Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will be treated to a real interesting historical event. The Prime Minister of Iraq will be here. His article today in the Wall Street Journal says: ``Iraq is a sovereign nation.''

He goes on to talk about one province of Iraq that has some stability and makes that appear that that is the Iraq that he is here to represent. If one reads the European newspapers, the Independent, and I will enter this into the Record, the Independent from Great Britain says, and the title of this article is, ``Sectarian break-up of Iraq is now inevitable admit officials.''

They talk about the fact that Mr. Maliki yesterday met with Tony Blair

in London, where he talked about the fact that things were going just fine. But the article goes on to say that senior Iraq officials are saying that the break-up of the country is inevitable.

This is a quote from one: ``Iraq as a political project is finished. The parties have moved to plan B, that is that the Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking for ways to divide Iraq between them and decide the future of Baghdad where there is a mixed population. There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into the Shiia, east Baghdad, and the Sunni west Baghdad.''

The foreign minister said in an interview with the Independent, before joining Mr. Maliki in London ``that in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis between Shiia, Sunni and Kurd,'' but then he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration where senior Sunni members praise the anti-government insurgents as the heroic resistance.

So you have ministers inside the government praising the insurgency that is making this huge instability in the country. To show you how bad it really is, there is an average of 100 deaths of Iraqis every single day. This month there will be more killed than were killed in June.

3,148 people died in sectarian violence. A civil war. Even the New York Times now calls it a civil war. And the Prime Minister is going to come here and try and tell us that everything is just fine.

Now, that is a part of our domestic politics, it is to give the American people and the Members of Congress a feeling that things are just going swimmingly. But what the Iraqis are saying to reporters from the Independent is, the government is all in the green zone, like the previous one, the one that was in before. And ``they have left the streets to the terrorists.'' That is a quote from Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraq politician.

He said, ``The situation would be worse but for the war in Lebanon, because it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the U.S. being waged in Iraq.'' The Iraqi crisis will now receive much less humanitarian attention because of what is going on over in Lebanon. It is taking the focus off. And we have Mr. Maliki coming in and standing behind me tomorrow, and he will say that things are going just fine.

Now, clearly this is not true. And what is happening in Iraq is that the leadership is now deciding the south will be for the Shiia, the north will be for the Kurds, and the west will be for the Sunnis. It will be tied into Jordan. Jordan already has a million Sunnis living in it. People who have fled from Baghdad because they are not safe, bankers, university professors, doctors, the intelligentsia, anybody with any money in the Sunni community has left Baghdad because it is such a dangerous place.

And the decision now is only how do they break it up, and what do they do about the oil revenue. This situation is an absolute mess. On top of it all, Mr. Maliki has taken the position that what is going on in Lebanon as caused by the Hezbollah is okay. He is encouraging it. He thinks it is a good thing.

Now, this is a man that we hold up as our democratic leader. But the fact is that the country is in absolute chaos, and the Members of this House should understand that tomorrow when they listen to the speech that the American newspapers are not telling you what is going on in Iraq.

[From The Independent, July 24, 2006.]

Sectarian Break-Up of Iraq Is Now Inevitable, Admit Officials

(By Patrick Cockburn)

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, meets Tony Blair

in London today as violence in Iraq reaches a new crescendo

and senior Iraqi officials say the break up of the country is

inevitable.

A car bomb in a market in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City

in Baghdad yesterday killed 34 people and wounded a further

60 and was followed by a second bomb in the same area two

hours later that left a further eight dead. Another car bomb

outside a court house in Kirkuk killed a further 20 and

injured 70 people.

``Iraq as a political project is finished,'' a senior

government official was quoted as saying, adding: ``The

parties have moved to plan B.'' He said that the Shia, Sunni

and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq

between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there

is a mixed population. ``There is serious talk of Baghdad

being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west,'' he said.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The

Independent in an interview, before joining Mr. Maliki to fly

to London and then Washington, that in theory the government

should be able to solve the crisis because Shia, Kurd and

Sunni were elected members of it.

But he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration

in which senior Sunni members praised anti-government

insurgents as ``the heroic resistance''.

In the past two weeks, at a time when Lebanon has dominated

the international news, the sectarian civil war in central

Iraq has taken a decisive turn for the worse. There have been

regular tit-for-tat massacres and the death toll for July is

likely to far exceed the 3,149 civilians killed in June.

Mr. Maliki, who is said to be increasingly isolated, has

failed to prevent the violence. Other Iraqi leaders claim he

lacks experience in dealing with security, is personally very

isolated without a kitchen cabinet and is highly dependent on

30-40 Americans in unofficial advisory positions around him.

``The government is all in the Green Zone like the previous

one and they have left the streets to the terrorists,'' said

Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician. He said the

situation would be made worse by the war in Lebanon because

it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the U.S.

being staged in Iraq. The Iraqi crisis would now receive much

reduced international attention.

The switch of American and British media attention to

Lebanon and away from the rapidly deteriorating situation in

Baghdad is much to the political benefit of Mr. Blair and Mr.

Bush.

``Maliki's trip to Washington is all part of the U.S.

domestic agenda to put a good face on things for November,''

a European diplomat in Baghdad was quoted as saying.

Ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a succession of

Iraqi political leaders have been feted in London and

Washington where they claimed to have the insurgents on the

run. Mr. Maliki's meetings with Mr. Blair today and Mr. Bush

tomorrow are likely to be lower key but will serve the same

purpose before the U.S. Congressional elections in November.

U.S. commanders are considering moving more of their troops--

there are some 55,000 near the capital into Baghdad to halt

sectarian violence.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has begun to receive fluids

voluntarily after being taken to hospital following 17 days

on a hunger strike to protest against biased court procedures

and the murder of three defence lawyers. Among fellow Sunni

his defiant court performances have rehabilitated his

reputation, though he is still detested by Kurds and Shia.

Mr. Speaker, it was with unwavering support for Israel, its safety, security and right to exist, that I cast a vote today against House Resolution 921. Hezbollah, not Israel, started this conflict with an ambush, and Israel has every right to defend itself. There is no doubt about that.

Nor is there any doubt anywhere about America's deep and abiding commitment to Israel.

A resolution in the House of Representatives will not change what the world already knows, but it might encourage what the world already fears: a wider war with greater casualties, undermining fragile but crucial support for Israel among Arab nations, and further endangering Israelis and other innocent civilians across the region.

I am especially troubled by the fact that H. Res. 921 goes far beyond reaffirming our unwavering commitment to Israel by declaring unlimited support for potential military action anywhere in the region. The resolution says we: ``support Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it.''

This raises the ominous prospect that the House has given the administration a pre-recorded vote to support any action, at any time. Could that include a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? The resolution is a blank check, and we know that policy has failed in Iraq, and has only incubated further violence and terrorism.

No one can for one moment accept rockets in Haifa, Nazareth, or anywhere in Israel. But demanding that the Lebanese government rein in Hezbollah while bombs rain down on a variety of targets, some civilian, is not the answer.

Widening the war will inflame tensions, increase casualties and decrease any prospect for a permanent peace. The United States can best support Israel and the Arab world by vigorously pursuing an end to the violence, the resumption of a peace process and a commitment to unite the region to isolate terrorist groups and all who oppose a just and lasting peace for all people.

[From the Daily Star, July 19, 2006]

Back to Beirut, Ready To Defy Israel

(By Rami G. Khouri)

I must be one of the few people in the world trying to get

into Beirut, rather than flee the city that is being

bombarded daily by Israel, with explicit American approval.

Israelis should grasp the significance of this, if they ever

wish to find peace and a normal life in this region.

My wife and I were on a trip in Europe when the fighting

broke out last week and we could not return directly to our

home in Beirut. So we have returned to our previous home in

Amman in order to find a reasonably safe land route back into

Lebanon. I want to return mainly because steadfastness in the

face of the Israeli assault is the sincerest--perhaps the

only--form of resistance available to those of us who do not

know how to use a gun, and prefer not to do so in any case,

for there is no military solution to this conflict.

Of the many dimensions of Israel's current fighting with

Palestinians and Lebanese, the most significant in my view is

the continuing, long-term evolution of Arab public attitudes

to Israel. The three critical aspects of this are: a steady

loss of fear by ordinary Arabs in the face of Israel's

military superiority; a determined and continuous quest for

more effective means of technical and military resistance

against Israeli occupation and subjugation of Palestinians

and other Arabs; and a strong political backlash against the

prevailing governing elites in the Arab world who have

quietly acquiesced in the face of Israeli-American dictates.

The Lebanon and Palestine situations today reveal a key

political and psychological dynamic that defines several

hundred million Arabs, and a few billion other like-minded

people around the world. It is that peace and quiet in the

Middle East require three things: Arabs and Israelis must be

treated equally; both domestically and internationally the

rule of law must define the actions of governments and all

members of society; and the core conflict between Palestine

and Israel must be resolved in a fair, legal and sustainable

manner.

Because these principles are ignored, we continue to suffer

outbreaks of military savagery by Israelis and Arabs alike,

for the sixth decade in a row. The flurry of international

diplomacy this week to calm things down was impressive for

its range and energy. But it will fail if it only aims to

place an international buffer force between Hezbollah and

Israel, and leave the rest of the Arab-Israeli situation as

it is.

Protecting Israel has long been the primary focus of

Western diplomacy, which is why it has not succeeded. For

decades now Israel has established buffer zones, occupation

zones, red lines, blue lines, green lines, interdiction

zones, killing fields, surrogate army zones, and every other

conceivable kind of zone between it and Arabs who fight its

occupation and colonial policies--all without success. Here

is why: protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a fate of

humiliation, occupation, degradation and subservient

acquiescence to Israeli-American dictates only guarantees

that those Arabs will regroup, plan a resistance strategy,

and come back one day to fight for their land, their

humanity, their dignity and the prospect that their children

can have a normal life one day.

In the past two decades, with every diplomatic move to

protect Israel's borders and drive back Arab foes, the

response has been a common quest to strike Israel from afar--

because the core dispute in Palestine remains unresolved.

Three Arab parties to date have missiles of various sorts

that can strike Israel from greater and greater distances:

Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah. All three have made the concept of

buffer zones militarily obsolete and politically irrelevant.

New buffer zones imposed by the international community to

protect Israel, while leaving Arab grievances to rot, will

only prompt a greater determination by the next generation of

young Arab men and women to develop the means to fight back,

some day, in some way that we cannot now predict.

Piecemeal solutions and stopgap measures will not work any

more. Ending these kinds of military eruptions requires a

more determined effort to resolve the core conflict between

Israel and Palestine. This would then make it easier to

address equally pressing issues within Arab countries, such

as Hezbollah's status as an armed resistance group or militia

inside Lebanon, which itself is a consequence of Israeli

attacks against Lebanon and the unresolved Palestine

issue.

In Israel's determination to protect itself and the

parallel Arab determination to fight back, we have the

makings of perpetual war. Or, for those willing to be even-

handed for

once, an opening for a diplomatic solution that responds

simultaneously to the legitimate rights of both sides.

In the meantime, I keep looking for a reasonably safe route

back to our home in Beirut. Standing with the people of

Lebanon in their moment of pain is the highest form of

solidarity I can think of, and also the only meaningful form

of defiance and resistance to Israel that I--and several

hundred million other Arabs--can practice at the moment.

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

We have before us today a Republican resolution that should be backdated to the last Democratic President, if it is to be honest, because when America actually made great strides in decreasing poverty it was during that administration. But that is not what we are about today. This is a PR event.

H. Con. Res. 438 is a Republican attempt to take a victory lap on something they have done right. I mean on the war and gas prices and everything else, they cannot say anything. But in the run-up to this election, they are borrowing the vision and the success under the leadership of Mr. Clinton.

The resolution is not about reducing poverty. It is about increasing Republican poll numbers. America's poor and disadvantaged deserve a fair shake, not a glad hand.

It is unmistakably clear that domestic priorities under the current Republican administration and Republican Congress have focused on the rich, not the middle class, not the working class, and certainly not the disadvantaged class. And the record will show the great strides we have made to reduce poverty peaked in the year 2000, the beginning of the Bush administration, and they have been on a downward spiral ever since. The rate of poverty has been climbing during the Bush administration. The number of two-parent families living in poverty has increased during the Bush administration, and the number of American children living in poverty has also increased during the Bush administration.

Now, you have to draw the line somewhere; so I intend to vote ``no'' because I want a real agenda for reducing poverty in America. Congress needs a renewed commitment, not a disingenuous celebration. It was the pre-Bush economy that boosted the value of work. And that is not all. This resolution ignores the domestic priorities championed by Democrats that have made a meaningful difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, like the earned income tax credit.

Instead of a resolution meant to increase the poll numbers, we ought to be passing legislation to increase the minimum wage. We have tried and we have tried, and you can really do something for poverty if you would do it. In one stroke we could do more to reduce poverty in this country than all the resolutions that you have offered since the President took office 6 years ago.

That is an honest assessment of the situation. There is a concurrent resolution I authored with Mr. Levin. Since the Republicans will not allow us to consider it, let me take a moment to discuss it. It offers an honest assessment of where we are today. It highlights the progress made in the second half of the 1990s on poverty and unemployment. It also makes it clear that poverty has increased since 2000 with more than 5 million more Americans falling into poverty, including 1.5 million children. If you call that success, it is a strange success.

The percentage of single moms who are working today has declined by 4 percent since the beginning of the Bush administration. And we are sticking the States with new unfunded mandates; so there will be much less money available in the next several years to deal with this growing problem. That is the Republican solution.

Our resolution makes reducing poverty a national priority, not wishful thinking, by supporting the States,

who are the Nation's first responders in fighting poverty. We would like to have a great debate over whether or not America's best interest is served by a Republican resolution created for the campaign trail or by a Democratic resolution created to meet America's needs. As it now stands, the debate is about Republican photo ops and press releases, which I am sure have already been mailed.

This resolution is designed by the Republicans so that they can try to take a victory lap after some successes in the welfare. But there cannot be a victory lap because the race is not over. Poverty is up, wages are down, and the working poor are losing in the Bush economy.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the time remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, we go through a policy like this in 20 minutes. The Republican policy toward children is, you have no entitlement to anything. The point of welfare reform was to take away the entitlement of health and welfare, and housing and food from children, to take away the entitlement and put it to 50 States to whatever they want to do.

And we have 50 different plans in this country. The Republicans define welfare, people, those eligible for TANF, in such a way that you can drive down the numbers. You can push people off into work. And there is nobody on this side who has not worked in their life, who does not think it is a good idea to work.

But what we believe is that you ought to work for a wage that is fair and provides a decent living. The Republicans for the entire period this has been in place have refused to raise the minimum wage.

You want to drive people into poverty, and you did drive them into poverty, because when they are in poverty you can make them do anything. That is the way you keep the costs down in business, have a workforce of people who have to work for the minimum wage, and that is it for them.

Now, you have cut Medicare. Medicare in every State in this country is

in a terrible mess. There are 300,000 children eligible for child care in California who do not have access because there is no money. You say to the mothers, go out and work. Leave your kids at home, leave them a package of graham crackers, leave them a television, and leave them with their 12-year-old sister. That is the Republican plan.

You also take away their housing benefits. When they go off of TANF they do not get access to those housing benefits they had before. So you take away every single piece of security for a child who knows they have a home, who knows there is going to be food on the table, who is going to have a parent there when they come home from school. And then you ask yourself why you have a drug problem in this country. Why you have kids getting in trouble everywhere, why the prisons are full.

This is the result of a public policy that says we do not believe in the common good. We cannot tax the rich, oh, no, no, we must not tax the rich, they need another wall around their compound. But you can put kids out on the street, with their mother working down at the local motel cleaning beds for $5.15 an hour, that is all right with you. It is that that we object to.

It is not that we do not think people should work, we just think they should work for a decent living, a decent wage, and you will not give them that. You want to define success. The press release will say, we have reduced the welfare rolls from 5 million, as it was in 2000, to about 1.9 today.

But you will say nothing of the human misery you have created by these policies. The reason none of us voted for the reauthorization was, you put no additional money in for child care. And you cut the benefits for health care. And you do not take care of the needs of the kids. This is not about adults. Adults can make it. But it is a question about whether we as Americans, as a part of the common good, think children are entitled to a decent and safe childhood.

And your answer is, we cut the welfare rolls, raise the flag, let's march around and have a big parade and we will send out press releases, we cut the welfare rolls. But poverty has increased. You have 5 million more people in poverty since Mr. Bush became President of the United States.

That is not an enviable record; 1\1/2\ million more children are in poverty. How can you celebrate that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is, Does silence mean agreement?

The United States is the only superpower in the world; yet the President has been on the sidelines since the start of the Middle East crisis.

There are 25,000 Americans in harm's way in Lebanon, but the President has yet to reassure them, or us, that the United States is doing everything possible to protect our citizens and get them out of harm's way. A U.S. warship was ordered to sail out of the Port of Haifa. Why weren't U.S. helicopters flown in to evacuate Americans visiting Israel? And why are we only now flying helicopters into Lebanon to begin evacuating Americans?

The President had days to speak, but waited, and then let the G-8 nations issue a joint communique.

Why didn't this President dispatch the Secretary of State to the region immediately?

The United States must lead if there is any hope of restoring stability to the region. The President's silence is unacceptable. In the midst of this crisis, his silence is intolerable. He is AWOL.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim Mr. Brown's time.

Mr. Speaker, the bodies of 20 kidnapped and murdered bus drivers were found in Iraq today. That occurred just before a suicide bomber walked into a Baghdad restaurant and blew himself up, killing seven people.

Then Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld arrived on an unannounced visit and said: ``Each time I come to Iraq, I see progress.'' That is a direct quote from the UPI.

Iraq is convulsed by sectarian violence. It is a nation disintegrating into homicidal chaos. It is a killing zone where Iraqi citizens purchase fake documents in hopes of staying alive if confronted by militias. It is a place where the killing has moved from the streets to inside the homes of Iraqi citizens. It is a country whose leaders acknowledge it is on the brink of all-out civil war, and the President's secretary of war, the man controlling the fate of 129,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq stands up and flat out misleads the troops who don't get to go home to the United States at the end of the day like Mr. Rumsfeld does.

America's independent government watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, just released a report that confirmed what everyone except the President and his political appointees already know: There is no adequate plan to stabilize Iraq, and the occupation by U.S. forces is fueling the sectarian violence.

Rumsfeld can claim things are getting better to reporters while standing inside a fortified U.S. base, but that flies in the face of the facts. U.S. troop strength in Baghdad has been increased from 40,000 to 55,000 people. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday about rampant corruption inside the Iraqi security forces, including direct ties to the insurgents.

Our soldiers are becoming surrounded by a growing insurgency, and the civilian leader says things are getting better.

Secretary Rumsfeld was going to meet with Iraqi government leaders to tell them how to deal with the crisis. He told reporters he was going to tell the Iraqi leaders to do this: ``They are going to have to persuade as many people as possible that it is in their interest to support the government and participate in the political process.'' He went on to say, ``And anyone who doesn't want to, they're going to have to go find and do something about.''

He neglected to say that plan was tried and failed last month. It was called Operation Forward Together, and it didn't work. How could it?

The presence of an occupying force is fueling the violence. And despite the

fact there are 267,000 Iraqi security forces, the American people are told repeatedly that they cannot defend Iraq on their own.

Three years later, the only plan the President and the secretary of war can articulate is to ``stay indefinitely.'' Our military generals know full well this so-called plan guarantees more needless U.S. casualties, and Iraqi leaders know it guarantees more sectarian violence.

In the past, I and others have called for the resignation of the Defense Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld. Today, I offer a better plan. The President should keep his political appointee. In fact, the President should transfer Secretary Rumsfeld to Iraq. He should be stationed there until every last U.S. soldier leaves the Nation we are now occupying.

The Secretary says he sees progress every time he visits. Imagine what he might see by actually living and working there.

There is no higher priority for the President, the U.S. military and America these days than Iraq. It stands to reason that the President's military appointee should be directly able to report for duty in Baghdad. Rumsfeld could personally work with the leaders of the Iraq government and show them how to implement his plan. By working in Iraq, the Secretary could accept direct responsibility for generating more of what he calls progress every time he visits Iraq. He could show America and the rest of the world the progress that only he and the President pretend to see.

The only true thing we can say about Iraq today is that it is on the brink of dissolving into unspeakable violence.

We cannot pretend our way out of Iraq, and we cannot pretend that the Iraqi people believe that our presence is stabilizing the country.

Iraq needs a plan that does not include the occupation of that country by foreign soldiers, including U.S. soldiers. Until this administration admits that it cannot shoot its way to victory, Iraq will grow more and more violent.

If Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was stationed there, America might finally get an honest assessment of the war and a road map to peace.

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just came back from Iraq. He brought with him a quote from a Special Ops officer who is operating in that country. This man said this: ``We are not going to kill our way to victory.''

Now, if you look at what has gone on in the last 5 years, this Congress has allowed the President to go into Afghanistan, do half the job, cut and run to go to Iraq to a war that had no purpose. They took out Saddam Hussein, the President landed on the Abraham Lincoln and said ``Mission Accomplished.''

In fact he was right, they got rid of Saddam, but they have been fighting a war of occupation for 4 years. When the President landed on the Abraham Lincoln, 141 people had died; and now, 2,400 more have died in this war of occupation with no plan to end it, no plan to get out of it, and no end in sight.

This President should be taken out of office. We can't do that, but there is an election coming in November of this year to take out the Republican leadership of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to extend my deepest regrets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the people of India over today's deadly attack.

Often on this floor we become very centered in our own events and don't notice what is happening in the rest of the world. I have traveled many times to India. I have enjoyed the company of the Prime Minister. He is a good man and a great leader, and I know that India's best defense in this time of grave trouble is to be led by a man of boundless integrity.

As I speak, far more is unknown than is known about this cowardly act of violence, which occurred today in Mumbai. There is little doubt, however, that the atrocity was carried out by people who worship hatred, because there is no religion on Earth that condones the killing and maiming of innocent people.

I recall the words of the great Indian leader, Gandhi, who wrote, ``The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion and equally noble motives.''

Before long, I have little doubt that those responsible will hide behind one of the world's great religions to claim sanctuary for their violence. The world must not be fooled into accepting their claim.

In the words of Gandhi, ``Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.'' Weaving a web of lies cannot conceal this one single thread of truth. There is no religion on the planet, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Islam, or all the others, that preaches or condones hatred.

None do. And only the perversion of a great religious ideal and great historical figures would pretend otherwise. That is done to try to spread more violence.

An atrocity like the one that occurred today in India is done by extremists who are hollow inside. Violence is what they espouse because humanity is what they do not possess. Gandhi said about this violence: ``The roots of violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principles.''

The world is filled with problems. No nation is immune. Yet today's bombs and the bullets and the bloodshed will not move the world one step closer to peace. We cannot shoot our way to peace. Those willing to ambush the innocent are not trying to change the world, but they are trying to destroy it.

The world needs people willing to change the world. Change it to produce a blue sky morning, not a world in mourning. Gandhi said: ``The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems.''

Poverty is a scourge of millions in Africa, and it is not lessened by one single dime by today's violence. The spread of HIV/AIDS that is infecting Africa and now India, millions across India, will not be stopped by the blast of a bomb.

India is a great nation, and the noble spirit of its people will overcome today's heartbreak. The bonds between India and the United States go much deeper than the democracy that we both practice as nations. The personal roots in my hometown of Seattle are deep and strong, and I know we all mourn this terrible loss. We proudly collaborate on so many levels, from trade and economic ties to cultural and charitable exchanges. We have grown close, and the people of Seattle would want me to extend to the people of India our deepest sympathies over this senseless tragedy. I am sure this is true across America.

The truth is wanton violence meant to divide the world can unite it, in sadness today but, to be sure, in strength tomorrow.

I am proud that I was one of the cofounders of the Congressional India Caucus over a dozen years ago. It has grown into a large bipartisan body. When it comes to India today, there really is no political divide in this House. We are very saddened by what has happened, but we are united in offering our support to a nation I am so very proud of.

India, we stand with you.

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

Mr. Speaker, this election is going to be a referendum on the President's plan to deal with Iraq.

The American people need to know what is going on. And, of course, our press gives them one view. But I think it is important to see what the rest of the world is saying about what is going on in Iraq today. For that reason I am going to read some portions of an editorial from the Daily Star of Lebanon. It is the most influential and most balanced paper in the Middle East, and the title is ``Only Iraqis Can Keep Sectarian Violence From Ruining Their Country.''

``In the latest outburst of sectarian violence in Iraq, roving bands of Shiite gunmen killed at least 41 Sunnis in Baghdad on Sunday as a car bomb targeted a Shiite mosque, killing 17.''

``Bloody scenes such as these are becoming all too common in Iraq, where a low-intensity civil war threatens to erupt into full-scale sectarian conflict. The violence already poses a threat to the fragile Iraqi government. Sunni MPs, who have been boycotting Parliament sessions over the abduction of one of their colleagues, MP Tayseer Najah al-Mashhadani, are now considering extending their boycott to withdraw from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Cabinet. If they do so, the national unity government that took six long and tedious months of horse trading to create could easily topple.

``Recent developments in the country only serve to illustrate the bankruptcy of the sectarian power-sharing agreement created under U.S. occupation. This is not to say that there were no sectarian tensions in Iraq prior to the U.S . . . but the new poisonous political arrangement created under the U.S. occupation has only exacerbated existing tensions.

``The most deadly schism that has emerged in the country is the Sunni-Shiite rift. A small group of Sunnis has

been waging a deadly insurgency and attacking Shiite citizens and mosques. In response, Shiite commando units, some of which are affiliated with the government, have been conducting reprisal attacks against mosques and civilians in Sunni communities. The sectarian `cleansing' of various cities around the country has driven tens of thousands of Iraqis to flee their homes.

``There can be no victors in a full-scale sectarian conflict in Iraq. One only has to recall the tragedy that was Lebanon's 15-year civil war to know that all parties will be the losers in a sectarian war. Even the minute personal gains achieved by trigger-happy gunmen will be erased whenever men with bigger guns come along to exact their revenge.

``Iraqis are currently heading in the same direction as the Lebanese were in 1975. And sadly, they have no one to turn to but themselves if they want to avoid civil war. They cannot turn to the U.S. military and ask it to use its muscle, because that will only stoke more intercommunal hostilities. Iraq's neighbors, who during a meeting over the weekend failed to offer the Iraqi people any tangible assistance, proved that they are unwilling to do much more than issue rhetorical statements. The responsibility of avoiding full-scale civil war rests squarely on the laps of Iraqis. During this volatile period, it is crucial that all Iraqi leaders act responsibly and refrain from inflammatory acts and statements that can only make matters worse.''

Now, it is clear from this editorial and from all the papers if you read them in the Middle East that the longer we stay there, the longer the violence goes on. If we want peace, if we want a stable government for the Iraqi people, if we want a society to develop in a civil way, we must begin the process of getting out. We cannot say we are going to stay there until it is quiet because it is clear from editorials like this one in The Daily Star and many other newspapers across the Middle East that it will not happen as long as we stay.

We are considered the occupiers. The government is considered one that we created. Our fear, down at 1600 Pennsylvania, is that if we go, they will create a government that we do not like. But democracy requires that you trust the people to choose their own government.

We will talk more about this in an hour from now.

Thank you, Mr. Larson. I think that people may wonder why some of us come out here and talk about this week after week. It really has to do with the feeling of having seen this story once before.

And when you know what it is to commit people to battle. I had to say, this person is fit for active duty and goes to war in Vietnam. I had to do that again and again and again. So I know what the weight is of doing that.

When you ask, why are the generals coming out and talking about what is going on in this whole thing? Why do people who have been loyal to this country and have served for long, distinguished careers, now stand up and say about the management of this war, as General Newbold did on April 9th of this year, he said, My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and the swagger that are the special privilege of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results.

And it is incredible that we stand out here today, 120 days from election, being subjected to a propaganda war that things are getting better. In spite of bombings and people dying and our soldiers continuing to be killed, the administration says, We have to stay the course.

Now, if you look around the world, you would think maybe, well, maybe it is just some antiwar Americans. Right? No. In yesterday's Guardian, or the July 5 Guardian, there was an article my Menzies Campbell. He is the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the British House of Commons. And he said, the British and American Governments have tried to pretend things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of car and roadside bombs doubled and the suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and oil production are still below prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of a civil war.

Now, here is a leader in Britain saying exactly what we are saying. They have got troops on the ground. They are committed in support. But, in fact, they are becoming very antsy. Mr. Campbell comes up with a six-point plan to get out of Iraq. It is things that we have talked about right here in this room.

He talks about a comprehensive U.N.-led disarmament, demobilization and reintegration strategy as necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi prime minister's policies that the militias must merge with the national security forces.

We all know this cannot be a government that has militias running it. It becomes warlords. It becomes like Afghanistan. It is the same thing. He also says there needs to be an end to the systematic, indefinite detentions by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Today, there are 30,000 Iraqis held in more or less permanent detention, whether it be in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or wherever. And as long as we continue to do that, we are occupiers. There is no question about it. And the plan which Mr. Menzies Campbell puts forward, or the one that we put forward, there are reasonable ways to get out of this. But we must get out of Iraq if we are ever going to deal with the problems you talk about in Afghanistan.

We cannot fight on two fronts. We have proven that. We left Afghanistan to go to Iraq, and the mess came right back up. And if we are serious about dealing with whatever kind of terrorism was being created in Afghanistan, we have got to go back and finish that job.

Now, Menzies Campbell finishes by saying, you could change the words a little bit, but it would be the very same thing. With distressing regularity, the Commons, or the Congress, pays tribute to the brave men and women who have given their lives in Iraq.

If the government cannot explain why this is necessary, that they should make this ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared to bring them home. And that is where we are today. We have a government that wants to get through 120 days, and I will make a prediction for you. Right there, the prime minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, is going to come in here in the next month, and he is going to stand up there and plead with us to leave our troops in Iraq.

We have seen that kind of stuff already in this House. And you can bet that the PR from that will be to stimulate people to say, oh, gee, if we stayed just another 3 months or another 4 months or whatever. We have been there since 2002, 4 years, and this is what you have as the analysis by people who know what they are talking about.

[From the Guardian, July 5, 2006]

Only a U.N.-Led Peace Process Can Halt the Iraq Catastrophe--The Government Cannot Justify the Continuing Presence of Our Troops Unless

It Shows It Has Learned From Its Failures

(By Menzies Campbell)

The British and American governments like to pretend that

things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts

belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of car

and roadside bombs doubled, and suicide bombs trebled.

Electricity supplies and oil production are still below

prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of civil war. The

illegal invasion, launched on a flawed prospectus and with

little understanding of the consequences, has resulted in the

deaths of about 3,000 coalition soldiers, 40,000 civilians

and many U.N. and humanitarian workers.

Since 2003 the coalition has met neither its obligations

nor its objectives. There was a catastrophic failure to plan

for postwar Iraq, followed by misjudgment and incompetence.

This has been overlaid by a disproportionate use of military

force, including gross human rights abuses. There are nearly

30,000 people being held without trial in Iraq. These

failures and misjudgments have perpetuated the insurgency,

increased corruption and criminality, and inhibited

improvements to the lives of Iraqis. We must now face the

possibility that Iraq could become a failed state. That would

have devastating economic and security consequences for the

region, and would risk taking the current humanitarian

disaster to a completely new level.

The catalogue of errors means the capacity of the UK and

the U.S. to play a positive role in redeeming the situation

is severely diminished. The legitimacy of the coalition,

always questionable, is now simply not accepted by most

Iraqis. A 2005 poll for the British Ministry of Defense found

that eight out of 10 Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of

coalition forces. Between 70 percent-90 percent want to see a

timeline for the withdrawal of coalition troops.

Faced with this reality, the British and American

governments seem to be in denial. The last time the British

government allotted parliamentary time for a full debate on

Iraq was July 20 2004, which was only the second occasion

since March 18 2003. It appears to be running scared of

critical evaluation. The coalition does not have an exit

strategy, nor does it have a strategy for staying. But to

continue as it has been is not a credible option. The British

and U.S. governments require a coherent stabilisation and

exit strategy. The early moves by Iraq's government of

national unity to form a reconciliation plan are positive,

but vague on detail.

The foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process

led by the U.N. to accelerate national reconciliation and the

internationalisation of support for Iraq. If the problems of

internecine conflict within Iraq have international

dimensions, so too must the solutions. A new strategy would

seek to build on the policies set out by the Iraqi prime

minister and work towards an international ``compact'',

similar to that agreed with Afghanistan, setting out the

commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and

reconstruction strategy.

Only an international solution can shore up the legitimacy

and effectiveness of Iraq's government, improve the delivery

of essential services and facilitate the end of the

militarisation. Every further association with the U.S. and

the UK taints the Iraqi administration.

What should that solution contain? First, establishing a

regional contact group would strengthen the engagement of

Iraq's neighbours, and require them to play a constructive

role in reconstruction. A contact group could play a

significant role in talking to insurgent groups, improving

border controls and promoting economic stability.

Second, enhanced measures to train, equip and

professionalise Iraqi security forces are needed to de-

politicise them and improve security. Coalition forces should

move towards training, advising and equipping. Third, a

comprehensive, U.N.-led disarmament, demobilisation and

reintegration strategy is necessary to make a reality of the

Iraqi prime minister's policy that the militias must merge

with the national security forces.

Fourth, there should be an end to systematic indefinite

detentions by Iraqi and U.S. forces, and full access should

be granted to U.N. human rights monitors and the Red Cross.

Fifth, the reconstruction process must be expedited and

legitimised (60 percent of Iraqis believe the U.N. should

have the lead role). Increasing UNDP and the World Bank

involvement would enhance transparency and accountability.

Donors must play their part and deliver on their aid pledges.

Sixth, Iraq needs a programme for phased security transfer

and withdrawal of coalition troops. The Iraqis view them as

occupiers. A limited British withdrawal is taking place but

U.S. troops are redeploying in other parts of the country.

The UK should aim to achieve a series of withdrawals, in

parallel with the U.S., according to milestones in the

stabilisation and reconstruction process. A transparent

agreement with the Iraqi administration would help to counter

the perception of occupation and illegitimacy.

I have been supportive of British efforts to bring

stability to Iraq. But, support for the government cannot be

unconditional. Unless it shows that it has learned from its

failures and is ready to look afresh at the way out of the

Iraqi quagmire, it will be impossible to justify the

continuing presence of British forces in Iraq. With

distressing regularity, the Commons pays tribute to the brave

men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. If the

government cannot explain why it is necessary that they

should make the ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared

to bring them home.

To the 40,000 people who died there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5- minute Special Order out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the President likes to say as the Iraqi people stand up, the U.S. will stand down. He has changed the mission from finding weapons of mass destruction to removing a dictator and bringing democracy to Iraq, saying the Iraqi people would decide what is best for their country. The President essentially likes to point to the recent formation of a new Iraq government as vindication of his policies and a turning point in bringing peace to a troubled land.

Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki announced a 24 point reconciliation to stabilize the country, his government's first major independent initiative. Within hours, we learned the U.S. had been deeply involved in watering down what the administration did not like about the Iraqi reconciliation plan, including two key elements, an offer of amnesty for insurgents and calling for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. U.S. troops will never be able to leave Iraq as long as we stay the course of allowing the Iraqi government to make decisions only so long as we agree with.

After all the sacrifices made by the American people, after all the American soldiers lost in combat, wounded and psychologically scarred in combat, the President's Iraq strategy is evolving into a corporate subsidy strategy. Influential leaders at home and abroad are beginning to raise questions about the President's intentions.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the record three recent articles from the mainstream influential news media in the Mideast and the U.S. ``Sovereignty is just a word on paper until Iraq is allowed to run its own affairs,'' is the title of an editorial published in the Daily Star, a distinguished newspaper in Lebanon.

On the same day, the Daily Star reprinted a commentary originally published in the Los Angeles Times entitled: An Iraq Amnesty Will Split the Insurgency. The Arab News published a commentary entitled Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action.

Thoughtful people are raising troubling questions. This is the conclusion of the Daily Star's editorial: ``The Iraqis need the space to make hard decisions that will help them restore stability in their country. But they will never find this space so long as the U.S. officials continue to micromanage the Iraqi government according to their own plan. What the Iraqis really need most now is what the Americans promised them long ago, freedom. And that ought to include the freedom to govern their own country in a way that would benefit the Iraqi people.''

The President keeps telling Congress and the American people that it is stated policy to let Iraq stand up. If that is the case, then the President cannot instruct the administration to hold the Iraqi government down. Otherwise, we are installing a U.S. government, run by Iraqis, and that is one of the worst fears of the Middle East.

If the President is going to follow his own policy, then Iraqi leaders may make decisions we don't like. If the President is calling the shots behind the scenes, then the new Iraqi government will have no credibility. Without credibility an Iraqi government is living on borrowed time, and we know it.

This Nation has some history with attempts to install or prop up governments around the world beholden to the United States, and the record is dismal. How many times have we thrown billions at so-called friends, only to see these leaders ousted or ignored because they are seen as puppets of the United States?

The Arab News commentary says, ``If left to his own devices Iraq's new Prime Minister Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured country and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem. U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts.''

Running Iraq from behind the scenes cannot be the President's definition of stay the course, or the U.S. will stay in Iraq indefinitely. The Iraq war has divided this Nation, and the Iraq government's decisions on difficult issues like amnesty for insurgents will divide America even more.

The President said he wanted a free and independent Iraq. Well, perhaps he got what he wanted. Now what is he going to do about it?

Finding a way to end the war can be as difficult as finding a way to start a war. It will be impossible unless the President starts talking straight to the American people and to the Iraqi people. You cannot install a puppet government and think that that is going to fool the Iraqis. They will continue to attack, which will keep our troops there and keep the death going.

We must be honest about what our policy in Iraq really is.

[From the Arab News, June 27, 2006]

Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action

(By Linda Heard)

If left to his own devices Iraq's new Prime Minister Nuri

Al-Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured country

and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem.

U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts.

On Sunday, Al-Maliki presented his Parliament with a 24-

point national reconciliation plan that was backed by Sunni

opposition figures. This included amnesty for insurgents

without blood on their hands, further prisoner releases, and

a timetable for Iraqis to takeover all aspects of their

country's security.

Des Browne, Britain's defense secretary, applauded the

moves saying, ``There is no conflict in the world that has

been resolved without dealing with the issue of

reconciliation. Reconciliation requires risks, whether it is

in South Africa, Northern Ireland or the Balkans . . .''

These are undoubtedly good steps on the road to cementing

various factions but earlier press releases suggest Al-

Maliki's initial grand design has been considerably watered-

down.

According to a report in last Friday's Times newspaper

titled ``Peace deal offers

Iraq insurgents an amnesty'' Al-Maliki was set to ``promise a

finite, U.N.-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all

foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to U.S. operations against

insurgent strongholds'' and an amnesty to insurgents

responsible for the deaths of American forces.

In the event, the above crucial points were excluded from

the prime minister's proposals.

In light of the turnaround, it is almost certain that U.S.

officials have been busy whispering in his ear. On Thursday,

Democratic senators proposed a vote to begin the drawdown of

U.S. troops but were rebuffed by mostly Republican opponents,

who believe an earl pullout would empower terrorists, weaken

the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government and endanger the security

of the U.S.

In reality, most Bush supporters perceive the argument in

terms of America winning or losing the war placing concerns

about Iraq's stability secondary. For them an imminent

withdrawal would be tantamount to an admission of failure or,

worse, surrender that they fear will affect the outcome of

next November's midterm elections.

The idea that insurgents could be forgiven for the killing

of U.S. military personnel has also failed to sit well with

either members of the U.S. administration or Congress, who

predict public outrage.

An article by Lincoln Lease, a U.S. Army specialist serving

in Baghdad, published on insidebayarea.com illustrates how

some Americans might view that move.

Lease writes: ``I take personal offense to Al-Maliki's

proposition to grant any kind of amnesty--limited or

unlimited--to any insurgent who has been involved in

terrorism against the United States. It seems to me that Al-

Maliki has slapped all the families of wounded or dead

soldiers in the face.''

The idea that the Iraqi leader is intent on humiliating the

families of American soldiers or bent on offending Lincoln

Lease and his ilk is entirely preposterous.

Al-Maliki faces not only the daunting task of quelling a

bloody insurgency; he must also rid his country of foreign

fighters, gain control over sectarian militias and commence

the rebuilding process.

To do this he must bring his people together in a process

of forgiveness and reconciliation, a process that cannot be

effective as long as Iraqi insurgents are being labeled

``terrorists'' for their attempts to oust invading armies

that from the standpoint of most Iraqis entered the country

under false pretences in the first place.

In his article Lease asks Al-Maliki ``How can you even

consider the possibility of granting any kind of reprieve for

any insurgent? How can you view these terrorists as patriots

defending their country? How can you justify the murder of

U.S. soldiers on your streets? We came here to rebuild Iraq,

not to occupy it.''

Poor Lincoln Lease has patently fallen hook, line and

sinker for the official line. He says, ``we came here to

rebuild Iraq'' while every one knows the reason given for the

invasion was Iraq's stockpiles of WMD which turned out to be

nonexistent.

He might also be reminded that billions of dollars slated

for reconstruction have been channeled elsewhere or simply

disappeared into the ether. Moreover, his government's

construction of up to five permanent military bases and the

largest and most fortified embassy in the world indicates

Americans plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul.

While it is tragic that 2,500 U.S. soldiers have lost their

lives since the 2003 invasion, new official figures point to

the deaths of 50,000 Iraqi civilians during the same period;

20,000 more than George W. Bush's recent estimate.

If Lease, who began his rant by expressing his ``rage and

contempt'' was sincere in his concern for military families,

he would be backing an imminent military pullout rather than

focusing on his own ego-led sensibilities.

A growing number of specialist think-tanks and Middle East

pundits are now of the opinion that the very presence of

foreign troops serves to fuel the insurgency, while evidence

points to the fact that far from bettering the lives of

Iraqis the occupation has thrust their war-torn land into

an abyss of desperation and despair.

Should Lease care to relinquish his rose-colored spectacles

for a moment, he might care to read the recently leaked memo

from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to the U.S.

State Department that reveals a country in turmoil, run by

armed militias, its people traumatized by fear.

Dated June 6 and published by the Washington Post, the memo

highlights negative experiences encountered by nine members

of the U.S. Embassy's staff afraid to tell even family

members that they work for the Americans.

It's been three years and three months since ``Shock and

Awe''. The Bush administration has surely had its chance to

bring some semblance of normality to Iraq and has failed

dismally. There is only one thing left for it to do and that

is to back off and allow Al-Maliki a free hand.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was famously

reported as telling Bush ``if you break it, you'll own it''

with reference to Iraq. That may be true but the only ones

who can give that country back together are the Iraqis

themselves. It's time they were given that chance.

Madam Speaker, on Sunday, Iraq's prime minister unveiled a 24-point plan that included a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Last week, the U.S. military's top commander in Iraq briefed the President and top Republicans about a plan to significantly reduce the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

For months, Democrats have been calling for a new direction, including a timetable to redeploy U.S. soldiers out of harm's way; and the American people have been saying it is time for a new direction that protects U.S. interests by protecting U.S. soldiers.

The Iraqi people, the American people and the U.S. commanders all say the same thing: It is time for a timetable. And the President still says the same thing: Stay the course.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats were wrong. The President's favorite phrase, stay the course, is not a slogan. It is a direct order for Republican Members of the Congress to deny their better judgment and disregard the concern of their American constituents and the top five military commanders.

The President must have some kind of October surprise in mind. The President is off course, and until there is a mid-term course correction, America will remain misled and misguided in Iraq, and U.S. soldiers will bear the brunt of the President's stubbornness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding. I want to thank him for organizing this event this evening to give us a chance to spend a little extra time talking about what is going on.

I think the American people, as they look at this situation, have every reason to be very confused about what is going on in Iraq; and I want to try to help them understand it.

The first thing you have to understand is that everything that is happening on this floor and in the other body has to do with the 7th of November, the election. Don't ever lose sight that what is being done here is to influence the American people to keep the Republicans in power in the next election.

Now, the confusion you feel is being created by the very people who want to retain power. If you ask yourself where are we today, well, on Saturday in the morning they announced in the London Times that Prime Minister Maliki wanted reconciliation. He wanted to have a reconciliation plan coming out, and he wanted to meet with the Sunnis and try to defuse the situation.

You would think that would be in everybody's interest. Did you hear one word from the White House about the Iraqis standing up and trying to defuse the situation? Did you hear any support? None. Because the basic underlying fact that my colleague from Washington has pointed out is we have no intention of leaving Iraq. We intend to be there with 50,000 troops and permanent bases for an extended period of time. But we won't say that. We say exactly the opposite.

What we are saying to the Iraqis is, now, look, this is what we mean. We mean we are not going to stay here. But the Iraqis open their eyes and they see this permanent stuff, and they say to themselves, it doesn't make any sense. They are not here on a temporary basis.

An Arab friend of mine in Jordan told me that one of the things that Americans do not understand is what it means to an Arab when you occupy his land, and as long as we occupy their land, they will fight. He said, you can do all the talk you want, but until the United States indicates clearly that they are pulling their troops out, you will never get any peace in the area.

That was on Saturday morning. Then we come to the New York Times the next day, Sunday, quoting General Casey. Now this is the President that says, stay the course, stay the course; and the New York Times leaks a story saying that they have drafted a plan for withdrawing troops by September.

This is a leak. Did the President jump up and down and say, send out the FBI to find out who leaked that plan? No. Because they want to send that out to one part of the population. They want part of the United States to think we are actually going to pull the troops out, when in fact there is no real evidence that they are going to take them out.

The American people have got to stay awake. Ronald Reagan said you should trust, but verify. The President says stuff, but when you try to verify it, you can't find it. He is against leaks, as long as it is an official leak of something he wants to get out there. Karl Rove really wants to get it out there.

Our election. One of the fascinating things about it is, I don't know how many times the President has said, we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. Well, that makes sense to people. People say, yes, that is right. As soon as they are ready to take over their country, we will back out and we will leave. So we think he really means it.

Then we have Maliki, the new prime minister, stand up and say, I have got a reconciliation plan, and I would like to talk with you guys about a timetable for you to leave.

Have you heard the President say one thing about the prime minister standing up? Of course not. They have ignored the fact that the Iraqis that they maneuvered into charge of the place are actually standing up and saying, yes, we are going to have to talk to the Sunnis, because we are Shiia and they are Sunnis, and they feel like they are left out; and, secondly, we have to do something about all this fighting that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, well, one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, Did Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi Government sit down and come up with this reconciliation package all by themselves? Does anybody think that the American Government was not, in the form of the ambassador, involved in those discussions, or that talked to the military? Of course they did.

So what you have got is our own government talking out of both sides of its mouth. The Iraqis, all they know is we are staying there. We have got a $500 million embassy, the largest embassy in the world. It is really Fortress America. We have got military installations which are very permanent, and we are saying we are leaving tomorrow or sometime, whenever you are ready to run your own country.

The fact is that we have shown nothing to suppose that we really mean that we will one day say, you guys are doing such a great job, we are going home. See you later. That is not what we are up to. We are trying to control the natural resources of the area and trying to give ourself a platform to operate some place in the Middle East, and we simply are going to have this fight continue unless, and I could not help thinking, I was sitting over thinking about what I was going to say today.

I remember during the Vietnam War, back in 1968, coming up to an election. What was Mr. Nixon saying at that point? I have a secret plan to end the war. Ha. A secret plan to end the war. After he was reelected, we went on for 4 more years. This issue, if the President is serious, then he ought to explain to us why he let his commanding general go out there talking about setting a deadline and bringing troops home.

Does he mean to do that, or is that just to throw smoke up in the air and get people confused? I think it is the latter. I do not think he intends to bring any troops home if he is going to give the impression that they are leaving Iraq. And that is why we have to continue to get out here and talk about what is in the newspapers.

I mean, you do not have to read very far. The London Times, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, a few papers, and you can see it if you put it all together in one place. And that is why it is important for us as a body to have these hours when we do this.

Mr. Speaker, as I look around the House today, there is scarcely a dozen people on the floor, so they must be somewhere else, probably watching this on television.

So those of you who have just tuned in on television, you are watching not the House of Representatives, but the theater of the absurd. What has gone on in this floor this morning and will continue in this afternoon is absolutely absurd.

The first thing we did was we refused to consider a bill to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been the same since 9 year ago, $5.15 an hour. This is what ordinary Americans consider a starting wage, and this House will not do it.

Now, the second act of this theater of the absurd is let us get rid of the estate tax. It was put in by who? By a public-spirited Republican. Theodore Roosevelt, right. It was not some wild-eyed lefty. It was a guy who was a public-spirited Republican President of the United States, and it is used as a way to finance things that we think we ought to do.

If you read last Sunday's New York Times, and you read the debt that this country is in, and just read the section on college debt, you can see what we could do if we would shift the cost of education back on to the State and off the back of our kids. The average debt coming out of college is $20,000. Why would you want to be a schoolteacher dragging that kind of debt or a doctor, $150,000? But, no, we have to pass a law to give an unending ability of people to get rich in this country and never give anything back.

Now, when you talk about who calls you in your district, well, Mr. Gates called me and he said, do not vote for the repeal of the estate tax.

Now, the third act to this thing, just so you understand how really crazy this is, the third act we are going to do before we leave here today is pass the line item veto to the President. It is a total capitulation by the right, by the House Republicans, saying, please save us from ourselves; we cannot stop giving money away.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we granted a tax break of nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years to the wealthiest among us, and it made me think about a quote from children's literature, which I think is a good place sometimes to learn what we really ought to know.

We all know about the morality tale called the ``Lord of the Rings''; and one of them is called ``The Return of the King,'' and the main character is Gandalf, the magician. The children asked Gandalf what they are supposed to do, and he says, ``It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clear earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.''

Now, we stand out here on this floor very frequently and talk about our children and what kind of a world we are leaving to our children, and we are leaving a world of debt to our children. The June 11 issue of the New York

Times magazine says, ``Debt,'' and the subtitle is, ``America's Scariest Addiction is Getting Even Scarier.'' Well, we added to the debt today.

Now, the question is, What does it mean when a country goes into debt? It means that we do not tax the people sufficiently for what services they expect, so we have to borrow the money. This year, we are borrowing from the Chinese the entire debt that we are creating in this year, some $300-some-odd billion that we did not raise in taxes, that we gave away this afternoon. We are going to go to the Chinese tomorrow and borrow that money.

Now, what difference does that make? Well, ultimately you have to deal with debt. You all have credit cards. You understand what you have to do with a credit card: you either pay it off, which means we have to raise taxes, or stop giving it away. Or in the case of a country, we can devalue our money.

You say, well, why, what difference does that make? Well, if our money, if the Chinese borrowed a dollar that was worth this amount, and we now drop it down by 50 percent, they have lost 50 percent of what they lent us. How do you think they feel when we do something like that? Well, the next time we come to lend, they say, give us a higher interest rate. Now, lowering the value of the dollar, which happened in 1983, 1985, some people remember when our money went down, and people lost a lot of money. That was a devaluation, and we are heading for another devaluation in this country.

When it happens, we will also have inflation because with the cheaper dollar we can buy more, and it is easier to buy foreign goods. So we will buy more, and they will buy our goods, and they will demand higher interest rates.

Now, the Feds try to control inflation by driving up interest rates. Some may even remember when our interest rates were 22 percent, when buying a house was absolutely impossible. Well, then interest rates came down because we changed our fiscal policy. We paid our debt. We started borrowing. Under Mr. Clinton we actually went into a positive state. We no longer were borrowing. We were actually taking in more and paying down some of that debt. But in the last years since 2000, we have just gone on a wild spree, and we have gotten ourselves deeper and deeper in debt. People like me worry about that because my children are going to pay for it, not me. In fact, it may be my grandchildren that pay for it.

There are two categories of debt that you have to worry about. One, of course, in this country is personal debt. Now, lots of people bought houses in the last year, last years, 5, 6 years, and they have been buying houses because the interest rates were low. They were buying on interest only, or they were buying on ARM, that means adjustable rate mortgages, and all of those had a term, an adjustable rate of 4 or 5 years, and those ARMs are coming due now.

Because of what is happening in terms of the dollar and in terms of inflation, the Feds are raising it every month. Since March of 2004, the ARM rate has gone up 59 percent, and it could easily jump 50 percent when these adjustable rates happen. Some people are going to lose their houses. Listen to the children.

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

Mr. Speaker, for over a year, the American people have asked in increasing numbers for the Congress and the President to work on a real plan for Iraq. As we all know, the American people have been increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress both there and here.

For one thing, the battle lines have grown beyond Iraq's borders. The continuing U.S. presence in Iraq has inflamed tensions throughout the Arab world, and hostile sentiment is growing. That makes it harder to deal effectively with Iran and harder to achieve stability and security for Israel and the Palestinian people. In other words, the

casualties in the Iraq war are spreading to U.S. strategic and diplomatic interests throughout the Middle East.

The price we pay continues to escalate, and so does the violence. Iraq has become an unlimited front without battle lines and without a visible enemy. That is the Iraq war our soldiers face every single day.

On any given day, the level of violence may be more or less than the day before, but no one doubts that the United States' soldiers patrol and rest a heartbeat away from certain violence and potential death. They live the Iraq war 24/7 and patrol an unlimited front in an open- ended commitment of U.S. forces.

While the President waits for the Iraqi clerics to declare themselves ready to take up government, some in the Iraqi Government itself are demanding to know when the U.S. forces will leave. Now, that might sound ungrateful after all the sacrifice by our soldiers and all the money we have spent. On the other hand, it may be the clearest sign yet that the Iraqi leaders are emerging who recognize that Iraq will never stand alone until it is on its own.

They are not alone in this desire. It is what the American people want. It is what they want to see, an end to the unlimited sacrifice by U.S. soldiers, unlimited expenditures by the U.S. Government, and unlimited battle lines surrounding our troops.

Despite the nature of last week's debate, the American people finally have begun to see this House take a step forward, with 153 Members voting in favor of the Murtha plan for strategic redeployment. It begins to address the military issues associated with projecting U.S. power in a region without keeping U.S. forces in the middle of Iraqi sectarian violence. The Murtha military option does something else. It offers a realistic opportunity for diplomacy to take root in ways both familiar and effective in the region.

For some time I have urged the involvement of the United Nations as a first step to diffuse the focus on hostility directed towards the United States. The more the U.S. is seen as directing people, government, and events in Iraq, the more we prolong the violence. That has been a familiar theme in the Middle East and one that I heard repeatedly last August when I met with civic and business leaders at a prestigious Arab leadership forum in Amman, Jordan.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Adviser under President Carter, has outlined a vision for Iraq that is a thoughtful roadmap for peace. The nations of the Middle East, including Iraq, have relied for centuries on a gathering of regional leaders to resolve conflicts. It is time to establish a way for that historical process to occur.

Adopting the Murtha plan is the first step. U.N. leadership is second, because it sets the stage for the nations to become involved without military forces and without the balance tipping to any one ideology, including some we absolutely do not support.

Finally, the roadmap leads to a regional conference where those closest to the problem have the most to gain and/or lose in solving it.

Now, the role of the United States at this point would be a role the United States can play better than any other nation in the world. We can help broker peace from the sidelines instead of fighting the war on the front lines. U.S. diplomacy has accomplished miracles over the years. Israel today is better off than it was before President Carter called the parties to Camp David. It is time we make a similar commitment to a peace process in Iraq.

Let the Murtha plan be the foundation block on the road to peace in Iraq. One hundred fifty-three Members of the House voted to support what the American people believe: We can protect the American interests without automatically ordering our soldiers into combat. We can project American military might without occupying a country.

We have a realistic plan for Iraq and a growing desire to see it implemented. It may take an election to start the real discussion about Iraq, but the American people are ready, willing, and determined to have it. The election is coming.

Brzezinski's Iraq Plan Makes Sense

Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski

suggests that the U.S. could leave Iraq now and create a

better and stronger situation.

His simple four-point proposal is (essentially):

1. Washington should quietly ask Iraqi leaders to publicly

ask the US to leave, rather than announce arbitrarily a date

for the departure. (The catch--If we had any diplomats left

in this administration, they could call Ali Sistani and the

Kurdish leaders and the top Sunni leaders and ask them to

agree to this easily--but the Dubya-Cheney administration's

diplomacy quotient is zero!)

2. After such a public request, the US and Iraqi

governments would jointly consult on a date for ending the

occupation to allow a complete and orderly disengagement.

3. After this, the Iraqi government--not the US--should

then also call for a regional conference of Muslim states,

some immediately adjoining Iraq, others more distant, to help

consolidate internal stability.

4. On leaving, the US should convene a donors' conference

of Western states, Japan, China and others with an interest

in Iraq's future stability to help with the restoration of

the Iraqi economy.