won't admit that they have made us less safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, on November 7 the American people will go to the polls. As the New York Times reported this morning, only one in four Americans approves of the job being done by the Republican- controlled Congress. Seventy-five percent of American believes that Republicans have not governed in the best interests of the American people. That is a landslide vote of no confidence to the Republican Party, and I will include for

the Record the New York Times story found on page 1.

The American people have given up on the Republican Party because the Republican Party has given in to special interests. The Republican vision for America is to let the privileged few run the country. That's what the record demonstrates. As incredible as it is, the American people today are subsidizing oil companies. Democrats introduced legislation months ago to end the taxpayers' subsidy, but Republicans will not even debate it. At a time when the American people are paying $3 a gallon for gas, they are paying even more to Big Oil in taxpayers' subsidies.

Republicans are out of touch with the American people. Their taxpayer subsidy pipeline flows your money to Big Oil.

So does the doughnut hole that the elderly are beginning to fall through because Republicans care more about drug companies than they do about the American elderly. A report released by the House Ways and Means Committee Democrats concludes that 88 percent of seniors who bought a drug plan through Medicare bought one with a big financial hole in it, dug by Republicans. We are talking about 7 million seniors. Within a month, they will have to pay their drug bill even as they continue their insurance premium to big business.

Under Republican rules, special interests got special treatment and the seniors fell in the hole. The Republicans have left no special interest behind. College tuition is up 57 percent at public universities since President Bush took office. What did the Republican- controlled Congress do for the middle class? They passed legislation cutting $12 billion in student aid, and they raised the interest rates on student loans.

Republicans also passed sweetheart rules to indenture the American people to banks after personal bankruptcy. It is worth noting that the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in America today is staggering, unpaid medical expenses. What have the Republicans done? They have allowed the number of uninsured in this country to swell to almost 47 million people. They gave the rich a tax cut, called health savings accounts, out of reach for most Americans. Out of reach, out of touch. The Republican Party caters to the top 1 percent.

The Republicans gave the superrich on average $100,000 a year in tax breaks while the average American gets 50 bucks. Then the Republicans held hostage the Democrats' proposal to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years. They do not care about workers. And while Republicans talk a lot about being afraid, they fail to protect the American people by implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Republicans spend more effort instilling fear in the Americans than they do in fighting the war on terror.

The President unilaterally chooses which laws he will enforce and which laws he just suspends. The President considers Syria our enemy, but his administration used flimsy Canadian intelligence to deport a Canadian citizen to Syria, where he was tortured. The man was innocent. Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State for Mr. Bush, said, ``The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.''

This President answers to no one because congressional Republicans have surrendered oversight to the White House. So it should come as no surprise that the Republicans decided to erect a security fence throughout America, separating millions of Americans from their constitutional right to vote. They did it yesterday.

Some say Republicans have given America a do-nothing Congress. But the record shows that the Republicans have done one thing after another over and over again. They have sold out the American people to the special interests. And payback is coming on the 7th of November. The American people will have an opportunity to change and reach for new directions where we will take care of student loans. We will take care of health care. We will take care of security. We will take care of the things that the middle class in this country wants taken care of, not the 1 percent at the top.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 21, 2006]

Only 25 Percent in Poll Approve of the Congress

(By Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder)

With barely seven weeks until the midterm elections,

Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the

Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities

saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that

its members do not deserve re-election, according to the

latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disdain for Congress is as intense as it has been since

1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end 40 years of

Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as

well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces

in trying to hold on to power in the face of a surge in anti-

incumbent sentiment.

By broad margins, respondents said that members of Congress

were too tied to special interests and that they did not

understand the needs and problems of average Americans. Two-

thirds said Congress had accomplished less than it typically

did in a two-year session; most said they could not name a

single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress.

Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was

doing its job.

But for all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th

Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own

representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent

who said it was time for someone new.

What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats will

experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced

in 1994. Most analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be

in play at the moment, compared with over 100 seats in play

at this point 12 years ago, in large part because

redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.

The poll also found that President Bush had not improved

his own or his party's standing through his intense campaign

of speeches and events surrounding the fifth anniversary of

the 9/11 attacks. The speeches were at the heart of a

Republican strategy to thrust national security to the

forefront in the fall elections.

Mr. Bush's job approval rating was 37 percent in the poll,

virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, in

August. On the issue that has been a bulwark for Mr. Bush,

54 percent said they approved of the way he was managing

the effort to combat terrorists, again unchanged from last

month, though up from this spring.

Republicans continued to hold a slight edge over Democrats

on which party was better at dealing with terrorism, though

that edge did not grow since last month despite Mr. Bush's

flurry of speeches on national security, including one from

the Oval Office on the night of Sept. 11.

But the Times/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the

percentage of Americans who said they approved of the way Mr.

Bush had handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30

percent. The results also suggest that after bottoming out

this spring, Mr. Bush's approval ratings on the economy and

foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year

ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called

terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled

to 14 percent, from 7 percent in July; 22 percent named the

war in Iraq as their top concern, little changed from July.

Across the board, the poll found marked disenchantment with

Congress, highlighting the opportunity Democrats see to make

the argument for a change in leadership and to make the

election a national referendum on the performance of a

Republican-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush's tenure.

In one striking finding, 77 percent of respondents--

including 65 percent of Republicans--said most members of

Congress had not done a good enough job to deserve re-

election and that it was time to give new people a chance.

That is the highest number of voters saying it is ``time for

new people'' since the fall of 1994.

``You get some people in there, and they're in there

forever,'' said Jan Weaver, of Aberdeen, S.D., who described

herself as a Republican voter, in a follow-up interview.

``They're so out of touch with reality.''

In the poll, 50 percent said they would support a Democrat

in the fall Congressional elections, compared with 35 percent

who said they would support a Republican. But the poll found

that Democrats continued to struggle to offer a strong case

for turning government control over to them; only 38 percent

said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run

the country, compared with 45 percent who said the

Republicans had offered a clear plan.

Overall discontent with Congress or Washington does not

necessarily signify how people will vote when they see the

familiar name of their member of Congress on the ballot,

however.

Democrats face substantial institutional obstacles in

trying to repeat what Republicans accomplished in 1994,

including a Republican financial advantage and the fact that

far fewer seats are in play.

Thus, while 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved

of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29 percent

said they disapproved of the way their own ``representative

is handling his or her job.''

The New York Times/CBS News poll began last Friday, four

days after the commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the

9/11 attacks, and two weeks after the White House

began its offensive on security issues. A USA Today-Gallup

Poll published Tuesday reported that Mr. Bush's job approval

rating had jumped to 44 percent from 39 percent. The

questioning in that poll went through Sunday; The Times and

CBS completed questioning Tuesday night. Presidential

addresses often produce shifts in public opinion that tend to

be transitory.

The nationwide poll was conducted by telephone Friday

through Tuesday. It included 1,131 adults, of whom 1,007 said

they were registered to vote, and had a margin of sampling

error of plus or minus three percentage points.

As part of the Republican effort to gain advantage on the

war in Iraq, Republicans have accused Democrats who want to

set a timetable for leaving Iraq of wanting to ``cut and

run.'' But 52 percent of respondents said they would not

think the United States had lost the war if it withdrew its

troops from Iraq today.

The poll also found indications that voters were unusually

intrigued by this midterm election: 43 percent said they were

more enthusiastic than usual about voting. However, with

turnout promising to be a critical factor in many of the

closer Senate and House races, there was no sign that either

party had an edge in terms of voter enthusiasm.

Evidence of the antipathy toward Congress in particular--

and Washington in general--was abundant: 71 percent said they

did not trust the government to do what is right.

``If they had new blood, then the people that influence

them--the lobbyists--would maybe not be so influential,''

said Norma Scranton, a Republican from Thedford, Neb., in a

follow-up interview after the poll. ``They don't have our

interest at heart because they're influenced by these

lobbyists. If they were new, maybe they would try to please

their constituents a little better. ``

Lois Thurber, a Republican from Axtell, Neb., said in a

follow-up interview: ``There's so much bickering, so much

disagreement--they just can't get together on certain

issues.

``They're kind of more worried about themselves than they

are about the country.''

Incumbents and challengers nationwide are trying to

accommodate this sour mood. Democrats are presenting

themselves as a fresh start--``Isn't it time for a change?''

asked an advertisement by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee directed against Senator Jim Talent, Republican of

Missouri.

And Republican incumbents are seeking to distance

themselves from fellow Republicans in Washington. ``I've gone

against the president and the Republican leadership when I

think they are wrong,'' Representative Christopher Shays, a

Connecticut Republican locked in a tough reelection battle,

said in a television advertisement broadcast this week.

The Republicans continue to be seen as the better party to

deal with terrorism, but by nowhere near the margin they once

enjoyed: it is now 42 percent to 37 percent. When asked which

party took the threat of terrorism more seriously, 69 percent

said they both did; 22 percent named Republicans, compared

with 6 percent who said Democrats.

Voters said Democrats were more likely to tell the truth

than Republicans when discussing the war in Iraq and about

the actual threat of terrorism. And 59 percent of respondents

said Mr. Bush was hiding something when he talked about how

things were going in Iraq; an additional 25 percent said he

was mostly lying when talking about the war.

Not that Democrats should draw any solace from that: 71

percent of respondents said Democrats in Congress were hiding

something when they talked about how well things were going

in Iraq, while 13 percent said they were mostly lying.

Robert Allen, a Democrat from Ventura, Calif., said:

``We're in a stalemate right now. They're not getting hardly

anything done.'' He added, ``It's time to elect a whole new

bunch so they can do something.''

Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the congressional Republicans are failing America's middle class again. This is nothing new. Millions of Americans are struggling paycheck to paycheck, and falling deeper in debt.

Under Republican rule, the rich are getting much richer, while the middle class are helpless to stop the decline in their purchasing power. America's companies are recording their best profits in over four decades, while wages remain stagnant for the overwhelming majority of middle-class workers. Workers are behind those record corporate profits, but the workers are left behind sharing the gains.

The middle class deserves a pay raise, but Washington Republicans pay no attention to the needs of real Americans. They can't raise the minimum wage. They are too busy working for the rich.

For 5 straight years, Republicans have said to the middle class, You don't count. We have got rising college costs, skyrocketing health care costs, crippling energy costs, but no help from the Republicans.

The Democrats offer a new direction for America. Democrats will restore economic opportunity and economic stability for the forgotten middle class. In November, the middle class is going to get taken care of by the new direction of the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. Res. 1015.

Section 425 of the same act states that a point of order lies against the legislation which, number one, imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of the annual amount specified in that section against State or local governments; or two, does not publish prior to floor consideration a CBO estimate of any unfunded mandates in excess of the amounts specified annually for State and local entities or in excess of the amount specified annually for the private sector.

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive this point of order.

On page 1, line 2, and on page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 1015, all points of order are waived against consideration of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. Therefore, I make a point of order that this rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.

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

Republicans want to erect a fence around the right of the American people to vote. They have offered a bill

that will restrict voting rights for Americans. In effect, the Republicans are trying to dilute the fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. It fits right in with the Republican effort to suspend those rights they find inconvenient.

The president of the League of Women Voters, don't take my word, Mary Wilson summed it up this way: ``This is an attempt to politicize the voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible legal voters from participating. Congress should not be playing politics with our right to vote.'' Yet this is exactly what Republicans are doing, creating a nonexistent problem to appeal to their base. This is basically a PR opportunity just before the election.

Just yesterday, millions of Americans across the country voted, including those in my State, and today there is not a single story anywhere in this Nation about noncitizens voting illegally. In fact, last week, the circuit court in Missouri threw out the Harmful ID law, the real name of what Republicans are trying to give us. Republicans have the superrich, so they would like to disenfranchise everyone else, anybody who doesn't have a photo ID, Native Americans, the elderly, the disabled, people who don't have a birth certificate. They fear what happens when every eligible American gets to vote.

Democrats believe that the Constitution is worth protecting. We surely wish that the Republicans would start spreading democracy in all of America, not just those who have a photo ID.

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

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time has been used on both sides?

I have 8 minutes. And my opponent?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Do we have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Michigan, and he is an honorable man, but he is standing out here trying to sell snake oil to the U.S. Congress.

This speech just given by the gentleman from Florida about the Help America Vote Act is living proof of the fact that this place promises all kinds of stuff and then doesn't deliver to the local government. We could spend a long time talking about the Leave No Child Behind Act. Over and over, after all that showboating you did when you took over the Congress about we're not going to have any more of those unfunded mandates, and then you come out here again and again and again, and you stick the States and the local governments with the cost.

Now, if it doesn't make any difference to the Republicans that the State and local government are going to have a problem, it ought to worry them that 7 million people are affected. That is the estimate by the League of Women Voters about the people who will be affected by this bill. You don't worry about people who get on airplanes. All of us are rich. We've got money to fly on an airplane. There are 7 million people that don't go to the airport every week and have to show a photo ID. We get one given to us here in the Congress for free. None of us paid for that thing. And we show it.

Our driver's license. We don't pay for the photo ID. We pay for the right to use the roads of our State. The fact is that there are millions of people in this country who you are going to make a serious problem for, and the States are either going to have to say you can't vote because you don't have a photo ID, or they are going to have to pay for it. And to count on you, the Republican appropriators, when you are wasting $400 billion in Iraq, to come up with even what is really a small amount of money, $77 million or $100 million or whatever the number is, it's not very much, is really betting on the tooth fairy.

Now, I believe that the constitutional right to vote is preeminent. Everybody should have a right to it. Every year in Seattle, we bring in about 500 new immigrants on election day, or on the Fourth of July, and we send them up to register with the League of Women Voters because we tell them the most important thing in this country is to vote, that that is how you exercise your American rights.

And now you want to erect a barrier. Thank God for the courts in Missouri who threw out the Missouri law; but that is not good enough for you guys. You say, oh, no, Missouri didn't write it right. We will write it so we will get them. We will get everybody in the country.

The elections in this country have hung on a very few number of votes, and to eliminate 7 million people from the opportunity to vote because they don't have a photo ID and put it in the loving hands of State governments and county governments to make sure that they have what is necessary is to limit their right to vote.

You show me one bit of evidence that somebody has illegally voted, because you haven't shown that. I believe that in reality you are really only trying to protect your own grip on power in this House by making it harder for ordinary Americans to have a say in who leads this country.

In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated that up to 10 percent of those eligible to vote do not have official State identification like a driver's license. Now these are people without cars, including the disadvantaged. Republicans are willing to leave those people behind. I am sorry if you can't drive a car and don't have a driver's license, your State is not going to have the money to pay for it. Where are they going to get it? They will take it out of the TANF program, or the schools, or somewhere. You can count on them to do that. That is what you are saying.

Instead of finding ways to ensure that every American has a right to vote, the Republicans want to build a fence so it is harder and harder to get to the polls. Republicans would like you to believe that illegal aliens are a danger to the American political process, that they are sneaking in through the borders and then they are sneaking up to the polls and they are casting their ballots and are electing--come on, that is the fear tactic again. It is the fear tactic that you use over and over on the American people, and that is all this bill is about: the fear tactic.

We are coming up to an election. The real danger is if the Republicans could put a fence around the Constitution, letting in their friends and keeping everybody else out. And it is not about protecting the right to vote, it is about subverting the right to vote for non- Republican Americans perhaps, people who they think won't vote for them.

Why would the poor people vote for the 1 percent party, the party of the rich? We know what this is all about. People just don't want to say it straight out, but it is really going after those people least able to defend themselves in our society casting their vote.

The vision of the Republicans is if you don't vote Republican, they want to make sure you don't vote at all. They don't want you to vote. Democrats will never stop fighting to protect the rights of people to vote, to run their government, even when they choose you.

A democracy requires allowing everybody to have a chance to vote, even when I might say they made a mistake here and there. But nevertheless, they have a right to vote.

This bill is a sham. It is a PR piece and it doesn't belong in a Nation governed by all of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are so concerned about their own hides that today they voted to fence off the U.S. Constitution from the American people. There is nothing to do with borders between the U.S. and Mexico or between the U.S. and Canada. It has everything to do with the Republican Party fencing out ordinary Americans from participating in their own government.

Why let everyone vote when they might actually vote for the Democrat or for the independent? Democracy is messy for the Republican Party these days, so they are going to short-circuit the process. Who needs to stay up late to watch the vote returns or worry about exit polls, when Republicans have come up with a plan to deny 7 million ordinary Americans the right to vote?

Of course, they have targeted people they don't think will vote Republican: the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly, Native Americans, among others. Republicans like to say they are spreading democracy around the world. Here at home, they are using this bill to disenfranchise American people.

Republicans have created a nonexistent crisis because their right- wing base is unhappy and in need of attention. Today the Republicans moved to solve a crisis they created. They want everyone to have an official government-issued photo ID before they could vote.

So much for that Republican line about getting the Federal Government out of our lives. The Republicans want the Federal Government in your face, snapping pictures. Before you could vote, you would have to produce an official government-issued photo ID. A passport would work. You know, that is the kind of document that the rich have, because they take vacations in other countries. The poor don't take vacations at all. No passport, no vote. No problem for Republicans.

Of course, the Republicans will rush to the podium over here to say that you can use your driver's license. They will not tell you that the National Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2001 estimated that up to 10 percent of Americans eligible to vote do not have official State photo ID, like a driver's license; no photo ID, no vote, no problem for Republicans.

Now, in Georgia and Missouri, they tried this. It was thrown out in court. So today we do it at the national level. We are going to do it for everybody. They will be delighted if ordinary Americans stay home on election day. In fact, they would be relieved.

They know that this bill will encourage it. That is why Republicans are behind it 150 percent. It is the latest step in the Republican strategy to hold on to power in the election of 2006, even if they have to dismantle the democracy to do it. They passed the Help America Vote Act, and then amended it to become the Help Republicans Stay in Power Act by underfunding the legislation.

They said they were helping, but they put no money out there. It is reminiscent of Florida in 2000. Republicans are building a border fence inside our borders to keep the American people out of participating in their own government. This bill will prevent millions of people from casting a ballot, exactly what the Republicans want.

Republicans want to replace the fundamental right in America, the government of the people, by the people and for the people with something else: government of the few, by the privileged and for the rich. This is the creed of the Republican 1 percent Party.

The President of the League of Women Voters, Mary Wilson said, ``This is an attempt to politicize the voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible legal voters from participating. Congress should not be playing politics with our right to vote,'' closed quote.

Yet the Republicans are hijacking the right to vote of an ordinary Americans. Why? Because they are afraid of losing power and afraid they can't scare the American people into submission any longer. Letting every eligible American vote means the American people might actually choose the person they want.

That is something Republicans find truly frightening, so they are building a fence to keep the Americans out of America. But the fence won't go up in this bill till 2008, so the American people have a mid- term election ahead. You know what they are up to. You know what they want to do.

But you have a chance to vote, still, everybody has a chance to vote, and the people can vote and protect their right to vote by voting against people who will put up this kind of legislation. We saw in 2000 the efforts to keep people away in indirect ways. This is a direct shot at Americans' right to vote.

Madam Speaker, the Iraq war is doing badly, and the President would like the American people to think about something else. With less than 2 months until the mid-term elections, the Republicans suddenly fear the democracy they claim to be spreading.

A commentary in today's Asia Times sums it up. The article is entitled,

``Iraq, Trying to Spin the Unspinnable.''

Let me briefly quote from it:

``The power of spin is not infinite; however, as the administration is now discovering, bad news has cascaded out of Iraq at such an astonishing pace that it defies credulity to suggest that the war has not drastically worsened the lives of Iraqis.''

American soldiers have been fighting and dying in Iraq for years to prop up the same flawed and failed policy by the President who cannot win the war, cannot win the peace, and cannot lead the United States out of harm's way.

The President says stay the course, and Republicans in the Congress refuse to say or do anything independent of the President. No oversight, just blind allegiance. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq stands at 2,678. Every day in Iraq, on average of two more soldiers die. The number of U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq recently passed another grim statistic, 20,000 physical injuries. Every day in Iraq, 19 U.S. soldiers on average are injured as they try to survive in the middle of a civil war. And we have not yet begun to count the number of U.S. psychological casualties, the soldiers with PTSD. That could be another 20,000 to 30,000 from PTSD alone.

But nothing will change as long as the President has a Republican Congress rubber-stamping his vision. Even Iraqi leaders and parliament get it. Just yesterday, Abdel al-Anisi, a member of the largest party in Maliki's government said, ``We have to determine the nature of our relationship with the Multinational Forces in Iraq, which is to support the role of the government, not to take over its role.''

We are seen as occupiers in Iraq trying to control their oil and trying to dictate their policies, and our presence provokes more violence.

The President would like you to believe that terrorism is a new threat in a new century. The only new thing about the latest threat is how the President has mismanaged our response. Had Republicans in Congress provided any Iraq oversight, the truth would have emerged and we would have changed the course.

But the Republican congressional leaders demand acquiescence by their members, so the President's flawed war just keeps getting worse.

Throughout history, nations in the East and nations in the West have faced the threat of terrorism. A new book entitled, ``What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat,'' by Louise Richardson, ought to be required reading for Republicans. The author analyzes history to show us that terrorists want three Rs: revenge, renown, and reaction. She doesn't stop there. The second half of the book is called ``The Counter-Terrorists.''

Armed with understanding, not rhetoric, not ideology, the author provides insights into successfully dealing with the terrorists. If only our President would listen. If only Republicans in Congress would demand the President stop the rhetoric and face the reality. But that can't happen as long as the special interests receive special treatment by the Republicans.

Another new book, ``Imperial Life in the Emerald City,'' by a Washington Post reporter, offers a sobering assessment of the extent to which favors meant more than credentials in Iraq.

I submit for printing in the Record a story published yesterday in the Christian Science Monitor entitled, ``Mistakes Made by U.S. in Staffing Iraq? The new book alleges it wasn't what but who you knew that determined who got the key jobs.''

As the newspaper story recounts, before anyone could go to Iraq, they were vetted by a Republican political appointee and his staff in the Pentagon who, quoted here, posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the President is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation said they were even asked about Rowe v. Wade. The President sent a 24-year-old over there to open the stock market. That is how the President is running the Iraq war.

The congressional Republicans are doing just as they are ordered. Over the next 7 weeks, the Republicans will offer the American people endless rhetoric. But that will only produce endless casualties until we replace a Republican Congress that merely takes orders. We have to have a Democratic Congress that is willing to provide oversight on what this President is doing. Election is about 50 days away, Mr. President.

[From the Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 19, 2006]

Mistakes Made by US in Staffing Iraq?

New book alleges it wasn't what, but who, you knew that determined key

jobs

(By Tom Regan)

In the early days after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, many

Americans both inside and outside the government indicated a

desire to go to Iraq to help with the war effort. But a new

book by Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran,

``Imperial Life in the Emerald City,'' argues that ties to

the Bush administration or to the Republican Party regularly

trumped years of experience or knowledge in a particular

field when key jobs were being assigned.

The result, Mr. Chandrasekaran writes, is that under the

leadership of L. Paul Bremer, the first administrator of the

Coalition Provisional Authority, many inexperienced or

unqualified people were given key posts in the rebuilding of

Iraq, and often found themselves in situations they could not

handle.

Before anyone could go to Baghdad, Chandrasekaran (who had

spent six months in Iraq before the war started in March

2003, and then was the Post's Baghdad bureau chief from April

2003 to October 2004) reports, they first had to go through

the office of Jim O'Beirne in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who

screens prospective political appointees for Defense

Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the

Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed

most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates

about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in

2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the

war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the US

occupation authority said they were even asked their views on

Roe v. Wade.

The result, Chandrasekaran says, was that officials in many

key areas, ``lacked vital skills and experience.'' Many

people involved in the effort to rebuild and stabilize Iraq

now see this decision making process as ``one of the Bush

administration's gravest errors.''

``We didn't tap--and it should have started from the White

House on down--just didn't tap the right people to do this

job,'' said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy

director of the CPA's Washington office. ``It was a tough,

tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because

of their political leanings . . .''

One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's

wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment

process: ``I watched resumes of immensely talented

individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown

in the trash because their adherence to `the President's

vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was

`uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like

Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions

in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC

(Republican National Committee) contributors.''

In a review of the book in The Washington Post, Moses Naim,

editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine, writes that while

common wisdom holds that ``the decision to invade Iraq and

topple Saddam Hussein is still open to debate, American

mismanagement of the country after the invasion is not.''

What caused the massive collapse of common sense that

doomed the CPA and undermined the US gamble in Iraq? That is

the question that every page tacitly forces on the reader.

American ingenuity, pragmatism and practical approaches to

problem-solving are legendary. But Chandrasekaran shows that

what reigned in Iraq was massive incompetence, patently

unfeasible schemes, naive expectations and arrogance fueled

by ignorance. His book methodically documents the baffling

ineptitude that dominated US attempts to influence Iraq's

fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the

economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or

instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis. Nor are

the book's complaints Monday-morning quarterbacking. The

CPA's failings caused widespread grumbling at the time.

Chandrasekaran tells of a message board on which some Marines

had drawn a gravestone inscribed with the words ``COMMON

SENSE.'' The caption underneath it read: ``Killed by the