Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``Comedy Central'' and ``The Daily Show'' have come to the floor of the House. The House Republicans have thrown up their hands and said, save us from ourselves. They are going to come out here with the line item veto.

Now, every single item that goes out of this House has been through a committee chaired by a Republican with a Republican majority on that committee. No single item has gotten out of here that they have not had their look at. They want to slip it into the bill and then send it to the President and run down there to the White House and say, Please, Mr. President, save us from ourselves. We can't stop ourselves. We have to keep spending money.

This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation you have come up with in this session. There is no excuse for it whatsoever. If you can't stop yourselves in the committee, and you can't stop yourselves on the floor, why would you have to call the President?

Do you understand the separation of powers? We are the ones who decide how the money gets spent, not the President. It is your responsibility that you have spent away the surplus into the biggest deficit in history. Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, of all the urgent matters in the world today, and there are many, none is more poignant than the plight of millions of homeless refugees in countries like Africa, Asia and Latin America, and here in the United States.

There are 8.4 million refugees worldwide. Some were displaced because of natural disasters. Most were forced to flee their homes and their homeland and loved ones to avoid being killed because of persecution, civil war and outright genocide.

They were forced to flee through no fault of their own, and were forced to abandon their belongings and their lives. They fled with the clothes on their back, memories and hopes that one day they would go home again.

Today we meet some of these people. This is World Refugee Day, organized by the United Nations to focus attention on the millions of innocent people who are entitled to live and not merely survive.

Every one of those 8.4 million refugees has a personal story. They hope, as we do, for healthy children, a bright future and peace and security in their lives. They long for a standard of living measured by dignity, not by personal possessions.

And it is within our power to make a difference. I think of it this way: if a million people make one small difference today, the world will wake up tomorrow a much different place.

Almost every day I wear a tie from Save the Children, although I left it off today, because Save the Children does, and lots of Americans help them. There are other noble organizations just like them. Organizations like World Vision in my congressional district respond every day to the needs of people in places like Darfur. The need always outstrips the available resources. But no one gives up. They just dig deeper. They have been there on the ground in camps next to people who are just like us. Once that happens, you never forget.

I know. I went to the refugee camps in Darfur last year as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation. You don't forget people jammed into a refugee camp who pass you handwritten notes asking you to tell the world that they exist and not to forget them.

There are those who refuse to forget. A megastar like Angelina Jolie willingly trades on her name to focus global attention on poverty and homelessness. Angelina is a U.N. goodwill ambassador whose works speak louder than words and whose words echo through capitols, including this one. Angie is redefining the phrase, ``one person can make a difference.'' She will make a difference again tonight as she goes on CNN to tell the world firsthand about the millions of people around the world who want nothing more than to go home. But they cannot do it alone. Watch, learn, and listen.

In a world united by technology, we remain divided by brutal conflicts with millions of innocent victims homeless and held hostage, and that is where they will remain until the nations of the world intercede.

Nations rally behind leaders, political or otherwise, and nations are beginning to hear the voices of people like Ms. Jolie.

The United Nations tells us that 6 million people have returned to their homelands in recent years. That is dramatic progress, but the world has a long way to go before human liberty is protected in every nation.

All too often, refugees return home to find their towns and villages completely destroyed. And all too often, new conflicts disenfranchise or endanger new people.

From afar it seems almost impossible to believe that one person can make a difference. Then I remember the scraps of paper with personal notes handed to me in Darfur. You recognize the work of organizations like Save the Children representing millions of Americans. You meet people like Bono and get to know people like Angelina, and pretty soon you realize that we are all in this together. You recognize that refugees haven't given up. How can we?

Today is the day to see the faces and hear the voices of those who don't have a home, but do have a heart.

Today is the day to meet the people who are worth fighting for, who believe that hope can triumph over despair and that courage can overcome adversity and that every person on Earth is entitled to a life of dignity.

Do the world a favor. Change the television channel tonight. Watch and learn the news on CNN as they help us face the world in which we live. Listen to humanitarian leaders like Angelina. She will help you understand and change the world that we can all make a difference. There is no one who can't make a difference for a refugee in this world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to really tell a morality tale that the American people may well not know anything about. Many things go on in the world, and we learn nothing in our press. But if you read widely, as I do, and read something called the Asia Times, which is one of many newspapers around the world, you find out very interesting things are going on.

Everyone knows that there is a problem with AIDS worldwide, and the problem with AIDS is that we, today, have the ability to actually treat people with AIDS with the triple therapy drugs that will make their life longer, allow them to continue working, allow them to take care of their children,

create less orphans. There are many, many positive benefits from triple therapy around the world.

The problem is the drugs are made in the Western world where they are very, very expensive. In the Asia Times story, an article entitled World Health, A Lethal Dose of U.S. Politics, that is dated 6/19/2006, that I will enter into the Record, this article talks about a veteran World Health Organization professional by the name of William Aldis, who found himself in such conflict with the World Health Organization that he was fired. Now, they called it a promotion. They put him elsewhere. But basically they put him in a position where he would have no power similar to what he had before. He was the representative to Thailand.

Now, Thailand's use of these medications has reduced their level of deaths from AIDS by 79 percent. These drugs are effective, but very expensive. And the problem is that under the World Trading Organization rules, countries are allowed to make their own or to develop generics that are much less expensive.

Now, Thailand comes to the point where they want to develop a bilateral trade relationship with the United States. And the United States, at that point, uses their muscle to say to the Thais, you no longer can have this loose standard of developing drugs. You must abide by United States intellectual property law.

Therefore, you are cut off from an inexpensive source of the medication that is in use in Thailand today and in many other countries in the world.

Now, this is a question of morality. We have the capacity to treat the millions of people who are living with AIDS and thousands of them, millions dying every year. We have the ability to treat them. But on the other side, we have the pharmaceutical industry that says we want to get the last nickel, we want to get the most money out of this situation that we can get. And the United States Government is helping the pharmaceutical industry squeeze the Third World.

Now, a lot of people say why does the rest of the world dislike America? It is this kind of stuff that goes on under the radar screen of most people in this country who do not understand what is going on who, therefore, do not understand why the rest of the world looks at us as being in it for ourselves and no one else. We can talk all we want to about liberty, and we can talk all we want about the free enterprise system and all these things, but when it comes down to money we put the squeeze on.

Now, you say, well, hasn't the President been generous? Hasn't he put $15 billion out there to deal with the AIDS epidemic? Yes, in theory he has made that and some of that money has been appropriated out of this House, but it is being used to buy drugs that are much more costly. We could buy many more drugs if we would buy generics produced in these countries by themselves.

Now, recently there was a Congressional Research Service report, and this is our research service in the Library of Congress, that said that the United States' main purpose for pursuing bilateral FDAs is to advance U.S. intellectual property protection rather than promoting free trade.

This is wrong, and the American people should know about it and insist that their government make available the drugs for the rest of the world's treatment.

Mr. Speaker, this debate begins with one fundamental truth. We are in Iraq and our leaders have no plan to get us out of Iraq.

The President says U.S. soldiers will stay in harm's way for as long as he says so. ``We will stand down,'' our leaders say, ``when the Iraqis stand up.'' In other words, Iraqi clerics and the factions they control and the decisions they make about whether to cooperate with the Iraqi government will determine what we can do. The extent of our involvement, the length of our stay, the number of our dead is controlled by religious clerics in Iraq because we have no strategy except to wait for the Iraqis to stand up.

Republican leaders in this Chamber say we will stay because Iraq is a model of success and it is helping us win the war on terror, as if a resolution they alone write will somehow make Iraq the role model for projecting U.S. influence around the world.

Today, the American people say with a growing voice that Iraq was a mistake, and staying with no plan or timetable is the wrong course for our soldiers and our Nation. The unending war, the permanent bases, the fortress embassy we are building all make a powerful argument that our involvement in Iraq is more an occupation than a liberation. This promotes terrorism. This helps recruit terrorists. It doesn't help end the terrorism.

U.S. soldiers in Iraq are doing an heroic job, but we are not doing ours. It is not partisan politics to insist that a nation at war have a plan to achieve the peace. The resolution and its backers seem to think it is unpatriotic to ask questions and to demand a plan. That is not true. Our foreign policy fails when we fail to ask enough questions, not too many.

American soldiers are falling every day, and there is no one, not a single person in this House who does not respect and support our soldiers. But this resolution is intended to paper over the truth about the Iraq war and it does not support our soldiers and will not make a difference in winning the war. Our soldiers need and the American people expect their leaders to develop a battle plan that will work in the field because it is based on military intelligence, not political expediency.

We are in a war and we need a battle plan from the President, not a message memo from the House majority leader. War isn't waged by a political party nor is it won by political ideology. Iraq needs a credible battle plan. There is only one at the moment, and we should be debating it.

John Murtha put forward a plan 6 months ago and only today are we able to discuss it at all, with no ability to alter the resolution before us. This is not an honest debate, an honest attempt to seek answers for our problems in Iraq. It is a debate about a letter of endorsement for the President, not an examination of our options.

Jack Murtha has emerged with a battle plan, and it is no surprise. He is a decorated combat soldier who reflects what the best military minds believe. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam era, I must say that Jack is a soldier's soldier, a combat hero who has one and only one goal: To defend our Nation with the finest military and the best plan.

Jack has a plan: Strategic redeployment. It is smart, proud, honest and effective. You can't win a war with rhetoric and resolutions. You win with a thoughtful plan. I support the Murtha resolution that puts in place a plan to protect our soldiers, protect American interests in the Middle East, and protects American people here at home. It is a battle plan that resolves to bring our troops home on a timetable driven by the United States, not subject to the approval of Iraqi clerics. It is a commitment to secure the peace by being smart about the war.

The American soldiers need a battle plan, not a resolution that reflects a bunker mentality of the Republican Party losing its grip on political control.

Two grim things came out of the Pentagon today. When the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' 141 people had died. Today, the 2,500th person died. The other thing that came out was a 74-page booklet to help Republicans manage spin control during the Iraq debate on the floor. It is called ``The Iraq War Debate Prep Book.''

The Defense Department is putting out PR pieces. That is an affront to the American people. It is not a front on the war. The American people want change because the Pentagon under this administration distributes PR plans. Debate talking points. What is the military doing with that kind of stuff up here on the Hill in this body? We see no military plan.

Support U.S. soldiers by passing Jack Murtha's plan to get out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I brought my rubber stamp to the floor today because I want to remind everyone that tomorrow you have got to bring your rubber stamps to endorse the President's proposal in Iraq.

The majority leader's plan is nothing more than let us do more of the same. Now, there is no plan from the White House. What they say, and listen to these words, when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.

That gives the control to the clerics, from the Shiia and the Sunni. When they stop the civil war, then we can come home. We have put our troops under the control of the Sunni and Shiia clerics in Iraq. That is not supporting the troops.

We have to have a plan about when they come home. We will decide. We say there are 250,000 trained. And there are only 20,000 of those insurgents out there. How many do they have to train before they can handle 20,000 insurgents?

Well, the Iraqi clerics will tell us. Do not forget your rubber stamp tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, a remarkable document showed up in our mailboxes this afternoon. It is called a ``Confidential Messaging Memo'' for the floor debate on Iraq and the global war on terror.

This is apparently a memo that Republican leadership provided to Members on their side so they would know how to go about rubber- stamping the President's every thought and deed and could do their best to make sure that we don't have the kind of debate that the American people deserve.

The American people deserve to have us talk about what is really going on in Iraq and how it does or does not make us safer. They deserve to have mistakes acknowledged and paths forward discussed honestly and frankly, admitting problems and working together to make things better.

They deserve a Congress that is more interested in their security than in scoring points for the November election.

According to the Republican leadership's tactical memo, this is precisely what the American people will not get. Instead, there will be confusion and intentional misdirection. There will be ad hominen attacks, and that means attacks on individuals, and attempts to make Saddam Hussein and 9/11 more or less the same thing, attempts to call Democrats' legitimate questions about the administration's rationale for war and conduct of the war into what, and I quote, ``policies to concede defeat on the battlefield.''

The memo is filled with advice on how to deflect, confuse, conflate and con. I would like to enter that memo into the Record so everyone will be able to read it and not be confused when they hear the debate begin tomorrow. They will know what the script is that the other side is following.

Mr. Speaker, let me read some portions now because I think we all have a right to know what Republicans are advising their Members to say and think.

``During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points:

``The Importance of Our Actions. It is imperative during this debate that we reexamine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.''

In other words, the Republicans are being told to continue the big lie that Iraq was behind 9/11 or had something to gain from 9/11, and it is all tied together in one neat package.

Secondly, the Republican leadership wants to make the point that they are smart and tough enough because they don't look back, they don't analyze, they don't admit errors, and they don't learn.

Now if they were a baseball pitcher who was this bad, Rumsfeld would have been jerked five innings ago. But, of course, our President ran the Rangers and gave Chicago Sammy Sosa, so we know his judgment in baseball.

Now to do anything else, according to their memo, is to be ``prone to waiver endlessly'' or ``to abandon our efforts'' against terrorism. It is as if the Republicans believe there is only one kind of effort against terrorism that has validity, and that any kind of thoughtful consideration of alternatives is a sign of cowardice and weakness.

``Republicans believe,'' the memo says, ``victory in Iraq will be an important blow for terrorism.'' Yes, of course, it would be. But what is victory in Iraq and how do we get off the path we are on presently and onto that victory path?

We are forbidden to talk about those questions. It would be wrong for 435 fairly well-educated, loyal Americans, who have been sent here by their districts to help govern this country, to start raising questions about what we ought to do.

There will be one proposal with no amendments; that is it. It would be ``weak'' and ``wavering'' and a sign of ``abandoning our efforts'' if we attempt to make those efforts more rational and successful and relate them to the goal of making Americans safer.

We are in trouble in Iraq. We don't have a plan except to keep plowing ahead with the same old policy: a strategy that is getting Americans and Iraqis killed and driving Iraqis to despair and helplessness. We don't have a Congress that can step up and take responsibility and try to make the administration listen to reason.

The President's policy is to put the control of this in the hands of the Iraqis. When they stand up, we will stand down. Who is going to tell the Iraqis when to stand up? The clerics, of course. The Shiia and Sunni clerics will decide when they stand up. What if they don't tell them to stand up? We are there until it ends.

This is a charade. We will go through it tomorrow, but it will not shed any light on where we ought to be going as Americans.

And we don't have a Congress that can step up and take responsibility and try to make the administration listen to reason.

So the Republican leadership scheduled public relations time in the House in an effort to stop the Republican free fall in the polls.

Republican leaders cannot tell the American people what they intend to do except more of the same.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I call on the Republicans to abandon the cynical strategy put forth by their leaders and think for themselves.

Confidential Messaging Memo--Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on

Terror

This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a

debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and

our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/

11 world.

The past week has brought news of several important,

positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:

U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-

Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded

killer.

The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and

security ministers as part of the new government's continued

progress.

Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to

Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq,

Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with

the new democratic ally.

Clearly, these positive developments are the result of

steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts

in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from

touting such progress.

During this debate, our Republican Conference should be

focused on delivering these key points:

The Importance of Our Actions

It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the

conditions that required the United States to take military

action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the

attacks of September 11, 2001.

The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of

the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can

no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us

safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps

protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or

unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow

despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to

ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the

United Nations Security Council.

So, during this debate we must make clear to the American

people that the United States had to take action in the best

interests of the security of our nation and the world

community. As Republicans who supported military action

against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the

United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier

defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were

preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their

demise at the hands of our enemies.

As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:

``The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have

always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that

is the path of surrender, or submission.''

A Portrait of Contrasts

This debate in the House of Representatives gives our

Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American

people our case for strong national security policies whose

purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on

our own soil.

Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of

contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to

one of the most important political issues of our era.

Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow

the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a

fundamental question facing America's leaders:

In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and

the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we

instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the

hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important

blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world.

Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly

about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol

Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede

defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the

threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11

world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong

the Democrats' weak approach is and just how dangerous their

implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term

national security interests of the United States.

Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans

will recognize that on the issue of national security, they

have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the

stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party

without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly

dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world.

Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the

war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult

challenges. The American people are understandably concerned

about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many

tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a

sovereign democracy.

Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we

face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As

Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national

security hazards of such a move.

We must echo the American public's understanding of just

how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to

win the War on Terrorism.

Building democracies in a part of the world that has known

nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But

achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the

region will be the best gift of security we can give to

future generations of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, this is Iraq Week in the House of Representatives, called by the Republican majority in hopes that they can stop the bleeding, not on the ground in Iraq, but in the opinion polls in this country.

They want to capitalize on the success of the U.S. military last week and define progress in Iraq all over again. Over the last 3 years, the definition of progress by the Republican majority has been as elusive as the President's plan for Iraq.

Still, later this week after lots of Republican speech making, the majority leader will force-feed the American people a new resolution telling them what to think about the Iraq war. In the fine print is a desperate effort by the Republicans to cling to power in the November election. That is what this week is all about.

Republican leaders hope to commandeer the news cycle and convince the American people that Republicans deserve to stay despite their record on Iraq. In other words, Iraq Week is a staged Republican campaign event.

The resolution the Republicans will force through the House of Representatives on Friday will have nothing to do with increasing the safety of our Nation or the security of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq. It is about the security of the Republican grip on power. The Republicans fear the American people have answered Newt Gingrich's question. Do you remember it? ``Had enough?'' Well, they have. Poll after poll says the American people indeed have had enough of Republican power. The American people always have accepted sacrifice when it comes to defending the Nation. But one thing they have never accepted is being misled by their leaders. The American people have heard enough to know the trust they placed in the President over his justification to invade Iraq was misplaced.

The American people have seen enough to know this administration and the Republican Congress have no plan except to keep declaring progress. The words, however, pale compared to the images they see on TV every day. Enough facts have emerged for the American people to know that Iraq has become a grim lesson we learned a long time ago in Vietnam. But instead of transferring responsibility, the President declares the tide has turned, U.S. troops will stay in Iraq, and there will be difficult days ahead.

That is a Presidential declaration that more American soldiers will die, more American soldiers will suffer grave physical injuries, more American soldiers will be exposed to depleted uranium, and more American soldiers will return home traumatized by post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is today's reality, and the truth is there is no end in sight. And you will not hear that from the President. Earlier this year, U.S. military commanders talked about significant force reductions by the end of the year. They have stopped talking about it. That is because the reality on the ground in Iraq defies the Republican spin.

But the spinning goes on. Yesterday at Camp Neocon, that is what they used to call Camp David, the President called together the administration in a new effort to define progress. It was a campaign meeting meant to manage the news the American people receive about Iraq. Today, the President made a surprise visit to Iraq, not unlike landing on an aircraft carrier to declare mission accomplished. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

Soon, the Republican leaders will tell the American people what to think,

without the information on which to make an informed decision. Here is something they do not want to talk about: the U.S. is building Fortress Iraq, a $600 million embassy, the biggest in the world.

What lurks ahead for the United States is another grim and painful lesson we learned a long time ago. The administration would like to divert your attention while it orders the military to pour concrete runways and bunkers across Iraq. Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers are going to be stationed in Iraq indefinitely. These bases will be called something else for the American people, but they will still be targets for the insurgents.

Not everyone has access to enterprise journalism being produced by the mainstream news organizations. So in the interest of promoting a resolution of truth about Iraq, I will enter into the Record two recent news articles. The first is from the Los Angeles Times entitled: ``Give the Defense Department an F.'' ``A Roadblock to Unity in Iraq'' was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune. Read them. Make up your own mind.

The definition of progress in Iraq is not a Republican resolution force-fed to the Congress, as they would have you believe. The definition of progress is bringing our soldiers home, all of them, in significant numbers every month from this moment on until they are out of harm's way and we are out of the war that we should never have been in in the first place.

[From the Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2006]

Give the Defense Department an F

(By Anthony H. Cordesman)

If the United States is to win in Iraq, it needs an honest

and objective picture of what is happening there. The media

and outside experts can provide pieces of this picture, but

only the U.S. government has the resources and access to

information to offer a comprehensive overview.

But the quarterly report to Congress issued May 30 by the

Department of Defense, ``Measuring Stability and Security in

Iraq,'' like the weekly reports the State Department issues

on Iraq, is profoundly flawed. It does more than simply spin

the situation to provide false assurances to lawmakers and

the public. It makes basic analytical and statistical

mistakes, fails to define key terms, provides undefined and

unverifiable survey information and deals with key issues by

omission. It deserves an overall grade of F.

The report provides a fundamentally false picture of the

political situation in Iraq and of the difficulties ahead. It

does not prepare Congress or the American people for the

years of effort that will be needed even under ``best-case''

conditions nor for the risk of far more serious forms of

civil conflict. Some of its political reporting is simply

incompetent. For example, the report repeatedly states that

77% of the Iraqi population voted in the December 2005

election. Given that the CIA estimates that almost 40% of the

population is 14 or younger, there is no conceivable way that

77% of the population could have voted. The report says 12.2

million voters turned out. The CIA estimates Iraq's

population is 26.8 million. This means roughly 46% of the

population voted.

The far more serious problem, however, is the spin the

report puts on the entire Iraqi political process. Political

participation surely rose. But that wasn't because of

acceptance of the new government or an embrace of a

democratic political process; it reflected a steady

sharpening of sectarian divisions, as Sunnis tried to make up

for their decision to boycott earlier elections.

The report touts a ``true unity government with broad-based

buy-in from major electoral lists and all of Iraq's

communities.'' But its own data tell a different story. The

one largely secular party won only 9% of parliament. The

sectarian Shiite party, the United Iraqi Alliance, got 47%.

The equally sectarian Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front got 16%,

and the Kurdish Coalition got 19%. That hardly adds up to

``unity.''

The five-month delay in forming a government after the

elections, the failure to appoint ministers of defense or

interior and the fact that former Prime Minister Ibrahim

Jafari relinquished his post only after strong pressure from

the United States and from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani are

signs that progress is likely to be slow in the future as

well. Sectarian conflict has become almost as serious a

threat as the insurgency.

It is scarcely reassuring to be told by the Defense

Department that the February attack on the Golden Mosque in

Samarra marked a defeat for the insurgents and Islamic

extremists because it did not instantly lead to all-out civil

war. It is hard to think of a worse definition of victory.

The economic section of the report contains useful data and

reflects some real progress in the Iraqi financial sector.

However, its analysis is flawed to the point of being

actively misleading. No meaningful assessment is provided of

the successes and failures of the U.S. aid effort, and no

mention is made of the massive corruption and mismanagement

of U.S. aid discovered by the special inspector general for

Iraqi reconstruction.

Nor is there meaningful analysis of oil developments,

budget and revenue problems or future needs for aid. More

than $30 billion in U.S. funds and nearly $35 billion in

Iraqi money is involved, yet there is a serious risk that the

Bush administration will do more than omit the inspector

general's report. In fact, some State Department officials

and Republicans in Congress are trying to put the inspector

general out of business.

The report's handling of the key issue of Iraqi

unemployment is symptomatic of the victory of spin over

content. The report quotes vague national figures of 18%

unemployment and states that other estimates range between

25% and 40%. By saying that unemployment and poverty ``remain

concerns'' but that there are ``substantial difficulties in

measuring them accurately,'' it glosses over one of the most

destabilizing aspects of Iraq. It ignores the failure of the

aid program to create real jobs, especially for young men in

areas of high crime and insurgency. Unemployment is not a

casual macroeconomic factoid; it is central to bringing

stability and security and to defeating the insurgency.

The Defense Department's reporting on the Iraqi police

forces simply cannot be trusted. Death squads rampage in

police uniforms, but there is only passing mention of staff

problems, corruption, sectarian tensions or horrific prison

abuses. There is no meaningful analysis of problems so severe

that the U.S. has called for a ``year of the police'' and

Iraq's new prime minister, Nouri Maliki, is considering

reorganizing the entire force.

The United States is making real progress in some aspects

of building the Iraqi regular military. Yet there is still a

tendency to promise too much, too soon, to understate the

risk and the threat, and to disguise the fact that the U.S.

must be ready to support Iraq at least through 2008 and

probably through 2010.

The U.S. cannot afford to repeat the mistakes it made in

Vietnam. Among them was dangerous self-delusion. The strategy

President Bush is pursuing in Iraq is high risk. If it is to

have any chance of success, it will require bipartisan

persistence and sustained American effort. This requires

trust, and trust cannot be built without integrity. That

means credible reporting.

The American people and Congress need an honest portrayal

of what is happening, not halftruths by omission and spin.

Madam Speaker, to follow on the words of Mr. Frank from Massachusetts, I would like to say that we all know that a good offense is the best defense. That is true in any sport, whether it is wrestling or football or basketball.

But I would commend the Speaker and my colleagues to the words of Christ. In Matthew 7:3, He says, ``Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,'' the press, the FBI, whoever. ``Hypocrite, first cast out the beam in thine own eye and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote in thy brother's eye''.

Madam Speaker, we have a very unbalanced set of perceptions in this House. If it goes favorable toward us, we think it is wonderful, and we proclaim it.

But if it happens to be unpleasant to us, suddenly, we cannot seem to find enough words to castigate it. This is a House in which the people expect us to be just and even-handed. That is what they expect from us. That is what they should get.

Mr. Speaker, we can improve the lives of abused and neglected children in this Nation. One of the powers that we have, the Federal Child Welfare Program, is a lifeline we don't use enough, in my view.

We know as legislators that the system needs reform. We saw it around Katrina very much as youngsters were spread across the country and fell between the cracks in a whole variety of situations.

We know as parents that the vulnerable want and need only what our own children want and need, to be loved, cherished and protected. Today we have an opportunity to extend our hand as caring adults and take hold of vulnerable children, and we should take it.

H.R. 5403, proposed by Mr. DeLay of Texas, takes a step in the right direction. It has been here before, I have supported it before, and I am proud to do that again today.

As the ranking member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, I believe children come first, and there is no such thing as a political divide if we can better protect and nurture vulnerable children in America.

I stand here to support my Republican colleague, Mr. DeLay, and urge the House to unanimously pass this legislation.

Specifically, this bill strives to safely speed the placement of children in foster care or adoptive homes across State lines when this is considered an appropriate thing to do. This is very important, because today there are a number of barriers that prevent the timely placement of children in homes across State lines.

We are a very mobile population, and laws that used to seem to make sense really do not today, and that is why we need this bill. They include an overly long time to conduct home studies to ensure the safety of children, obtaining criminal background checks on prospective foster care and adoptive parents, inadequate State resources and

often a low priority assigned to interstate placement of foster and adoptive children. It is the latter that is really the problem.

This bill creates meaningful incentives for States to address these barriers, and I urge my colleagues to support this initiative. It is meaningful legislation. This is not symbolic. It has some real power to change things. But it is more than that. By passing this bill, we recognize the heroic efforts of countless Americans across this country, foster parents and the caseworkers who deal with them and the many others who strive to help kids who are in need.

By passing this legislation, we also rightly honor the leadership in fighting for vulnerable children by Mr. Tom DeLay. He has made a difference, and it is no surprise that he keeps fighting to protect and defend children. All too often, we are the light of hope for abused and neglected children. Today, let us curse the darkness by passing this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is not very often that Jim McDermott rises to support this President, but that is precisely what I am doing now.

The President does not want his hands tied by the passage of H.R. 4681. I couldn't agree more.

H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, will not make Israel safer, will not meet the urgent humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people, and will not give our diplomats the tools they need to help find a path to peace in the Mideast.

For all of these reasons, I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider.

I believe in diplomacy as a means to correct injustice around the world. I believe gifted diplomats can accomplish as much with words and deeds as the military can with guns and soldiers.

There is no question that the United States must take all appropriate steps to ensure that terrorists like Hamas are denied access to our financial aid. Not a penny should go to those who do not renounce terrorism.

Hamas is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis before coming to power. Since then, they have neither renounced the use of violence nor recognized Israel. This is unacceptable.

By all means, we must deny Hamas dollars that would buy hatred, but we must remember that Hamas and the Palestinian people are not one and the same.

Even as we deny any and all assistance to Hamas, we must not hurt those Palestinians who are working for peace. If we fail to support them, I have no doubt that Israel will pay the ultimate price: more instability in the West Bank and Gaza, more desperation, and more terrorism.

America's leadership is on the line in the Middle East, and more instability is something we need to avoid at all cost. We still have 130,000 American soldiers in harm's way in Iraq; we can't afford to make any more poor choices related to that region.

But, that's exactly what we will do if we pass this bill. It doesn't make sense for the United States to limit political and economic aid to moderates, like Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

He and others have met our government's requirements by recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and terrorism against Israel, and accepting all previously signed Israeli-Palestinian agreements. What happens if we turn our back on leaders trying to heal a millennium of hate?

And what can we expect if we turn our backs on the real and growing humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people? It doesn't make sense to put restrictions on funding the NGOs that provide the Palestinian people with hospitals and schools.

As a medical doctor, I am gravely concerned about the fate of millions of innocent Palestinians who rely on international aid for food, health care, and for developing their economy and businesses.

Recent news reports say that international sanctions are preventing hospitals in Gaza from providing dialysis machines for patients, and they may not be able to supply immunizations to children.

The World Health Organization sees a ``rapid decline of the public health system . . . towards a possible collapse.'' If left untreated, these conditions will nurture a breeding ground for more hatred, more violence, and more terrorism.

This bill will only increase the restrictions on aid to the Palestinians and that will make the already dire situation even worse.

As a doctor I took an oath to heal. As a nation, we took an oath to lead. Allowing innocent Palestinians to go hungry, while denying them medical treatment cannot possibly correct injustice, or lead to peace.

If passed, this bill will be seen as anti-Palestinian, and the resulting chaos and animosity can only threaten the relative calm that Israel has enjoyed for the past year and a half. This bill does not help Israel.

Many of the Israeli leaders I've spoken to, think this bill goes too far by punishing all Palestinians, not just Hamas. They understand that a radicalized population will show more support for Hamas, not less.

During a recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, I saw how both sides deeply yearn for peace. And I saw firsthand how they need the United States to do all it can to help them make peace. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act will make this task enormously difficult.

The harsh restrictions, and cutting off contacts with moderate Palestinians, will severely complicate our ability to assume an active role in helping both sides resolve the conflict.

If we cannot engage with moderates, and those trying to develop the Palestinian economy and build civil society, we forfeit our ability to nurture and strengthen the positive elements in Palestine.

We need a bill that allows us the utmost flexibility to help moderate Palestinians, to quickly get economic and humanitarian aid to places that need it, like hospitals and health clinics, and helps prevent the resumption of terrorism. This bill does not meet these criteria.

We need to isolate and weaken Hamas, and hopefully their tenure at the head of the PA will be a short one. But if we cannot distinguish between Hamas and the majority of the Palestinian people, we cannot possibly expect to have a role in creating what comes next.

Israelis and Palestinians realize that in the end, their fates are tied. When Palestinians' lives get worse, so do those of Israelis.

It's time to help the majorities on both sides reach their mutual goal--a peaceful two-state solution--rather than standing in the way by punishing one side.

Give our State Department an opportunity to nurture peace, or we will surely have to ask our military to counter more terrorism. Vote against

Mr. Speaker, I had an unavoidable conflict on the afternoon of May 19, 2006, and was not able to vote. Had I been able, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 175 and 176.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, the President has signed into law a bill that guarantees a massive tax increase for the middle class. They just do not know it yet. Make no mistake. The President's tax giveaway to the rich will be paid for by the middle class for generations to come. In fact, Americans living overseas are already reeling from the President's fuzzy math. It is the largest single tax increase in 30 years for these Americans.

I will enter into the Record a story published on Tuesday in the International Herald Tribune entitled ``Americans Abroad Outraged Over Tax Changes.'' Not only does the President's giveaway hurt Americans living and working overseas, his tax giveaway will actually encourage companies to hire executives in other countries because the new law is so onerous for Americans.

The President declared ``Mission Accomplished,'' but the words ring as hollow now as they did on that aircraft carrier when he declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 2003, almost 3 years ago.

What the President signed yesterday is a massive $70 billion tax giveaway. Americans earning $1 million a year will enjoy an average $41,000 windfall every single year through 2010. The President handed out $16 to the average middle class family.

There is no money to pay for this presidential giveaway, just as there is no money to pay for the President's Iraq War. He keeps signing credit card slips for the U.S., but what kind of credit limit does he actually have?

The Washington Post called it the ``Day of Reckoning for the next President in and Congress. I will enter into the Record a May 4 story. The story of the ``Day of Reckoning'' is January 1, 2011. Let me read a paragraph out of the Post story:

``At that moment politicians will face a choice: Either allow taxes to rise suddenly and sharply on everyone who pays income taxes, is married, has children, holds stocks and bonds, or expects a large inheritance, or impose mounting budget deficits on the government far into the future.''

I urge you to read the rest of that story, which will be in the Record.

This is not voodoo economics; this is black magic. The President and the Republican majority have made the surplus disappear. They have replaced a Nation enjoying strong financial security with a country insecurely surviving on a growing addiction to massive foreign debt. They are transferring the wealth of our Nation to the very rich and leaving the bill for the reckless plundering of the Treasury to the middle class, and they made sure the pain will not begin until the President leaves office.

Two generations ago when income tax rates exceeded 70 percent, economists could argue that a tax cut could fuel economic growth. But that logic is as scarce today as gasoline at $1 a gallon.

To independently confirm this point, I turn to none other than the very conservative Cato Institute. Here is what they said in the Los Angeles Times story on May 14, which I will put into the Record: In the story the Cato Institute shows that since 1981 for every dollar in tax cuts, the government spending increased by 15 cents. So they kept going. They gave away $1 and they spent $1.15. The President and his surrogates are pretending otherwise. The bills are piling up and so is the debt on the American middle class, until we stop.

But the Republicans did the opposite. They rammed through a reckless budget bill yesterday. This much we know: The Republican budget is all gain and no pain for big oil. The Republican budget is all riches for the rich and rags for the rest. The President and the Republicans are hurting the poor, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable kids, the seniors, and the middle class. And the Republicans are passing on a legacy of debt, not to their children but to their grandchildren.

When the President signed the latest tax giveaway, he gave those earning $1 million a year, earning $1 million a year, an extra $41,000. That is the average salary of the middle class in this country. For doing nothing. He just simply gave it to them. They will not work a single day for it. Meanwhile, the House Republican budget will add another $254 billion to the deficit to pay for that. They are going to borrow from the Chinese to give it to the rich. So the debt ceiling had to be raised again yesterday. Buried in the bill for the fifth time under Mr. Bush, we have raised the debt ceiling. Their spending is so out of control, they do not know how to stop. But that is not the half of it. In 2007 the rich will receive even more funding.

There is no end to their spending. The only way is to take them out in November.

By 2010, the Republican giveaway will cost as much as all of the funding for the Departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, State, and Energy.

And, median family income in America is down.

Under this President, the tallest mountain in the world is no longer Mt. Everest; it's Mount U.S. Deficit. The rich are sitting on top with Republicans. Rock slides are crashing down on the rest of us. And the landslide is coming.

This mountain of debt will collapse on the American people. That's the record of a Republican President and Republican majority who have defined themselves as the party of one percent, representing only those with a seven figure income or above.

[From the Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2006]

Bankrupted by Voodoo Economics

(By Jonathan Chait)

If you remember the 2000 election, you probably remember

President Bush's warning about why we needed to cut taxes: if

we did not return the surplus to the taxpayers, Washington

would spend it. Well, we all know what happened next. Bush

returned the surplus to taxpayers--and Washington spent the

money anyway.

Conservatives have a number of analogies to explain why tax

cuts will lead to spending restraint: Cut your child's

allowance. Starve the beast. But the analogies are all wrong.

The child has a credit card. The beast has a private meat

locker. Washington can spend whatever it wants, regardless of

how much it taxes.

The right has been congenitally unable or unwilling to

grasp this lesson. Last week, though, there was a faint

glimmer of recognition. William Niskanen, chairman of the

fervently anti-government Cato Institute, did a calculation

showing that, since 1981, every $1 in tax cuts tends to

produce 15 cents of extra spending. Likewise, every $1 of tax

hikes tends to reduce spending by 15 cents. The notion that

tax cuts cause spending to dry up, or that tax hikes

encourage more spending, is not just wrong, it's completely

backward.

Now, Niskanen is not the first policy wonk to discover this

correlation. Four years ago, Richard Kogan of the liberal

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities discovered the same

thing. I wrote about it in the New Republic--and nobody paid

any attention.

But Niskanen's finding is getting some attention. Moderate

libertarian Jonathan Rauch wrote about it in the Atlantic,

and a Washington Post columnist picked it up from there.

You'd think conservatives would pay some attention to a

study that empirically demolishes one of the central

underpinnings of their domestic policy. Indeed, my fellow

columnist, Jonah Goldberg, wrote on National Review's blog

last Monday that ``conservatives are going to have to respond

to Jonathan Rauch's argument in the new Atlantic.''

Of course, no response ensued. Indeed, the next day,

National Review was on its merry way, editorializing for more

tax cuts, as if Niskanen's study didn't exist.

The curious thing is why conservatives persist in

supporting a strategy that is demonstrably counterproductive

to their stated goal of shrinking government. The answer can

be found in the same entry by Goldberg. He proceeded to

write: ``There are others better qualified to deal with the

economic issues. But if tax increases can be demonstrated to

shrink government in some significant way, I'm certainly open

to them.''

Indeed, there is plentiful evidence that tax hikes can slow

spending. There is a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party

that is willing to inflict pain on their constituents in the

form of spending cuts as long as the rich bear some of the

burden in the form of higher taxes. In 1982, 1983, 1990 and

1993, Democrats in large numbers voted for budgets

that ratcheted back spending and raised taxes.

In 1995, many Democrats offered to cut spending and balance

the budget. But Newt Gingrich and the Republicans quashed

that move by insisting on huge tax cuts too.

The insistence on tax cuts tends to weaken fiscal restraint

all around. Having tended to the rich with tax cuts, Bush had

to buy off enough voters with spending hikes to win

reelection.

Most conversatives are like Goldberg--they want to shrink

spending. But most conservatives, also like Goldberg, tend to

think that ``others are better qualified'' to make those

decisions. Conservative option outlets tend to subcontract

out their economic thinking to a handful of polemicists, and

virtually all of them are committee advocates of supply-side

economics. They're theologically committed to tax cuts and

don't really care about spending cuts. They studiously ignore

any evidence that weakens their case--which is to say, most

of the evidence.

So, basically, you have a handful of supply-siders leading

the rest of the conservatives around by the nose. The

conservatives could cut a deal with the Democrats to tighten

spending and taxes, but the anti-tax nuts are the ones who

set policy for the movement.

It's funny. Almost all the conservatives, including

Goldberg, are furious at Bush for raising spending. But it

hasn't occurred to them to question the dogma of the voodoo

economists who led them into this mess in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the do-nothing Congress is in session today to enact a sham budget.

Let me explain why I say that. There is a provision in that budget which raises the debt limit. Now, if you are balancing the budget, why are you implying you are going to go out and borrow more money? If one of your children said, ``Well, Dad, I am making $40,000 this year, but my wife and I have decided to take $100,000 in a home equity loan so we can pay for whatever we want,'' you would tell your son or your daughter that was fiscally irresponsible.

What the Republicans are doing is borrowing more than $300 billion from the Chinese, the Japanese, and anybody else who will give us money, and they are giving it in a tax cut to the people earning $1 million a year. They are going to get over $100,000 back from the borrowing. That is what this budget really does. It is a sham. It doesn't balance anything, and it should be rejected, both by the Congress and the people on election day in November.

Mr. Speaker, May is Foster Care Appreciation Month, when the Nation honors those who open their hearts and homes to America's most vulnerable children. These are children who cannot live at home because it isn't safe.

How ironic and out of touch that the Republican majority should choose May to bring out a budget that neglects America's neglected children by obliterating the funding for the Social Services Block Grant program. This program funds America's response to the SOS of neglected children who need us to protect them.

The Republicans have other priorities: Giving the rich more money. The Republicans believe a safe house for a child is a mansion for the rich, so they will cut $500 million out of these programs which help the poor in order to give away millions to the rich.

There is no home, no heart and no shame in this Republican budget. They take care of the top 1 percent. They cannot give enough to those people at the top. They cannot borrow enough to give to those people at the top. And they forget about everybody else, including the foster children. That is the American way for the Republicans.

I offered an amendment to change this. They turned it down. Vote ``no'' on this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect and defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and defend us. I urge the House to pass my amendment calling for a comprehensive study on possible health effects on soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium.

I am a medical doctor. Like every doctor, I took an oath to use all my knowledge and skill to heal the sick. I was trained to listen to the patient and to use science, not conjecture, to make a diagnosis. I have been listening to soldiers, and I am greatly troubled.

We need to do a study on the effects of depleted uranium. My amendment includes a comprehensive study of the effects on our soldiers from exposure to DU, and also includes the children of our soldiers born after exposure.

I recognize there have been a number of studies done on this exposure, but they do not answer all the questions. There has been no comprehensive study of cancer rates in relationship to DU exposure in gulf war veterans.

The VA has a volunteer medical DU follow-up program that has been tracking about 60 veterans who signed themselves up for the study. These veterans were all friendly fire victims who have DU imbedded in their body, and I am heartened that the VA has been keeping track of them. But 60 veterans is not enough to catch cancers that have a rate of one in 1,000. This sample is not large enough to be statistically reliable.

There are about 900 gulf war veterans who have had level one or level two exposure to DU. We should be studying all of them and keeping track of all their health. There has been no comprehensive study of the Gulf War Syndrome in relation to exposure to DU. No definitive cause has been established for Gulf War Syndrome.

Presently, between 150,000 and 200,000 soldiers who served in Gulf War I could have Gulf War Syndrome. We need to study the possible relationship between depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome. Any link between these two or other negative health effects has not been conclusively established or refuted.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to stand with me and protect and defend the soldiers whom we send out to protect and defend us.

For me, this is a personal, not a political, quest. My professional life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the United States Navy during the 1960s when I treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam. Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed any threat to soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth began to emerge. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers; it made thousands sick and some died.

During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while our soldiers suffered, and for me there can be no more Agent Orange. We have to think of that in terms of this DU. If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it statistically and with independent, scientific studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it and act quickly, as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads us.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.

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

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