Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of this rule, H. Res. 653. Section 425 of that same act states that a point of order lies against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate in excess of specified amounts against State or local governments. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that a rule may not waive the application of section 425.

H. Res. 653 states that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the bill S. 1932 to provide for reconciliation. This self- executing rule effectively waives the application of section 425 to provisions in the underlying bill on child support enforcement which the Congressional Budget Office informs us impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Therefore, I make a point of order that the rule may not be considered pursuant to section 426.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that a lot of moderate Republicans wish they were somewhere else today, anywhere where they could escape the embarrassment of voting against the American people one more time in a brand-new year just after that State of the Union last night.

Here we go again. The first legislative act of 2006 looks just like the last legislative day of 2005. Republicans call this a reconciliation, but it is really Republican resignation from meeting the needs of American people or addressing the issues that threaten our security.

This vote will occur out in the open on the House floor, but the deals were cut in secret behind closed doors with the American people locked out and the Republican Party locked in.

Until Republican leaders got what they wanted, and it is not in the best interest of the American people, we have before us today an example of the President's ownership society: you own the problem. This bill removes Federal money from child support enforcement and for caring for abused kids, requiring States to pick up the tab.

Republicans will twist arms to pass this unconscionable and unfunded mandate. If you are a middle-class student, Republican reconciliation will have you seeing red because your college education will be awash in high-priced debt. Republican leaders care so much about middle-class America that they are cutting $12 billion in student loans.

Want an education? Financial institutions give Republicans a lot more money than you do. Now you get to give the financial institutions a whole lot more money. That is some rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick. By the magic of Republican reconciliation, students will pay more, your parents will pay more when they try to help you, and America will pay more when we deny the next generation the opportunity to get a higher education.

Republicans increase the interest rate for their core corporate constituency and increase the failure rate of the Nation investing in a more important asset: our next generation. Republican reconciliation offers dollars that make no sense. That is what happens when Republican Members have to answer to their leadership before their constituents.

Republicans talk about security, but there is no security in gutting a student loan program that invests in America's future. There is no common sense either. That is no surprise, of course. Republican reconciliation sacrifices common sense for uncommon greed.

Students from solid middle-class families will suffer. So will seniors who use Medicare, because almost $7 billion in Medicare cuts are buried inside this Republican reconciliation. Seniors will pay more so that America's wealthiest can keep more.

The Republicans have squandered our commitment to America's distinguished citizens in order to trade need for greed. Part B premiums for some Medicare beneficiaries are going up because the Republicans locked themselves into a conference committee without the Democrats and locked the American people out.

On Friday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office informed us that $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid in this bill would impose new costs on 13 million poor and working-poor recipients. These are the people the President said last night we are taking care of your health care. Brother, you don't want a guy like that taking care of you.

By 2015, new fees would end insurance coverage for 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, 60 percent of them children.

Meanwhile, the cost of prescription drugs will rise and the number of people helped will fall.

It all happened when Republicans gathered and locked out America. Why debate in public when you can decide it in secrecy? That is the way the Republicans like to do it. They hope no one will notice. They forgot that when middle America is floundering in a lifeboat with loss of pensions, loss of health care, loss of jobs, the Republicans capsize the boat. It is hard not to notice. Water is pouring in all around us, just like New Orleans. Remember when the President said, ``Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job.'' He sure did. Rarely have we seen so much lost over so little, dinner.

Republicans have raised the bar with reconciliation. As bad as it will be for students and as hard as it will be for seniors, Republicans saved their worst tactics for our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens: Kids in foster care, kids in single parent households, kids in low-income families, and kids in families with a disabled parent.

This reconciliation cuts almost $3 billion from programs for America's most vulnerable children. Deadbeat dads, have a great day, guys. The Republicans have given you a head start out of responsibility. Someone may find you eventually. The program to make sure that child support is paid crumbles under this Republican rule.

Today Republicans have resigned from their responsibility to take care of America's interests. They say all of these problems are up to the States to solve on their own because that is what they mean by an ownership society: States own the problems.

Republicans are now telling States to put more welfare recipients into make-work activities, but they do not provide any resources to achieve that goal. They do not even let child care funding keep pace with inflation. So States may have to cut child care assistance to pay for the new welfare requirements. It is just one more unfunded mandate for the States and one more burden for working families.

Now, cash would be nice, but they have drained the Treasury to pay for the President's economic stimulus. Now it is an addiction. Just keep giving the wealthiest Americans more and more money. There is no end to how much money the President is willing to give them, and there is no end to how much money it will take from a host of foreign governments to finance a deficit rising higher than the sky.

Reconciliation by Republicans is a one-point program: Make the rich richer. It was crafted in secret. At least now finally it is out in the open.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who stopped the attempt to privatize Social Security.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it probably does not surprise most Americans when Republicans and Democrats have different opinions on a bill, so let me highlight the opinion of a third voice, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here is what they say about the legislation before us.

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget

reconciliation conference agreement.

Bishops' President Urges House To Reject Budget Agreement

Washington (January 30, 2006).--The recent budget

reconciliation bill fails to ``meet the needs of the most

vulnerable among us,'' said Bishop William S. Skylstad,

president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

in a January 24 letter to the House of Representatives.

Bishop Skylstad said the greatest concerns were over:

increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens; cuts to child

support enforcement; changes in Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families programs which underfund work programs and

childcare; and cuts to agriculture conservation programs.

``We urge you to reject the conference agreement and work

for policies that put poor children and families first,''

Bishop Skylstad said.

The text of the entire letter follows.

January 24, 2006.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: In December, as President of the

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote to you

expressing serious concerns about provisions in the budget

reconciliation bill. The proposed changes in Medicaid, child

support enforcement funding, Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF), and agriculture conservation programs, in

particular, could have a negative impact upon the most

vulnerable in our nation.

Our Bishops' Conference is deeply disappointed that the

final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once

again before the House of Representatives includes provisions

in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many

low-income children, families, elderly and people with

disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves.

Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget

reconciliation conference agreement.

Among the areas of most concern to us are:

Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens and eroding federal

benefit standards which can result in low-income children,

families, pregnant women, elderly and those with disabilities

not getting the care they need.

Cuts to child support enforcement, which will mean

collecting billions less in child support for children and

families than under current law.

TANF-related provisions, including:

Immediate and significant changes in state TANF work rules

(although additional proposals to increase hours worked per

week were wisely abandoned) without providing sufficient

additional funding needed to run work programs and provide

child care. This will mean states may have to choose between

cutting child care for low-income working families, reducing

other services for low-income people, or cutting back on cash

assistance for needy families; policies that could have the

effect of disadvantaging two-parent families and married

couples; and failure to restore TANF benefit eligibility to

recently-arrived legal immigrants. Cuts to

key agriculture conservation programs, which will undermine

efforts to promote soil conservation, improve water quality,

protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.

We recognize that the bill also includes positive elements,

such as additional funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina

and a program to promote marriage and healthy families. We

are also grateful that cuts to the Food Stamps program were

dropped from the package. However, we believe that, overall,

the impact of this bill will be to fail to meet the needs of

the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, we urge you to

reject the conference agreement and work for policies that

put poor children and families first.

There are many challenges and much tumult in Washington

that demand the attention of our leaders. However, an

essential priority of government is to provide for the

general welfare of its people, especially ``the least among

us.''

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

Mr. Speaker, the week before Christmas and here we are gathered, most of the children in their bed even in my district by now, and the elves have been working. So here we are.

The Republican Party, since the days of Reagan, have lived by the motto of Mrs. Thatcher, that there is no society, there is only individuals. Now, that is contrary, as you heard from the gentleman from Missouri, to what the Bible says. We all start the story of the Bible, the Christian story, in Isaiah. And in Isaiah the prophet is categorizing what is going on in Jerusalem and why it is failing as the injustice and the materialism and the wealth accumulated. Here is what Isaiah said, verse 23, first chapter. Right off the bat: ``Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the fatherless. The widow's cause does not come before them.''

For us to be here in the middle of the night taking whatever it is, $50 billion, $60 billion, nobody on this floor knows what is in this budget, let us admit that right up front, except about six people who wrote it. We are all taking it that we are going to take $60 billion and we are going to tell the poor people, you know, you are so lucky to live in America. We are going to throw you a little something.

In our history, every one of us has been raised with the Christmas story, either the biblical Christmas story or the Dickens Christmas story of the coal and the Grinch. You think about all the stories we have about what happens at Christmas time, and you have the nerve to come out here with a budget at this time of year where you cut child support, you cut food stamps, you cut Medicaid; and then you say to people, Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

That takes the height of gall, or else no feeling whatsoever. There is no way you could stand up and talk about these issues if you understood what people at the bottom really have to deal with. Most of us make $150,000 as a minimum. The average income in this country is about a quarter of that, or a fifth of it. Those people are scraping along, and we are doing everything we can to make it impossible for them to live a decent life because of our own, as the prophet says, our own greed and materialism.

Mr. Speaker, at this hour of the night, I am not sure who in the world is listening to whom. Certainly, none of our constituents are awake. They have all fallen asleep, except those who are total insomniacs.

But I had the experience last week when I was home of going to the City Club in Seattle. And they have a yearly meeting where they talk about how the year has gone and what they expect for the next year. It is sort of looking forward to the next year and what is going to happen, and they pick out important citizens from our city to put on the panel. And the question was asked of the panel, what is the thing you worry about most in the future?

Now, one of the panelists was a guy who some of you may know, his name is William Gates, Sr. He is the father of Bill Gates. He runs the Gates Foundation. And his answer was this: I worry most that people do not realize how close we are to economic collapse in this country. The spending that is going on, and he went on to elaborate, in terms of the issues that we face today, with a bubble of real estate out there, with everybody buying houses on interest-only loans, on the huge credit card debt in this country, on people working full-time and not having any increase in their wages.

Now, you can look at certain figures and we have the battle here of the figures. And if you are sitting at home thinking what are people thinking about all those flying back and forth, because their experience is that their wages are not going up. Prices are still going up. Their cable TV is costing more than it did and their gas is costing more than it did. But their wages are not going up.

Now, they read that the GDP is going well and that more taxes are coming in. That is not affecting the basic people in this society. And this bill, this so-called reconciliation bill, I do not know whoever thought that that was a good term for it, because we are not reconciliating the people at the top and the people at the bottom. This is a bill directed at the people at the bottom. The people on the top are doing great.

There is nobody in this room who is going to suffer for one single minute in the next year. Not one single one of you will be cold or hungry or without the ability to go see a physician or receive a dental appointment when you need it, when you have got a toothache.

How many States are there in the United States that still have a dental program for the people on TANF? Practically none. And we stand out here and say that this is a great budget and you are going to cut, it is baloney. It is a sham and we ought to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today and therefore missed the vote on House Resolution 534. Were I able to vote, I would have voted in support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this Christmas season, there will be many children sitting down around the country listening to a story that begins, `twas the night before Christmas.

I want to tell you about another night before Christmas that will be going on in the next week and has been going on for the last 20-some years. There is an extraordinarily tragic situation ongoing in a stunningly beautiful country in Africa, Uganda.

In recent weeks, a group of Rotarians from my district and surrounding areas went to northern Uganda with one item on their agenda: to advance the common good by providing polio vaccine and other assistance.

Ben Abe is a Ugandan from my district. He led this mission by the Rotarians, along with our former secretary of state from the State of Washington, Ralph Munro. They brought back an excruciatingly shocking and painful account of an extraordinary night where they observed firsthand a heinous tragedy that has been perpetrated on children in northern Uganda for years. It is only now beginning to see the light of day in mainstream media in publications like Vanity Fair and the Smithsonian Magazine. It occurs in Gulu in northern Uganda. Each night, a human mass moves through the pitch dark roads of Gulu. These are the night commuters. Not a late shift going to work, but a gigantic mass of thousands of children fleeing their unsafe homes, walking miles in the darkness to retreat behind locked gates in hopes of avoiding abduction, rape, disfigurement and, most horribly, to avoid being forced themselves to become the murderers of children as abducted child soldiers in the Lord's Resistance Army.

Over 25,000 children have been abducted over the last 19 years; more than 21,000 children walk miles each night seeking a safe harbor. These young children seek sanctuary in tents, hospitals, warehouses and empty lots. They sleep piled up on each other, sometimes with a blanket but most often without, and they are separated from their mothers and fathers every night. Thousands of those Ugandan kids never make it to a safe haven.

Seventeen-year-old Daniel is an example. He is one of the boys abducted from school by the Lord's Resistance Army. One boy escaped but was caught. The rest were then forced to tie him to a tree and stone him to death. Daniel said, ``That is what we did, because if we did not kill him, we would be killed.''

Anna Grace was 11 years old when she was abducted. The Lord's Resistance Army forced her to march and carry someone else's baby. Then they threw a bomb at her, blowing off the baby's head. Anna Grace was raped and gave birth to her own child in 2005.

Dave, 10 years old, was kidnapped in March of 2004 and watched as his two brothers were beaten to death with a log.

The only chance these night commuters have to reach safe harbor every night is to walk without adults, without protection, without light. The Rotarians from my district walked with these kids, moved with this mass of kids as they set out defenseless, in the deep darkness of night, seeking shelter to stay alive for just one more day.

The winner of the 2005 Sidney Peace Prize, Olara Otunnu, recently declared Uganda the worst place on earth to be a child today.

Though this despicable outrage has occurred for almost two decades, the Congress and the international community has not lifted a finger about what we proclaim is our duty, to protect children. There has been no dedicated international commitment or intervention to end this abhorrent situation. These Rotarians came back rightly incredulous over the international community's failure to mobilize and blunt this highly visible tragedy occurring every single night.

As Americans sit down and read that Christmas story, whether they read the one about the reindeer or the one about the baby Jesus coming to Bethlehem, these kids will be moving through the darkness. These Rotarians ask: How can this continue in a world where we proclaim our love and dedication to all children? They are right to ask these questions. Each night, that savagery hides in northern Uganda.

During this season of goodwill, this Congress and the entire national community must combine our collective strength to give some hope to these children, these night commuters, and their families. We can do better than we have.

If you believe, as I do that it is our utmost obligation to work toward a world safe for children, this obligation does not stop at our borders or oceans--all children are our children and we must act. The U.S. alone cannot break this outrageous nightly tragedy, but we can and must assert our political will, and insist that we meet it head on.

Mr. Speaker, in the glow after the election, I come to the floor really to caution this House with the words of an old colleague of mine who says it is always too soon to congratulate yourself.

The New York Times on the 11th of December carried an editorial which is entitled Present at the Disintegration.

What he says, and he is an Iraqi, is that the government that has been established by the constitution and has now been elected is fatally flawed in three ways, and what we are going to get is continued civil war in that country because it is not possible to resolve the problems, given the people who have been elected.

The first is, we have created a parliament that can override the executive. We, secondly, created an executive that is divided between a president and a council of ministers, so there will be constant tension between the two factions that will control the government, the Shia and the Kurds. The Sunnis, everybody knows, are not going to be one of the controlling parties.

Finally, it encourages local governments to break off and become sovereign. What we are watching is the disintegration of Iraq.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2005]

Present at the Disintegration

(By Kanan Makiya)

Washington and Baghdad will be tempted, with the adoption

of a new Constitution and the election on Thursday for a

four-year government, to declare victory in Iraq. In one

sense, they are right to do so. The emerging Iraqi polity

undoubtedly represents a radical break not only with the

country's past but also with the whole Arab state system

established by Britain and France after the collapse of the

Ottoman Empire.

But in the larger sense, such optimism is misguided, for

none of the problems associated with Iraq's monumental change

have been sorted out. Worse, profound tensions and

contradictions have been enshrined in the Constitution of the

new Iraq, and they threaten the very existence of the state.

How did we get here? Much has been said about American

failures in Iraq. And rightly so. But, as I've seen as a

participant in political discussions both before and after

the war, we Iraqis have also failed to lay the ground for a

new order. For the new political elite cast into power by the

elections last January has been unable even to begin to

create a stable and strong Iraqi state to replace the one

overthrown in April 2003. The increasing daily casualty rate

for Iraqis, from 26 in early 2004 to an average of 64 in this

fall, is only the most glaring sign that something has gone

terribly wrong, and not for lack of any American effort to

turn the situation around.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the situation to change

following Thursday's election. There is little chance that

the winner will command the authority inside Parliament to

reverse the decline, for a simple reason: the Constitution.

All signs suggest that this Constitution, if it is not

radically amended, will further weaken the already failing

central Iraqi state. In spite of all the rhetoric in that

document about the unity of the ``homeland of the apostles

and prophets'' and the ``values and ideals of the heavenly

messages and findings of science'' that have played a role in

``preserving for Iraq its free union,'' it is disunity,

diminished sovereignty and years of future discord that lie

in store for Iraq if the Constitution is not overhauled.

Any government that emerges from the coming elections will

be fatally undermined in at least three ways.

First, the Constitution establishes a supremely powerful

Parliament, which can ride roughshod over the executive.

While that Parliament, as it is designed in the Constitution,

looks like a democratic institution, it doesn't work like

one. Rather, it is an artificially constructed collection

of ethnic and sectarian voting blocs. If the experience of

the interim government is any guide, the few people who

control those blocs are the ones who will wield real

power, and they will do so largely through handpicked

committees and backroom wheeling and dealing. Because this

cabal of powerbrokers also chooses the president and the

prime minister and can dismiss them with a simple

majority, there will be no check on the tyranny of

majorities operating under the aegis of the legislature.

Second, executive power is divided between the president

and the council of ministers, guaranteeing that major

decisions will be met with the same tension and paralysis

that have plagued the present government. Both the president

and the prime minister (it is assumed, though not explicitly

stated, that these two posts will be apportioned out to a

Kurd and a Shiite Arab, as they are at present) can

separately present bills to Parliament--a sure recipe for

conflict. And both the president and the prime minister can

be fired after a no-confidence motion endorsed by a

parliamentary majority. At a time of civil war and pervasive

violence, in other words, no one person or institution can be

said to be in charge of the executive branch of the federal

government.

Third, the Constitution encourages the transformation of

governorates and local administrations into powerful, nearly

sovereign regions that, with the exception of Kurdistan, have

no underlying basis for unity. And while the articles dealing

with the functioning of the federal government are poorly

worded and intended to dissipate executive power, the 10

articles of Section 5, on the powers and manner of formation

of new regions, are a model of clarity and have been drafted

with the sole purpose of encouraging new regions to be

created at the expense of the federal union.

This guarantees that the more Iraqi provinces opt for

regional status, and get it, the more the federal state will

shrivel up and die. Moreover, with the exception of those who

reside in provinces without oil (or in Baghdad, which cannot

join a region), it is in the interest of every populist

demagogue to press for regional status, because it is at that

level that the lawmaking that truly affects day-to-day life

will take place.

The powers of the new regions will be enormous. Not even

the Iraqi Army can travel through one without the permission

of the regional Parliament. And should there be any doubt

about where the whip hand will lie on any issue not

explicitly addressed in the Constitution, Article 122 states:

``Articles of the Constitution may not be amended if such

amendment takes away from the power of the regions . . .

except by the consent of the legislative authority of the

concerned region and the approval of the majority of its

citizens.''

An Iraqi wit known only as Shalash al-Iraqi has lampooned

this devolution of power in an imaginary constitution, called

``The Federalism of the city of Thawra and its Environs,''

posted on the Internet. Its preamble reads:

Congruent with the wave of federalisms that is sweeping

Iraq, the city of Thawra and its surrounding neighborhoods

have decided to constitute themselves as a federal region . .

. For this purpose a Constituent Assembly of the

representatives of the most important and influential tribes

in the City has been established . . . [and it] has noted

that the City of Thawra [is well suited to become a region

because it] floats on a lake of oil, and possesses a huge

labor force along with an independent army and police force .

. . In addition the city is bounded by a canal, which is its

water link to the cities of the adjoining sisterly Republic

of Iraq . . .

``We, people of the valley east of the canal, . . . have of

our own volition and free will decided to separate from the

people of Baghdad and all the other irritating governorates

like Ramadi, Diwaniya, Tikrit, Darbandikhan, Samawa and all

the rest . . . The adoption of this, our constitution, will

free us from all the headaches and problems of Iraq.''

There is nothing wrong with having strong regions within a

federal union. Unfortunately the new Iraqi Constitution fails

to inject the glue that would hold such a union together: the

federal government. It sets up a regional system with big

short-term winners (Shiite Arabs and Kurds) and big short-

term losers (Sunni Arabs). It even allocates extra oil and

gas revenues to the regions that generate them, on the

implicit assumption that because of the political inequities

of the past, the state owes the Sunnis of the resource-poor

western provinces less than it does the Shiites and Kurds.

But these provinces are not significantly better off than

other parts of Iraq.

Iraq's Sunni Arabs voted solidly against the Constitution

not because they are Saddam Hussein loyalists, nor because

they hate the Kurds and Shiites (as some of the insurgents

do); they voted against it because by doing away with the

central state, which they had championed during the previous

80 years, and penalizing them for living in regions without

oil, the Constitution became a punitive document--one that

began to seem as if it was written to punish them for the

sins of the Baath.

What is wrong with pursuing the Constitution to its logical

conclusion: the breakup of

Iraq? Nothing, if that breakup is consensual and does not

entail an escalation in the violence tearing the country

apart. But such is not the case. The debate in Parliament

over the Constitution was extremely polarized and

artificially cut short by the majority. Moreover, if a mere

83,283 people in the province of Nineveh had voted no instead

of yes, the draft constitution would have been defeated.

Sunni opposition to the new order will continue. Crushing

it by force, as some Shiite hotheads in the Parliament's

majority bloc are calling for, will be an extremely bloody

business. Even if the long-term outcome of an all-out Iraqi

civil war is not in doubt, the body count and destruction

would make Lebanon's war look like a picnic. No moral person

can condone the parliamentary majority that makes this

happen.

The 2003 Iraq war has indeed brought about an irreversible

transformation of politics and society in Iraq. But this

transformation has not consolidated power, as the great

revolutions of the past have tended to do (in France, Russia

and even Iran), nor is it distributing power on an agreed

upon and equitable basis, as happened after the American

Revolution and as Iraqi liberal democrats like myself had

hoped would happen after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Rather,

it is dissipating it. And that is a terrifying prospect for a

population whose primary legacy from the Saddam Hussein era

is a profound mistrust of government in all its forms.

By ceding and dismissing centralized power, Iraqis may end

by ceding all their power. Iran in the short run, and the

Arab world in the long run, will fill the vacuum with

proxies, turning the dream of a democratic and reborn Iraq

into a dystopia of warring militias and rampant hopelessness.

The reaction against tyranny in Iraq was always going to

take the form of a new kind of state in the Middle East, one

that in the minds of those who struggled against the regime

of Saddam Hussein had to be profoundly decentralized. And

federalism did not have to entail the dissipation of power.

As it was first envisioned, a federal Iraq promised to

safeguard against despotism while furnishing a framework

both strong and flexible enough to reconcile the competing

demands of its citizens.

Federalism first entered the lexicon of the Iraqi

opposition in 1992, when the newly created Kurdish Parliament

voted in favor of it as a way of governing the relation of

Kurdistan to the rest of the country. That vote was ratified

a few months later by a conference of the Iraqi opposition in

Salahuldin, in northern Iraq.

Remarkably, the idea of federalism survived the bitter

infighting among Iraqi exiles in months before the 2003 war,

becoming one of the few common denominators in the discourse

of the opposition about the future of Iraq. The fact that

there was no literature in Arabic on federalism to speak of,

and that Iraqi parties and organizations did not know or

agree upon what federalism meant, and that Iraqi politicians

did not bother themselves with thinking about what it might

mean, did not deter individuals, parties and organizations

from continuing to advocate it.

I was one of the idea's most ardent Arab advocates. In

Salahuldin, I delivered the keynote speech on the subject,

not only endorsing the Kurdish Parliament's decision, but

presenting federalism as a general solution to the problems

of the Iraqi state. A federalism based on Iraq's existing 18

governorates broke the rotten mold of Iraqi and Arab

politics, I argued. No Iraqi political organization could

afford not to be for it, especially not one that called

itself democratic. Without a system of government in which

real power devolved away from Baghdad, the autonomous,

predominantly Kurdish north must sooner or later opt for

separation. And how could any Iraqi expect otherwise, after

all the terrible things that had been done to the Kurds in

the name of Arabism?

Some Arabs argued that one must concede federalism in the

interest of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and because the

Kurds are in a position to force it upon us. And we must

accept federalism, some Kurds said, not because we really

want it, but because the regional situation does not allow us

to secede. But utilitarian calculation did not lie behind the

democratic argument.

Federalism in Iraq would both separate and divide powers.

Painstakingly negotiated arrangements would distinguish the

powers of the parts from those of the center, taking care to

leave important functions in the hands of the federal

government.

We thought it wise to define regions territorially,

according to the relative distribution of the population, and

to include in the constitution the claim that the country's

resources (in particular oil revenues, the only real source

of income for the foreseeable future), would belong to all

Iraqis equally and would be managed by the federal

government. Different ethnicities and sects would almost

certainly form majorities in particular regions. The point

was not to change such distributions, but to emphasize the

equality of citizenship.

Such a federalism, Iraqi democrats said, was the logical

extension of the principle of human rights. It was based on

the notion that the rights of the part--whether that part was

a single person or a group--should not be sacrificed to the

will of the majority. What people like myself failed to

appreciate, or understand, before 2003, were the powerful

forces driving toward purely ethnic and sectarian criteria

for the definition of the ``parts'' of the new federal idea.

The consequence of those forces has been a tremendous

weakening of the political idea of Iraq, which the new

Constitution has converted into hostility toward central

government per se.

A decentralized, federal state system that devolves power

to the regions is not the same as a dysfunctional one in

which power at the federal level has been eviscerated. The

former preserves power while distributing it; the latter

destroys it. At the moment Iraqis have a dysfunctional and

powerless state. The Constitution does not fix this; it makes

it worse.

What began as an American problem is today an Iraqi one. To

steer the country away from anarchy and manage the furies

that have been unleashed, the following measures need to be

undertaken by the new Iraqi Parliament the moment it

reconvenes after the elections:

Recognize that at the moment only Kurdistan fulfills the

conditions for being a region. Using the Kurdish experience

as a model, the Constitution must define the minimum

conditions that need to be met by any group of provinces that

desire to form themselves into a region. Then set a

moratorium of 10 years on the establishment of new regions,

this being the time necessary to crush the insurgency,

establish properly accountable institutions of law and order

and ensure that those applying for such status have met the

criteria.

Limit the size of any new region formed after the 10-year

period to a maximum of three governorates and fix the

existing unmodified boundaries of the 18 governorates of Iraq

as the basis for the establishment of new regions.

Delete Article 109, which allocates extra oil revenues to

the regions that generate them. There is no defensible case

for imposing special reparations on the Sunni populace for

the crimes of Iraq's former leaders.

Appoint a committee of expert constitutional lawyers to

make the necessary amendments reconciling the legislature

with the executive and the different parts of the executive

with each other. This is not a matter that can be resolved by

the politicians alone.

Democracy is not reducible to placing an Iraqi seal of

approval upon a situation that is manifestly worsening by the

day. The 79 percent of people who voted in favor of a

constitution that promotes ethnic and sectarian divisions are

unwittingly paving the way for a civil war that will cost

hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Nothing is worth that.

Without the return of real power to the center, the ascent

of sectarian and ethnic politics in Iraq to the point of

complete societal breakdown cannot be checked. We cannot

fight the insurgency, rebuild Iraq and live in any meaningful

sense as part of the modern world without a state. There are

no human rights, no law, and no democracy without the state;

there is only anarchy and a state of insecurity potentially

much worse than what Iraqis are experiencing today. For

democracy to emerge out of the current chaos in Iraq, the

state must be saved from the irresponsibility of the Iraqi

parties and voting blocs that are today killing it.

Madam Speaker, this bill proves that the Republicans are not just after poor people. This pension bill boils down to one fundamental principle: The Republicans want all Americans, including flight attendants and everybody else out there on a pension, to be entirely alone, isolated from the strength and compassion of American values.

I am here to say that this pension bill that forces elderly Americans into solitary confinement is abusive, irresponsible and morally bankrupt. This whole year has been about doing it to people. Get rid of Social Security, privatize it, put them on their own. Medicare: Privatize it, put them on their own. Now we have the pension bill: Privatize it, put them on their own.

Take away the union benefit, how will they do it? They are going to Boeing. They squeeze Boeing tight, and Boeing flips into 401(k), and there goes the pension down the drain.

Now this raises the question, what is wrong with you people? We decided a long time ago in this country that there was strength in numbers. We had to do things together. That is why Social Security was developed. That is why Medicare was developed.

The Republican vision articulated in this bill is that America is a sinking ship, and the shout is for every man and woman, you are on your own.

They call it an ownership society. You will still have a pension; it will be a 401(k). But it really is, you are on your own. If you can figure out the market, good luck, baby.

There are not enough lifeboats in the water, and we know that, and everybody is jumping off the ship. In 1980, 40 percent of employers provided a pension. Today, only 20 percent do. Now, that is a 50 percent reduction in 20 years, and the pensions that are provided, fewer provide a guaranteed benefit than they used to get.

So what do we have left? The stark fact is that half of America's retirees have less than $15,000 income. Imagine living in the United States on $15,000 after working for 45 years. Only 50 percent of American households have retirement savings at all, but if they do not have a benefit from the pension and their Social Security, which has not been ripped away from them, they got nothing.

Now, half of the households who have savings have an average $385 a month. So they get their Social Security, $1,800 a month at the maximum, and $385, oh, they are living fat on $2,000 a month.

The people without any savings are disproportionately poor, have nothing except Social Security, and the Republicans, as I say, tried to take that away earlier in the year. We beat them on that, and we should beat them on this.

This is the definition of financial freedom that Republicans want for Americans: They want riskier pensions and no way for anybody to be sure of anything. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought to support Mr. Skeleton's motion because the reason we are here is that the United States Congress has refused to use its power of oversight to look at what we have been doing overseas. Have we had hearings about Abu Ghraib? Have we had hearings about secret prisons in Romania, in Poland, or wherever?

The Republican leadership of the House says we are not going to look. We simply will hold our hands over our eyes and we will not look out there to see what is going on. Unfortunately, there is the rest of the world. There is the Guardian newspaper, there are newspapers in France and Germany and all over the place looking at this information, and it is now worldwide known what we are doing. Yet the Congress walks around here, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

This Congress has abrogated, you have given up your responsibility of oversight. Mr. Skelton brings out a simple amendment that says, let's follow the Senate, which has gotten up on their hind legs and said, let's have some oversight in what we're doing, and suddenly you guys object.

It is clear what you don't want people to know. You don't want the people to know what went on in the Vice President's office or in the White House or what was going on when the Attorney General----

No, I am not going to yield. You don't know how to play the game. You have got to learn the rules.

When you let the Attorney General of the United States say that torture in certain circumstances is probably all right, man, you have opened the door to disrepute.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Madam Speaker, as we spend our time here talking about Christmas and the war on Christmas, I think we have missed the whole point. At least the Republicans have.

My passion since I arrived in Congress has been that every American should have access to affordable health care coverage. It should be a right, not a privilege as it is today. Over 45 million Americans have no coverage at all, and millions more cannot afford to get sick because of inadequate or expensive coverage.

Democrats have made health care a top priority, but the Republicans have not. Christmas trees seem to be more in their order. I have repeatedly introduced H.R. 1200, universal health care legislation. My friend and colleague John Dingell has done the same. My colleague John Conyers has done the same. We have many proposals all approaching a universal solution to a problem for this country.

Dozens of Democrats have been willing to sign on to this bill. But the majority, the Republicans, have talked but done absolutely nothing. Instead, they have used every opportunity to disparage government and claim that solutions to everything always end in the words ``incorporated,'' ``privatized.'' Whether it is Social Security or Medicare or drugs or whatever, it always has got to be private.

Republicans claim government, the one they control, is incapable of addressing America's needs. They proved it down in Louisiana. They proved it themselves. Their tortured logic says that we can wage war, but we cannot solve the health care crisis.

Pick up the newspaper, and the conclusion is inescapable. There are no more tomorrows. The health care crisis is real and a present danger to the American people and the U.S. economy, much more than this war on terror.

Especially hard hit is the manufacturing sector. Employees throughout the country are bracing for plant closings or wage and benefit cuts. We came out here and did pensions again today. We continue to do it to the workers.

Companies like General Motors and Ford cite the cost of providing health care coverage as a major factor in their current financial crises. So quietly behind the scenes here on Capitol Hill, the domestic auto industry has been talking to lawmakers about a bailout. They are looking for tens of billions of dollars next year and say it is required to save the auto industry and thousands of family wage jobs.

I am a strong supporter of America's labor movement and a strong supporter of family wage jobs. And if a company treats its employees right, I strongly support them as well. That might make me a candidate for supporting an auto bailout. But it really makes me wonder why Republicans will not join Democrats and fight for its family from within, a health care system that is destroying people, business, and our way of life.

Republicans say, let the market fix it. Well, we have done that. And the special interests have said stay out of it because people like me want this Nation to guarantee health coverage for everybody. Lobbyists make a living in this town out of spinning the tale of us against them and how we have to do it individually, and we cannot do it as a country.

Well, I will enter into the Record a letter that sets the record straight and give us a chance to finally confront America's health care crisis. This letter was sent separately to the Canadian government by the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler and the union representing auto workers in late 2002.

The so-called big three U.S. car companies put their full support behind publicly, publicly, funded health care in Canada. Let me read some excerpts. ``Canada's publicly funded health care system provides essential and affordable health care services for all Canadians, regardless of their income. For both employers and workers in the auto industry, it is vitally important that the publicly funded health care system be preserved and renewed.''

The letter sent by GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler, concludes: ``In addition to reinforcing the quality and accessibility of health care for all Canadians, these measures would also help to ensure the long- run success of the Canadian auto industry.'' There is a business reason to do it. That is the U.S. auto industry acting outside the United States. It is time for them to act inside the United States and for us to act.

H.R. 1200 provides universal health care with guidelines for Federal Government decisions by local government and health care by the private sector.

My Democratic friends have other ideas. There is more than one idea how to do this. We ought to get them on the table. It is time for the Republican majority to make health care a priority. It is time for the auto industry to support a solution that is morally responsible and economically urgent: health care. Every American has a right.

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about it, and we have not done anything. It is it time to stop talking about Christmas trees and start talking about health care for all Americans.

September 10, 2002.

Canada's publicly funded health care system provides

essential and affordable health care services for all

Canadians, regardless of their income. Publicly funded health

care also enhances Canada's economic performance in several

important ways.

The auto industry is Canada's most important export

industry; it directly employs over 150,000 Canadians in high-

wage jobs, supports hundreds of thousands of other spin-off

jobs, produces $90 billion worth of shipments per year, and

generates billions of dollars in tax revenues for all levels

of government in Canada. The success of this industry has

been crucial to Canada's economic progress over the past

decade. Canada's health care system has been an important

ingredient in the auto industry's performance.

Workers in the auto industry, and in the many manufacturing

and service industries which supply automakers, benefit

directly from access to public health care services. Thanks

to this system, they are healthier and more productive.

Employers in the auto industry, meanwhile, enjoy significant

total labour cost savings because most health care services

are supplied through public programs (rather than through

private insurance plans).

The public health care system significantly reduces total

labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to

the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased

by U.S.-based automakers; these health insurance savings can

amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked. Publicly

funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of

Canada's overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly,

versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor

in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.

Canada's publicly funded health care system is now facing

demographic, technological, and fiscal pressures. The erosion

of publicly funded health care through measures such as the

delisting of currently-covered services, the imposition of

user fees, the failure of the public system to keep up with

the changing nature of health care, and new costs such as

prescription drugs and home-care, will impose significant

costs on automotive employers and undermine the

attractiveness of Canada as a site for new automotive

investment.

For both employers and workers in the auto industry, it is

vitally important that the publicly funded health care system

be preserved and renewed, on the existing principles of

universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness,

and public administration. The system needs a secure multi-

year funding base from government, and must be expanded to

cover an updated range of services (including prescription

drugs and home care services) that reflects both the evolving

nature of medical science and the emerging needs of our

population.

To this end, Ford Motor Company and CAW-Canada jointly urge

the federal and provincial governments to take appropriate

actions to preserve the public health care system, secure its

funding base, and modernize the range of services which it

covers. In addition to reinforcing the quality and

accessibility of health care for Canadians, these measures

would also help to ensure the long-run success of Canada's

auto industry.

Alain Batty,

President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company of

Canada, Limited.

Basil ``Buzz'' Hargrove,

National President, CAW-Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, yesterday, and part of today. As a result I missed several votes. Had I been able to vote I would have voted in support of H. Res. 487, S. 1047, H. Res. 594, for the motion to recommit H.R. 3199, and against final passage of H.R. 3199. I would have voted against H.R. 3010.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration is scaling new heights in political cronyism. Not long ago, America cringed watching on TV as a presidential buddy could only manage to create a disaster, not respond to one in the Gulf Coast. But now we are finding out that political cronies ignored the voting rights of African Americans and Hispanic Americans in Texas.

The Washington Post uncovered a 73-page report that says that the Texas redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting in two of the State's congressional districts. The report received the unanimous support of eight Justice Department career employees, but the Republican political cronies ignored it.

One Justice Department attorney told the Post it was ``highly unusual'' for political appointees to overrule the unanimous findings such as this. But this is business as usual for the President's political appointees. Just ask the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and now Texas.

It is time for the Republican cronies to go and let the people's votes count.

Mr. Speaker, I got up this morning and here is the Washington Post's eminent columnist, David Broder. He begins his story: ``If the House of Representatives were a person, it would be blushing these days. Unfortunately, the House is beyond embarrassment.''

Now, I used this before, but I wanted to bring it out here again because I think we need to demonstrate to people what is going on. We have Christmastime, and we have socks. We have poor people's socks and rich people's socks. And the rich people need $100 billion in tax cuts.

The Republicans, for whatever reason, have decided that it is $100 billion yesterday and today, $100 billion. Now where do you get the money for that? Well you have to cut somebody to get it. You have got to cut something, or else you are going to drive up the deficit.

So the first thing you do is take child care away from 300,000 children. And you put that in the sock, the stocking of the rich. And then you have Social

Security, SSI benefits for the disabled and the elderly. And you take $700 million away from them and put it into the rich folks' stocking.

And then you come to child support enforcement. We do not want children who are in divorced families to get money from those deadbeat dads. That is not what the Republicans say. They say, let us save $21 billion. We will take it away from the children in divorces and put it in the rich people's stocking.

And Medicaid. Oh, well, they do not need health care. Why, there is $10 billion we can take away from poor people's health care and put it in the rich people's stocking.

And then there is student loans, $14 billion from college students. We are going to load it on them. That is the middle class. That is the lower-class people who are trying to get through on loans. We take their loans and we say, no, no, no, no, the rich people need it.

And then we have one of the best ones of all: food stamps. Let us take food stamps away from 300,000 people; 300,000 people getting food stamps. Oh, these are the rich. Oh, but we have to cut them. We have to take this away from them.

You cannot have food stamps, poor people or ordinary people; we got to give a tax break to the rich people. And then finally we have foster children. Way down here in the bottom of the sock. We have $600 million taken away from the program that we took those children out of another family and took responsibility for. We have taken these children away from a family we have accepted responsibility for in this foster care payment, and we cut it and we give it to the rich folks.

Now, you kind of wonder what might be left down here for the poor people. Well, look at that. A lump of coal. The poor people better save that lump of coal, because there is nothing in here for their heating bills, the LIHEAP program has not been expanded, and all they are going to have to heat their house is the lump of coal that the Republicans put in the poor people's sock.

Merry Christmas. I certainly hope you enjoy all the festivities. This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, you say one thing for political cover, and then you do another thing for your friends. That is what we are doing here today.

Just last month the Speaker said, ``I will tell you that the most mean-spirited thing we can do is leave our children with a debt they cannot pay.'' That came from the Speaker. That did not come from our side. That is the authority of the majority in this House.

Well, the words were right. But, you know, the Speaker knows, and I know him well, he went to a college where you know about the Bible. And there is a Bible verse that says, by their deeds ye shall know them. And it is the deeds out here that really make the difference.

Now, the difference between what happened yesterday and what is happening in the gentleman from New York's bill is very simply this. Yesterday you sent a signal. You sent a press release. You sent a message out up into the ether knowing, absolutely knowing, it would not pass, because it is not protected in the Senate. You know that. You know how to run this place.

You can confuse the people, but you cannot confuse anybody who knows what is going on in here. The fact is that the gentleman from New York's proposal is one that puts it in law and protects it so that we can do something about the AMT.

Let me say something about the AMT. I bet you most people listening to this do not know what AMT stands for. It stands for alternative minimum tax. It was put in in 1986 because there were people at the top of the scale who were not paying one single penny of tax.

So it was decided in this body that everybody who benefits from the United States of America should pay some taxes for a civil society. The failure to index that tax has allowed it to creep down to people making $75,000 or $100,000; and suddenly, instead of being a few people at the top, it is now 14 or 20 million, depending on how you want to figure. That was never the intent.

From 1994 to the present, you have allowed it to go from covering 200,000 people to 14-plus million people. You want to use that as an excuse for trying to get rid of the tax structure. And we know that it was intended and you know it was intended to tax everybody in this country.

The repeal that you tried to put through here under Clinton was an attempt to let the top off taxes at all. You simply wanted to give them an internal tax holiday if they could figure out how to manipulate the tax structure. The average janitor does not have a way to manipulate the system.

And that is why the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) is the only honest way if you want to protect the middle class. I urge your vote for the alternative minimum tax proposal.

Mr. Speaker, at the complicated intersection of housing, poverty and community development issues, one man has shined as a guiding light. Mr. Jim Dion, assistant executive director for Housing Operations at the King County Housing Authority, has devoted his life to ensuring that our low-income neighbors--be they families, victims of domestic violence, seniors or people with disabilities--live in high quality affordable housing. After three decades of distinguished public service in King County, WA, Mr. Dion is about to retire. He is a living testament to the power that a single individual possesses to help provide quality affordable housing opportunities, build communities, encourage self-sufficiency and protect the dignity of people with limited resources, while safeguarding the public trust.

The child of a minister father and a social worker mother, Mr. Dion undoubtedly acquired a keen sense of public service from an early age. Perhaps that explains his rise through. the ranks from a property manager overseeing 700 units of family and elderly public housing in 1974 to a senior executive currently administering more than 4,300 units of housing as well as rental subsidies for 8,200 additional households.

During his career, Mr. Dion expanded the housing safety net in King County through a number of additional Federal and local programs and by partnering with nonprofit organizations to provide on-site services to residents.

Mr. Dion also worked diligently to promote acceptance of low-income housing in several high-cost suburban cities such as Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland, areas of the county with excellent job bases. Mr. Dion's involvement in this initiative, along with the well-managed, well- maintained housing he oversaw, paved the way for favorable community response to low-income housing in affluent areas and continues to ensure that living in these cities is a viable option for struggling families.

While administering housing for more than 12,500 households is a staggering enough accomplishment in itself, Mr. Dion did so as a model of efficiency and effectiveness. Since HUD has had an evaluation process in effect, Mr. Dion led his staff to achieve HUD's highest ratings for both KCHA's section 8 and public housing programs, reflecting his hard work and his commitment to the families and individuals he served.

Awards from industry housing organizations for KCHA programs and properties under Mr. Dion's jurisdiction have been practically commonplace.

Mr. Dion also tackled issues beyond the scope of ``bricks and sticks.'' With his strong belief in the ability of people to overcome difficult circumstances with appropriate support, Mr. Dion is credited for laying the foundation of what is now the Resident Services Department at the housing authority.

Mr. Dion's commitment to public service did not stop with King County. For most of his 30-year career, he has also been an active member of the National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials, serving on its Housing Committee and its Board of Governors at the national level, as well as in various positions of leadership at the regional and chapter levels. His unparalleled grasp of the regulatory process made him a truly respected voice on Capitol Hill.

Home is where we raise our children. Home is where we hope to age in the company of our friends and family. Home is where vulnerable individuals and families can maintain their dignity and gain a foothold in self-sufficiency. Through Mr. Dion's thoughtful, compassionate leadership, thousands of people have improved the quality of their lives because they had a good, safe home.

As the sun sets on his career, it is only fitting that we acknowledge the 30 extraordinary years of Mr. Dion's dedicated public service. My sincere congratulations to Mr. Dion, whose calm, reasoned approach to ensuring quality housing and services for our most vulnerable residents has forever instilled in his colleagues at the King County Housing Authority and in Washington's congressional delegation the importance of providing the best possible support to families and individuals in need. He leaves a legacy of hard work, compassion and high standards that serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, there has never been a time like this in America's history.

Never before has a full-scale assault been launched on Americans who offer a different point of view about the policies of an administration, especially when it concerns a war on foreign soil.

Almost 3 years ago, I went to Iraq as part of a humanitarian delegation. When I said in

response to a media question that the President would mislead America into war, the White House immediately launched a relentless attack on me. They spared no political or public relations weapon, surrogate or ploy, in their attempt to silence me.

Republicans, at the direction of the White House, launched a full- scale assault on me, because they feared what might happen if the American people actually had an opportunity to consider an alternative point of view. If they could shout me down, they could silence anyone's question about the evidence before waging war.

In the last 24 hours, a similar campaign has been launched against Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Here is an esteemed Member of Congress, a decorated combat veteran, a conservative known for his strong stand on defense, and the Republicans and their cronies launch an offensive that, itself, is offensive.

Representative John Murtha stood up yesterday and spoke on behalf of the American people. He called for the deployment of U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, beginning immediately. He called for a diplomatic solution. And Republicans and their surrogates have called him every foul and offensive name imaginable.

The conduct of the Republican Party and its surrogates is despicable, but it is out in the open for the first time. Now, the American people understand the lengths to which the Republican Party will go to silence dissent in America. Now, the American people know that there is a war being fought in America over the war in Iraq.

The American people are demanding an end to the presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq because the American people know there is no such thing as a military victory in an urban, guerilla warfare. There is only occupation, and the American people want no part of that flawed and futile mission.

The American people overwhelming want a solution for Iraq that is negotiated by diplomats from the Arab world, not dictated by a President from the western world.

Representative John Murtha has set forth a plan that resonates with the American people, and that's what frightens the White House. Therefore, the attacks will not stop unless and until Republicans can silence dissent in America.

There is a plan now for winning the peace in Iraq. It may have been submitted by a Member of Congress, but it is the voice and will of the American people. The American people get it: You are not strong on defense, by strong arming a defenseless--and senseless--war.

I support the Murtha plan to win the peace in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the well tonight after a long day of debate on whether or not we should redeploy our troops from Iraq.

A careful reading of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution, had we debated it, would have pointed out that the fourth point that he raised was that we have to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. It is that issue I want to talk about because the question is always raised, If we leave, will it not get worse? Will it not just explode into civil war? We have already got that. And the question must be answered as we talk about deployment from out of the country.

At the same time, we have to decide to call on the Arab League or the Egyptians, to call together all the members of the community of Iraq: the Sunnis, the Shiias, the Kurds, the Turkomens, the Assyrians. All of them need to come together in a conference to resolve this. We have the idea that we can go with a Western idea of a constitution and that because it works here, we can just insert it into an Arab culture that has never worked under those circumstances.

What we need to do is recognize how Arabs have resolved problems for hundreds, thousands of years, if you will. It is called reaching an atwa.

If two villages, and this story was told to me by an iman, a high ranking Iraqi, he said many years ago two villages had a brother and sister and they married across these two towns. One went to one village, the other went to the other village. In one village the wife was fertile and quickly had three children. In the other, the wife was barren and had no children. The village made fun of her. They ridiculed her. They said she was a terrible woman, and the social pressure was so great that she killed herself by throwing herself into the village well.

Now under Arabic custom, that village that lost this woman has a right to go and extract blood within 24 hours. As those two villages came together for this bloodletting that was going to happen, they called and got them all to sit down and they decided how they were going to resolve this situation.

The decision was made that the village that had had the young woman die in it would give $20,000 to the other village and that there would be no contact between those villages for 20 years. They reached an atwa, A-T-W-A.

What that is in the Arabic culture is an arrangement, not a peace treaty. In the West we think of peace treaties where I agree with you and you agree with me, and we sign a bunch of pieces of paper. In the Arab culture where there is honor, people say I will stay here for 20 years and you will stay there.

The gentleman who told me the story said I was there 20 years later when the money was brought back from the first village back to its original place. He said within 2 years, there were marriages between the young people from the two villages. Even though they were 6 kilometers apart, for 20 years there had been no contact.

Now, Arabs have been resolving these kinds of things for thousands of years in the desert. There is a way for the Sunnis and the Shiias and the Kurds and the Turkomens to come together, but it cannot be driven by the United States. We cannot say you come over here and come to this conference that we are going to have in some hotel somewhere. It has to be called by the Arab League.

This same thing could have prevented the gulf war back in 1991. When Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait, the Arab League said before the Americans attack, let us settle this among the Arab community. This is a fight among us. Saddam Hussein thought he had fought in Iran because he was defending Kuwait and the Saudis, and he thought that they owed him something. He said give me some money, and they said no. And so he said all right, then I am going to move in and take Kuwait.

It could have been resolved if we had the patience to let this happen and the mentality in the White House that can allow Iraq to develop its own peaceful society. We have removed Saddam Hussein. We are all glad, but we now must let the Arabs resolve the situation in a way that makes sense to them.